My Facebook friend, Rick Staggenborg, posted the following on my Facebook Wall with a link to the article linked to above in this post:
Egypt is at a crossroads as the protests against the military government turn violent. The spirit of unity was disrupted in the aftermath of "victory" over Mubarak when sectarian tensions and violence re-emerged.
Will Egyptians learn the lesson that democracy cannot exist in a theocracy in time to save the Revolution?
The following is my comment to him on it:
I've communicated with many Muslims. I've communicated with many Egyptians both Muslim and Coptic Christian. I've discussed with them, up to the point they are willing, about the Muslim Brotherhood. I've also listened to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood via their written statements, their videos, and the various news outlets (mainstream and alternative) that quote them, etc.
What I've discovered is that the Muslim Brotherhood is not static. It has moved a great deal over the decades. They don't see theocratic sharia as the answer for the Ummah.
There is widespread disagreement within Islam as to what constitutes sharia. For the most part, those of the "Islamists" (a term I don't care for, for reasons I won't go into here), I'll just call Muslim activists, fall back on that they want their nation-state laws to be based upon Islamic values.
That term or concept is what has undergone such a huge shift to more of the Turkish approach. It is Westernized Islam if you will.
Personally, I understand both sides of the issue. I can see where the fundamentalists don't buy much if any of the so-called modern Western ideas while the Turks and others do to Islam what was done to Christianity in many respects post-"Enlightenment," with the steady erosion of the Papacy over the centuries now -- not a bad thing since the Popes have yet to stand up for exactly what Jesus did and said.
I don't see the Arab Spring in Egypt or elsewhere turning into even an Iranian-style hybrid-theocracy. I do see those states struggling to come to some sensible and workable understanding of what "Islamic values" even are -- a question I've recently put directly to Muslims who so far, not uncharacteristically, have ducked.
Whether they ignore me directly or not, they will not be able to ignore the issue. The question is out there and not just because I alone have asked it. It's being asked in hundreds and even thousands of ways every day simply because they are faced with practicalities and questions based upon concerns across the world.
As for the idea that democracy can't exist in a theocracy, I can see where you're coming from on that; but ultimately it's an error in logic. If everyone agrees, it's still democratic. The real issues are much deeper.
Also, the issue of Islam, provided the Brotherhood is not being disingenuous, and I don't think they are in general, is not the main obstacle. The worse obstacle is militarism. The Egyptian military is being vastly less enlightened than is the Muslim Brotherhood at this point. The military is bing much more unreasonable.
What I don't want you to take away from this statement of mine though is that I have no concerns about the lack of freedom of religion in Egypt. It is of great concern to me that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't out in front and surrounding the Copts such that no evil "Muslims" can throw literal stones at the Copts as they process for freedom of conscience for everyone, which is what they are doing. Despite lies by some self-styled Muslims, the Copts are not calling for coercing others to Christianity.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)