Muslim seperation of church and state=no religion in government.

[Grandpa Frank]

It seems like one of the things that helps a democracy exist is as much separation from the government and religion as possible. Mid east countries always seem to have government based on some religious faction. The religion not in power within the government always cries foul and mistreatment. I also hear that tribal factions often lead to problems. The element of revenge always seems to cause conflict it seems. I can't picture peace in the Mideast until those things are overcome. Sad to say , I don't think it will ever come about. Is separation of government and religion possible? Uncle Frank Sorry for the spacing of things? JREF won't let me write correctly.

 

[Hezam]

One thing or [ problem ] in Arab nature is that they will never unite however they try to without religion, Through one thousand and four hundreds years it has been proved that Arabs along with Turks, Kurds, Persians, Berber, etc will not unite under any rules but islam.
Arabs without religion will never follow each other's rules, And they are the hardest people to be ruled by law.
And Arab suck in poilcy, If you review the Islamic and pre islamic history of Arabs you will notice a very strange thing, With all the civilization and scince the Muslims achieved but the policy was the weakest in the islamic civilization series under Arab rule.

Turk and Kurd were better than Arab in rule...
It's the nature bro XD

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Christians used to say the same thing, Hezam. No rule except by church and sovereign supposedly appointed by God.

So far as I'm aware, the US was the first modern nation that established a separation of church and state at a time when most of Europe was ruled by religious-affiliated powers that persecuted those of other faiths.

I agree with Uncle Frank here. I don't see much hope for peace in the Middle East until secular governments are established, and people are willing to tolerate different religious, political, and social views.

 

[Hezam]

We had secular governments for almost 60 years in all over the Arab world except Arab peninsula, they returned us to the stone ages, Maybe you don't know about this ?

 

[alecgraham]

Saddam Hussein was secular.

Anyway, I was just reading an article in Foreign Affairs yesterday about the growing influence of the haredim (Ultra-Orthodox) in Israel. So it seems the problem is not limited to Arab or Muslim nations.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

I would not want to see.......

the Westboro Baptist Church in charge of anything in our government here in the US. I bet there are very few places in the world where religion and tribal relations have not caused trouble and violence in the past or present.

Uncle Frank

 

[BrianLewis]

When considering the "separation of church and state" are you referring to history or your own perceptions? I am curious to know if people think that means that there should be no utterance of anything religious in any organization that operates with tax payers' money, or if you would limit it to simply mean that regulations must be unbiased when it comes to funding and legal issues.

It seems to me that most individuals under 40 or so don't grasp the original meaning. Would nearly all of the founding fathers and presidents up until the modern era include God in their political speeches if they had the same intention that you guys on the forum assume the phrase to mean? It's time to take a look back at history and figure out what they really meant with the separation of church and state. I am pretty sure they were looking out for their own families with regard to having Catholic "orthodoxy" forced upon them. I really can't picture any of them giving a damn about religions outside of Christianity, but I suppose that's a bit off topic.

Perhaps you guys are confusing it with "political correctness?" Personally, I wouldn't rely on politicians to do anything "correct."

 

[alecgraham]

When considering the "separation of church and state" are you referring to history or your own perceptions? I am curious to know if people think that means that there should be no utterance of anything religious in any organization that operates with tax payers' money, or if you would limit it to simply mean that regulations must be unbiased when it comes to funding and legal issues.

It seems to me that most individuals under 40 or so don't grasp the original meaning
....
Perhaps you guys are confusing it with "political correctness?" Personally, I wouldn't rely on politicians to do anything "correct."

I think you're bringing up an important point here, but who posted anything that made you think that ("there should be no utterance of anything religious")? And who posted anything that made you think of political correctness? Where did they post it? I didn't get anything like that from the comments above. I thought everyone was on track, specifically talking about religious people trying to influence government, not mere "utterances".

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I don't think my tax dollars should go to support any utterances of anything religious. Keep in in church, supported by the collection basket.

 

[BrianLewis]

I think you're bringing up an important point here, but who posted anything that made you think that ("there should be no utterance of anything religious")? And who posted anything that made you think of political correctness? Where did they post it? I didn't get anything like that from the comments above. I thought everyone was on track, specifically talking about religious people trying to influence government, not mere "utterances".

Does the post following yours count? I have yet to meet a opponent to the issue that actually understood what the original intention was, rather they use it as a catch phrase to push political correctness.

 

[alecgraham]

Sure, the following post, #9 by Roland, counts. It's almost word for word what you stated.

Political correctness aside, I also would like to see complete separation of church and state maintained.

As for the utterance "Under God" within the pledge of allegiance, I personally said it as a child and it didn't kill me. Had to sing Christmas carols, too, and you know what? Even though I'm not a Christian, I enjoyed those carols, and I like most things about Christmas. Similarly, I don't think "In God We Trust" needs to be removed from US currency. Are these the sort of things you're talking about?

