Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Organized Religion & personal Spirituality
IANAT
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 130 (198061)
04-10-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
04-10-2005 11:45 AM


Re: upside down
Are you just playing the devil's advocate, or actually advocating for Muslim theocracy?
I would say that I (and most Muslims) do not want a "separation of church and state" in Islamic countries.
Islam is a way of life. How can you have separate authorities that might have conflicts to the Quran? You only need one authority.
With the western idea of separation, you bring homosexuals "out of the closet" (to use an American phrase) and put your religious believers in the closet with your government laws. This is upside down, in our view.
It is difficult in this country to work and yet practice Islam with our prayer schedule. That is not a problem in an Islamic state.
I feel that I am starting to go in circles trying to explain this concept of an Islamic state, so I think I will give the subject a rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 1:03 PM IANAT has not replied
 Message 73 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-11-2005 11:23 AM IANAT has not replied
 Message 85 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-12-2005 3:59 AM IANAT has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 62 of 130 (198063)
04-10-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
04-10-2005 12:09 AM


crashfrog writes:
Who do you believe is "promoting homosexuality"? Since the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is determined at birth, and certainly not by choice, what would be the point in "promoting" it?
I think he means "encouraging" the behavior.
It is one thing if little Johnny is born gay, with nothing more than an innate tendency to relate emotionally to guys. It is another thing to encourage him to act exclusively sexual towards men. IF anything, everyone should be encouraged to relate equally to all genders.
I think it is just as wrong to "encourage" heterosexual roleplay to the exclusion of alternatives. If little Johnny wants to be a girl for a day at dressup, let him do it. Better then than at 45!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 12:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 1:06 PM Phat has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 130 (198068)
04-10-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by IANAT
04-10-2005 12:53 PM


How can you have separate authorities that might have conflicts to the Quran?
How can you have a government that doesn't derive its authority from the people? I mean, that's universal. All governments, even dictatorships, derive their authority from the consent of the governed; they have to, because the governed outnumber the government.
How can you propose to derive authority from a book? That simply doesn't work. So if we're going to derive authority from the people, which is impossible to avoid, why not do so transparently, through democracy?
With the western idea of separation, you bring homosexuals "out of the closet" (to use an American phrase) and put your religious believers in the closet with your government laws.
Again with the homosexuals. Obsess, much? What exactly to gay people have to do with the topic?
I feel that I am starting to go in circles trying to explain this concept of an Islamic state, so I think I will give the subject a rest.
I would think that it would be blindingly, stunningly obvious that an Islamic state is only good for a situation where everybody agrees, and not only that, agrees on what the Quran actually says. Clearly that's not the case in your, or anyone's religion.
Theocracy simply doesn't work unless everybody agrees on the religion and on the legitimacy of the system, and that's an impossible situation to achieve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 12:53 PM IANAT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 130 (198070)
04-10-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
04-10-2005 12:56 PM


It is one thing if little Johnny is born gay, with nothing more than an innate tendency to relate emotionally to guys.
That's not gay, though. Being born gay means being born sexually attracted to, and only to, members of your own sex.
Maybe you hadn't noticed lately, but here in America, we hate gays. We tell them, over and over again, that what they're doing is wrong.
Yet, somehow we still have gay people. Clearly its not a matter of "encouraging" behavior, because about 2.8% of the population persists in behaviors that they've been repeatedly and violently - even fatally - discouraged from doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 04-10-2005 12:56 PM Phat has not replied

IANAT
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 130 (198075)
04-10-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
04-10-2005 12:37 PM


Re: upside down
Well, no, it's not. If it was about how you wished to live, you would just live that way, and you wouldn't need laws mandating it.
All this talk is about "laws". Your country struggles over moral foundations. I is odd that atheists on this forum talk about morals. I have no idea where they get morals, other than from the Golden Rule. But this must not be so clear to everyone, because of so many lawsuits of rights violations.
What I see in America is that the lawyers and judges have taken the role of the clerics.
Maybe the Terri Schiavo case is a sign for America. Deteriorating on the inside, the woman is killed by non-believers. Will America fall from lack of moral foundation like Rome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 12:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 1:19 PM IANAT has not replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 1:23 PM IANAT has not replied
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2005 1:39 PM IANAT has not replied
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 04-10-2005 4:57 PM IANAT has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 130 (198078)
04-10-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by IANAT
04-10-2005 1:15 PM


As a very religious person I ask you ...
why would you think that Atheism has anything to do with immorality?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 1:15 PM IANAT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 130 (198079)
04-10-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by IANAT
04-10-2005 1:15 PM


Your country struggles over moral foundations.
Struggle? No, not at all. We discuss them, because we all have different ideas about morals, but there's no struggle, because we developed a system of government that respects the individual's right to develop their own moral compass.
Critical to that is the separation of church and state, because it takes the government out of the business of morality and puts it in the business of governance.
I is odd that atheists on this forum talk about morals. I have no idea where they get morals, other than from the Golden Rule.
From the same place you get them. No, not the Bible or the Quran, I mean the place that your morals really come from - your community's need to have people living in the same place not kill or harm each other.
Everybody's morals come from that need. Everybody's. You don't need a god to know right from wrong.
Will America fall from lack of moral foundation like Rome?
I doubt it. The American people are moral. Therefore our government needs not be in the moral business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 1:15 PM IANAT has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 130 (198084)
04-10-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by IANAT
04-10-2005 1:15 PM


Re: upside down
quote:
I have no idea where they get morals, other than from the Golden Rule.
What more is there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 1:15 PM IANAT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 1:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 130 (198086)
04-10-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chiroptera
04-10-2005 1:39 PM


What more is there?
Oh, you didn't get that memo? "Hate gays."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2005 1:39 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 130 (198108)
04-10-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by IANAT
04-10-2005 12:33 PM


