AsamLaksa’s take on the Religion and Politics Goulash
No one can deny that religion does mix with politics. Religion is the basis of many individual’s aspirations and these aspirations translate to votes and candidacy.
You can see the example in America of the rise of influential Christian lobbyists. It is pointless to deny that religion has an influence in secular states. The Muslims are generally in acceptance of Islam within politics as it is a way of life.
What I find utterly confusing is the utter disdain towards secularism by religious fanatics. Secularism is not an absence of faith. Secular states are the most fertile ground for growth and foundation of various faiths and sects. What many fanatics accuse secularists of being in denial of the influence of religions in government, I find the same insincerity among them in not fighting for all faiths but rather only for their own faiths in exclusion or dominance of others.
I am not a staunch supporter of the secular state system. What I am more concerned about are for basic rights and freedoms. If there is another system that promotes and protects these rights, I would be the first to sign on. Rights and freedoms, I believe, are vital for full enjoyment of life, which the top three are: freedom of speech and expression, absolute freedom of association, and right to a fair trial. I do not have a separate grouping for religion because I think religion falls under freedom of association and does not deserve any special status.
What we have now are the best of the worst. Democracy is among the least efficient form of government yet provides the people with the most choices. (Note: democracy is not majority rules.) Secularism is also another kind of best among the worst. It is inefficient and chaotic but it allows space for the rights and freedoms I care about. I have said many times before I do not care what you call a state; be it a theocracy, secular, communist, etc. All I care about is whether the rights and freedoms of the citizens are preserved.
Thus I am not really a secularist but more of a ‘right-ist’ or more commonly yet incorrectly labelled as bleeding heart liberal. (The thing with labels is that it creates a fixed image in your mind but in reality the labelled individual does not fit into any label. Nevertheless labels are useful in that it makes life easier to cope with.)
Secondly, I want to address another fallacy which is the general acceptance that religiosity equals a moral person and thus make better leaders. Such general acceptance has led to dubious characters clambering over themselves to show their piety to the world so that they can win more supporters; from a President who quotes the Almighty at every opportunity yet starting a dubious war to swearing over a holy book to prevent damning inquiries.
I would like people to peel back the mask of religiosity and see the charlatans for who they are. The trouble is, the masses are not critical enough. I can easily blame the education system where moral education does not delve deeper into moral philosophy. But my main focus is on the role models like leaders and parents who are mostly clueless; one of the reasons is the derogation of responsibility of moral education to religion. Everyone needs to wake up and discover their own dynamic moral philosophy or in short: think for yourselves.
What we need are characters who are mature thinking irrespective of faith. What I am against is using faith as a pre-requisite. You do not need religion to be moral and this is something that many people simply can’t comprehend – the moral atheist. What is required is a strong sense of reason and you will find that religious persons of good moral standing have a tendency to not take scripture literally and have their own interpretation with practical application. At this juncture, I am in agreement with Richard Dawkins that our morality is strongly guided by the spirit or zeitgeist of the time, and boy are the times a-changing.
Thirdly, I would like to quickly address capitalism as the world’s evil. It isn’t. Capitalism is one of the reasons that I can write up this article and get your praise or scorn. The wealth that capitalism creates has enriched our lives. However, capitalism is not without fault. The main fault lies in the wealth not being evenly distributed. However, this fault is shared by every model of economy or state. Adam Smith would not be able to recognise what he envisaged back then today. One solution would be a shift to a more ethical economic model including investment in poverty alleviation. This requires a new zeitgeist. Are you prepared?
