By Adi Arora
Editor’s note: This is an opinion piece and views expressed in this article are not necessarily reflective of The Beehive or The Beehive’s associated writers.
Sometimes, two objects aren’t meant to be together. Like chocolate and salt. Pineapple and pizza. Donald Trump and the Presidency. And I believe the same is true of government and religion. Of course, one could argue that there are parallels. And they’d be right. They both try to dictate (some more successfully than others) the lives of the people under them and they’ve both been, until recently, rather self-centered. Things have changed. Times have moved on, and I think it is time for leaders to realise that these two things fundamentally should not go together. Allow me to elaborate.
The first question we should be asking is what is the role of a government? Is it to tell people what to do? A government may have evolved into a lean mean “Allow me to pummel your beliefs into submission” machine, but the simple fact is, government is fundamentally an idea meant to keep the people of a country safe. And I’m extremely happy to see citizens taking their governments back. A government is no longer an elite society run by the few for the many. It is no longer a faceless, stone wall, but rather recognised as a means by which the country can be made a better place. Religion is a completely different matter. As opposed to an opportunity for congregation and celebration, religion has morphed into an unquestionable, unopposable block by which one must abide. When one is dissatisfied with religion, they can’t become a “religion MP”. They can’t try to make it more tolerant, more open and safer for all. No. Religion will stay as it has for however many years because “tradition”. And this irks me. Why does religion have the right to be oppressive because “that’s the way it has been”? The first concept of Buddhism, Anicca, states that nothing is permanent and that everything is constantly changing, and I don’t see why this can’t be the case for religion. No mainstream religion has ever changed or adapted to fit the times without substantial controversy. And this puzzles me. Why should it be a nationwide debate as to whether same-sex marriage is legalised or not? Why should there be a debate as to whether abortion or euthanasia is right or wrong? The choice lies with the person undertaking those actions, and I firmly believe that the option should always be there for any person in any situation. Too often, religious support has been the barrier to progressive qualities and laws. Those that call themselves “Conservatives” in America are really just die-hard Christians who don’t want to stray from the word of God which teaches (in their interpretation) that same-sex marriage is wrong and that abortion is unholy. These are the people making laws, changing government, shaping our future and the same people that condemn religious extremism are making a career based on appealing to the devoutly religious people in the country.
Religion is more open to interpretation than the Tory explanation of their Brexit plan and that poses problems for many societies. Now, I’m not speaking for all religions and all communities, but from what I have seen and experienced as a once religious person, religions involve intolerance. And this allows for just more intolerance. I’ve seen both my grandmothers be racist and homophobic and, while I’m not condoning it, that is what they’ve been taught because of the strict religious community they were brought up in. When holy books are read as unbreakable rules, that’s when problems arise. The Bible cannot be read as equivalent to the Constitution because they have totally different purposes. The Constitution is a collection of rules, whereas the Bible is a collection of fables (true or not, they are stories with a moral) and I think we need to keep this in mind. When Republican lawmakers quote the Bible, the line between moral and rule gets blurred and this is fundamentally wrong, because they are completely different things, so in a recent tweet when Donald Trump said “We don’t worship government. We worship God”, I was appalled, because you can’t call a holy book to help you make laws. You can’t call upon the Bible to change the country’s stance on abortion or same-sex marriage. It is immoral. It is wrong. But this is being done. It is being done daily and it needs to stop.
The oppression of religion continues to astound me. Every single world religion has undertaken some form of oppression towards those that are not like them at some point or other and I challenge you to prove me wrong. We see the damage that religious governments have caused in countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, which are both either plagued by war (like Israel) or have an exceptionally strict law system, like Saudi Arabia, which permits basic violations of human rights, such as FGM and doesn’t allow women to drive and treats even the most minor of crimes with unnecessary and damaging punishments. When we can clearly see the effects of a religious government on a country, why should we continue to allow this to happen?
At such a divided time, we should be attempting to unify the world, bridge gaps between communities and strengthen the relationships between nations of the country so that we can all stand in solidarity against people who try to undermine us and let them know that they will never break us. And I think maintaining the presence of a powerful oppressive, intolerant and largely out-of-date force in politics would undermine progressiveness and everything it stands for.
