Another year ending, and still no agreement on every issue of importance in Iraq. No agreement on how oil revenues should be split among the major factions. No agreement on how to handle former Baathists. No agreement on the promised modifications to the Iraqi constitution.
Again and again, even those who laud the fact that violence in Iraq has returned to the levels we found intolerable in 2006, are frustrated by the lack of any political progress. And the same group that so loudly praises the invasion of Iraq has a ready answer: democracy and Islam are incompatible. Entire websites are dedicated to this notion. Quotes are pulled from the Qur'an to demonstrate that Muslims are required to follow the tenets of Islam rather than any secular law.
Believers, obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you.
And they give instances in which Muslims are instructed to war against those of other faiths.
Then fight for God's causes, and know that God both hears and knows all things.
There! say those who are convinced that Islam is basically incompatible with democratic society. How can you have people who believe these things, and still have democracy? The argument boils down to a vigorous agreement with the assessment made early in the film Lawrence of Arabia in which Arabs are described as "A little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous and cruel." In fact, that very phrase is resurrected on several sites. Which has to make you wonder why these people were so intent on "bringing freedom" to Iraq, if they believe that this silly people is unready to handle our precious, elevated, and refined form of government.
Still, when you consider some verses, there does seem to be a case for incompatibility.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
This verse quite clearly authorizes the taking, buying, and selling of slaves.
...totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
Here unbelievers are subject to the most awful punishment, down to the smallest child, bolstering the case of those who claim this is violent religion.
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods," don't give in or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
Any religion that believes that those outside the select can be taken as slaves, that enemies are liable to utter destruction, and that anyone not following the faith not only should be, but must be put to death, does seem to be a poor fit for democracy. The thing is, those last three pieces of scripture didn't come from the Qur'an, they came from the Bible.
Are the biblical verses taken out of context? Yes, as are the ones from the Qur'an. In both cases, these verses and others have been used by those who wanted to drape God's sanction across violent actions. You can imagine how often those verses on slavery (taken from that great source of
biblically sanctioned nastiness, Leviticus) were used during the American Civil War.
For anyone trying to build a case for the basic incompatibility of Christianity and democracy, there is a rich set of scriptures available to bolster their theme. You can find far more violence, far more intolerance, and far more admonitions that only God can render justice between the covers of the Bible than you will find in the Qur'an -- if only because the Bible is longer.
Does this mean that Christianity or Judaism are incompatible with democracy? Yes, to the same extent and for the same reasons that Islam is also incompatible. All three are intrinsically ill-suited to be the source of a democratic government. They're incompatible because theocracy is incompatible with democracy. Every step that any government takes in providing either recognition or authority to any religion, is a step away from democracy. That's unavoidable, no matter the religion involved. The moment you have a government that acknowledges any religion as the true religion, you have a government in which some animals are far more equal than others.
The Little People, Silly People argument would have it that Islam is particularly poorly-shaped for democracy. However, anyone who doubts that the principles of Christianity can drive just as much violence and intolerance as Islam is ignorant of both history and world events. The history of Christianity is replete with holy empires, holy kingdoms, and holy wars of conquest -- and many of them not comfortably ensconced in the distant past. Everyone who moans that the Ten Commandments should be posted in every school and courthouse, could benefit from contemplating the ultimate fruition of that philosophy in the God's Army militia in Burma. Under the banner of bringing a "government based on the Ten Commandments" to their country, God's Army has killed more than a million people -- far more than al-Qaeda.
A theocratic democracy is an impossibility. That's just as true for Christianity as it is for Islam.
But even if we accept the idea that neither Christianity or Islam provide a government framework for democracy, there's another question: is a democracy a good environment for a practicing Christian / Muslim? The answer is yes. However, the answer is also that it's difficult. Any believer living in a democracy must understand that with some fair frequency, the government will pass laws that may be in opposition to her/his religious beliefs, so that there is a constant friction between the rule of law, and the perceived rule of God.
There's another important aspect facing believers living under a democracy (and other forms of government) today, and that's the strength of market capitalism. Both Christianity and Islam started as religions out to upend existing social orders -- it's very easy to see why officials of the day would have been terrified of both Jesus and Mohamed -- and both elevate the status of the poor, denigrate wealth, and emphasize charity. That's entirely at odds with the messages that we receive every day in our society.
Jesus had explicit advice on this subject when he proclaimed that believers should "give the things of Caesar to Caesar, and give the things of God to God." But no less than "turning the other cheek," this advice is painfully difficult to follow. How can Christians practice a religion of peace, in a nation at war? How can they uphold a message that money doesn't matter, in a society that constantly bellows that nothing matters as much?
The subjects that we look as as being major religious issues, such as abortion, the rights of homosexuals, and the "war on Christmas," are nothing more than comfortable distractions; a means of avoiding the real and aching gap that spreads between what Christians profess, and how most Christians live in modern society.
Trying to resolve that conflict rarely means changing society. Religions that start off as the hope of downtrodden rebels can all too easily become the instruments of powerful states. That's happened with both Islam and Christianity. Both have been pressed into supporting every form of dictatorship and empire, and ultimately every government based on these religions has been harmful not just to believers in other faiths – or to believers in no faith – but to the ruling religion itself. It was not he nature of the Roman Empire that was radically altered when Constantine called the bishops to his estate at Nicea, it was the nature of Christianity.
For democracy, it is probably the luckiest of strokes that Karl Marx built his circle of friends among the anti-religious Young Hegelians. There are few more biblically sound philosophical foundations than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." There's little doubt that if Marx was less inimical to religion, he might easily have wed communism and the church. And if he had, all discussions of democracy today might be held between history professors.
Is Christianity compatible with democracy? Let's say instead that there is no other form of government that better supports a Christian's ability to participate, to voice opinions, and to contribute without becoming exactly the sort of oppressor that Jesus railed against. Exactly the same benefits are available to Muslims, to Jews, and those who profess any (or no) other faith. In fact, democracy is nurturing to faith not because it freezes beliefs on stone tablets, but because it demands that each religion must test its ideas in the public square. Democracy forces religions to change or die. It forces them to evolve. That's how a religion that grew up with those sentiments from Leviticus became a leading force in ending slavery.
Democracy is not easy for any faith, but it's good for them -- so long as the separation between church and state is rigidly enforced.
So I hope that all of you have enjoyed a Happy Hanukkah.
Whoever destroys a single life is as guilty as though he had destroyed the entire world; and whoever rescues a single life earns as much merit as though he had rescued the entire world.
A joyous Eid.
In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are signs for those who possess intelligence. They remember God while standing, while sitting, or while lying down. They think of the creation of the heavens and the earth: "Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain."
A Merry Christmas to come.
Good news for the poor! The kingdom of heaven is yours.
Good news to those who mourn! You will be comforted.
Good news to the humble! You will inherit the earth.
Good news to those who are hungry for justice! You will have your fill.
Good news to the merciful! You will receive mercy.
Good news to those who are pure in heart. You will know God.
Good news to the peacemakers! You will be called God's children.
Good news to those who suffer because they do what is right! The kingdom of heaven is yours.
And if you are not looking for the Christmas star, why not go out and look at the stars anyway?
Our contemplations of the cosmos stir us. There is a tingling of the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries.
...
In the last few millenia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the cosmos and our place within it. I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky. – Carl Sagan
Happy holidays.
Comments are closed on this story.