Recently, the Kazakh President signed a law tightening control over religious organizations in order to counter Islamist extremism. The law bans religious ceremonies in state institutions and requires religious groups and missionaries to re-register with the government. Though this law rouses a lot of discontent by various religious groups, the president stated that new law was needed to crack down on religious extremism, after they arrested several dozen suspected Islamist militants this summer. This news has roused a lot of discontent within various religious groups in Kazakhstan, specifically targeting minority groups who were not recognized within the government. However, the president urged that passing of this law is a necessity to stop terrorist activities from Muslim extremists.
One of the major issues in this news is the role of government in controlling the people’s freedom. To what extent is the government justified limiting civilians’ lives in the name of protection? Should the government be allowed to limit one’s freedom to provide safety, in this particular case, from Muslim extremist terrorist groups? Perhaps the government was justified, since in July, the Kazakh government had foiled a plot by a group of religious extremist militants that were organizing terrorist attacks. However, various religious authorities, even the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights stated that the law "appears to unnecessarily restrict the freedom of religion or belief and is poised to limit the exercise of this freedom." I believe there were also similar cases in the United States during the 9 11 attack, since the government passed the USA Patriot act, which allowed the government “to eavesdrop on telephone and email communications between the United States and people overseas without a warrant." Thus, is the government justified to intrude one’s privacy and restrict one’s freedom in the name of protection?
Furthermore, this news also raises a new issue- the issue of freedom of expression. To what extent are the people free to express their opinions, through various means, such as religion in this case? The US constitution and the OSCE (as mentioned above) argued that people should have a freedom of religion and choice. However, to what extent is this justifiable, since one’s religion or opinion may threaten or jeopardize other people’s freedom? For example, is it justifiable to allow radical Islamic groups, such as the Al-Qaeda to have the right of religious freedom in the world? Their radical perspectives and religious beliefs allowed them to commit atrocities such as the 911 attack, and even prompted unethical actions such as kidnapping, hijackings, and suicide attacks. Furthermore, in 1978, around 1000 innocent religious followers committed suicide by drinking cool aid since the government allowed the cult leader James Jones to spread his sadistic religious beliefs in America. By allowing the freedom of expression from these religious extremists, doesn’t it jeopardize other innocent people as well? Then on the other hand, should the freedom of religion be suppressed? Shouldn’t everyone have the right to choose their own religion and beliefs without being suppressed?
In my opinion, I believe that the government should not have the right to control the people’s privacy and freedom in the name of “safety”. Since it jeopardizes one’s own right and forces the people to constantly live in the fear of being spied on. Furthermore, I also believe that there should be religious freedom in the world. Throughout history, people were constantly suppressed and mistreated due to their religious beliefs. For example, (I’m sure you’re all familiar with), the Nazis prosecuted the Jews due to their differences in religion in World War II. Although this might pertain the risk of the existence of religious extreme groups, such as Al-Qaeda and religious cults such as the “People’s temple” (the one that James Jones led that ultimately led to the Jonestown massacre in 1978), it is more important for the people to have their rights to choose what they believe in, since I believe that everyone deserve their own freedom of religion and expression.
I believe that this issue still exists today, for example the issue of gay marriage. I believe that the government not only should not limit one’s orientation and preferences, but to openly embrace it and allow its freedom. Gay marriage should exist in America, since everyone deserves their own freedom of expression. However, the American government is still constantly battling between the freedom of expression and other limitations, such as the definition of marriage and other various catholic groups.
I agree with you that the decision in Kazakh to control religion in the name of safety is a little far-fetched. It is also quite racist---terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, and nationalities too, and terrorism is certainly not limited to the Muslim faith. A perfect example of terrorism from a stereotypically unlikely society is Anders Breivik, the Norwegian extremist who shot more than 60 people in July 2011.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called 'War on Terror' that was promoted by the Bush administration is another example of generally bigoted reasoning. The language used was very effective in promoting an image of a terrorist as a man from the Middle East, who is Muslim. Singling out one group of people as 'bad' is not going to help the situation at all, and will only be the cause of further catastrophe.