Jessica Rogers
February 13, 2009
4:08 pm
Every day, Maher al-Gohary and his daughter live each day in fear of their lives as a result of abandoning Islam, for Christianity. Anyone at anytime could kill him and his daughter while walking down the streets of Cairo. Maher al-Gohary's case is simple enough, for all he wants is legal recognition for his religious beliefs so that his identification documents might identify him as a Christian. The Egyptian Civil Rights laws allow for such recognition to be granted, however, the problem is that the law is being ignored by judges and officials controlled by their own religious beliefs and loyalty to the Islamic faith. Human rights lawyers believe that if this case were to be successful, it would benefit not only Maher al-Gohary and his daughter, but huge numbers of Muslims would be attempting to convert to the Christian faith. While Christians within Egypt do exist, most have to live in hiding and practice their religion in secret. But as far as the case of Maher al-Gohary, all he truly wants is to be able to practice the religion he loves, in the country in which he grew up.
I could not imagine what it would be like to live within your beloved country and not be able to practice your religious beliefs without fearing each and every day for your life and the lives of your family members. The law itself shows no reason why Maher al-Gohary cannot be officially identified as a Christian. It is simply the influence of the Islamic faith and the loyalty to the Islamic faith within the Egyptian judicial system. This is why I think that it is so important that religion and state be kept separate entities. Have whatever religious belief that you wish, but using religion as a bias within a civil rights case is just taking it much too far. Something needs to be done about this. It is not right for an individual's civil rights and public safety to be compromised merely because their religious beliefs are outside of the 'norm.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7888193.stm
2 comments:
It seems to me (as well as to you, I think) that it seems reasonable for all countries to allow for general individual freedoms, and that it's equally reasonable for countries to refuse to allow the state to interfere with religion (and vice versa). When it's clear that many countries do not follow these principles (not even our own, in some instances!), it becomes frustrating. But what are we to do when the fundamental things we believe about human and civil rights are (sometimes fundamentally) opposed by other nations? Should we allow what we see as injustice to continue? It seems to me that the international community has responded rather strongly to the story of this man, and in doing so has made its decision NOT to allow what it perceives as injustice to continue. It further seems to me that this man is risking danger to himself in order to be used as a precedent case, so that others following him in Egypt will have the freedom to identify themselves with the religions they choose. The more troubling circumstance, though (I think), is the fact that the general public is issuing threats to this man. Oftentimes changing the mind of people is as important as changing the laws that are written on paper rather than into people's worldviews.
While it is truly terrible to think that this man and his daughter risk loosing their lives for the sake of their Christianity, it is a sad reality that they could be counted as the lucky ones; after all, were they members of a different society they might be fleeing their own relatives, rather than strangers on the street. Religious persecution is happening around the globe, and poses a threat to millions of people. My question is this: what is it about Christianity that would cause this man and his daughter to risk their lives for it?
Post a Comment