Introduction.
In the recent times, there have been conflicting interests based on religious freedom VS the rule of law. Religious freedom allows people in a state to practice their religious beliefs either in public or in private by teaching, practicing and worshiping. With religious freedom, one can change from one religion to another or can chose not to belong to any freedom at all. It is considered as a fundamental right in states all over the world although freedom of religion differs from one state to another. There are many forms of religions that exist in the world today which include Christianity, Islam, and Judaism among others. Religious freedom is also covered by Article 18 of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there are various issues that separate the freedom of religion from the state (Evans 203).
Religious beliefs are vigorous, and their dynamics is widespread all over the state with more and more people practicing it. While the state is supposed to accept all the religions within its border, it has become extremely difficult with the state being required not to favor one religion over another. I believe that the state should be separated from religion at all cost to avoid religious conflicts and other issues of concern that may arise from differing religious interests. While the religious leaders seek on advising on how the state should be run they do not like it when the state says how the religious leaders should run their practices or places of worship. To promote democracy in any state religious freedom and the rule of law (state) should, therefore, be separated at all cost. It is because religion shapes the beliefs and behaviors of the citizens, today religion has become capable of great harm in the various state a good example being Nigeria a country in Western Africa. Religion is supposed to be harmonious and has the responsibility of promoting peace and unity in any country (Ryan 137). The opposite of the expectation is what many citizens of Nigeria experience today with the two opposing religions Christianity and Islam creating a lot of conflicts in the country. The issue clearly shows that when one mixes religion and politics the results are unpleasant. The Islamic religion in Nigeria which is composed of a slightly 1% more than the Christians have evoked violence to protest unfair leadership in the country. What started as protests against the then President Jonathan Goodluck in the claims of him favoring Christians because he was a Christian himself had today resulted in an escalating war with the Islamic groups now declaring that Nigeria should be an Islamic state ,forcing people into converting to the religion. If only there were a separation of the rule of law and religious freedom in Nigeria the violence could not be present. It shows the issue of having to separate the both because affiliation of the state to one religion will lead to the violence of another religion who might feel left out or marginalized. When a state is separated from religion governing becomes much easier and violence becomes less likely to occur (Ryan 137). Another issue for the separation of the state and the religious freedom is because the state claims that the freedom of religion is given by the government and not a God given right and just as the government gives the government can also take. It also means that the government can make attempts to change the freedom of religion or limit it. With this in mind, it is, therefore, unquestionable to separate the rule of law from religion because this freedom is God-given the government should not restrict or interfere with its expression.
Another reason for the separation of the two is because the government have been known to create repressive policies in which they subject the members of various religious groups. They have also done this by the formation of discriminatory laws hence creating an environment of abusing human rights. Some of this laws prohibit or punish some religious practices; a good example is North Korea where the government have placed severe restrictions on religious activities and only allowing the few practices that are supervised by the government. Any religious people who are known to be in any contact with Korean non-citizens or those who seek military help are tortured and even sometimes executed. Some governments from laws that marginalize some religions. A good example is Pakistan government who took no or very little interest in condemning the attacks on Shia Muslims and Christians in the country. Those responsible for the attacks were not held accountable showing favoritism of some religions over others. In Saudi Arabia, there is a prohibition of the practice of any other religion other that Islam practices with freedom of religion having no recognition at all. Other religions are also not recognized this is also other issues that indicate the need for separation between the two.
Religious freedom and the rule of law both receive great deal of attention today and since they are both of great importance there is a need for them to coexist which is only achievable if the differences are regulated (Evans 211). There are various ways to regulate the differences between religious freedom and the rule of law. One has to understand that a government is just one unit in the state while religion varies even among those who work in the government. It is hard to declare that leaders will come from a certain religion for universality because that would mean the marginalization of other religions. While the law may require one to be religious to assume any governmental office, equal representation of all religions will help regulate the differences between the two. It means that the members of a state will not be forced into one religion, and each and every person will be entitled to religious freedom.
Some religions will always conflict with the rule of law and in such a case measures to make sure that the two differences are regulated should always be put in place. First and foremost to regulate this difference the state should ask the citizens only what is required by this I mean loyalty because both religion and the rule of law demand loyalty (Taub and Klein 341). It is important for the religious people also to understand the loyalty that comes with one being a citizen of the state. Rules should, therefore, be put in place to regulate a state’s power in making the people choose between it and the religion. The rules should aim at making people understand that they belong to the state and as well as a certain religion of their choosing for example I am “German” but also a Christian or a Muslim or any other religion. With this in mind, people will be regulated from conflicting on the basis of religion and the rule of law.
The religion vs. state is an issue affecting many people in various parts of the world in the present day. States have implemented policies that have affected religion practices in one way or another while at the same time the religious groups have tried to fight back (Haynes and Ben‐Porat 126). For example in Sudan the state at one point implemented policies that prohibited the conversion from one religion (Islam) to another. A number of churches were demolished and denied the permit to operate. It shows a denial of religious freedom by the state. Another case is Burma where there was violence focused against Christians while Muslims were denied land ownership rights in some areas. There was also reported discrimination based on the type of religion affiliation in the promotion of government employees. Other cases include Russia, which prohibits foreigners from participating in religious activities and continues to favor the Orthodox Church over other religions. Egypt where there have been reported attacks in churches and Christian-owned businesses among others.
People are entitled to religious freedom and it should not be mandated to follow the rule of law, this is so because the rule of law may prohibit some religions or all regions from exercising freely what they believe in. The freedom to practice one's religion is a fundamental instrument in promoting democracy while a mandate to follow the rule of law may promote dictatorship in the case where the leaders of the country may happen to come from a specific religion. In its mandate to follow the rule of law some leaders may prohibit the practice of minority religions that may increase the probability of religious conflicts. Entitlement to religious freedom promotes a free and fair society (Haynes and Ben‐Porat 127). What creates individual dignity is the right that one has in choosing whether or not to trust and to behave on the root of those beliefs, and the thus religious freedom should be placed with a very high value. All states should guarantee the freedom of religion and in so doing reduce the ongoing religious conflicts and violence that have affected many countries all over the world.