EDIT: I even found something I disagree with the late Christopher Hichens on, which is rare. I was watching his debate with Al Sharpton on youtube this morning. In part 5 of 7, he said that he doesn't think tax dollars should fund military chaplains in Iraq or Afghanistan. I disagree completely. \ end edit

I wonder, though, if I could be persuaded to change my opinion by others here. Perhaps I could. As it stands, I don't see the problem. I don't see the word "God" infringing on the rights of nonbelievers like myself, as long as believers don't mind us going through the motions (like the pledge) without experiencing the belief.

Now, if someone finds out that you're a nonbeliever and discriminates against you in some way, that's different, obviously.

 

[dsvlee]

When things come to China, it just changed. China has 10 official Muslim ethnic groups. They were all ruled by Chinese culture for centries. Under the law of Chinese centrel government, they can keep peace with each other. The situation in west part of China is never simple than that in Middle East.
You can not always hear news about Chinese Muslim, is because Chinese government solves the problems happening between eachother all by itself.

In the west of China, there are not only Muslims. We have different kinds of Mongolians ,Turks who are not Muslim and different groups of Han and Tibetans. We donot use religion to keep them all together. We use culture and law to keep our nations together. Maybe you only hear how Chinese central government treat Hongkong. Hongkong is democracy. But in west, we have 4 high degree of autonomy states. One is Sunni Islam state, another one is for Shia Islam state, the 3rd is Tibet and another is southern Mongolia.
I guess you may say Chinese bully them. But if most of them really want to independent, how Han people stop them? 1/5 ppl, Northern Mongolian voted to be independent 100 yrs ago, meantime the other 4/5 Mongolian from South voted to keep unifying with other kinds of Chinese.
So from my experience, culture and law can solve problems. You really need to respect people from different culture.

 

[dsvlee]

When you talk Arab, it is hardly for you not to recall Arab Empire. Absolutely it reminds you other Empires built by Turks, Mongolians or ancient Irans. Then it reminds you the hatred between eachother.
But in the name of China (中国,in Chinese, it means nations in the central parts of Asia), you will understand 中国 is a civilized name, not a race name.
Even when sb says China imperialism. It is a civilized imperialism, not a race imperialism. In most of the other world, when one culture is defeated by another, it becomes one race rules another. But in China, the truth becomes who can be top in east asian cultures.
So everytime when you say han people bully Tibetan is absolutely naive and donot understand Chinese culutre. Do you know how many times that ancient Tibetans wanted to defeat other culture in China so that they could sit the seat of Chinese Emperor?
EU has a good tendency, America is hard to fall apart. And I have stated why Chinese power will be stable even in the future. But Arab and India, if this two civilizations would not to change your mind, I donot think you can enjoy a good life in the near future. Now, at least EU, USA and Russia-China have began to fight with each other in economic field. The battle field is just in your middle east and Africa. I think that's another reason why your region is really a mess. Chinese say, unify is power.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Even when sb says China imperialism. It is a civilized imperialism, not a race imperialism. In most of the other world, when one culture is defeated by another, it becomes one race rules another. But in China, the truth becomes who can be top in east asian cultures."

Wow. That sounds just like Japanese propaganda from the 1930s.

 

[AquaLung]

It seems like one of the things that helps a democracy exist is as much separation from the government and religion as possible.

Communism, Khmer Rouge, etc., has shown us that this concept is not ultimately true. Of course they aren't technically democracies, but general principles of democracy are not relegated to capitalistic nations. But these are examples of nations where attempts were made to force religion out of society as a whole. When some of these countries allowed more religion back into society, these nations seem to had developed more democratic ways. North Korea however would be an example of where this for the most part did not happen.

Mid east countries always seem to have government based on some religious faction. The religion not in power within the government always cries foul and mistreatment. I also hear that tribal factions often lead to problems. The element of revenge always seems to cause conflict it seems. I can't picture peace in the Mideast until those things are overcome. Sad to say , I don't think it will ever come about. Is separation of government and religion possible? Uncle Frank Sorry for the spacing of things? JREF won't let me write correctly.

I think the conflicts in the Middle East is a great example of how little the West really knows about the Middle East. We tend to have a western idea on how things can improve by western methods. And we can't understand why things don't work our way in regions like the Middle East. What we think needs to be removed could be what might make things worse (for all we really know). We really don't understand Middle Eastern thought/ways to be able to suggest what they do and don't need.

