Losing My Religion
The inquisition remains a blight on Christendom, in particular the Roman Catholic Church. The Church instituted a committee in the late 1100s under the leadership of Pope Innocent III to combat heresy by trying different individuals and sometimes groups for different heretic accusations. Most notable for its methods and severity of punishments which included beheading and burning at the stake, the practice spread particularly in the predominantly Catholic European countries such as Spain and Portugal. In later centuries the inquisition would no longer restrict itself to Christians but would deal with even Jewish "heretics" till as late as the 18th Century when the practice abated due mainly to the spread of enlightenment ideas and the separation between state and the Church.
Estimators put the number of those burned at the stake in Portugal to around 1,800 while those burned in Spain are estimated at 31,912. These figures do not include various punishments meted out including public renunciations and burning of effigies (as a representative of the heretic). Interestingly, the fear of heresy became so severe that it was difficult for anyone to have independent thoughts towards religion. Martin Luther, William Tyndale and Jerome Huss are some of the names that had to take flight because they dared think differently when it came to religion. William Tyndale in particular only wanted to translate the Bible into a language understandable to common man. It is worth noting that much of the content of the King James Bible (much prized among conservative Christians) owes itself to Tyndale's work. Some of the methods used in extracting information from the accused would put Guantanamo bay to shame.
Court is in session
Enough history for now. The point I am trying to make is that religion and the state should never mix, if we have learnt anything from history. I met Patrick Choongo Chepa in Chongwe recently. Mr Choongo had the privilege of seating on the district constitutional review committee as one of the chairpersons. He told me how easy it was for the "Christian Nation" clause to go through without any debate. He seemed pretty happy about it and was surprised when I asked why people cannot see that this clause is not only unfair but is backward, retrogressive and is laden with explosive potential. He simply shrugged his shoulders and said he was only a facilitator.
I have watched with horror as every province has chosen to retain the clause in the constitution that declares Zambia a "Christian" nation. Surely history has taught us that if there ever was a flimsy foundation on which to build a nation, it must be religion. The lengthy preamble I have given regarding the inquisition shows how Europe for centuries grappled with gross abuse of human rights on the altar of religious expediency. A crime against humanity is bad enough, that it should be done as service to God is simply unacceptable.
The clause in question declares Zambia a Christian nation, but is quick to point out in sub-clauses that everyone is free to worship according to the dictates of one's conscience. The question is, if everyone is free to worship according to how they feel, why declare the country as Christian nation in the first place? Surely this is not only ambiguous but contradictory as well. Countries such as the Maldives that have enshrined Islam in their constitutions have made no secret of the fact that practicing of any other religion is a crime. If therefore we are going to declare Zambia a Christian nation, we might as well make it clear and outlaw the practice of any other religion. But as John Locke notes and I agree, the state lacks authority in the realm of individual conscience.
You will agree with me that the declaration was made by late former president Frederick Chiluba MHSRIP in a moment of whimsical excitement. The declaration was hailed by evangelicals and other Christians although some of us wondered what it meant and what changes if any it would bring. It appears very little change if anything has taken place since, apart from impassioned debates that defy logic. Those against the declaration have been vilified and called all sorts of names (in keeping with Christian practice?). I think the country is making a mistake, one that posterity will pay for. It is said that constitutions are a contract between the past, the present and the future. In this particular instant, it would seem we have forgotten the past and have ignored the future.
This brings me to another thorny issue when it comes to this declaration. This problem is more a result of Christianity itself than the drafting of the constitution. It begs an answer to the question "which brand of Christianity among the plethora of variations is the constitution referring to?" Our current president Mr Michael Sata has made no secret of the fact that he is Catholic and has regularly been attending mass. Do we take it that the constitution obeys the tenets of Catholicism? What if the MMD bounces back into power and Nevers Mumba, who is a devout Pentecostal and was a Tele-evangelist for years becomes president. Do we suddenly change and embrace that particular brand of Christianity? Then there is Hakainde Hichilema, the UPND president who I believe is Seventh-Day Adventist. Once in power, does he instruct that all shops be closed on Saturday in keeping with the constitution?
Then there is the sobering thought that Christianity is a foreign religion, imposed on us by our colonial and slave masters and eventually embraced by most of us. Should we not therefore identify with traditional Zambian religion on which we have both historical and ethnical ownership? What does it say about the chances of a non-christian leading this nation?
I am just trying to show some of the problems inherent in this declaration. I am just sad that in this day and age, an entire nation would choose to bind itself to a certain religion, a religion that has yet to reconcile itself to the divisions that it has. Suffice to add that the divisions are showing no signs of abating. And even if Christianity was as relatively homogeneous as say Islam, I still think it is unwise to declare a nation after a particular religion. This does not sit in well with democratic principles and as history has shown us can implode and work against the very unity intended in its inclusion.
Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the USA writing to the Danbury Baptist Church notes that "religion is a matter that lies solely between a man and his god". These words have been quoted by different people when advancing the debate for the separation between the state and religion. I may have my differences with Jefferson regrading his stance on slavery but I am bound to agree with him. It is not the preserve of the state to prescribe a religion for an individual albeit an entire nation. This not only short-sighted but problematic in the long run.