People are indeed entitled to religious freedom with immense consideration of the diversity present in the modern day societies (Taub and Klein 343). People are therefore entitled to choosing their religion group as they please or the congregation they want to follow. It will allow one religion to tolerate the other as they all have the freedom to coexist. Also the freedom of religion allows citizens of a state to live as they deem best for themselves this makes sure that the minimal interference by the government does not result in the loss of lives for this who don’t belong to a certain religion that the government belongs too. If many Islamic states allowed freedom of religion there would be no or fewer bombings of places of adoration belonging to some other denominations and many innocent lives would be spared so yes I support the concept that people are entitled to religious freedom and it should not by any means be mandated to follow the rule of law, this is because some laws are built upon the basis of the beliefs of some religions and hence can’t be fair to those who do not practice that particular religions or practice the beliefs of the used religion. Religion is a fundamental right and just like other fundamental rights it should be free constant interference by the government but instead it should seek to protect this freedom. Freedom of religion identifies a true democracy as the constant change in leadership does not affect religion. If it were mandated to follow the rule of law, then we would have a lot of chaos as leaders who implement the laws do not last forever in office. This means that they come and go, and as each leader would choose to favor their religion over the others then there would lack order in the state, hence the freedom of religion will make sure that it is not too frequent change hence creating stability. Freedom of religion also minimizes the prejudice of some religions in the society and creates a sense of obligations in people who may be from different religions to protect those of another religion that is vulnerable or is being marginalized in other words freedom of religion benefits every member of the society. Freedom of religion is a major contributor to the stability of any country with many failed states today being associated with regulation of freedom of religion as also a major contributor. The freedom of religion also makes the leaders of the state aware that there are a higher power and authority than that of their own hence constantly reminding them that they are human and thus rule with respect and dignity in the knowledge that a higher power is watching.
Governments should not be allowed to have full control over the regulation of freedom of any religion. It is because governments place regulations on some practices in religions while it may favor one religion over the other. Full control over the regulation of freedom will mean that the government is free to change policies or bend them to favor some religions of their interest in other religions that may result in violence. Full control over the regulation of freedom of religion is the interference of human rights which is against the law. If the full control were to be allowed, some governments would politicize religion to meet their selfish gains that are not acceptable in any civil society. However, a reasonable control over the regulation of freedom is important when it comes to protecting the citizens on moral grounds. It allows public order that on the other hands promotes peace in a country. Some control over the regulation of freedom of religion helps in resolution of any certain group in the government that seeks to influence the nature of the state to be based on certain religious beliefs. Also, some amount of control helps preserve the morals of the state from being eroded by some religious beliefs and stereotypes that are directed to some religions. Also, some control helps the government ensure that the other rights of the citizens are not hindered by some religious practice (Taub and Klein 340). For example, some religions believe that they are not allowed to go to hospitals or take medication but should wait to be healed by the Supreme Being they worship. It affects the children who are forced into this religion and denies them the right to seek medical health for their wellbeing that may result in severe illnesses and eventually death. In such a case, the regulation of the government is very important and should only be proportionate to the specific issue that has been identified and should only be used for the same specified purpose. If the other practices in the same religion do not interfere with the other fundamental rights and also the freedom of other individuals, then the government has no right to regulate the freedom of the specified religion. Regulation could also be based on the grounds of protecting the rights of women on the issue of gender equality in the case where the religious practice and beliefs discriminate on the women and thus can regulate the freedom of that religion in ensuring gender equality among the followers of the religion. Beyond that the government should not be allowed full control over the regulation of religious freedom.
There are also various reasons why the government is should not be entitled to full control over the regulation of religious freedom. It is because it will allow religion to be open to the influence of political pressure that is highly unacceptable. Governments with full control will seek to narrow down the focus of the interested religion. The full regulation of religious freedom by the government may also limit the fundamental importance of the religion that is the responsibility for social awareness.
Religion also shapes people expectations on the government and also help question various policies and full control would only result to the government shaping the expectations of the people to drive them away from questioning policies or even how the country is run. Also, religious freedom prevents people from the unhealthy reliance or dependence on the government when it’s exercised in a more comprehensive manner because it can meet a wide range of various needs. Also, if allowed full control the government is known to privatize religion as it tries to exercise a power that is not acceptable in religion. It is through religion that people escape or find comfort from social injustices and politics and allowing full control on religious freedom leaves people with nowhere else to turn to.
In conclusion, one would agree that there is a need to separate the state from religious freedom as they have a differing interest. One would also agree that religion should not be mandated to follow the rule of law, and neither should the government have full control over the freedom of religion. This way there will be minimal conflicting interest, and religious conflicts will less likely occur when one is handed a fair opportunity to practice their religion and is also allowed to carry on with their beliefs.
Work Cited.
Evans, Malcolm. 'The Freedom Of Religion Or Belief And The Freedom Of Expression'.
Religion & Human Rights 4.2 (2009): 197-235. Web.
Haynes, Jeffrey, and Guy Ben‐Porat. 'Globalisation, Religion And Secularisation – Different
States, Same Trajectories?'. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 11.2 (2010): 125-132. Web.
Ryan, Barry T. 'God Vs. The Gavel: Religion And The Rule Of Law – Marci A. Hamilton'.
Religious Studies Rev 32.2 (2006): 137-137. Web.
Taub, D., and J. Klein. 'State Religious Education--Religion Vs. State'. Journal of Church and
