Do we really want a theocracy

Do we really want a theocracy?

May 31, 2001

'Smatter of Fact
By Katharhynn Heidelberg

With its recent decision to label religious minorities in Afghanistan, the Taliban has proved that human beings have a hard time learning from history. It also provides a contemporary lesson, one that those who insist on a God-centered government in the United States would do well to consider.

Bringing God into public life is not a bad thing. It is, however, a personal thing, and government — any government — should keep its nose out of the matter. Government favoritism of one religion or another can lead to laws governing religion. Laws can lead to government control of religion. Religion is not tangible, but a concept, unique to each individual. There can be no one law concerning it that will satisfy everyone while oppressing no one. The Founding Fathers understood that much. The Taliban does not.

Talibs, as individuals, no doubt have sincere religious beliefs. We must be careful before pointing fingers, especially when Western history is not free of theocratic disasters and religious persecution. Yet, despite all the gray issues we come up hard against when questioning the spiritual motives of others, there are those that remain firmly black and white.

Jan Goodwin, a noted researcher of Islam, gives a clear picture of how theocratic ideals play out in reality: In Afghanistan, single women who appear in public with a male who is not a relative receive 100 lashes — all in the name of Allah. Married women committing the same offense are stoned to death. Girls with the temerity to wear nail polish have the tips of their thumbs amputated — all in the name of Allah. It goes almost without saying that the women in Taliban-controlled areas must completely veil themselves — according to the men in charge, Allah is offended by the very flesh He created.

Goodwin’s article noted that "weak" government officials have been "purged" because they "don’t have the courage" to punish every "offense." According to Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban’s leader, "Allah" has also made such things as picnics, wedding parties, children’s toys, kites, board games, photographs, paintings of people and animals, pet parakeets, magazines, newspapers and books illegal.

Forget about the Buddhist statues — Taliban is better at smashing lives and rights, and hiding behind God to do it. This is not "purity," but cowardice — maybe even blasphemy. Surely, the greater victory is a willing convert, as opposed to one who has accepted religious doctrine at the point of a sword, a gun, or a law.

As the Taliban regime plainly shows, muddling the separation between church and state in America is not a terribly sound idea. In fact, it might ultimately destroy the very constitutional principles that most of America holds dear: pursuit of happiness, exemption from cruel and unusual punishment, the rights of free speech, fair trial, and, oh, yeah, religious freedom.

When people base their decisions on spiritual beliefs, they exercise a basic human right. Members of the U.S. House have every right to begin each session with a prayer. Any atheist in the assembly has the right not to participate. First-graders have the right to read Bible stories in class. The parents of first-graders of other faiths have a golden opportunity to teach tolerance: "We don’t believe what Timmy believes, but Timmy has the right to believe it." Thus, women (and men) have the right to be as loose or as virtuous as they please — or, at least, to wear nail polish or be accompanied in public by non-relatives, sans head-to-toe swathing.

A theocracy is different. In a theocracy, the government not only tells a person what to do, but what to think, feel, and believe. It is about control, not spirituality. We would not tolerate this under any other guise — why tolerate it in the name of religion?