Religious Freedom = An Oxymoron?

Great Debates
1

So, we removed Saddam Hussein to supposedly rid Iraq of Saddam’s dictatorship and bring “Freedom” and “Liberty” to the Iraqi people. But look at what is emerging in Iraq. The Shiite majority is making an uprising to turn the country into an Islamic Republic.

There we go again. Another Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) after the removal of the despot Shah. Iran went from bad to worse under 25 years of the Ayatollah’s rule. It was thrown back into the stone ages. Soon, all women in Iraq will be forced to wear chador. A young unmarried couple in love will be arrested and flocked by the state-supported moral police, and the Basiji thugs will be sent to ransack the home of people to break family celebrations simply because music is played, dancing is going on, and alcohol is being consumed. Meanwhile the minority religious Iraqis, such as Christians, Bahais and others, will be oppressed a la Iran.

What can the world do about this? Freedom implies majority rule. And yet, only an educated minority in Iraq want separation of mosque and state. The fanatically religious majority (people of faith) want the politics/religion mix of an Islamic Republic. Does this imply that the concept of “Religious Freedom” in countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. is an oxymoron?

The U.S. is supposed to have religious freedom and separation of church and state. And yet, there are signs that the affairs and policies of the state are blackmailed/run by the followers of the Jewish faith and/or the evangelical, born-again Christians.

Subject of debate:

America is free, but its government policies appear to be dominated by the Jewish/Christian zealots. They are so successful that they duped 70% of the Americans to go for “the war rationale”. So, if the 70% of the Iraqi Shiites want an Islamic Republic, does that imply that Religious Freedom is an Oxymoron? Can we really separate faith/religion from politics in Iraq – and in America?

2

Well, this might be nothing but a thinly-disguised anti-religious screed, but I’ll presume that it’s a genuine question. The difference between theocracy and religious people in government is that theocrats do not want any other religion (or lack) to be represented. Part of the problem comes from the pernicious triumphalism that has infected so much of some of the larger religions worldwide. Triumphalism is a doctrine that I would almost call Satanic, its fruit being so vile. The basic premise is that “since we’re right, we get to demand everybody else do as we do (or pretend to do)–AND back it up with force if necessary”.

Now, many triumphalists don’t say or even consciously realize the “back it up” clause, but it’s implicit in the doctrine. Essentially, triumphalism is an attempt to dethrone God. A group decides that, since it knows the “Will of God” or the “Word of God” so perfectly, then to oppose that group is to declare war on God.

Of course, that is religious triumphalism. Triumphalism is NOT exclusive to the religion. Marxism may be the most blatantly triumphalist movement in all of history. In their case, their “god” is “the people” or “the greatest number”. Never mind that “the people” don’t want to live under a system wherein everybody is truly equal (we all want our advantages if we can get them), for the good of “the people”, Marxism will be imposed on them–at gunpoint if necessary.

Likewise, triumphalism’s “god” can be capitalism, socialism, a baseball team (yes, I’ve seen people come to blows over baseball teams and both of them fervently believed that the other team was somehow morally inferior).

The tendency towards triumphalism seems to be hardwired into humanity. We want certainty. We want to know that we are right. We hate to question our motives and whether or not we are on the right path. One way to deal with this situation is to retreat into triumphalism.