Mohamed Elzarka

POL3062: Beyond Belief

Prof. Jenkins
November 2, 2014
Response Paper to Asad and Taylor
This weeks readings discussed religious freedom, the differences between the adoption
of religion and the manifestations of the practice of religion, and some of the different aspects
that comprise conversion. This specific combination of topics was very intriguing, because it
addressed some of the most basic questions of how religion is experienced by every individual
and how religion can spread from one individual to the next. The articles also presented some
interesting responses to ideas of how religious choices and religious practices including
proselytism can be governed.
The first piece for the week was written by Paul M. Taylor and describes some of the
basic religious rights outlined for all humans in a few documents drafted by the United Nations.
The most central of these rights is the freedom to choose any religion for oneselfthis right is
considered non-derogable in any circumstances. That is to say, each individual is free to believe
in any system of religion or non-religion of their choosing and this right cannot be taken away by
any governmental authority. While it may seem inherent that every person has the right to
believe whatever they want, the important reason behind this law is not to reaffirm this natural
phenomenon, but to protect those who may be of a minority religious status from being
persecuted for their beliefs or being attacked violently for the differences in spirituality that they
might have with the religious majority. This becomes especially important when considering
conversion and conversion processes. In my opinion, this law is both self-explanatory and

intrinsic to the human experience. Outside behavior can always be modified by restrictions
placed on government, but internal authentic belief remains steadfast in each individual if they
are willing to hold on to that religious conviction. This distinction between religious belief and
the practical manifestations of this belief is one that Taylor makes clear. Governments should be
free to regulate religious practice when such practices endanger the safety, health, or personal
freedoms of others, but should not have any control over dictating what people believe.
The problem comes, however, when certain religious groups are persecuted or forcibly
maltreated because of their religious identification. In instances like these, harsh and violent
treatment can serve as an incredible incentive to change outside religious practices to conform to
societal religious norms. When this change in outside practice takes place, over time and across
generations internal religious beliefs may also shift, in part because of the great role that tradition
and practice take in many of the worlds religions. Nowhere is this more visible than with the
example of the Slave Trade. Most of the African men and women taken from their homeland
were Muslim or of local animistic faiths when they were forced onboard the slave ships. When
sold into slavery in the New World, their masters often utilized violent tactics to convert these
people to Christianity, and despite many slaves trying to maintain their religious convictions
internally and even secretly holding worship sessions, within a couple generations, most slaves
of African origin were Christian. In this instance, aggression and violence were able to change
the religious identities of an entire people, something that surely should be prevented from
occurring.
This discussion of conversion leads well into the other article for the week, written by
Talal Asad. In his piece Comments on Conversion, Asad brings up many interesting points about
the conversion process and certain historical perspectives on conversion. The most interesting of

these points, in my opinion, was his discussion of the imperialistic attitude towards conversion as
defined by the coupling of religious conversion and an introduction of progress to supposedly
inferior peoples. This again ties back to the previous example of the Slave Trade. As is made
evident by their enslaving of fellow human beings, imperialists of the time obviously considered
Africans as an inferior group of people. Thus, in their minds, converting these people to
Christianity while enslaving them was not only Gods work, but also beneficial to the African
people because it was providing to them Western ideals that would supposedly enhance their
civility and allow them to progress. This mindset, in my opinion, is not only very incorrect but
also very dangerous. It can be used to justify forcibly changing the religions of other people in
contrast to the aforementioned law and explanation as to why such a change is unjust. If we are
to engage in global society that is truly equitable for all religions, we must stray away from this
mindset. Instead, a more tolerant, more understanding viewpoint that every group of people that
practices a different religion is equal to all others needs to be adopted across the board. In no way
is conversion a problem, but it becomes one when this conversion is not of the accord of the
person who is converting. Just as with any other pillar or tenet of religion, conversion is an
individual and personal decision, and should be protected from the violence or force that may
change that.