[ppi] [ppiindia] Tolerance in the name of God

** ppi-india **
Tolerance in the name of God

By HUGH CORTAZZI

LONDON -- So many crimes have sadly been committed in the name of religion
that many humanists reject religion while Marxists regard religion as the
opium of the people. Humanists and Marxists who condemn religion fail to see
the good that can flow from sincerely held religious beliefs, but the
perversion of beliefs in many organized religions and the intolerance --
which some religious leaders preach -- engender hatred and contempt.
Islamic suicide bombers seem to believe that they are "martyrs" and will go
straight to Paradise. Most people, including responsible Muslims, regard
them as murderers who are damaging their own religion. The Quran condemns
suicide as a mark of despair in God, but death in jihad is believed to earn
eternal bliss. If Islam is to be recognized as a significant force for good
in the world, Islamic leaders need to do more to make clear that terrorist
acts cannot be seen as acts of jihad and that jihad is simply not acceptable
in the modern world. They should also endeavor to explain that fundamental
human rights, including the rights of women and of freedom of speech, are
upheld within Islam.

Muslim leaders need to ensure that the traditions and ethics of non-Islamic
societies are respected by Muslims who live within them. Some observers may
think that the French government, by insisting on the banning of head
scarves by girls in French state schools, is going too far in upholding the
principle of secularity. But secularism based on anticlerical traditions has
a long history in France and it behooves Muslims and Christians to respect
French traditions and laws.

The French government's decision does not infringe any basic human rights
and the anger of some Islamic organizations and teachers was not justified.
The assertion that in accordance with Islamic precepts all women are obliged
to cover their heads seems to some to deny equal rights to men and women. In
any case, Muslims should respect French secular traditions.

Earlier this month Kilroy Silk, a BBC TV presenter who had formerly been a
Labour Party member of Parliament, was suspended because an article by him
had appeared in a newspaper attacking Arabs, because of Arab support for the
Shariah code and discrimination against women.

He was tactless and probably expressed his views badly, but the attacks on
him by Muslim organizations were unjustifiably vitriolic. His argument that
he had the right to express his views in line with British traditions of
freedom of speech should have been sustained by the BBC.

Unfortunately there is a tendency in Britain, as in the United States, to
consider that "political correctness" precludes individuals from saying
anything derogatory about another person's religion or ethnic background.
Racism and racial discrimination are abhorrent, and incitement against other
religions and races must remain a crime. But the concept of "political
correctness" is sometimes taken too far in Western countries and can
unjustifiably limit freedom of speech.

In this day and age, only Islamic fundamentalists can possibly try to
justify the application of Shariah law with its barbaric punishments,
including stoning of women accused of adultery and cutting off the hands of
thieves. Nor in Western society, where equality of the sexes is regarded as
fundamental, can we, or should we, tolerate the segregation and subjugation
of women -- as happens in some Islamic countries.

Attacks have recently been made on the European Commission for allegedly
anti-Semitic behavior. The grounds for this allegation were at best dubious.
Some U.S. pro-Israel organizations seem to regard any criticism of Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as evidence of anti-Semitism. This is, of
course, nonsense. Many British Jews, to say nothing of Israeli Jews, are
very critical of Sharon's policies as they disapprove of the "targeted
assassinations" and other aspects of Sharon's policies toward the
Palestinians, which they regard as morally wrong as well as being
counterproductive for Israeli interests.

We must all, of course, condemn terrorism and the terrorist tactics of some
Palestinian groups, but we should be careful not to identify all
Palestinians with terrorism, any more than we should identify all Israelis
or Jews with Sharon. As moderate Israelis point out, Palestinian grievances
have to be addressed before peace can be achieved. They are also critical of
some of the demands and intolerance of Jewish fundamentalists.

It is an unfortunate fact of history that religion has rarely been
identified with toleration (with the general exception of Buddhism).
Certainly the history of Christianity in the West has been tarnished by
intolerance. The worst example was the Inquisition, but Protestants in many
countries were no better. Both sides executed or burned so-called heretics
and in Japan Christians were crucified and tortured.

There is still more than a whiff of intolerance among fundamentalist
Christians particularly in the U.S. The hatred between Protestants and
Catholics in Northern Ireland stems from centuries of strife and mutual
intolerance.

In India the appalling massacres of Muslims and Hindus in 1947 resulted from
centuries of intercommunal jealousies and strife as well as religious
fundamentalism. At independence, India was careful to establish a secular
state and secularity was a fundamental principle of Indian leaders,
including Nehru. The governing party in India, the BJP, has been the party
of Hindu nationalists, but the Indian prime minister has shown by his
efforts to reach agreement with Pakistan that he will not be dictated to by
religious fundamentalists.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and can only be achieved by
tolerance of other people's right to choose freely what they believe.
Religious intolerance whether advocated by Islamic, Christian or Hindu
fundamentalists undermines the human rights of others. Civilized governments
everywhere should do more to promote religious tolerance. English satirist
Dean Swift was sadly right when nearly 300 years ago he wrote: "We have just
enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one
another."

Hugh Cortazzi, a former British career diplomat, served as ambassador to
Japan from 1980 to 1984.

The Japan Times: Jan. 24, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------





***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg 
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.arsip.da.ru
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru; 
4. Posting: ppiindia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. Satu email perhari: ppiindia-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6. No-email/web only: ppiindia-nomail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7. kembali menerima email: ppiindia-normal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 ppiindia-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Other related posts: