Egypt is taking baby steps towards removing the dread influence of religion from government, AL Monitor‘s Rami Galal reports:
Continuing its efforts to separate church and state, Egypt has banned its imams from preaching in mosques while running for political office, a move that is stirring controversy among officials, legal experts and, of course, imams.
The Egyptian Ministry of Awqaf (Endowments) issued a statement Aug. 24 that read: “In order to prevent mosques from being used as political platforms, the ministry shall ban all preachers running for parliamentary elections from delivering sermons or religious lectures in mosques starting the first day they announce their nomination until the completion of the election process, so as to prevent them from promoting themselves or others through the use of religion for electoral interests.”
The ministry went further, deciding to “irrevocably strip its leaders who decide to run for elections of their leadership position and privileges within the ministry.”
It appears imams are employed by the Ministry. The Ministry justifies the decision using reasoning reminiscent of that used for the creation of the United States’ First Amendment:
Abdel-Latif added, “The nomination of an imam or a preacher would place the ministry in a very critical situation, in light of its efforts to separate religion from politics and to prevent Salafists and other religious parties from using the mosques as political outlets for their campaigns.”
He pointed out, “Had the ministry allowed its imams to run for parliamentary elections, the political Islamic movement would have accused it of using double standards. The mere appearance of a candidate on the political arena, especially if associated with the Ministry or Al-Azhar, would be regarded as a call to support him in the elections, even if he has not particularly called upon people to vote for him. This is especially true since people in Egypt place clerics on a pedestal, even if they lack political savvy.”
Some of the officials and imams are unhappy, but given the religious fury experienced by England as various sects took control of the monarchy from Henry VIII onwards, the realization that a religious figure capable of exciting the emotions of the mob acting in this capacity is quite important, and putting a muzzle on it makes complete sense – from the point of the officials responsible for public peace. To the religious figure, on the other hand, the muzzle is uncomfortable and unflattering, as it seems to label them as, somehow, unclean – despite their close association with God. Thus the Alliance Defending Freedom organization in the United States, as reported by CNN‘s Dan Merica in 2012:
“In light of what I have presented,” Johnson says he will say, “How can you go into that election booth and vote for Barack Obama as president of the United States?”
What Johnson plans to do is in violation of the IRS’ so-called Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that has made it illegal for churches that receive tax exempt status from the federal government to intervene in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
Why is Johnson so brazenly violating that law this Sunday? Strength in numbers: He will be joined by at least 1,400 others pastors across the United States.
Johnson’s sermon is part of a wider effort by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization that since 2008 has organized Pulpit Freedom Sunday, when they encourage and pledge to help pastors who willfully violate the Johnson Amendment by endorsing from the pulpit.
Religious reasoning feels quite right to them, as they take their guidance from religious tomes – without ever realizing that exciting the religious loathing of other groups who disagree on some obscure – to me! – point leads to a more fragmented and ineffective civil discourse. In the end, history teaches us the more religion-blind the government and the citizenry become, the more peaceful society becomes. This does not mean agnostic or atheist, but having the sensibility that religion has a limited sphere in which to operate, and once it moves beyond the sphere, no matter how well-meaning, one may experience disaster. This may tie in with the thoughts expressed in this post, which I daydream about expanding on some day.
