I don't think you are trying to rule the world, i'm just not clear about what you are trying to say. How would your idea work in practice, should we have seperate religious courts, what about when religious morality is incompatible with secular law, should the state be involved in religion?
til661 wrote:I don't think you are trying to rule the world, i'm just not clear about what you are trying to say. How would your idea work in practice, should we have seperate religious courts, what about when religious morality is incompatible with secular law, should the state be involved in religion?
My idea ??
I am just describing how the world is now. What makes you think I am unhappy with the present way in the world ?
People and nations can do what they like .. ideally in a democratic framework.
I again get the feeling I am being the liberal one here, and you are trying to paint people of a religious leaning as almost 5th-columnists.
Last edited by Mandy on Sat May 19, 2007 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The British state is headed by The Queen who is the leader of the Church of England also. There's no getting away from it - though that's not the reason I'd see them removed.
faceless wrote:The British state is headed by The Queen who is the leader of the Church of England also. There's no getting away from it - though that's not the reason I'd see them removed.
til661 wrote:I don't think you are trying to rule the world, i'm just not clear about what you are trying to say. How would your idea work in practice, should we have seperate religious courts, what about when religious morality is incompatible with secular law, should the state be involved in religion?
My idea ??
I am just describing how the world is now. What makes you think I am unhappy with the present way in the world ?
People and nations can do what they like .. ideally in a democratic framework.
I again get the feeling I am being the liberal one here, and you are trying to paint people of a religious leaning as almost 5th-columnists.
I didn't say any such thing.
I believe that the structures of society should be secular, Not that you can't believe what you like. At the moment we don't have that. The point Faceless made being one of the more obvious examples. State-Funded religious schools being another.
til661 wrote:I believe that the structures of society should be secular, Not that you can't believe what you like. At the moment we don't have that. The point Faceless made being one of the more obvious examples. State-Funded religious schools being another.
I believe societies should be democratic. Let them decide what they want to follow, and not like in Algeria or Palestine where the wrong vote result leads to a coup .. I could add USA where the wrong result lead to a supreme court "coup".
Til : to explore your viewpoint, what if a society in another country votes for laws to be based on a religion. Should the rest of the world intervene ?
UPDATE : Let me mention Turkey where the West has institionalised military coups : The army is empowered by the Western imposed constitution (that is irrevokable) that allows the army to stage a coup to "rescue" democracy if any party is elected which has any religious component.
Last edited by Mandy on Sat May 19, 2007 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Before we get into this, let's define terms. I've already fucked up by misunderstanding someone
By rulebook what do you mean?
OK noticed your edit.
Seeing as you mentioned Hamas earlier we'll use that as an example. Do I disagree with Hamas' ideology, yes absolutely. Do I think that the west should never have helped them in the first place, yes absolutely. Do i think it is fair to punish the voters of palestine for voting for them, no. Fatah had become bloated and corrupt and Hamas promised them a better civil society and people were prepared to overlook their religious fanaticism in the hope of a greater victory. The fact that they were originally funded by Israel to break up Fatah is instructive.
So, would i personally disagree, yes. Could i countenance intervention, no because if only pragmatically it makes things worse.
Last edited by til661 on Sat May 19, 2007 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
til661 wrote:Do i think it is fair to punish the voters of palestine for voting for them, no. Fatah had become bloated and corrupt and Hamas promised them a better civil society and people were prepared to overlook their religious fanaticism in the hope of a greater victory. The fact that they were originally funded by Israel to break up Fatah is instructive.
So, would i personally disagree, yes. Could i countenance intervention, no because if only pragmatically it makes things worse.
Great .. we agree. The fear is people like Hitchens would use (and have used) "anti-religion" to instigate and support coups (as in Turkey, Algeria, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.)
nekokate wrote:But there's a marked difference between atheism and anti-religion.
I totally agree. I have not criticised or attacked atheism. I don't agree with the atheist view, but then there are many views I don't agree with in this world. That's healthy.
It is the racists/fascists who use "anti-religion" as a political tool to achieve their amoral (and illegal) aims.
p.s. I used the phrase "anti-religion" without ever recalling seeing it used before, since it conveyed the militancy I saw underlying Hitchens' viewpoints.
I just checked wikipedia, and found the following entry which conveys the same feeling.
nekokate wrote:But there's a marked difference between atheism and anti-religion.
Absolutely... but with the leading lights of the day, Hitchens and Dawkins, it is anti religion and what is hilarious arguing against the existence of the supernatural using reasoned argument.
It is like trying to catch water in your hands... okay for a second or two but soon enough you're flooded.
