Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Despite religion managing to play a part in U.S. politics, the separation of church and state has worked out admirably well for the country. Unfortunately, the western world and several other countries seem to be the only places where the ideal of non-religious politics has caught on.
The Pakistani government allowed Islamic militants to implement Shariah – Islamic holy law – in the Pakistan region known as the Swat Valley. The accord, as part of a cease-fire agreed to by the Pakistan government and militants, is a dangerous concession to radical religious ideals that threaten peace and equality. People should hope this is only an isolated incident, because religious law is an inadequate substitute for any law based on social and economic forces – such as the U.S. government, a communist government or any other form of rule that does not place value on religious doctrine.
Robert A. Heinlen, a notable science fiction author, said it best, I think: “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
It is not only dangerous to implement radical Islamic law into government, but any religious doctrine. Religion is based on irrational faith, rather than logic. The faith behind religion is irrational because it is not based on facts but unscientific beliefs, which often cannot be proven or disproved. The downside is you can’t prove or disprove God’s existence, or make any argument for or against religious belief which is based on nothing but personal preference. Therefore, if a law is based on the belief that God told human beings to do something, it cannot be argued that the law is flawed or unequal in its representation or implementation because it’s impossible to prove God did or did not say anything. It can be argued the law is unequal or flawed in its effect, but that fails to address the law’s root cause, which its creators probably can’t see past anyway. Religious law then becomes static and based on irrational beliefs rather than scientifically supported facts.
Religion isn’t an evil or destructive force; it has numerous benefits. Followers of any religion are not defined solely by their beliefs, either. Religion is not, however, a suitable substitute for a modern, logical form of government.
A survey released by the Pew Research Center last August showed approximately 50 percent of American Conservatives believe churches and houses of worship should stay out of politics – a broad shift from little more than 30 percent five years ago. The benefits of a government grounded in reality rather than belief may be catching on. Thomas Jefferson, after all, meant something when he described the First Amendment as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state.
Dylan Riley is assistant news editor for The Maine Campus.
Bangor Daily News