"Democratic societies can no longer give religious fanatics a free hand to abuse and murder non believers. Such action betrays contempt for the basic human rights which animate any democracy with meaning"
About this Quote
Armstrong Williams sets a clear boundary between freedom of religion and freedom to harm. Democracies rest on the idea that individuals possess equal dignity and inviolable rights, including freedom of conscience. That promise collapses if religious zeal is used to justify violence or coercion against those who do not share the faith. The point is not hostility to religion but defense of the social contract: your right to worship does not include the right to persecute.
The argument pushes back against two distortions that often appear in pluralistic societies. The first is the misuse of religious liberty as a shield for impunity, as when sectarian militias, vigilantes, or theocrats claim sacred sanction for abuse, forced conversions, honor killings, or punishment of apostasy. The second is the temptation of democratic governments to excuse such acts in the name of cultural sensitivity or majoritarian pressure. A democracy that allows either abdicates its core responsibility to protect life, conscience, and equal citizenship.
There is a deeper warning about meaning. Elections and parliaments do not make a society democratic if citizens live in fear of doctrinal enforcers. What animates democracy is the lived experience of rights: the ability to dissent, to change belief, to criticize sacred ideas without risking death. Laws must therefore protect people, not ideologies. Blasphemy codes and moral policing invert that priority by criminalizing thought rather than punishing harm.
At the same time, the call is not a warrant for blanket suspicion of religious communities or for heavy-handed repression. Upholding rights requires neutral enforcement, due process, and careful distinction between peaceful devotion and violent fanaticism. The goal is a civic order where believers and nonbelievers alike can flourish, bound not by dogma but by a common commitment to human dignity. When democracies stand firm on that ground, they do more than restrain abuse; they fulfill the promise that gives their institutions moral weight.
The argument pushes back against two distortions that often appear in pluralistic societies. The first is the misuse of religious liberty as a shield for impunity, as when sectarian militias, vigilantes, or theocrats claim sacred sanction for abuse, forced conversions, honor killings, or punishment of apostasy. The second is the temptation of democratic governments to excuse such acts in the name of cultural sensitivity or majoritarian pressure. A democracy that allows either abdicates its core responsibility to protect life, conscience, and equal citizenship.
There is a deeper warning about meaning. Elections and parliaments do not make a society democratic if citizens live in fear of doctrinal enforcers. What animates democracy is the lived experience of rights: the ability to dissent, to change belief, to criticize sacred ideas without risking death. Laws must therefore protect people, not ideologies. Blasphemy codes and moral policing invert that priority by criminalizing thought rather than punishing harm.
At the same time, the call is not a warrant for blanket suspicion of religious communities or for heavy-handed repression. Upholding rights requires neutral enforcement, due process, and careful distinction between peaceful devotion and violent fanaticism. The goal is a civic order where believers and nonbelievers alike can flourish, bound not by dogma but by a common commitment to human dignity. When democracies stand firm on that ground, they do more than restrain abuse; they fulfill the promise that gives their institutions moral weight.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Armstrong
Add to List
