The New Religious Suspects and God Politicians
By Samuel Toe
The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia
January 8, 2008
In a related situation, Liberia’s Religious Advisor Madam Esther Nyameh is reported to have threatened to boycott all official ceremonies where Islamic prayers are offered. For this she too has been intensely criticized by voices across society, amongst them the Minister of Information himself. No doubt, the Religious Advisor and many like her are now aware of the unequivocal message from these episodes: that religious zealotry and God politics will have no place in today’s public life.
The holiday context?
Today however, even in great Western societies, to whom we owe the doctrine of the “Great Separation,” political theologies have re-emerged from historic banishment. Somehow modern societies are still fiercely challenged by this powerful energy, affirming the French philosopher Jean Jacques-Rousseau’s assertion that man is a “theotropic creature,” innately aspiring to connect his earthly live with a higher being, and constantly discovering the “nexus of God, man and the world”. Even in the face of irresistible forces of democracy, modernity, and secularity, political theology still re-asserts itself. This situation is even more telling in vast swatches of the Muslim World Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Libya, Sudan, and many others.
For example, in a nation like the United States, a democracy that prides itself in the ideals of freedom of religion and secularism, Americans and their political rhetorics are alive with religious fervor resulting from their strong Protestant tradition of the 17th centuries. A Republican candidate and former Baptist preacher in the ongoing 2008 presidential primaries in the state of Iowa has just emerged victorious partly owing to his passionate coaxing of this energy.
Could this perhaps explain the religious energy that gorged through the minds and veins of Liberia’s founding fathers as they authored its constitution, who themselves shared the American Protestant heritage? Can it explain why the founding fathers nationalized such Christian holidays as Fast and Prayer Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving Day, Easter, and even Sunday?
During Liberia’s 1985 constitutional referendum, genuine attempts by Dr. Sawyer and his constitutional committee to entirely rid our most sacred document of religious undertones and explicitly secularize it still yielded to the powerful religious tradition prevailing at the time; and today, many of these holidays have remained with us.
Whether Liberians accept it or not, this is a reflection of their country’s historic Christian tradition, or at least of its dominant social and political class. If U.S. State Department statistics is anything to go by, Christianity and strains of its indigenous mix still account for a sizable 40% of Liberia’s population. Without suggesting any preference for Christianity, as even Liberia’s traditional religions also constitute an equal 40%, the point can be made that this is an example of Liberia’s heritage.
So, why the fuss?
Post-Charles Taylor Liberia is gradually steaming up more and more to religious tolerance and freedom. Consistent with constitution, there is a genuine practice of religious freedom and inclusion, even more so then the regime of Samuel Doe, who whiles himself professing Christianity, conducted greater public cooperation with Islamic communities then any other non-Christian groups.
Many public ceremonies today open with both Christian and Muslim prayers. Since the Interim Government of Chairman Bryant, several excellent Muslims have enjoyed key governmental privileges as deputy and assistant ministers, commissioners, and members of boards of autonomous agencies. More then a dozen more have and still are members of the National Legislature.
Religious Christian education is thought in public schools but is not mandatory. Islam is freely thought in Islamic institutions. When taking oath of public office, Christians kiss the Bible while Muslims kiss the Koran. There are no religious prisoners in Liberia, and proselytizing is freely permitted provided it is free of coercion and divisiveness.
Although some members of Islamic communities have complained about having to close their shops and businesses on Sundays and major Christian holidays, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is legal and in no way violates the constitution. The Court decided not on religious grounds, but on grounds that market places and the city need to be cleaned on these days, or at least once a week. Sunday also is a day of rest in many countries around the world, even in places where Islam is the dominant faith. An example is the Republic of Senegal.
It is therefore pointless on the part of the “firebrand” Minister of Information to risk sparking tension on matters of religious freedom and holidays that the government is already actively committed to in practice. The presence or absence of these holidays has not denied an inch of the free practice of Islam or any other faith.
As the “firebrand” Minister of Information himself pointed out, “You can not legislate Christianity. It comes from the heart.” But why then advocate legislating non-Christian holidays? Don’t they too come from the heart? Observing “Christian holidays” is no proof of Christianity’s ownership of Liberia. It is merely a reflection of its historic Christian tradition.
The danger
The real danger in these kinds of statements by Minister Bropleh and Religious Advisor Nyameh lie not in fear of public condemnation, which both of them are already publicly injured by; but in the actual wedge that such inattentive statements smack between communities, and the divisions they provoke in public and national life.
God politics must not be allowed to take root. First, it provokes a religious sprint for dominance in public life. Lest we deceive ourselves, Liberia is not exclusive to Christianity and Islam. Forty percent of Liberians ascribe to traditional religions, and together with Islam, other faiths constitute some 20%. To demand legislation of holidays for all possible strains of religious persuasion is to convert our respectable national public space into a confused marketplace where there are stalls for Baha’is, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, and the assortment of known and unknown religions, in addition to the infinite fragments of scrambling Christian groups. This is unreasonable; and more so the reason why this energy must be restrained to the private lives of those interested in it.
Second, and even more dangerous, is the potential for conflict and violence in such religious marketplace. By a stroke of misfortune, this tension may translate into open hostilities, igniting Liberia’s version of the Wars of Religion, with its grievous consequences.
More vividly, it resembles moments in our recent history when grievances born out of religious discontent and persecution partly created the rallying call for the creation of such groups ULIMO, LURD, and others. Three days of street riots in Monrovia in October 2004 dubbed “Christian and Muslim War” is only a glimpse of the violent potentials of religions divisions, even though investigations later revealed it evolved from a petit dispute over property. Our society will resemble a disturbed beehive were religions fears and intolerance to be provoked and allowed to run amok.
The tendency of God politic is enduring, and we are often caught in its web. Even the most stable and peaceful societies with highly enlightened and decent believers, public life is vulnerable to political theologies and religious impulses. To address this vulnerability, we must be ever vigilant in identifying and promptly quelling its manifestations and threats, from whatever fanatical enclaves they emanate
While preserving our sacred entitlement to free expression of thoughts and beliefs, we must be wary of religious zealots and their “rhetorical fireworks,” especially those easily mistaking their public offices for the pulpit or the mosque.