Religion and Politics

Good day everyone, I am Patrick Frost, the FPA blogger for Central Asia, and Karin has been kind enough to let me do a post on this site from time to time. Please feel free to send me comments, critiques, and questions at patfrost1@gmail.com or just post them on this site.

Today, I would like to talk about a book I read about six months ago that challenged the way I saw the West’s political society based on secularization, other societies, civilizations, and political systems throughout the world, especially in Muslim dominated lands, and the current ‘war on terror.’ It is Mark Lilla’s, professor of the Humanities at Columbia University, The Stillborn God; Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. At its most basic, it is a philosophical history of Europe/US advancement from a society ruled by political theology to one ruled by secularization. But the book is about much more, in fact it is a warning against complacency of this type of political/societal system in the West.

Here is Lilla’s dramatic message;
‘Intellectual complacency, nursed by implicit faith in the inevitability of secularization, has blinded us to the persistence of political theology and its manifest power to shape human life at any moment.’

Lilla warns us in the West to not feel so safe and cozy with our secular system, for he argues that we are the ‘exception’, not the rest of the world, and that we are in fact still living in an ‘experiment.’ These are strong words and statements, but they are important for all to ponder. This is a pertinent book because it is based on a question not often asked; ‘Why don’t we understand the ‘enduring attraction of political theology?’ Instead of ‘why don’t they understand our (and copy) our political system and way of life?’

Lilla strongly believes that the argument over politics and religion will not end, and in fact ‘could not end,’ because it concerns the enduring question that all societies must answer and face, whether ‘to order their political affairs in light of a divine revelation, or to make their way alone.’

This month, the Center for Security Studies (Zurich) published an excellent analysis of Switzerland’s Middle East policy. The article first reminds readers that Switzerland follows a policy of engagement on the basis of three principles: neutrality, universality, and recognition of states rather than governments. The last element can be specifically contrasted with the foreign policy of the U.S., which regularly denies recognition to governments on the basis of perceived political necessity. The CSS Analysis describes this approach as “the US-Israeli policy of isolating unpopular regimes.” Although the article’s aim is actually to question whether Switzerland’s active involvement in dialogue and peace building in the Middle East is compatible with the notion of neutrality, there is an underlying idea in the article that dialogue among countries or “civilizations” is basically left to Switzerland on account of its need to defend its raison d’être. The article implies that neither Europe or the U.S. is standing up for dialogue or genuine peace building. One example in the article of the Swiss “inclusion” strategy was when it became clear that Switzerland was “the only Western state that has never joined in isolating Hamas.” Switzerland also takes an inclusive approach to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in contrast to the U.S., which has listed it as a terrorist organization. The article agrees that the Swiss “dialogue and mediation approach is supported by solid reasoning,” but also complains that the Swiss face too many tensions in the application of its “ambitious foreign policy.”

While Israel has been celebrating its 60^th anniversary, US President George W. Bush took a five-day trip to the Middle East (May 13-May 18). On May 15, President Bush addressed members of Israel’s Knesset. His remarks were controversial in the US domestic arena on account of his supposed criticism (attack?) of presidential candidate Barack Obama and other influential people, who “believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” However, the President’s words were also geared towards religion. He said, “We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society.” Later in the speech, he said, “The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men.  In order to prevail, the President said that the values of justice, tolerance, freedom, and hope were values that are “the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God.”

On May 18, President Bush spoke in Egypt for the World Economic Forum. He refuted the idea that democracy is merely a Western value that America wishes to impose on people. He said, “In a recent survey of the Muslim world, there was overwhelming support for one of the central tenets of democracy, freedom of speech: 99 percent in Lebanon, 94% here in Egypt, and 92% in Iran.” He reminded his audience that America is a religious country, where more than 75% of the people believe in a higher power. The President remarked that in “our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion.”

Meanwhile, the US military has announced that the American sniper in Iraq that shot at the Quran for target practice has been sent home. The very eloquent apology from Major-General Hammond to local elders calmed the resulting anger and tension. The military has also purchased for them a new holy book.

Perhaps you are from one of the countries that U.S. presidential candidate John McCain criticized yesterday in his Vision for Defending the Freedom and Dignity of the World’s Vulnerable. Despite his Straight-Talking Express view of the world, Senator John McCain has this to say about the countless differences in today’s world:

“There is a tendency in our age to accede to the spurious excuse of moral relativism and turn away from the harshest examples of man’s inhumanity to man…”

            The first part of that sentence must be the most obscure language used to date in the presidential campaign. According to Senator McCain, there are countries in the world that are “protecting traditions that should have been ended long ago.” If he were referring to genocide or torture, this blog entry might have had a slightly different tone. Although we may all agree that forced marriage and FGM is beyond our comprehension in the U.S., the language in his speech reflected more the typical paradigm we have known for too many years now: Good versus Evil.

He summed up his vision of the world as such:

“No society that denies religious freedom can ever rightly claim to be good in some other way.”

But to what extent must a society limit religious freedom before every other positive aspect of its government is erased from popular imagination and U.S. rhetoric becomes uncompromising? If a Central Asian country, for example, insists on excessively tough registration procedures for one or two Christian sects, how do we grade their level of religious freedom – and do all state initiatives to provide welfare and security to their people then become meaningless?  

The presidential candidate is, at the least, being direct with voters about his agenda: “I will make respect for the basic principle of religious freedom a priority in international relations.” Prediction: If Senator McCain wins the general election, he will “confront this evil” by challenging Iran (and only Iran?) to accept this most ”fundamental” of rights.