"This Just In: Religious Tolerance Considered MIA"

"Major Religions Fail to Appreciate What's Good for Goose Being Good for Gander."

Perhaps you've heard about Abdur Rahman. He's the guy in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity from Islam. He's now at trial and facing execution. In strict Sharia law, renouncing Islam is grounds for being put to death.

To sum up, the "West" is outraged. Excuse me a gross simplification by allowing me to conflate the West with Christianity. Christians are upset that religious freedoms are not being observed. Condi Rice said, in effect, that all people have a universal right to religious freedom.

The Islamic stance seems to be that apostasy is a form of treason. And as the U.S. can execute people for treason (a crime that effects the many), so to Islam claims the right to execute apostates (which also effects the many).

This seems to be the trainwreck between two powerful philosophies. On one hand, the Christian emphasis on Life, which is sacred. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Or Thou Shalt Not Murder. (It depends on how touchy-feely one's particular version of the Bible is.)

On the other hand, Islam is the religion of obedience. There is no God but God. The cardinal sin in Islam is Pride. The main repentence is submission to the will of God.

Here's our impasse: the West believes that it is an injustice to execute someone simply for changing their religion. And they should know, having worked this all out in the past (see "Holy Inquisition" and "Salem Witch Trials"). And Afghanistan believes that failing to submit to the will of God and the Islamic faith is tantamount to joining the enemy.

So, everyone's reacting according to their fundamental tenents. How can it be resolved? Damned if I know. Fanatacism in all degrees is frightening. Can we morally allow aid groups with a proselytizing message to go abroad, knowing that if successful, they may contribute to deaths? Do we have a right to go abroad and tell them that they're wrong?

How far do we need to respect the beliefs of others? If we expect them to allow people whose only purpose is conversion, should we not be sensetive enough to accept that it is blasphemy to depict Mohammad? If we believe in the freedom of choice and democracy, can we object to the popular acceptance by the majority of a theocratically-influenced system of laws?

Can we decry the influence of religion on government "over there", when in our own backyard the Missouri House of Representatives has issued a "concurrent resolution" (HCR 13) that recognizes a Greater Power and allows the Christian majority (of representatives and their constituents) to give credit to God for all the assistance in forming this great country of ours?

I know, I know. It's only a resolution. It just means that that's what the majority in the House believe. It's honestly no reason for me to overreact. It's not making Missouri into a theocracy or banning beer. But I can't help wondering if the mirror-image twin House had made a different "non-binding" resolution praising Satan for all his contributions, and thanking the US Constitution for our ability to supplicate ourselves in awe before the Dark Master, if there may have been a more pronounced reaction. Maybe not. Surely all the non-Satanists in the state would just calmly accept that the resolution wasn't really an endorsement. It was just something the House felt needed to be said.

In either case, I don't think they should be worrying about wasting House stationary thanking anyone about it, when there's teacher strikes and motorized baseball stadium roofs to think about!

Comments