Hamas won -- apparently surprisingly so -- parliamentarian elections. Though not quite as exciting as the chance that a Conan O'Brien look-a-like (a woman to boot) might win a run-off election in Finland (seriously ... this has been an ongoing bit on the show), this was shocking to many people. Including the Bush Administration, who leaned toward the prevailing wisdom that the Fatah Party (the long dominating group, Arafat's party) would win once more.
The elections seemed to be fair, a clear democratic message of what the people wanted. This, not surprisingly, leaves a bad taste in the mouth of some, who apparently think democracy means that the people will only vote for people we like. For instance, the idea that "democracy" in Iraq is "secular" (ironically the Bushies support this ... do what I say ...), when it need be nothing of the kind.
Seriously, it is ridiculous to think otherwise given the push to recognize the religious beliefs of certain groups in our own country. A certain sort of constitutional democratic republic might require otherwise, but that is quite different from "democracy" per se. It is sad and pathetic that people miss the point over and over again. And, on all sides -- anti-Bushies too, cynically noting the Shia-dominated religious flavor of the "democracy" we fought and die for. Yeah, the same sort of blood that led to the likes of Tom DeLay and "Duke" Cunningham, right?
But, not that I have been keeping close track of the matter, it is really of no surprise. Yes, the Hamas is a radical group known for its anti-Israel (as in Israel's existence) beliefs, but also for its clear efforts to meet the social welfare needs of the Palestinian people. This surely does not justify blowing people up, but it must be faced: the Hamas in various communities was seen as the purer party, the one that was less corrupt (partly, since it did not have political power to abuse) and more able to serve the needs of the people themselves. What exactly this will wrought -- and remember the opposition still has the presidential position -- is unclear. But, it might just work out better, partly since terrorism is more of an outsider game. Yeah, I know ... only up to a point.
This is comparable to the sad reality that radical religious sorts served as the only real opposition to corrupt leaders in the Middle East overall and continue to do so in various areas. Iran in the 1970s, etc. One might even compare this election to the chose of Sharon, who many felt was too radical, but as someone who had the guts to act. Pardon me if the comparison is inexact, but truly, it comes to mind. Finally, how about the Christian Coalition in our own country? Push comes to shove, even your average fundamentalist or evangelistical Christian might not agree with the moves of this group, but it provided a useful counterpoint to the scary changes of the post-1950s Era. In some sense, the support had clear grass roots support. Democrats sneer at it at our peril.
It is an inexact bridge, but I return to an aside made last time. "Religion" is not somehow a cost-free good. In fact, it is quite troubling in various respects, since at its base is faith in things that need not and often cannot be backed up with scientific proof. Religion also is not just some how cabined in matters of belief in a supernatural entity or the afterlife.* Religion ... though some can put things in separate boxes ... is ultimately a "way of life," not just beliefs about the afterlife or supernatural beings. And, this way of life is in various ways based on faith. Faith can and is a remarkable thing, but it also is a scary thing too. This includes the ugly side of the whole matter.
The alternative, however, is impossible to bear. There is no group of Platonic Guardians who will choose what faith and beliefs are right and proper. And, the good of religious freedom is shown everyday. But, I do find it a bit interesting how this is one of those things many are wary of mentioning, except perhaps certain freethinking groups and such (a rather lifeless example was on Book TV recently) or in respect the "wrong" sort of faith and religion.
Ah, but democracy is a bit more messy than that, huh? [As to the possibility of a "Catholic Supreme Court," this thread might be of some interest.]
---
* This includes the established belief in this country that there is a God and said God is intimately connected to our very nation's existence and well being. For instance, note the recitations by school children on a daily basis. But, and the fact over 40% in various polls support the fact of creation science is another thing many wish not to accept is just one example, common beliefs about such "God" are in varying degrees outrageous.
I fail to see how we can cabin such beliefs only in this one area, somehow not also affecting other sorts of decision-making. After all, those who believe in the healing powers of crystals because of some sort of nature religion dynamics are likely to also believe in some somewhat unlikely non-religion things too. This putting aside my ah belief that "religion" is a broad term, involving basic truths and how we live them out in our lives that affects a broad range of matters.
Again, we have to be honest about such things, but (especially with my broad definition) this does not mean religion per se must be shunted aside.