Debate and Review

A friend of mine had asked the question and raised the issue some time ago. Not much was made of it then came this headline:

[Nigeria Records Highest Number of Christian Pilgrims

By Chinedu Eze, 11.16.2009 Thisday 16^th November 2009.].

Another headline today read: “Stop playing Politics with Hajj” BY JIDE JEGEDE November 17, 2009 NEXT Newspapers]

I then gave it greater thought and this now made it my business.

Nigeria is meant to be a secular state, one in which there are religious preferences and affiliations and beliefs all in one melting pot without any particularl order of greater importance attached to one or the other.

Each individual citizen makes a decision on his or her religion of choice and is free to practice such without imposing it on others.

Within each religion and belief there are selected trips made by followers to places of worship. These places are greatly revered as the Holiest of places on earth according to each religion.

Annual or periodic pilgrimages to the Holy places are performed at huge costs to the individual or groups of followers. In Nigeria there are no restrictions to the practices of religion and pilgrimages by followers and believers.

The question here is, in a secular state like Nigeria, who should bear the costs of pilgrimages which amount to subjective choices by citizens?

What are the parameters in place for making the decision on which religious pilgrimages to fund with public money and which ones not to?

Are certain ‘religions’ and ‘beliefs’ not so recognized that they do not get government funding?

Should there not be a separation of State and Religion to ensure fairness, a lack of interference or influence on the part government?

What better use can the funds directed towards funding religious pilgrimages be utilized?

If the few who undertake religious pilgrimages do so as a matter of choice, what responsibility do the other citizens have towards funding such pilgrimages?

In Christianity there are varying groups to contend with who do not necessarily share the same methods or perform pilgrimages to the same places around the world. What is the practice of funding Christian pilgrimages for Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and the Pentecostals for example? Do they perform uniform pilgrimages to the same places?

In Islam it is a bit clearer. A pilgrimage to the Holy City of Mecca is the primary destination of many Moslems.

Regardless of religion, is it the responsibility of government to fund religious pilgrimages? If yes, what are the compelling laws that support this?

Religion must remain sacrosanct and government must remain neutral and not run the risk of accusations of preferential treatment or promoting one religion over the other. This are the tenets of a separation of state and church.

Quoting from the NEXT story is a point made by a leader of An Islamic group, Muslim Rights Watch, he states:

"Senator Bello hails from Katsina State just like Mr. President, same thing as the Nigerian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the nation's Consular General. What this presupposes is that there are no other Muslims elsewhere in the country. We now have four people determining the fates on Nigerian Muslims on hajj rites this year. This is nepotism of the highest order and I presume Mr. President should have known better than allowing primordial tribal sentiments to guide an essential religious issue," he argued.

The government should not in a bid to please everyone and every group, expose itself to accusations such as this.

I believe that all pilgrimages should remain the subjective choice of each individual in the pursuit of his or her religious beliefs. In a tax paying country, what is currently practiced would amount to using taxpayers’ money to fund what many did not participate in.

If Nigeria were a socialist state and the state was expected to fund most if not all activities by its citizens then it would be expected that all religions should be accordingly supported.

For followers of any religion, the sanctity of their religion is exposed to government interference if the government plays the role of the piper.

What do you think?