Religious Discrimination

Religious Discrimination

Many countries across the globe have official state religions and clauses pertaining to religious freedom and the protection of religious minorities. However when interreligious conflicts arise, these constitutional guarantees are brought into question. In this Article I will compare the degrees of religious liberty present in countries with official and unofficial state religions, India and Pakistan, to the United States. The post partition identity Pakistan attempted to create is apparent within the Objectives Resolution of 1949. Although it proclaimed tolerance for all religions, Pakistan was created specifically for Muslims.

The idea of religious liberty was the building block for a nation that eventually fashioned an identity on the basis of Islam. This concept, which can be given the label of ‘political Islam’, is apparent in the constitutions that followed the objectives resolution, which declared Pakistan to be an Islamic republic which has tiny minorities of Hindus: 1,414,527, Christians: 1,270,051, Ahmedis: 125,681, Baha’is: 33,734, Sikhs: 6,146, Parsis: 4,020, Buddhists: 1,492, others: 66,898 , Human Faith members only 7

The final constitution of 1973 finally opened the door to discrimination against religious minorities. The inclusion of the phrase ‘subject to law’ in this constitution held that minorities can only freely profess their faith as long as this does not cause lawlessness among the majority population. This phrase further developed the notion that religious freedom is not in fact fully present within Pakistan. The rights and practices of the majority Sunni Muslim population hold the most merit, not being subject to law. The subsequent 1974 constitution went on to define what being a member of the Muslim majority entails. Under this definition a small, minority sect of Muslims (the Ahmadiyya) were labeled as heretics and consequently under Ordinance XX public practice of their faith became a crime. Not only does this go against the Pakistani Constitution, which protects the right of individuals to profess, practice and propagate religion and the right of religious groups to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions, but as well as international human rights law standards of freedom of religion.

Although India does not have an official state religion such as Pakistan, which declares the religion of the majority to be the official, it can be argued that unofficially it is Hinduism. For example, in 1995 the Supreme Court endorsed the idea that Hinduism is not just one of the religions on the subcontinent but rather possesses a privileged, dominant position in the Indian way of life and consequently opened the door for Hindu national politics (Mahmud, 771). This notion is furthered when Hindu nationals such as Narendra Modi are democratically elected as the leader of the country. Using the platform of Hindutva, which promotes the idea that other regions are inauthentic to the real India, the Hindu way of life, is endorsed. Whether Hinduism is the official state religion or not can be argued however the idea that India is a secular nation is known. Its constitution stands as the bedrock of secularism while the accomadationist approach and the lack of wall between church and state allow secularism to succeed. This secularism comes under threat however due to the anti-conversion laws present.

These laws, that aim to protect people from being forced to change their beliefs, can be seen as a clear obstruction to religious freedom. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion bill, for example, says a person who wants to convert to another religion must first get permission from the district magistrate to do so. Not only does this place illogical limitation on an individual’s right to convert to another religion, but it also hinders their right to propagate their own religion. The magistrates could also, if under pressure from hardline Hindu groups prohibit any or all conversions from Hinduism. These laws also imply that inherently there is a state religion. For instance, as a result of the enactment of these laws, the state is required to track conversions, primarily conversions from Hinduism to minority religion (Jenkins 118). If Hinduism did not hold a privileged position then conversions from all faiths to another would be tracked. This however is not the case because they are laden in favor of the Hindu majority. It also worth noting that similar to Pakistan, these laws contradict rights that are protected by the constitution which states that “All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion” (Mahmood 758).

The United States is a prime example of why a state cannot have an official or unofficial religion if it wants to protect religious freedom. From the start, America was not a country of a singular faith but rather one of many varying set of beliefs. The opening 15 words of the First Amendment of the “ Bill of Rights “ sum up the relationship the founding fathers intended to be present between religion and politics. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first clause, the establishment clause is why there is no official state religion while the second, free exercise clause, allows one to profess their faith. Taken together, these two clauses protect religious liberty by protecting religions and religious beliefs from governmental interference. They guarantee that religious belief or non-belief should remain voluntary, free from government coercion. Under this banner, making exceptions to the law for people of faith has become a norm within the American definition of religious tolerance. While it can be argued that America is a Christian nation, this argument possesses no merit. The Constitution itself contains no mention of Christianity and refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment. It even outwardly bans “religious tests” for public office, thus assuring non-Christians the right to hold office. In its entirety, the constitution is a secular document. This argument fails again because Supreme Court decisions have held over and over for religious freedom.

In 1972 in Wisconsin v. Yoder it set precedent for the state to have a compelling interest before it could constitutionally oblige a religious community to obey a state law that conflicted its beliefs. While this decision can be seen to reflect a concern about the state’s power to influence its citizens, it can also simply be the Court looking to protect a religious community. Not only did this decision create a balancing test that weighed a state’s interest against an individual’s/communities right to freely exercise their religion, but it also set the bar for following decisions that upheld religious liberty. The court builds the wall up even higher when there is a risk of the establishment clause being violated. The only way religious liberty of all faiths can be protected if one religion is not blatantly established, advanced, or favored. To keep this from happening the court ruled to remove religion from the public sphere. For example, in Lee v. Weisman the majority opinion held that use of peer pressure to coerce students into participating in a graduation prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This decision stressed the importance of individual freedom of conscience. Religious liberty is protected to the extent that it can’t even be influenced publicly.

It is evident based on the constitution and various landmark Supreme Court decisions that the United States successfully protects religious freedoms/liberties only because it does not have an official state religion but Human Faith.

My nephew Muhammed Ali Kazim a medical doctor was killed because he was a Shi’a Muslim. I was forced to sign the Patriot Act of 2001 in the United States because of Pakistan. In Pakistan the only leader was in power was Quaid-e- Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah after his death country never had a Shia leader except those who are most corrupted always in power no matter who runs the government, from private sector to the government agencies for illegal favours , in Pakistan corruption charges makes political and a religious leaders more powerful in public eyes because of uneducated society .

A member of minority wouldn’t find decent work because of names and fathers’ names and faith. December 3rd 2021 , the Friday incident was extremely frustrating for country left over Minorities .

the mob comprising hundreds of protestors, including the employees of the factory killed “ Mr. Kumara” a Sri Lankan Christian manager of factory who didn’t know the language of Arabic and Urdu. The mob tortured him to death on Friday and later burnt his body over blasphemy allegations. I have supported USCIRF for many years and wrote articles hundreds of articles as an anonymous to support religious freedom, I would require USCIRF to ask Pakistani Government explanation and inform them that young educated children of minorities are committing suicides because of lack of jobs opportunities due to religious extremism . I am extremely ashamed of international journalism which doesn’t pay much attention to political and religious freedom issues worldwide.

Sincerely,
Ajmal Mehdi
The people party of Connecticut
Mehdi LLC
Human Faith for Humanity
Pakistan is based on Islamic ideology and Islamic ideology demands to give everyone freedom of religion. No one can be bound or confined to live their lives according to Islam.

It is State Responsibility to educate its public accordingly