In Theory: Would India’s new rule work here?
The Supreme Court of India ruled this month that politicians cannot seek votes in the name of religion, caste, creed or language, the Financial Express reports.
Elections are a secular exercise, the seven-member bench said, adding that “the relationship between man and God is an ‘individual choice’ and that the state cannot interfere in it,” according to the Economic Times.
Q. What do you think of the court’s ruling? Is this something that could or should be adopted in America?
Not being familiar with India’s constitution, I can’t say whether or not the Indian Supreme Court’s decision was appropriate according to Indian law. Supreme Court decisions, including those of our own country, can tend to inappropriately create new legislation instead of interpreting it.
But whether or not the decision was true to India’s constitution, I do not personally agree with the policy it created. And the policy of disqualifying a presidential candidate on the basis of running in the name of his faith should absolutely not be adopted in America. That would grossly violate our cherished freedoms of speech and religion. And contrary to the Indian Supreme Court’s statement, elections can never truly be completely secular exercises because the people who run for office and the people who vote for them are not completely secular.
Faith will always be a factor in every human election because faith is an integral element of the human condition. Voters of faith (and those who have none) want to know the religious positions of the candidates, and candidates make policy on the basis of their faith, or lack thereof. God can never be factored out of man’s pursuits, political or not. When Moses asked God what his name was, “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am’” (Exodus 3:14). God exists, truly, eternally and undeniably, ever present in the world and the affairs of men. No human court or legislature can ever negate or frustrate his presence and influence.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
..
The separation of church and state is clearly articulated in the establishment clause of the the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment. However, inasmuch as “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it also cannot prohibit “the free exercise thereof.”
What this means is that it is unlawful for the state to place crucifixes in voting booths, but it cannot prohibit a church from placing a crucifix on its private property. As far as seeking votes in the name of religion, even though, in this country, neither the state nor a candidate can demand those of a certain faith or caste vote a certain way, as stated in one of the articles, you also “can’t ban identity.” The state cannot tell a person to hide their religious beliefs or their social status, whether they are running for office or voting. Not only would this be deceptive and an infringement of free speech, as the article also states, “A sweeping ban on the use of identity for political mobilization is going to be unimplementable.”
India’s sociological structure and schema are older and very different than that of the U.S., so this ruling certainly has much different implications in India. Even still, I don’t see how it would work. Frankly, I understand the impetus behind the desire to remove religion and caste from politics altogether. Believe me, I would love to do that! Ultimately, though, how people define themselves and are defined by society is not something the state can or should control, supreme court ruling or not.
Joshua Lewis Berg
Humanist Celebrant
Glendale
..
I do not have an in-depth knowledge of India, however I have been there and can say that it is a country with a veritable cacophony of religions, castes, creeds and languages. Their system of government is a secular democracy, which poses quite a challenge given their great diversity and the divisive aftermath of their centuries under British imperialism.
Maintaining official secularism is the goal of the four Supreme Court Justices voting in favor of the decision, but three justices were opposed, the close decision reflecting its controversial nature. The speculation is that violations will be frequent and enforcement difficult in such a huge country.
As a thorough-going secularist I wish India well in this effort to keep religion out of government. I want my leaders, and those campaigning to lead, to focus on our evident economic and social problems and address what they plan to do about them.
One’s religion and other tribal identities should be irrelevant in the public realm, particularly if you are hungry, ill-housed, uneducated or otherwise in need.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose