A conversation with a blogger

I am posting a copy of a post by another blogger and my comments and follow ups for archiving here, in case the original blogger decides to delete the posts.

On Tuesday April 21 2009, person non grata posted an article titled Democratic Deism:

Keeping Maldives a Muslim state is being decried by some as a prejudice against the minority of the country. The fact that the vast majority (some would say 100%) of the country's populace are Muslims obviously weighs in on developing the laws and regulations of the country. Questioning this practice is questioning the prudence of democracy itself.

Consider Switzerland, which is one of the world's most revered direct democracies. It is a nation renowned for its tolerance and neutrality. Yet, every now and then the majority exercise their right to rescind that of the minority. A very real example of this is the referendum to ban minarets in Switzerland.

In the same vein, the Maldivian people have a right to refuse the building of churches in the country. They also have the right to ban the public practice of any deistic/theistic beliefs of their choosing. To deny them these rights is to deny them democracy.

My comment for that post:

Is this a troll? Anyway I will bite.

Democracy is a fancy name for tyranny-by-majority, especially if it goes unchecked. But whether it is a democracy or a republic (which by the way is what I personally would prefer), there has to be protection of life, liberty and property of individuals. The problem with the Maldives constitution is that it doesnt protect the civil liberties of people. It gives draconian powers to the Majlis, where the rights of citizens can be revoked at the stroke of a vote by the majority.

Just imagine if you are on the receiving end of the stick. Right now religious sects are proliferating in Maldives, and there is hard crackdown. But such acts will only exacerbate the problems. As a Muslim I do not want the state to dictate and coerce me into following a particular sect of Islam. It used to be that all Maldivians should follow the Shafiee mazhab (not you btw :), but now that the people at MoIA is mostly Wahhabi, do you want Wahhabism to be mandated? Or Shafiee mazhab to be mandated? It should be left to the individual and the state should have no say on that. Similarly, if the Dots want to pray in separate mosque, so be it. State should not coerce them to pray at selected mosques. It is the same as asking the moderate muslims to pray at a church. Same applies to other religions. If someone wants to follow different religion state should allow it. Do you want to see the day if for example there is Christian majority in Majlis, and they amend the constitution to force Christianity upon us? I certainly don't. But sadly, Maldivians will gladly agree to enforce a sect or religion as long as it is his/her sect/religion.

We should be more respectful and tolerant of our fellow humans. I have written on these topics.

Sorry for the long comment.

On April 22 2009, a follow up titled Democratic Deism (a follow-up) was posted:

This is in reply to a few observations made by meekaaku in reply to the last post.

Come the day Christianity ousts Islam in Maldives, the public will have to accept it (this author certainly will). The mosques can be taken down and the Qurans in the libraries replaced with Bibles, but the people will have the right to practice their religions in seclusion (it is a belief system after all, so who can stop people from believing?).

This is the right Christians and people from other religions have. There are plenty of non-Muslims practicing their respective religions in private gatherings. This is not to say that they cannot work towards converting the majority of the country (oppressing these efforts would be tyrannous).

As liberties go, there are few greater than agreeing upon a common belief system which enables optimal communal performance. This liberty was served when the Special Majlis declared Maldives an Islamic state in the new constitution. Consider the consequences of having declared it a Christian state.

Keeping democracy in check is what MoIA and the rest of the government's gestapo-factions are already doing. The Majlis is ineffectual in holding the government accountable because it is constitutionally compromised. The current state of affairs in Maldives can already be summed up as tyrannous. Through this tyranny the government has started seeding the notions of theistic plurality.

My comment for this follow up:

"There are plenty of non-Muslims practicing their respective religions in private gatherings."

Maybe for expats, but for Maldivians it is illegal. Well by definition, you have to be a mulsim to be a citizen. Hence a maldivian practicing a different religion is by definition not a Maldivian! And yet the state lets them keep their passports and other benefits that a mulsim Maldivian gets. So why don't we just get rid of that requirement of being muslim to be a maldivian. Lets put a stop to this recursive definition.
-----

"This is not to say that they cannot work towards converting the majority of the country (oppressing these efforts would be tyrannous)."

And oppressed it is. No one can preach (let alone openly) another religion legally here.
---

"This liberty was served when the Special Majlis declared Maldives an Islamic state in the new constitution. Consider the consequences of having declared it a Christian state."

Liberty was served by denying the liberty to choose one's own religion?
----

"Keeping democracy in check is what MoIA and the rest of the government's gestapo-factions are already doing."

Keeping democracy in check by suppressing free speech, invading privacy and surveillance? Yeah, Big Brother is watching us.