Re: upside down
The law simply reinforces desired conditions and behaviours that the Quran teaches.
Yes, this was the point of my question. If a people actually had a strong faith in their religion, why would they need to reinforce conditions and behaviours through legal fiat, which is simply forcing people to behave in ways they might not want to?
Sorry, but I do not want to take the time to explain my understanding of how clerics in different countries decide how to rule in those countries.
Okay, but what would be nice is if you would explain which conditions and behaviors are set into law, and how the setting of one grouping would not contravene the beliefs of some Islamic followers.
You said there would be no lessening of freedom of religion, but by arguing it is best to set laws to free Islamic believers, you are by definition restraining a certain population of Islamic believers and so restricting their freedom.
An Islamic government will help, not hinder, this striving. Why make striving more difficult? This is how we wish to live.
But it certainly does hinder some Islamic denominations. The fighting between different Islamic factions over interpretation is not a manufactured division from outside the Islamic religion. It is internal and does exist.
By making striving easier for some, you can and do make it difficult for others.
Let me make something clear before this goes further. I am not arguing that any nation will be wrong for choosing an Islamic based gov't. It will not necessarily turn out bad for people in general, and I for one like diversity in cultures and governments.
My problem is your asserted fact that a gov't based on religious principles will not limit religious freedom. That is pretty patently false. You can argue that a population may find the benefits of aiding a majority population's "striving", outweighs the deficits of hindering the freedoms of others not in that majority. What appears to be a false argument is a statement that one is not making that trade-off.
Secular gov'ts are the only gov'ts capable of not interfering in personal religious practice as they deal only with practical day to day affairs, outside of the religious sphere.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 12:33 PM IANAT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-13-2005 9:59 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 130 (198111)
04-10-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by IANAT
04-10-2005 1:15 PM


Re: upside down
All this talk is about "laws". Your country struggles over moral foundations
It does not need moral foundations, it has civil foundations. That is a mistake that moralists within the US have made and so are struggling over.
The "culture war", if you look into its history, was created and perpetuated by fundamentalist Xians and to some lesser degree conservative feminists. It is artificial and unproductive and unnecessary for the US to survive.
I is odd that atheists on this forum talk about morals. I have no idea where they get morals
Atheists get their morals from experiencing life, thinking about life, and learning about other people's experiences and thoughts about life. This is not much different than any theist.
But morals are separate from laws within a secular nation, which are based on preservation of civil rights. Read Locke for starters, as that is who many of the founding fathers read to formulate their philosophy on political systems.
What I see in America is that the lawyers and judges have taken the role of the clerics.
It is interesting that you see that, when the top executive and many top legislators are clearly trying to take the role of clerics.
Maybe the Terri Schiavo case is a sign for America. Deteriorating on the inside, the woman is killed by non-believers.
Why are you living in the US?
Will America fall from lack of moral foundation like Rome?
Now I think you are a Xian fundie posing as an Islamic follower. This is the first time I have heard this from anyone outside the Xian persuasion.
In any case, Rome did not fall due to lack of moral foundations. It took many years to "fall", and as it turns out did so after converting to Xianity, and well past the days of its greatest debauches.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think morality had anything to do with Rome's demise, rather than economics, agriculture, and shifting political landscapes.
(edited in):
You can also explain how the Islamic nations managed to fall despite being based in Islamic law, how Isreal fell despite Judaic law, and the Xian "empires" splintered and fell, with secular gov'ts rising in their place.
This message has been edited by holmes, 04-10-2005 04:00 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 1:15 PM IANAT has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 130 (198239)
04-11-2005 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
04-10-2005 12:37 PM


Re: upside down
LKets not get carried away with the cultural absolutism bit here. We can be confident that Islamic governments enjoy widespread consent from their Islamic populaces; it is entirely unremarkable to see them order their society accordingly. Just as we do.
The fact that our property system is a system of theft does not prevent us from enforcing and normalising it. We do not, or choose not to, see it as theft but instead as just and proper and normal.
Of course thats my perception. How can I be free in the "liberal" west when its laws and processess are established top protect property? This is an inherently unfree society.
The point is, not theory of living together, one might say, can do anything other than implement its own rules. It is inevitable that people who adhere to different philosophies chafe under those rules. But it is 100% pointless to compare "freedoms" based on different perceptions of what freedom is, or to what uise it should be put.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2005 12:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 130 (198271)
04-11-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by IANAT
04-10-2005 12:53 PM


Re: upside down
I feel that I am starting to go in circles trying to explain this concept of an Islamic state, so I think I will give the subject a rest.
The thing is, IANAT, we get it. Islam is a way of life. Understood. And you should go ahead and feel free to live that way of life as fully as you please.
What you don't seem to be getting is that we are not Islamic. Therefore, the Islamic way of life holds absolutely no sway over our decisions, or authority over our lives. Why on Earth would it?

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 12:53 PM IANAT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 04-11-2005 1:13 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 1:15 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 130 (198312)
04-11-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dan Carroll
04-11-2005 11:23 AM


Re: upside down
Nor should IANAT's Islamic way of life hold sway over other people who just happen to live within the same the artificially constructed national borders that IANAT does, whether they are non-Islamic or whether they have a view of Islam different than IANAT's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-11-2005 11:23 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 75 of 130 (198313)
04-11-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dan Carroll
04-11-2005 11:23 AM


Re: upside down
What you don't seem to be getting is that we are not Islamic. Therefore, the Islamic way of life holds absolutely no sway over our decisions, or authority over our lives. Why on Earth would it?
So tell us, young Skywalker...what does hold sway over your decisions? What authority DO you recognize?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-11-2005 11:23 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-11-2005 3:14 PM Phat has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024