If you have your boot on my neck and I am afraid of “worse things may come my way if I object to Islam being the source of all legislation”, does that represent a valid social contract? If some Christians and women in Egypt, reluctantly, did not voice their vehement disagreements to this virulent version of the Constitution, does this render this draft worthy of respect? I don’t agree at all that religion should be “the main source” or a “source” for any Constitution. When Dalai Lama was asked about the best religion there is, he did not say it must be Buddhism. Instead he said that it is the religion that makes you care more, listen more and have more understanding of fellow Human Beings. Some make the absurd assertion that a religious constitution will bring them closer to our Maker. Do we need a religious constitution to become better people? Such a goal has never been and should never become the role of any Constitution. Religions are between us and our Maker and have no role in how we should shape the society at large.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. How about coming up with a document worse than the one that we had since 1971: should we expect a better result for our society from this draft? If we do, we must be fools. I have never been against peaceful assembly for a legitimate reason, but demonstrating for any conceivable cause, including inserting an article in the Constitution, or for some unachievable old demands is beneath any semblance of decency and order in a modern society. This simply creates complete chaos. If the one word that comes to mind to describe democracy is “equality”, and the one that describes modern societies is “innovation”, “violence” should not be the one word that represents Islam; instead it should be “peace” or “mercy”.
I do not believe in anti-blasphemy laws. As Lincoln said “truth is the best vindication against slander”. If my faith is so tenuous that an article, cartoon or tape can make me abandon it; it is better for me not to have any faith. All religions have doctrines that must be followed without questioning, and have other issues subject to different interpretations. Asking someone or some specific group to interpret the Will of God is dangerous. Humans die and are replaced all the time. I ask: does that mean that God is subject to change accordingly as well? No one in his/her sound mind can debate God and His Will (which will be) based upon changing human views. Once anyone is entrusted with this awesome task, he becomes instantly above the law.
Let us recognize that Constitutions are the road maps for future generations in order to produce a modern Egypt. It must be independent of religion. We must recognize that a religion is between us and our maker and has nothing to do with shaping our laws and our societal structure. That is what we wanted to accomplish and that is what we died for.
_________________________________________________________
Lofty Basta MD, FRCP, FRCPE, FACP, FACC, FCCP, FAHA.