The Beehive 
Water-tight Compartment Theory for relgion in politics and politics in religion shall not work. Human frailties are a reality and governance will have to be acutely conscious of it.
Take the example of foreign funded proselytisation. Can it be handled with this approach ? It will lead to Gandhigiri and nation shall be screwed.
LikeLike
Good point. However although we must be conscious of it, we cannot allow its influence to grow further, as doing so would only mean that we would be stepping further away from a progressive society. Thanks for taking the time to read our work and give feedback
-Adi Arora
LikeLike
You talk about Saudi Arabia as an example of religious rule whereas it’s practically the opposite. Monarchy is forbidden in Islam and the fact that they are a state sponsor of ISIS which world leaders ignore shows their hypocrisy. You also stereotype Conservatives as being “die-hard Christians” and how they’re bad for the government but does that mean you oppose democracy as Trump was the one who did win. I don’t think religion is the problem because there is no REAL Islamic country or technically theocratic countries and if there were the west would be the last to fall into this category.
LikeLike
Saudi Arabia is governed by its own warped interpretation of Sharia Law, which is a religious construct, making it as good as a religious state. It is a state with a religious foundation. Hence the language used in the article. I did say that Conservatives are basically die-hard Christians, but I didn’t say they were bad for government. I said they were bad for progress. Government can be regressive as well, although it would be a pretty bad government if it did (Saudi Arabia, Sharia Law wow it’s almost as if I planned it!). Although I do admit that “die-hard Christians” would be better changed to “hardcore religion followers”, because anti-gay rights and anti-abortion come up in most major religions unfortunately. And lastly, my lack of respect for Conservatives does not at all mean that I oppose democracy. I oppose Trump. I oppose Conservatives. But I applaud how he managed to get an entire country to believe the rubbish that came out of his mouth,
Yours,
Adi
LikeLike
Saudi Arabia follows its own perverted ideology called wahabbism which your government funds. You say Sharia law when it has a monarchy. Also why do you hate conservatives so much? Religion isn’t bad for progress, corruption is.
LikeLike
The fact that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy has nothing to do with its legal system. It is governed by a warped interpretation of Islam which is an extremely harsh and unnecessary system and which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I don’t hate conservatives, I just dislike their opposition to progress. And as for your comment about corruption, well, I disagree. Conservatives and religion go hand-in-hand. The reason I dislike the influence of religion on politics is because it influences people, who in turn bring a halt to progress (Trump) and call themselves conservatives. There is no evidence of corruption having anything to do with it. Its just people deciding that religion is more important than efficient government. That’s what I dislike.
-Adi Arora
LikeLike
Regarding Sharia Law, please enlighten me about its contents and where we can get a copy of its text?
When people comment or write about religion at least interview or quote those scholars who have spent many years studying the laws, text and rulings to be able to make sure that their writings are accurate, or you can follow their steps and study the religion. I don’t think you qualify as a commentator on matters you do not have any knowledge on.
When writing about a subject, at least attempt to study the subject, research the recent interpretation and what experts have said.
LikeLike
Firstly, I’d like to point out that nowhere in my article do I specifically mention Sharia Law. It has only ever been commenters who brought that up, as you have chosen to do, even though Saudi Arabia made up a miniscule part of my argument. For the three lines I wrote about Saudi Arabia and their religion-based law system, I think it was perfectly acceptable that I didn’t “quote those scholars who have spent many years studying the laws”. I never said that the religion taught to govern like that. All I stated were the facts, all of which are correct and require only a Google search to find. This was never intended to be an argument where I weighed up both sides. This article, like all my others, conveyed my own views and mine only and therefore required no “research” into any interpretation or the ideas of so-called “experts”. One does not have to be an expert on everything to write about it. The research I did was sufficient for the purposes of this article and I am sorry if you felt otherwise.
LikeLike
There are definitely a whole lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That is a nice point to deliver up. I provide the ideas above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where crucial thing might be working in sincere good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged round issues like that, however I’m positive that your job is clearly recognized as a fair game. Both boys and girls really feel the impression of just a moment’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.
LikeLike
I was examining some of your posts on this website and I believe this site is very instructive! Retain putting up.
LikeLike
I thought it was going to be some boring old site, but I’m glad I visited. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.
LikeLike