States which are based on religion




















In everyday language, the word multiculturalism is sometimes also used to simply describe pluralism. This is a truth we have to respect. Only on this basis can we have coexistence instead of conflict, he says. That sounds good. On the other hand, Hessel wants to stimulate a younger generation to get involved in moral projects.

It is a good principle for diplomats, but not for Luther, Voltaire, Martin Luther King, or other great reformers.

In other words: with all due respect for Hessel, you should, in truth, not always be open to different cultures. You should really only be open to them when they constitute an improvement over your own cultural pattern. It does not stimulate vigilance against evil tendencies in this world. Perhaps an example can clarify things here. It is an example from the Danish cartoon crisis.

The creation of satire of religious figures is a tradition that deserves to survive, we believe. Making jokes about quasi-religious matters keeps religious fanaticism in check.

Nevertheless, we see that satire about religion is defended less and less in the world of today. On 15 November , at the height of the Danish cartoon crisis, British journalist and intellectual Christopher Hitchens — gave a lecture in Hart House, at the University of Toronto, Canada.

Canada is a country where multiculturalism is official government policy, and unfortunately, it has frequently had serious and often negative consequences. He criticized his audience for the sympathy that existed, not for the Danish cartoonists that had decried the radicals, but for the extremists who were trying to suppress free speech. You are letting this happen. And that is the truth of it: freedom that is not defended is destined to disappear, at least if people let it happen.

Unfortunately, multiculturalism as a political philosophy is at the root of respect for disrespectful fanaticism. Politics took to this with much greater alacrity than academia. In , German Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed the death of multiculturalism.

Based on these considerations, we can conclude that it seems the better course to give up all state aid to religion and adopt a religiously neutral posture in everything involving the state. This is the fifth model of the relationship between state and religion, which we will examine now. This last state can be called the secular state or the agnostic state. It is the fifth model of the possible relationships between state and religion.

Before we examine this model more closely, we must make a note on semantics. An agnostic is someone who does not adopt a position on the question if God exists. He suspends his judgment about this. A great advantage of the agnostic state is that it does not make a distinction between its citizens.

The agnostic state treats all citizens equally. The agnostic or secular state does not combat the religious convictions of its citizens, but it does not defend any religious position either. The agnostic state allows all citizens worship the gods of their choice. As such, agnosticism or secularism with regard to religion seems a wise path to take when it comes to government policy. A state that has adopted political agnosticism or secularism as its official governing principle is France.

The great historian of Islam and Islamic societies, Bernard Lewis b pointed to a nearly forgotten American declaration of the same ideal. The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent—that of total separation of Church and State.

No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith.

The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him.

Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions […]. The Hebrew persecuted and downtrodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid […] and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.

The body may be oppressed and manacled and yet survive; but if the mind of man be fettered, its energies and faculties perish, and what remains is of the Earth, earthly. Mind should be free as the light or as the air. There is one view that stands in the way of the further spread of secularism, and that is that it is claimed to be a typically Western concept.

We disagree. Here, we can refer to Bishop Nazir-Ali, with whom we began this chapter, but this time for a view with which we fully agree. Religious tensions were resolved peacefully. Women were free to go where they pleased and wear what they wanted. And secularism is not a kind of colonial vestige of Western thought; in non-Western traditions, too, there are countless countries where a secular vision of the state has taken root.

This is especially important in a time and context when states are being challenged to legitimize their own existence. Modern theoterrorism is, in a way, forcing states to formulate answers to the criticism they face. Ignoring the criticism and pretending it does not exist does not seem to be a wise course. So let us end this chapter with the observation that both a religiously neutral political language and a religiously neutral state are the best answers to modern-day theoterrorism and religious extremism.

The revival of theocracy is best countered by relinquishing all remnants of religious discrimination in our liberal democratic states. But there is a condition.

The agnostic or secular state is based on the assumption that the state itself is religiously neutral. This means that civil servants are expected not to express their personal religious convictions. As a result of the conclusions drawn by a state commission on the matter, the Stasi commission, the French state created legislation governing the wearing of religious symbols in French public schools and by people employed by the government. It is their religious right to wear headscarves.

When the system denies them this right, the system is inherently discriminatory. The cultural historian Andrew Hussey b writes about the riots in the French banlieus and how France reacted to them in his book The French Intifada Most commentators agreed that this was a social justice issue, not a cultural one.

Hussey does not believe this is true. Hussey is right, we believe, when he says that these riots reveal an issue of principle although one cannot agree with his insinuation that, therefore, the French system is illegitimate.

The French ban on full face covering in public drew a great deal of criticism. At the front lines of this debate was the then French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who declared in June of that the burka [75] was not welcome in France. But there is also a great deal of criticism of the French system, especially from Anglo-Saxon countries that are more oriented toward multiculturalism.

This criticism comes in two forms. And how could it be otherwise? The Christians do not wear religious symbols to school or in a much more limited way; a cross around the neck is not very noticeable and, moreover, it is easy to wear it even less visibly.

Second, it is argued that, although the French state does not intend to discriminate against those who wear headscarves, this is the effect. The question is whether this is an overly tendentious description of the situation.

What does the quoted sentence mean? From what does she conclude that is it aimed at the Islamic headscarf in particular? Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why. The vast majority of U. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.

It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. Most of the 43 countries with state religions are in the Middle East and North Africa , with a cluster in northern Europe. Thirteen countries — including nine in Europe — are officially Christian, two Bhutan and Cambodia have Buddhism as their state religion, and one Israel is officially a Jewish state.

No country has Hinduism as its state religion. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why. The vast majority of U. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Newsletters Donate My Account.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000