TheStar.com – Keep religion out of public life — Editorial by Salmon Rushdie, a guy who knows about religion and public life.
In Europe, the bombing of a railway station in Madrid and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh are being seen as warnings that the secular principles that underlie any humanist democracy need to be defended and reinforced.
Even before these atrocities occurred, the French decision to ban religious attire such as Islamic headscarves had the support of the entire political spectrum. Islamist demands for segregated classes and prayer breaks were also rejected. Few Europeans today call themselves religious %u2014 only 21 per cent, according to a recent European Values Study, as opposed to 59 per cent of Americans, according to the Pew Forum.
The exception to European secularism can be found in Britain, or at least in the government of the devoutly Christian, increasingly authoritarian Tony Blair, which is now trying to steamroller Parliament into passing a law against “incitement to religious hatred” in a cynical vote-getting attempt to placate advocates for British Muslims, in whose eyes almost any critique of Islam is offensive.
Journalists, lawyers and a long list of public figures have warned that this law will dramatically hinder free speech and fail to meet its objective %u2014 that it would increase religious disturbances rather than diminish them.
Blair’s government seems to view the whole subject of civil liberties with disdain: What do freedoms matter, hard-won and long-cherished though they may be, when set against the requirements of a government facing re-election?
We aren’t Iran. No religion I know of here, other than some radical Muslims call for killing anybody. I think that people have the right to include their religious views in public discussions, and our constitution , contrary to recent court decisions and liberal arguments, was not intended to create a “wall between church and state,” only to avoid elevating one church over others by use of government power. The goal was tolerance, but our courts have turned it into intolerance, making atheism the de facto state religion. The only way to have religious freedom is to tolerate all religions, and that means allowing religious expression in public life, so long as it gives due respect to differing beliefs.
The danger of eliminating religion from public life is that the same argument being used to support Gay marriage applies to all kinds of other moral issues. A lot of things we accept as moral imperatives have their basis in religious teachings. We have already done away with laws that support fidelity in marriage and stable families, and seem intent on going further. We tolerate all kinds of rank pornography, redefining “redeeming social value” to include sexual titillation. Religion is based on the idea that mankind is flawed and needs guidance to civilize itself. It is the opposite of libertinism which accepts no bounds and destroys societies. That’s why it is in our interest as a society to encourage it.
We aren’t Iran. No religion I know of here, other than some radical Muslims call for killing anybody. I think that people have the right to include their religious views in public discussions, and our constitution , contrary to recent court decisions and liberal arguments, was not intended to create a “wall between church and state,” only to avoid elevating one church over others by use of government power. The goal was tolerance, but our courts have turned it into intolerance, making atheism the de facto state religion. The only way to have religious freedom is to tolerate all religions, and that means allowing religious expression in public life, so long as it gives due respect to differing beliefs.
The danger of eliminating religion from public life is that the same argument being used to support Gay marriage applies to all kinds of other moral issues. A lot of things we accept as moral imperatives have their basis in religious teachings. We have already done away with laws that support fidelity in marriage and stable families, and seem intent on going further. We tolerate all kinds of rank pornography, redefining “redeeming social value” to include sexual titillation. Religion is based on the idea that mankind is flawed and needs guidance to civilize itself. It is the opposite of libertinism which accepts no bounds and destroys societies. That’s why it is in our interest as a society to encourage it.
is this true? are there still sane intellectuals writing in this planet?
I find Rushdies fiction absolutely impossible to read but he has really practical things to say and good insights about his religion.
I prefer the way most American schools handle religious symbols over France’s nearly full ban. I say let the girls wear head scarves (or whatever) as long as it doesn’t disrupt class. I mean, that’s the bottom line, isn’t it? Really, what do I care if somebody wears a big cross, skull cap, scarf, or whatever?
As for Rushdie’s linking of Englands greater religiosity with abridgement of civil liberties… I’m going to have to think one before I swollow it.
Rushdie sais France is less religious than England but France had the headscarf ban.
Plus — in my observation — even though both countries have accepted MILLIONS of Muslim immigrants – England has done better at integration.
Hank
Well I’m a lifelong atheist but I agree with Hank. France’s ban on all religious symbols was a HUGE mistake. I may not believe in god, I may have no use for religion, but to tell other people how to dress just seems wrong.
To AST, I agree with one portion of the bible. Christians should pray in private and not in public.
AST hit the nail on the head. Bravo.
AST writes:
“Religion is based on the idea that mankind is flawed and needs guidance to civilize itself.”
No, that’s particular to certain religions.
“It is the opposite of libertinism which accepts no bounds and destroys societies.”
Modern right-wing Christianity as practiced in the U.S. comes very close to your notion of “libertinism” — absolutely anything goes, as long as justified in the name of Christ. As long as you have faith, your works and deeds don’t matter, is the claim. This attitude is indeed destroying our society, with wars, incarceration and torture without due process, destruction of the environment, corporate fraud, etc. etc.
“That’s why it is in our interest as a society to encourage it.”
Quite the opposite.
So far, the folks arrested for most of the bombings and terrorist acts in this land — have been practicing Christians. They considered their individual and mass murders a logical procession from their religion. I don’t doubt that lynch mobs of the past were any different. But, the holier-than-thou set still don’t differentiate or understand what separation of state and church is all about.
Who would expect anything different?