Not sure if anyone gets the Economist, but in this months issue there is a quick little article talking about the ability of Muslims to assimilate and openly practice their faith in both the U.S. and Europe. This has long been the discusion to have, and rightly so, since 9-11.
Generally speaking, Europe has strict wall between church and state (i.e. the banning of veils, relgious symbols, etc. in public buidlings) while the U.S. is much more "tolerant" in terms of the letter of the law.
Given the troubles of the LDS church with U.S. law and society in the past, this is an intersting concept that some might be interested in. Muslims generally feel alot "freer" inthe U.S. than in Europe. If anyone is interested in looking at the way Europe and the U.S. treat religion differently in the eyes of the law, which has its inevitable effect on societal views in general, let me knwo and I will find some further resources for you.
It is worthy of note that for every country that mandates the wearing of the veil for women, there are two countries that ban the wearing of the veil in public places. Just something to think about when we talk about freedom to worship, how far we should take it (since if LDS members want to fully rpactice their faith which has not always been popular, should we grant the same privelage to all or if the LDS church is the true church, if we get the opportunity, shoudl LDS members push for special legal privelages to fall upon the LDS church and no one else?) Just something to think about. I am always alot better at asking questions than answering them.
3 comments:
Interesting subject. I tend to think that fair competition in the marketplace of ideas is the best way to determine which religions, if any, are predominant in society. It would seem to me that whether you are requiring the veil or banning it, you are encroaching upon freedom of religion. So on this point, I would say that there is quite a bit of synergy between the disestablishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st amendment.
As for aspiring to some kind of "LDS privilege," it is interesting to note what Richard Bushman said about the Nauvoo settlement earlier this year at a Pew Forum event:
One of the first ordinances passed by the Nauvoo council was a toleration act specifying that all faiths were welcome in the city and listing a number of them: Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Jews and "Mohammedans," as Muslims were called. There was probably not a Mohammedan within a thousand miles, but it was a gesture of openness to every religion.
So, I definitely think that toleration of religious diversity is something that Saints ought to value. Joseph Smith's own political thought centered on the concept of "theodemocracy," which according to my understanding is a broadly republican system in which leaders are influenced by the will of the Lord in their affairs. I do not think this is unlike what many conservatives advocate when they argue that elected officials ought to be able to vote in accordance with their religious conscience.
It would be interesting to compare Theodemocracy to the Christian Dominionism advocated by some on the Christian Right. Most forms of Dominionism are grounded in an overconfident postmillenial eschatology that Mormons would not share. So I think a Mormon-dominated America would be much more cautious about imposing any special privileges for itself, probably not in spite of, but because of its own history of persecution.
That's my two cents.
Fantastic comment John. Do you have any reference material on this idea of "theodemocracy" or Smith's views of it?
If we take the market of ideas approach, how far to we let the market decide what is right and what do we rely on the sword of the state to enforce?
Do we legalize pot, then really on the market place of religion to teach people the correct way to live? How far can we actually take the market place of ideas? Are some laws, perhaps laws like prohibition or the laws making liquor stores close on Sunday, an unfair legal endorsement of Christianity as opposed to the closing of the stores on the Jewish sabbath (Saturday) or the Muslim holy day (friday)?
Are people more prone to learn the "correct" way when they learn under the threat of punishment by the sword of the state or in the religious market place of ideas?
Can we lump relgion into the same bin that we treat economics, as even the most ardent capitalists see fundamental roles to be played by government in the economy. Ironically, at least in the United States, many of these so called capitalists (who if had to sit down with Adam Smith would perhaps be chided) who favor a more open, hands off (lazie faire) economy see more of a role of government in religion, namely Christianity. Some say that religion poisons the well of democratic government just has deomocratic government, or any form of government for that matter, would poison the well of religion through a politization of supposed eternal truths.
If we took this notion and kept it going in the end perhaps we would come to the question of how much we can trust humanity to make the "right" choices?
(P.S. if anyone has any references on the views/roles of religion in the neo-conservative movement it would be greatly appreciated)
Plus it should be said that this discussion takes place in every society where religion plays a role and the roles of government and relgion are contemplated.
After the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran there was huge disagreements on how much of a democracy Iran would be among the main Ayatollahs and Clerics, it was very possible that Iran came out of that revolution looking very different than what it does today. In addition many say that Iran is still the best chance for democracy in the Middle East if not Central Asia. But Iran came very close to being more of "theodemocracy" or perhaps more appropriately, a "theorepublic".
If you look at the post U.S. led invasion constitutions of Aghanistan and Iraq there are Islamic overtones in them more so than there is a Christian overtone to the U.S. Constitution. But it seems what we are focusing on is practice since written constitutions are normally vague for a reason and practice becomes 9/10's of the law.
Post a Comment