If someone in the past had made accurate enough predictions to where they had the attention of the people, and predicted that there would be a global internet where people from all over the world could communicate within seconds, many would probably have thought that when this would happen it would be a time of world peace. People all over are communicating with each other. If they predicted that there would be elements of pop-culture like Hip Hop embraced globally, where people all over including the Middle East were rapping, many people would probably think this would be a time of world peace. Everyone is rapping, so everyone must be gelling, chilling, etc..

However, this is not even close to being the case. Westernisms (politics, culture/pop-culture) that may import themselves into societies outside of the west do not guarantee peace.

 

[AquaLung]

Christians used to say the same thing, Hezam. No rule except by church and sovereign supposedly appointed by God.

So far as I'm aware, the US was the first modern nation that established a separation of church and state at a time when most of Europe was ruled by religious-affiliated powers that persecuted those of other faiths.

I agree with Uncle Frank here. I don't see much hope for peace in the Middle East until secular governments are established, and people are willing to tolerate different religious, political, and social views.

This is not quite accurate. Separation Of Church And State, as we know it today, was defined in 1947. And of course this was well after the historic European theocracies that European immigrants sought to move away from. The Founding Fathers did not intend to keep religion completely out of government. They however did not want a particular denomination to have complete control of government as was seen in European nations.

 

[alecgraham]

Communism, Khmer Rouge, etc., has shown us that this concept is not ultimately true. Of course they aren't technically democracies,

That's kind of like saying Jay-Z is not technically Norwegian. ;-)

but general principles of democracy are not relegated to capitalistic nations. But these are examples of nations where attempts were made to force religion out of society as a whole. When some of these countries allowed more religion back into society, these nations seem to had developed more democratic ways. North Korea however would be an example of where this for the most part did not happen.

It seems like in totalitarian states, the dictator becomes the religion. Cult of Kim Jong-Il and family. Cult of Saddam.

South Korea has many pious Christians, but does Christianity impose itself on the government? I honestly don't know, but I don't think it does.

 

[dsvlee]

So what you think of Japanese invaded China. In Chinese opinion, most of the time they donot hate Japan's invasion. Chinese hate their animal behaviour happened in many parts of China, like massacre or 731 army in Manchuria. And Japanese started a new name or statement for their Empire,Glorious Great East asia (I translated this from Chinese directly). The point is, this thing was only a sum of China with its tribution countries and Japan. In this empire system, only Japan was the new one.
And If they had succeeded, today you would only see China's territory bigger than reality, and we would have more Chinese here.

"Even when sb says China imperialism. It is a civilized imperialism, not a race imperialism. In most of the other world, when one culture is defeated by another, it becomes one race rules another. But in China, the truth becomes who can be top in east asian cultures."

Wow. That sounds just like Japanese propaganda from the 1930s.

 

[AquaLung]

That's kind of like saying Jay-Z is not technically Norwegian. ;-)

I have to admit that I had to google that one.

[It seems like in totalitarian states, the dictator becomes the religion. Cult of Kim Jong-Il and family. Cult of Saddam.

Yes, a case has certainly been made that Juche is the official religion of North Korea, making them a sort of religious State. No matter how atheistic/anti-theistic/anti-religion a dictator may claim to be, they don't seem to oppose the idea of themselves being worshiped as a god, or a religion being formed around them.

South Korea has many pious Christians, but does Christianity impose itself on the government? I honestly don't know, but I don't think it does.

That's a good question. I think there are those that would claim that it does in the same way they may claim Christianity in the U.S. does.

What would you consider to be Christian or general religious impositions,?

 

[alecgraham]

I have to admit that I had to google that one.

Ha, sorry about that. Jay-Z is very popular, but I guess it's an obscure reference in some parts of the world. Now, I'm off to google Juche...

What would you consider to be Christian or general religious impositions,?

Because of the prevalence of separation of church and state, I don't encounter much of it. It seems to mostly be a thing of the past, a part of history. But the abortion debate, for example, has its roots in Christianity, specifically Catholicism. No religion, no abortion debate.

One thing that's been all over the news is the rape of that poor young woman in Dubai. She reports the rape to the police and gets arrested for sex out of wedlock and for drinking alcohol? Unbelievable. I don't know if the first charge stems from tribal chauvinism or religion, but certainly the alcohol charge is from Islam.

 

[AquaLung]

Ha, sorry about that. Jay-Z is very popular, but I guess it's an obscure reference in some parts of the world. Now, I'm off to google Juche...


Because of the prevalence of separation of church and state, I don't encounter much of it. It seems to mostly be a thing of the past, a part of history. But the abortion debate, for example, has its roots in Christianity, specifically Catholicism. No religion, no abortion debate.

One thing that's been all over the news is the rape of that poor young woman in Dubai. She reports the rape to the police and gets arrested for sex out of wedlock and for drinking alcohol? Unbelievable. I don't know if the first charge stems from tribal chauvinism or religion, but certainly the alcohol charge is from Islam.

