Canada's plan for an Office of Religious Freedom raises important questions about what we understand the concept of 'religious freedom' to be.
Of late, the topic of religious freedom has been much in the air. During the 2011 federal election, the Conservatives promised to installan Office of Religious Freedom inside the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is said to be all set to follow through on the promise. In addition, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is preparing to host a community dialogue in January 2012 on human rights relating to religious beliefs in practice. Religious freedom promises to figure prominently in these discussions. The time may therefore be ripe to examine the concept of religious freedom in some detail.
Why religious freedom? Why shouldn’t we be content to let religions thrive on the basis of the numerous freedoms provided by a free society, such as freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and so on, which are available to all citizens whether religiously inclined or not? Why create a separate category for religious freedom? There are several reasons for this: Religion has historical importance, and used to have political power. Philosophically, it occupies a space that requires deference from secular society, as it deals with the ultimate rather than the penultimate. It is also one of the main sources of value formation in the world. As a result, religion deserves respect, and to be accommodated.
Many believe that religious freedom includes freedom from religion as much as it includes freedom for religion and for any religion. This very western narrative now aspires to be the global narrative, and Canada’s clarion call for religious freedom reflects this. Canada is likely to run into serious difficulties, however, for the rest of the world holds different views on what religion, and therefore religious freedom, means.
Consider, for instance, the western idea that sacred and secular realms are distinguishable entities. Canada renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s. Other cultures, however, do not necessarily distinguish so sharply between the two domains. (Sharia, for instance, in principle covers all of life.)
Furthermore, in the West, the freedom to change one’s religion is considered an integral component of religious freedom. However, changing one’s religion attracts the death penalty in classical Islamic law.
A third conflict arises from the fact that the western concept of religion involves the exclusive membership of a single religious community. This is the Abrahamic concept of religion – that one cannot be a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim at the same time. The same assumption does not apply in Japan, however, where more than 95 per cent of the people declare themselves followers of Shinto, and more than 75 per cent also declare themselves Buddhists.
The western understanding of religious freedom is thus not universal: It differs from, and comes into conflict with, the understandings in some Asian religions and Islam. What’s interesting is that, if belonging to multiple religions is the order of the day, then the need to change one’s religion is hardly an issue, and if, on the other hand, belonging only to a single religion is insisted on, as is the case in Islam, again the question does not arise, though for a different reason. Thus, though it may seem axiomatic in the context of a western concept of religion, the idea that religious freedom must involve the right to change one’s religion is greeted by incomprehension in the Asian and Islamic world (except, of course, for those segments within them that have become westernized).
The western concept of religious freedom is of course heavily influenced by Christianity. Thus, the promotion of the western concept of religious freedom (which encourages people to be open to changing their religions) comes across as a cover for predatory Christian proselytization. Unless this impression is corrected, religious freedom as advocated by the West (and ostensibly by Canada with its new Office of Religious Freedom), will continue to be perceived by citizens in these non-western worlds as the denial of their religious freedom.
Origin
Source: the Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment