Stories

Why freedom of religion matters – even if you’re not religious

Mark Milke
April 26, 2011
China just cracked down on religion. But they’re not alone: see Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea……
Stories

Why freedom of religion matters – even if you’re not religious

Mark Milke
April 26, 2011
China just cracked down on religion. But they’re not alone: see Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea……
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

In Beijing this past week, Chinese rulers cracked down on the possibility that someone, somewhere might have an allegiance to something other than China’s current regime. Thus, 100 members of the 1,000-member strong Shouwang Church were detained during Christianity’s holiest week; their “offense” was to hold public prayer services to protest restrictions on property they purchased in 2009.

The background is that the Shouwang Church tried to legally register itself but independent of the government-controlled Protestant organization in China. That’s a no-no in China, where Beijing has long sought to control religious expression.

 

Westerners, especially where state and religion are practically separate (in Canada and Europe) or constitutionally separate (the United States), often forget that freedom of conscience and expression is not the norm around the world.

 

Such repression matters regardless of whether one practices a faith or is an outspoken atheist. Ultimately, religion is a reflection of one’s own person. Moreover, as an individual, one will at some point differ from the 6,913,464,704 other people on the planet, something difficult if one’s view on the cosmos is repressed.

 

Room must be made for diverse views because unless one thinks we’ve all arrived at nirvana-like perfection, freedom of conscience and expression are critical for improvements. That requires criticism. Religious priorities are one possible avenue of opposition to societal or the state’s status quo and can result in positive reforms; anti-slavery abolitionists in the 19th century and anti-human trafficking advocates now are examples.

 

A state’s desire for severe control over religion represents a threat to all because it reveals a desire for extreme uniformity, often in the name of social cohesion.

 

To be sure, social cohesion matters and some shared values are integral to a well-functioning country. Without the underlying and often unspoken agreement that individuals matter, that elections and peaceful transfers of power are critical, that courts should be independent and that Canada should be governed by the rule of law, normal day-to-day rights and freedoms we take for granted would be in peril.

 

That caveat is why even religious freedom has limits if, as part of someone’s agenda, there’s an attempt to hedge others in. (Religion has been used both to restrict and expand freedoms.) It’s why radical Islamists who try and undercut the core liberal values of the West cannot co-exist with our society; we’re at odds with them and vice-versa. They have a need for extreme uniformity and we don’t.

 

The harshest example of such enforced uniformity is Saudi Arabia. Those not of majority faith (Islam) and majority sect (Wahhabism) are not only second-class citizens but in danger of death if they “blaspheme” Islam.

 

In his 2008 book, Religious Freedom in the World, which analyzed degrees of religious freedom in 101 countries and territories, including the ability to be free from religion itself, Paul Marshall noted how “Muslim majority” countries have the worst record on such freedoms. “Of the 41 countries surveyed that can be rated as religiously ‘free’, 35 are traditionally Christian,” writes Marshall. The others include three mainly Buddhist countries (Japan, Thailand and Mongolia) and Israel.

 

In contrast, only two mainly Muslim countries are ranked as free (Mali and Senegal). But most Muslim-majority nations have various restrictions. They range from the penalties already noted in Saudi Arabia to, for example, bans on Baha’i institutions and activities in Egypt. Or consider Iran where death sentences and assassinations have been the cost of converting from Islam to other faiths.

 

The restrictions on religion in Muslim-dominated countries are hardly surprising. In faiths that had historic influence in the West, Judaism had the example of Job who argued with God; in Christianity, Christ asserted men owed allegiance to both God and Caesar. Both traditions thus had seeds that allowed, eventually, for the flowering of open diversity. The West also experienced the Reformation, Renaissance and the Enlightenment which all helped to propel freedom forward.

 

Thus, until Muslim-majority countries can conceive of a state-religion split as anything other than apostasy, such countries will not be the most amenable to minority faiths, agnosticism and atheism.

 

Proponents of utter uniformity cannot stand that people even think differently than the status quo. In extreme forms, an attachment to excessive unity over diversity has led to bloodbaths under Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and the severe repression that yet emanates from rulers in Riyadh, Tehran and Pyongyang.

 

Such a mindset was perhaps best illustrated by George Orwell in 1984. “We are not content with negative obedience,” said the torturer O’Brien to Orwell’s main character, Winston. “We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us than an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world.”

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Ottawa is Playing a Game of Charter Chicken with the Provinces

The federal government has long objected to provinces using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ “notwithstanding” clause, arguing it lets them trample over the rights of Canadians. But that view, flawed as it is, is nothing compared to Ottawa’s latest gambit on this issue, writes Andrew Roman. Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser’s recent intervention in the case of Quebec’s Bill 21 asks the Supreme Court of Canada to declare limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. This would amount to a backdoor amendment of the Constitution by the court, one that would give judges even more power and leave elected representatives even less scope to avoid or undo their harmful decisions. More than just an attack on provincial autonomy, writes Roman, it threatens to upset the balance at the heart of Canada’s federal democracy.

What if October 7 Had Happened Not in Israel but in Canada?

It is probably beyond the imagination of most Canadians that they would ever face the kind of evil atrocity Israelis suffered on October 7, 2023. Or that we would find ourselves living next door to savage terrorists bent on our annihilation. But as Gwyn Morgan points out, it is critical to understand that reality as Israel’s struggle for existence carries on. The history of Israel is nothing short of miraculous. As Morgan personally observed on a tour of the world’s only Jewish state, Israelis have with determination and heart built a free, tolerant, prosperous and technologically-advanced democracy while surrounded by enemies. In the face of ruthless attacks by Hamas and the craven behaviour of supposed friends and allies who now lean in favour of the terrorists, Israel has reminded the rest of the world what real courage is.

One Country, Two Markets: The Shaky Promise and Unfair Burden of “Decarbonized” Oil

“Decarbonized” oil is being touted as a way to bridge the policy chasm separating energy-rich Alberta and the climate-change-obsessed Mark Carney government. Take the carbon dioxide normally emitted during the production and processing of crude oil and store it underground, the thinking goes, and Canada can have it all: plentiful jobs, a thriving industry, burgeoning exports and falling greenhouse gas emissions. But is “decarbonized” oil really a potential panacea – or an oxymoron that makes no more sense than “dehydrated” water? In this original analysis, former National Energy Board member Ron Wallace evaluates whether a massive push for carbon capture and storage can transform Alberta into a “clean energy superpower” – or will merely saddle its industry and government with a technical boondoggle and unbearable costs while Eastern Canada’s refiners remain free to import dirty oil from abroad.

More from this author

Not So Beautiful Minds: Conspiracy Theories from JFK to Oliver Stone and Donald Trump

Shocking events that plunge a country into chaos or destroy a beloved leader are hard for anyone to process. The evil done is so towering it bends the human psyche to accept that the evildoer is utterly banal, a loner walking in ordinary shoes. The cause simply must befit the outcome; thus can a conspiracy theory be hatched. At other times, the cold hope of political or financial gain or simple mischief might be the source. There certainly is no shortage of conspiracy theories. Mark Milke revisits one of history’s most famous political assassinations and the conspiracy theories it spawned to illuminate the ongoing danger this toxic tendency poses to us all.

Picture of Thomas Hobbes frontispiece of Leviathan. A renowned pieceof political work on liberty

Future of Conservatism Series, Part VII: Memo to Politicians: We’re Not Your Pet Projects

Canadian conservatives have most of the summer to ruminate on what they want their federal party to become – as embodied by their soon-to-be elected leader, anyway. Acceptability, likability and winnability will be key criteria. Above all, however, should be crafting and advancing a compelling policy alternative to today’s managerial liberalism, which has been inflated by the pandemic almost beyond recognition. Mark Milke offers a forceful rebuttal against the Conservative “alternative” comprising little more than a massaged form of top-down management.

Leaders_debate_2019_canada_diversity_bias_free_speech_liberal_conservative

So Much for Diversity: The Monochromatic Moderators of Monday’s Debate

Canada is a big, diverse country by virtually any measure, from our no-longer-so-sparse population to our epic geography to the ethnic makeup of our people. Diverse in every way, it seems, except in our elites’ aggressively progressive official-think. Consistent with this is the otherwise bizarre decision to have Monday’s federal leaders’ debate hosted by five decidedly similar female journalists. Mark Milke briefly profiles the five and, more important, advances a positive alternative: five distinguished women diverse in background, hometown and, above all, thought.