As far as the abortion in America goes, anti-abortion is not relegated to Christians, or even religion. There are atheists that are against abortion as well. While I won't argue against it being a religious issue entirely, there are a number of people against it simply because they view abortion as (in milder terms) taking human life. There's nothing profoundly religious about pro-life (although there are Biblical scriptures that support it), nor non-religious about about pro-choice in and of themselves other than the political (and religious) implications that have become involved with them.

It really boils down to whether an infant at a particular stage should be protected or not. Or is that protection of an infant at a certain stage a violation against a woman and her body.

 

[alecgraham]

Well, there can be non-religious people who oppose abortion. I know some of them. The difference is that they usually don't impose that opinion on others. They don't try to get abortion outlawed, and they certainly don't take guns to abortion clinics and shoot doctors, or intimidate young unwed pregnant women with picket lines. This is all solely the work of religious Christians.

 

[AquaLung]

Well, there can be non-religious people who oppose abortion. I know some of them. The difference is that they usually don't impose that opinion on others. They don't try to get abortion outlawed, and they certainly don't take guns to abortion clinics and shoot doctors, or intimidate young unwed pregnant women with picket lines. This is all solely the work of religious Christians.

There are atheist pro-life activists who for the most part do impose their opinion on others, and even attempt to get abortion outlawed. They are at an advantage in that they tend to use their atheism platform to also speak out against violence, which may gain them a certain amount of respect to where they may not be accused of imposing. But I'm not all that sure of that either. And I don't think they actively oppose abortion with the idea of it just being an opinion mounted against laws they don't care whether or not are changed.

We also have peaceful demonstrators nearby to where I live that picket a local abortion clinic from time to time. While some, most, or even all may be Christians; some, most, or even all could be atheists. On the rare occasions I see them, I haven't identified their religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

The problem with the Christian/religion thing in the U.S., is that it's tough to distinguish Christianity as a chosen way of life, versus cultural Christianity. We can distinguish between Los Angeles Dodger fans (fanatics) who are non violent, from the small minority that are. But with Christians, it seems to be a lot tougher. One of the ways we can know that there's a distinction, is that there are converts to Christianity among Christians. Basically, Christians converting to Christianity. How can that be? Basically, cultural Christians converting to choosing Christianity as a way of life.

One of the prime examples of this would be conversions within the prison system. One of the claims I've heard made by an atheist (who probably gathered the information from other atheists), is that the prison system is filled with people of religion; whereas there are fewer atheists in prison. Thus making the claim that atheists are more peaceful, less apt to commit crimes than those who have an apparent religious affiliation. What ever statistic was made probably merely identified those with religious backgrounds (church membership, traditional family denomination, etc.) as being those of religion. The problem here is that if, say, there are so many Christians in prison, why the need for Christian ministries that are there to introduce Jesus Christ in a personal relationship context versus merely holding services for those that are already Christians? And of course, why are there a significant number of converts, many of them probably those counted among those already associated with Christianity?

If we can begin to make those types of distinctions, then it may be easier to identify existing cultural Christian traditionalists who view things like atheism, abortion, etc., akin to anti-Americanism, Communism, etc. And better distinguish them from Christians who oppose abortion, but also shun violence.

Sorry for choosing the road that may be going off topic, but I honestly don't know a lot about the other Muslim issue you brought up.

 

[BrianLewis]

South Korea has many pious Christians, but does Christianity impose itself on the government? I honestly don't know, but I don't think it does.

I have not seen that to be the case. If Christianity took control of the government to the point of outlawing other religious observances, there would be a removal of religious aspects of Confucianism and there would be no days for ancestral worship like Chuseok, or Buddhism in general. You could probably consider the nation of S.Korea relatively young in their "new identity," so there is no way to know if they have solidified culturally. However, considering how ancient their non-christian practices, I doubt those practices will be squashed by government in the near future.

But with Christians, it seems to be a lot tougher. One of the ways we can know that there's a distinction, is that there are converts to Christianity among Christians. Basically, Christians converting to Christianity. How can that be? Basically, cultural Christians converting to choosing Christianity as a way of life.

That's a good point. I think it's a good idea to know the difference between those that "go with the flow" and those that are interested in following the actual teachings in the book.

On a side note, when people try to point out the failings of Christianity, they usually point towards "Social Christians," rather than ones that actually know what they are doing. Unfortunately, those are the kind to make Christianity look bad in the sight of others, including the bombing of abortion clinics.

What would you consider to be Christian or general religious impositions,?

I suppose outlawing any practice that is taught against in the book. Unfortunately, people have varying interpretations for what the book means, while others consider their institution's traditions more important than the laws in the book. Until those issues are clarified, we are probably better off with a system that allows people to pick and choose based on their own interpretation.