Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Consistent values for an inconsistent world
In light of the continuing political uprising throughout the Middle East, American leaders are reported to be recalculating their approach to the Muslim world.
Politico's Ben Smith wrote this week that the Obama administration "clearly sees an opportunity," signaling "that they're hoping the changes in Tunisia and Egypt spread, and that they're going to align themselves far more clearly with the young, relatively secular masses" in countries like Iran, Algeria and Lebanon.
Is this a new moment for American relations with Muslim countries? Is freedom a religious or secular idea?
The easier question above to answer is whether freedom is a religious or secular idea. I looked through my Bible and other holy books, but I couldn't find much about "freedom," other than when to free slaves or release prisoners. I saw nothing about religious freedom, tolerance for other points of view, or anything close to what Thomas Jefferson said: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The word "democracy" was nowhere to be found, but "kings" appointed by God were omnipresent and necessary to rule over the people.
I don't mean to imply that secular leaders are always benevolent promoters of human rights. For me, the most difficult situations arise when the choices are between a secular dictator and a democratic revolution likely to bring rule by religious fundamentalists. One is bad and the other is worse, but it's not always clear which is bad and which is worse.
What I like about recent developments in Tunisia and Egypt, compared to those in Afghanistan and Iraq, is that the former were popular uprisings initiated by citizens from within. We did not invade these countries. Those who criticize President Obama for doing too little should recognize the dangers of doing too much, as we did in Iraq. There has been bipartisan support to prop up Mubarak for decades, sometimes with good intentions and sometimes with bad. The good intentions were to promote a relatively secular leader who favored peace in the Middle East; the bad intentions were that it's easier to deal with a dictator who helps assure our access to oil rather than to worry about the rights and welfare of the citizens over which the dictator ruled.
If we want to be respected throughout the world, we need to be consistent on values we promote: the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all humans; justice and peace in the world; equal rights for men and women; freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to change or even denounce religion.
I am disappointed to have seen little American comment about the recent riot in Indonesia, where a man received a "lenient sentence" of only five years in prison, rather than a death sentence for blasphemy, a victimless crime as far as I'm concerned. I understand it's a tough world, made tougher by religious extremists, and we need to pick our battles. But let's at least be on the side of those governments promoting human rights for all.
I'm cautiously optimistic that young educated Muslims and non-Muslims, who don't want to live in a theocracy and may even support a secular democracy, will become dominant in the Middle East. Though I don't believe in a personal god, even authoritarian leaders seem impotent when confronted with the Internet gods. Information and knowledge can be a force for freedom and democracy, more powerful than any imagined deities.
By
Herb Silverman
|
February 15, 2011; 7:01 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Freedom is a God-given legacy |
Next: Youth yearn to be free
Posted by: jonesm2 | February 16, 2011 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The lack of "the right to change or even denounce religion" is what makes Islam at odds with democracy. Herb, is good you brought it up. We have to stress this point more often and more forcefully. We have so say it without being called bigot. Islam is not compatible with democracy.
Posted by: ThishowIseeit | February 16, 2011 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion's anti-freedom agenda
We live in a new world now. People no longer need weapons to fight for freedom, now in the information age, twitter and facebook are the tools of liberty. Through the power of science and technology, the pen (on in this case the keystroke) has become mightier than the sword.
To start with, these countries may soon no longer be Muslim nations but rather become secular nations like America. Sure there will still be a large Muslim presence there just as there is a large Christian presence here, but hopefully the people of those nations will realize that you cannot force irrational beliefs at gun point any longer.
You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/eytiCl
I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.
Posted by: dangeroustalk | February 15, 2011 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No religion ever tolerates freedom. This does not mean that all secularism necessarily leads to freedom. But freedom and religion are contradictory whether it is the Christian America or Ayatollah Regime in Iran or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Posted by: Kent-State-University | February 15, 2011 8:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am not optimistic about where the nations of this world are headed as long as the majority of the populace in most of them are people whose thinking is so primitive that they believe as fact in the existence of a superior being and build the customary dogma around that belief--dogma which not only separates us but puts us at odds with one another. It doesn't look good.
Posted by: fhay26 | February 15, 2011 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Whatever form of freedom the Egyptians will create for themselves will be influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, for better or for worse; just as our freedom in this country is becoming ever more connected to its Christian citizens, leaving out many who do not adhere to beliefs in supernatural powers but rather in the power of the individual. It wouldn't surprise me if the religious right attempt some sort of coup in this country to make this even more of a theocracy than it's already become. If only the religious right (which are neither) would understand that religious persecution is what drove our forebears to make the perilous journey across the Atlantic to create the US. Religion is another level of persecution that needs to be rejected to allow people to live freer.
Posted by: eal1 | February 15, 2011 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think Sam Harris summed it up well: "As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might have been the very worst, in fact -- if we didn't also happen to have the Koran."
Posted by: RichardSRussell | February 15, 2011 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is unfortunate that countries must be labeled "muslim", or "hindu", "buddhist", "christian", etc. Until religion is completely separated from government, nastiness will continue to erupt.
Posted by: freethought | February 15, 2011 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The idea of freedom has little to do with religion, unless you play abstract analytical games that draw connections between concepts that are more or less unrelated. If I try hard enough I could find themes of freedom every now and then in the Bible, but I can find many more direct examples of oppression and injustice.
Posted by: DAN46 | February 15, 2011 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
While I agree with Dr. Silverman, I must disagree with Thomas Jefferson. God picks my pocket. Just look at what the right-wing religious politicians have done to the economy.