I often watch insert fox news show here (to see other viewpoints) and I have been noticing many of the notable Christian anti-atheist talking heads are actually rooting for a secular Egypt. I know they are worried about strict Islamic rule and in their minds they must be justifying it based on a “lesser of two evils” approach.
I thought this raised an interesting point though. These particular correspondents are leading the charge when it comes to trying to move the U.S. away from being a secular state and are always talking about “fundamental Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded”. Is it fair to use this as an argument supporting Atheism and secular values by pointing out the hypocrisy? How would you counter the argument that a purely Judeo-Christian state would somehow be better than a strict “Sharia Law” Islamic state?
** I realize “secular state” != no religion / atheism. **
There's certainly an element of hypocrisy there, yes.
In so far as countering the argument that Leviticus would be better than Sharia, the best thing you can do is to demystify them both---don't treat Sharia as an evil boogieman, treat it as a legal system in parallel to the Jewish and modern legal systems. Find the scenarios where Jewish law is worse than Sharia, and use the verses from Christianity pointing out that Jesus is there to fulfill the law, not replace it (i.e. Christians don't get to ignore Leviticus).
They may counter with the "cast the first stone" parable, in which case you can nail them to the wall with gay rights and abortion (assuming they're conservative), or alternatively point out that there are plenty of "liberal" Sharia interpretations as well.
Once you've driven the debate into either facts (conservatives) or relativism (liberals)---which they aren't seriously prepared to deal with, ironically---simply step back and state that nobody wants to live under a legal system where "sassback = stoning" is what the law actually says, regardless of how much of that edge is taken off by later interpretation.
If you've planned it out, you can make sure you discuss the US constitution and (for conservatives) their strict constructionist viewpoints before you start talking about Sharia and Leviticus so you can hammer them with the inconsistency at this point.
I would describe the people you’re talking about as deeply confused and ignorant of their own society’s history. When it comes to Islam, they can actually display great clarity in understanding the dangers of theocracy and the necessity of secularism, better than many a liberal in fact. However, they simply can’t manage to apply that same clear thinking to their own faith. The historically and intellectually false idea of the “fundamental Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded” is the root of their misunderstanding. They believe that Christianity is inherently an enlightened and mild religion; that it created secularism because it’s so nice it doesn’t mind co-existing with other faiths.
This gets cause and effect exactly backwards, and forgets how Christianity actually did behave when it was in charge. Christianity is only so mild and convivial now because the West has had centuries of secular argument and agitation to beat it into submission. When the principle of church/state separation was first being formulated in the 13 colonies, the immediate concern was prejudice and persecution going on amongst the different Christian sects. Because state and church have been separate for some time now, the old sectarian feuds that once mattered so much are forgotten by most lay Christians.
This is one reason why these folks don’t really scare me very much. The moment they start getting their way is the moment they start losing. Because once they have power, suddenly the sectarian splits get thrown into sharper relief. You could see a hint of how this would go when some evangelical Tea Partiers expressed displeasure that Glen Beck was so prominent in the movement. Not because of the completely insane things he says, but because he’s a Mormon. Religions can’t help themselves; if let off the secular leash, Christianity would revert to its old jerktastic ways, resulting in a resurgence of support for secularism, even amongst conservatives.
Secular states have historically been tolerant to religious practice, so a Christian can expect that his fellows in Egypt can practice their cult more likely than if an Islamic regime would be in power, although the Islamic religion is founded in … - you name it: Judeo-Christian roots.
I can’t answer your question perfectly, but I suspect some are worried about the implications for Israel. Some of Israel’s neighbours have tried to wipe it off the map in the past (not pre-1967 borders - entirely off the map), and an Islamic government might be more likely to try it again than a secular one.
I think in the particular case of Egypt this has one definite answer (but in other situations the answer may differ).
The point is that the USA, other Western nations, but particularly the religious right in the USA have always supported Israel against the Islamic states.
A non-secular Egypt state would mean a massive potential threat to Israel so the only alternative in the eyes of the religious right is a secular state that can tolerate a Jewish state on its border.
score: 0
Maybe I’ll get down voted like Joe (whose points I completely agree with). As others have said its partly about Israel. And Israel is (for some) about the fullfillment of prophesies which are considered to be preconditions for the second coming/rapture.
But, it is also the fact that Islam is being made out to be the bogeyman/threat. And Eqypt has roughly 10% Christians, so any religious state would be considered unfriendly to the rights goals. But, mostly its just another case of fearmongering because that fires up the base (and for the media the listeners). I’m not sure how they would react if it was an Orthodox (Eastern branch of Chritianity) revival taking place. And well it really is the United States soft-empire colonialism that is unraveling here.
And these revolutions are partly about taking power and wealth back from the local oligarchies, and the US right has made being their tool into haa political tactic.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.