by Wole Olabanji

While Reverend King is an extreme case it nevertheless illustrates the folly of the concept. However, there are more nuanced cases like the current issue of the regulation of the use of Hijab in Lagos public schools.

To the extent that freedom means the power to determine action without external regulation and religion refers to a set of beliefs and the practices associated with holding those beliefs, then there is no constitution anywhere in the world that can guarantee such a freedom. Statements purporting to recognize or guarantee the freedom of religion in this sense as a right of all citizens in whatever constitutional documents or international charters are in fact redundant verbiage that crumbles the moment you attempt to apply them in the real world.

It isn’t hard at all to see the hollowness of this guarantee; consider the fervour and total conviction with which Mal. Shekau, Reverend King and Baba Alakyo (the Ombatse Chief Priest) express their so called freedom of religion and it becomes instantly clear that the only thing that can in fact be guaranteed is freedom of belief. However, the moment that you contemplate such a guarantee, you should realize how pointless it is because you can’t prevent a man from believing as he chooses anyway.

However, once religion leaves our minds and enters the sphere where it starts to interact with others in the society, it is a self-evident truth that that aspect of religion must and will always be regulated. This is so because, while by nature many of the major religions of the world have a sizable number of coincident ideas, they are generally contradictory on fundamental points and ultimately mutually exclusive.

Importantly, religious contradiction and exclusivity is not merely inter-religious, there is a deep level of intra-religious contradiction and exclusivity across the world which often boils over into serious conflicts sometimes of international dimensions as the Irish Catholic /Protestant wars and global Shiite/Sunni conflicts amply demonstrate.

The inevitable result is that in a plural or multi-religious society, it becomes impossible to guarantee that all religious views and practices be upheld as rights since those views are generally not subject to debate and typically do not produce any sustainable consensus. No constitution anywhere for instance will guarantee Reverend King the right to conduct exorcism by burning ‘suspected witches’ because that right will instantly conflict with other principles that promote the peaceful coexistence of people in society.

While Reverend King is an extreme case it nevertheless illustrates the folly of the concept. However, there are more nuanced cases like the current issue of the regulation of the use of Hijab in Lagos public schools. One can understand the angst of the Muslim population that a practice as harmless (and possibly helpful) as trying to cover your body as modesty might suggest can become an issue but as I asked a few friends while discussing the matter, are Muslims willing to consider and extend the same right to dress in religion mandated clothing to the child of a herbalist who wants to come to school in a tattered red jacket, studded with cowries and splattered with chicken blood and feathers?

I think not!

Therefore, I find it somewhat curious when someone in Nigeria decides to self-righteously push the genuine cause of  Palestinians half way across the world because they are his ‘brothers’ but sees absolutely nothing wrong with his next door neighbour being denied rights (to build a place of worship for instance) in his own country simply because he believes differently. Also, isn’t it a tad hypocritical to rant about religious discrimination being meted out to the New York Muslim community when some tried to stop the building of a mosque near ground zero while also having zero opinion about the fact that no other religious group is allowed to build a place of worship in Saudi-Arabia or even be seen with any sort of religious emblem other than Islamic ones? Or be required to pay a special tax (Jizya) for being an ‘unbeliever’? Or any of the long list of discriminatory laws that apply to non-Muslims in that bastion of Islam.

Nevertheless, it must be conceded that religion can be a force for good and although I know many who will disagree, I am convinced that without ideas of morality drawn from religious beliefs, society will inevitably go down a slippery road to anarchy. Now it is important to not lose the opportunity that this Hijab saga offers us as a nation to think and talk about how we can preserve some level of morality in our society without trying to overtly legislate our religious opinions.

One critical obstacle that we need to scale to have an effective dialogue is to realize that it is impractical to expect that understanding can be reached if any one group believes that their religious views are the standard of morality that must willy-nilly be accepted as state policy especially as those opinions are even still hotly contested within their own small religious group. While I as a Christian for instance believe that the Bible (as can be gleaned in the verses following) enjoins me to respect all civic rules, and where those rules conflict with the law of God be ready for acts of civil disobedience and to embrace the attendant punishment that the civic rules prescribe, there is a valid and fundamental question of whether other religious groups are similarly willing to be subject to civic rules and where they disagree, submit themselves to the prescribed penalties rather than take up arms against the society and state in ‘self defence’.

Be a good citizen. All governments are under God. Insofar as there is peace and order, it’s God’s order. So live responsibly as a citizen. You’re irresponsible to the state, then you’re irresponsible with God, and God will hold you responsible. (Rom 13:1-2 MSG)

But so that it doesn’t go any further, let’s silence them with threats so they won’t dare to use Jesus’ name ever again with anyone.” called them back and warned them that they were on no account ever again to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Peter and John spoke right back, “Whether it’s right in God’s eyes to listen to you rather than to God, you decide. As for us, there’s no question–we can’t keep quiet about what we’ve seen and heard.” (Acts 4:17-20 MSG) 

…There were those who, under torture, refused to give in and go free, preferring something better: resurrection. Others braved abuse and whips, and, yes, chains and dungeons. We have stories of those who were stoned, sawed in two, murdered in cold blood; stories of vagrants wandering the earth in animal skins, homeless, friendless, powerless (Heb 11:35-37 MSG)

The reality is that when rubber hits the road, we have to concede that such idealistic concepts as guaranteeing a universal right to freedom of religion are just things that keep people at the UN in their jobs. Even America, the chief enforcer of the world (even as it maintains a hypocritical posture of pursuing the rights of all people to practice their religion freely) realizes that most rights are contextual and ultimately negotiated; as this report shows (in paragraph 4), America as a matter of state policy ‘looks the other way’ for ‘strategic reasons’ when some countries abuse these so called guaranteed rights.

As we continue this dialogue as a nation, it is important to acknowledge and work from the mindset that the only path that can guarantee peace is to be willing to extend to other people, the same treatment that we want for ourselves. That rule remains golden.

————————-

 

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.