Separation of church & state

It never ceases to amaze me that “religious extremists”—whatever that means—aggressively force the integration of their religious beliefs with government when this is clearly destructive to their own interests. For a religious state to prosper, the religion in question would inevitably become secularized to prevent collapse, the eruption of threatening riots, or simply dysfunction. Such accommodation for diverse citizens theoretically “weakens” the grasp of the religion on the individual, and the ideal exclusivity of the cult is eroded and destroyed. Islam was much more accepting when it was an empire than it is as practiced in its modern state. The empire collapsed just as it began to deny rights to half its population.

“Extremists” desire both rigidity and expansiveness—utterly impractical and unsustainable. If they truly abide by an inflexible and unyielding religious interpretation and elevate its practice above all else, they would forfeit the ideal of a state ruled by it for the sake of its preservation.

One thought on “Separation of church & state

  1. Khadeeja

    I couldn’t agree with this more!

    It really seems an oxymoron to enforce religion. Religious belief in itself and its consequent “legalistic” paradigm is about submission only to God and hence submission to the State or enforcing a particular religious paradigm has always seemed counterintuitive. Surely the most Islamic state is the secular one where all bodies of religion may use the legalistic idealsn from respective perspectives to inform the construction of what constitutes the State?



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s