The freedom of religion is one of the most significant parts of the democratic development within a society. In this respect, it depends on an individual, what he/she believes in and his/her own choices. Otherwise, if a definite religion is imposed on the society, it states there is nothing to do with a free choice and democracy. It seems that state is still going far from the church, trying to highlight points on the real life full of experiences and science. However, the church as a transcendent body of the nation usually states is not seriously taken into consideration. Thus, religious freedom seems to be stated solely on the official papers, but in reality it is closely related to persecution.
First of all, God gave a man the right of choice, whether to be with Him or to reject. Of course, there might be some outcomes for people, depending on what they have chosen. However, even God gives such a right, but people who are related to the church are constantly trying to get this right back from those who think differently. The question is that “despite routine constitutional promises to the contrary, religious freedoms are denied around the globe and violent persecution is pervasive” (Grim & Finke, 2010, p. 2). Hence, religious plurality in the modern age is somewhat related to extremism and social conflicts.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
To reduce this ominous flow that touches upon hearts of believers, referred to various religions, the government along with the people has to find out the legal basis to sort it out. The Constitution is the main legal document, where the religious freedom is obvious. However, the real life with all impediments, appearing on the way of believers and non-believers does not let people sigh with a relief, as it has turned into a holistic contradiction.
In regards to the government, it is apparent that it will have some preferences related to “government favoritism of religion” which presupposes some “restricted freedom measures” (Marshall, 2007, p. 43). Given that, religious freedom seems vague and indistinctive in its main points, as the majority may interpret it differently, favoring their own truth, first of all. Thus, religious plurality is a subtle matter that can be easily bruised, depending on the social and political pressure from outside. Persecution is inevitable in this case. It is a logical outcome when the democratic society refuses someone’s freedom of consciousness trying to imply it as something threatening to the national public opinion and moral state. Here comes the real conflict when church and state follow their own ways with no point to coherence for the sake of peace which comes out from freedom.
Promotion of religious liberty as a universal human right is the main solution which may become the “helping hand” for oppressed people, having no positive feedback due to their personal choice of what to believe (Religious Freedom as a Human Right, 2007). Moreover, those groups of people with different judgments of the religious thought, once fully relied on their candidates who might have promised to follow the letter of law and the promises he/she might have given to the electorate. Obviously, it is because the officials cannot or are unable to keep their promises before the electorate. Thus, it leads to social conflicts and demoralization of the society in which the religious postulates run counter to some peaceful solutions of the problem.
To maintain peace and order within the country, the officials are to take care of solving the problem of religious freedom. In fact, it should not be a problem, as it is a right and a freedom of a democratic society which belongs to everyone. The thing is that persecuted people are hard to govern (Hertzke, 2012, p. 321). Thereupon, nowadays religious freedom goes hand in hand with persecution. In the near future, it does not make everyone believe in the rational solution. However, it should not be taken for granted, but deeply researched and evaluated, so that to know what should be improved so far.
Being persecuted for what one believes in, but not because one believes is quite absurd. In times of total demoralization and lack of humane, it is quite significant that there are believers, irrespectively of what/whom they worship. It makes the society diverse and this diversity leads to the well-being thereof. Hence, religious persecution is, definitely, a dark side of democracy. It is a point of mismatch and favoritism which gives nothing but destruction. In turn, people feel, as if their main rights were neglected in favor of some groups of the society. This depolarization should be omitted in no time.
Given that, the religious freedom today is solely in minds of believers, as there are various cases of persecution, due to different social and political events. This is why the democratic standards are discredited, as they were firstly refused by the officials and the government with further circulation in the society. As a result, it leads to social conflicts between supporters of different views on religion and religious freedom, in particular. If the situation remains the same, it will turn into mass riots and total destruction of the internal peace in the country. Thus, if it is stated in the Constitution and then supported by subsequent acts that everyone has a right for religious freedom, then the government and the society should cultivate this idea over and over again.