Socrates-executed by the Athenian state for "disrespect for the gods"
I borrowed the title from the Gregorian Chant, who have a song by that title. A recent debate on the BBC on why Africa remains poor was memorable for one contributor who claimed our over-reliance on religion is partly to blame. While it maybe unfair to heap all the blame on religion, I should note that I belong to that school of people who think we should look within ourselves as a people and rise above these shackles. "God helps those who help themselves" may not be a Biblical text but we would do well to expend our maximum effort. Certainly declaring Zambia a Christian nation is not the right way to go about it.
Estimators put the number of those burned at the stake in Portugal to around 1,800 while those burned in Spain are estimated at 31,912. These figures do not include various punishments meted out including public renunciations and burning of effigies (as a representative of the heretic). Interestingly, the fear of heresy became so severe that it was difficult for anyone to have independent thoughts towards religion. Martin Luther, William Tyndale and Jerome Huss are some of the names that had to take flight because they dared think differently when it came to religion. William Tyndale in particular only wanted to translate the Bible into a language understandable to common man. It is worth noting that much of the content of the King James Bible (much prized among conservative Christians) owes itself to Tyndale's work. Some of the methods used in extracting information from the accused would put Guantanamo bay to shame.
Enough history for now. The point I am trying to make is that religion and the state should never mix, if we have learnt anything from history. I met Patrick Choongo Chepa in Chongwe recently. Mr Choongo had the privilege of seating on the district constitutional review committee as one of the chairpersons. He told me how easy it was for the "Christian Nation" clause to go through without any debate. He seemed pretty happy about it and was surprised when I asked why people cannot see that this clause is not only unfair but is backward, retrogressive and is laden with explosive potential. He simply shrugged his shoulders and said he was only a facilitator.
I have watched with horror as every province has chosen to retain the clause in the constitution that declares Zambia a "Christian" nation. Surely history has taught us that if there ever was a flimsy foundation on which to build a nation, it must be religion. The lengthy preamble I have given regarding the inquisition shows how Europe for centuries grappled with gross abuse of human rights on the altar of religious expediency. A crime against humanity is bad enough, that it should be done as service to God is simply unacceptable.
The clause in question declares Zambia a Christian nation, but is quick to point out in sub-clauses that everyone is free to worship according to the dictates of one's conscience. The question is, if everyone is free to worship according to how they feel, why declare the country as Christian nation in the first place? Surely this is not only ambiguous but contradictory as well. Countries such as the Maldives that have enshrined Islam in their constitutions have made no secret of the fact that practicing of any other religion is a crime. If therefore we are going to declare Zambia a Christian nation, we might as well make it clear and outlaw the practice of any other religion. But as John Locke notes and I agree, the state lacks authority in the realm of individual conscience.
You will agree with me that the declaration was made by late former president Frederick Chiluba MHSRIP in a moment of whimsical excitement. The declaration was hailed by evangelicals and other Christians although some of us wondered what it meant and what changes if any it would bring. It appears very little change if anything has taken place since, apart from impassioned debates that defy logic. Those against the declaration have been vilified and called all sorts of names (in keeping with Christian practice?). I think the country is making a mistake, one that posterity will pay for. It is said that constitutions are a contract between the past, the present and the future. In this particular instant, it would seem we have forgotten the past and have ignored the future.
This brings me to another thorny issue when it comes to this declaration. This problem is more a result of Christianity itself than the drafting of the constitution. It begs an answer to the question "which brand of Christianity among the plethora of variations is the constitution referring to?" Our current president Mr Michael Sata has made no secret of the fact that he is Catholic and has regularly been attending mass. Do we take it that the constitution obeys the tenets of Catholicism? What if the MMD bounces back into power and Nevers Mumba, who is a devout Pentecostal and was a Tele-evangelist for years becomes president. Do we suddenly change and embrace that particular brand of Christianity? Then there is Hakainde Hichilema, the UPND president who I believe is Seventh-Day Adventist. Once in power, does he instruct that all shops be closed on Saturday in keeping with the constitution?
Then there is the sobering thought that Christianity is a foreign religion, imposed on us by our colonial and slave masters and eventually embraced by most of us. Should we not therefore identify with traditional Zambian religion on which we have both historical and ethnical ownership? What does it say about the chances of a non-christian leading this nation?
I am just trying to show some of the problems inherent in this declaration. I am just sad that in this day and age, an entire nation would choose to bind itself to a certain religion, a religion that has yet to reconcile itself to the divisions that it has. Suffice to add that the divisions are showing no signs of abating. And even if Christianity was as relatively homogeneous as say Islam, I still think it is unwise to declare a nation after a particular religion. This does not sit in well with democratic principles and as history has shown us can implode and work against the very unity intended in its inclusion.
Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the USA writing to the Danbury Baptist Church notes that "religion is a matter that lies solely between a man and his god". These words have been quoted by different people when advancing the debate for the separation between the state and religion. I may have my differences with Jefferson regrading his stance on slavery but I am bound to agree with him. It is not the preserve of the state to prescribe a religion for an individual albeit an entire nation. This not only short-sighted but problematic in the long run.
Socrates-executed by the Athenian state for "disrespect for the gods"
I borrowed the title from the Gregorian Chant, who have a song by that title. A recent debate on the BBC on why Africa remains poor was memorable for one contributor who claimed our over-reliance on religion is partly to blame. While it maybe unfair to heap all the blame on religion, I should note that I belong to that school of people who think we should look within ourselves as a people and rise above these shackles. "God helps those who help themselves" may not be a Biblical text but we would do well to expend our maximum effort. Certainly declaring Zambia a Christian nation is not the right way to go about it.
Comments
Post a Comment