Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Wow. I just read mesquite's link for the myths and realities of Islamic law, and I don't think it is that bad...really, what is so wrong with it (except laws that are sexist agains women)...I think it would prove for a more productive communtiy...and I think that it may work in a democracy

Thanks mesquite, I had been wanting to research that.

0 Replies

hyper46,
You asked what is wrong with it. One of the most troubling things about shariah is that apostasy (leaving the religion) is the second highest crime, second only to murder.

The Myths and Realities link showed shariah in a positive light by salesmen for the idea. Like most subjects you seldom get the whole truth from one source.

Now how about hearing from some that have lived under shariah and managed to get out.

Apostates of Islam

While there, be sure to check out the videos. WARNING the following links are extremely graphic.

Cutting of Hands and Feet

and also this video

Video of Stoning to Death.

0 Replies

There is a specific timetable involved with Iraq's new constitution. The constitution needs to be drafted by August 15. It then needs to be approved in a national referendum by October 15. Elections under the new constitution are to take place in December.

Since the constitution needs to be approved by a majority of Iraqi voters, compromises will need to be made. The actual words in the constitution will show whether there is an extreme use of Sharia or only a moderate one.

0 Replies

woops...I feel like a blond (I am really a brunnette, I promise) I just liked the discipline part, in part...Americans are so undisciplined with our "freedom." I don't know, we are really apathetic about so many things, it kinda scares me.

0 Replies

The current Iraqi national assembly needs to fashion a constitution that meets with the approval of Iraqi voters. If they fail to win approval for their constitution in October, the current national assembly will be dissolved. Iraqis would then vote on a new transitional national assembly that would get its own chance to write a new constitution.

0 Replies

wow, that cycle could go on indefinately. Hey, i have an idea. How about everyone posts their own idea of what should be included in the new Iraqi constitution, if that provides a separation of church and state, and if that best serves democracy? Any takers?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

The current Iraqi national assembly needs to fashion a constitution that meets with the approval of Iraqi voters. If they fail to win approval for their constitution in October, the current national assembly will be dissolved. Iraqis would then vote on a new transitional national assembly that would get its own chance to write a new constitution.

Interesting. That sounds like a good way to do it. I wonder who thought of that?

One potential problem might be that they *never* get approval for *any* constitution. I wonder what they do then.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

wow, that cycle could go on indefinately. Hey, i have an idea. How about everyone posts their own idea of what should be included in the new Iraqi constitution, if that provides a separation of church and state, and if that best serves democracy? Any takers?

Number one on the hit parade for any fair government, will be a strict separation of church and state. It's number one in our constitution for a good reason, and I believe that it's the single most fundamental aspect of any government which wants to secure liberty and freedom for the governed.

I believe that the people *in* government can still have religious expression, and can allow religious influence on their decisions without promoting any of those expressions or decisions as those of the state (for example, by putting phrases on currency, or religious icons in public corridors of public buildings).

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

One potential problem might be that they *never* get approval for *any* constitution. I wonder what they do then.

I think that the fact that a majority of Iraqi voters need to approve the new constitution will moderate how Islamic law is used.

For example, Iraq does have a women's movement that is in contact with international women's rights programs. Women make up one-third of Iraq's current national assembly. International organizations are providing workshops for women legislators in democratic constitution writing.

0 Replies

It may be entirely unreasonable that some provisions for Islamic practices will not be accommodated in the new Iraqi constitution, especially in a country where the huge majority of citizens are Moslem. I do not see that a provision requiring accommodation for the call to prayer, etc. would doom their Constituti8on to failure or would make Iraq a theocracy any more than a religious slogan or motto or image, puiblic or pirvate, makes the United States a theocracy or violates the intent of the Constitution.

So long as the Iraqi constitution allows freedom of belief and does not significantlly discriminate against non Islamic religions, they will achieve a proper degree of secularity.

The guage of whether our own separation of Church and State is being violated is always gauged by: Do I have to believe this or is there a consequence or reward for me if I do or do not bleieve it? If not, there is no violation of Church and State. Is the teacher teaching "this i what you should believe?" If not, there is no violation of Church and State.

(In the latter case, it may be too much to expect teachers not to teach and promote Islamic law along with other subjects in Iraqi schools. We would not tolerate that in the U.S., however.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The guage of whether our own separation of Church and State is being violated is always gauged by: Do I have to believe this or is there a consequence or reward for me if I do or do not bleieve it? If not, there is no violation of Church and State. Is the teacher teaching "this i what you should believe?" If not, there is no violation of Church and State.

A lot of wishful thinking is going on in that statement. That may well be the way the Falwells and the Robertsons would like it to be, but that doesn't make it so. I hope that the test of our first ammendment never deteriorates to such degree.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The guage of whether our own separation of Church and State is being violated is always gauged by: Do I have to believe this or is there a consequence or reward for me if I do or do not bleieve it? If not, there is no violation of Church and State. Is the teacher teaching "this i what you should believe?" If not, there is no violation of Church and State.

A lot of wishful thinking is going on in that statement. That may well be the way the Falwells and the Robertsons would like it to be, but that doesn't make it so. I hope that the test of our first ammendment never deteriorates to such a degree.

I agree Mesquite. Luckily the Supreme court has so far recognized that an endorsement of religion by the state is not just marked by impositions of thought, but also by suggestions of thought.

The Supreme court has always asked *why* is something expressed. Why is there a two ton monument to the ten commandments placed in the public rotunda of the federal courthouse. Why were the words "under God" placed into a state sponsored pledge of allegience. Why is a creche placed onto the lawn of the town hall. Why was "in God *we* Trust" placed onto our currency.

If the intent of the iconography is to link the state to any theistic concept, then it is determined to be in violation of the first amendment.

So far, the court has dodged the "Pledge" issue on a technicality, but I think there is another Ten Commandments case due in court this summer. We'll have to wait and see how they make their decision this time.

0 Replies

It just occurs to me that draconian interpretation of the First Amendment is going to accomplisht the exact opposite of what the anti-religious people want.

Why do you suppose these issues were never much an issue up to the last couple of decades? It was because everybody pretty much lived and let live.

Now we have what appears a dedicated effort by a determined few to remove every symbol, word, or image of religion from public view and this against a backdrop of more than 90% of Americans who say they believe in some form of a diety and against a backdrop of a substantial majority of Americans who see no problem with non coercive religious art, symbols, music, or prayers being part of the public life.

Those who keep wanting a religion-free world are no doubt going to keep egging on those who are just as determined to retain their first amendment rights and could easily push the pendulum way too far the other way.

Peaceful co-existance is the much better way.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Now we have what appears a dedicated effort by a determined few to remove every symbol, word, or image of religion from public view and this against a backdrop of more than 90% of Americans who say they believe in some form of a diety and against a backdrop of a substantial majority of Americans who see no problem with non coercive religious art, symbols, music, or prayers being part of the public life.

Fox, why is it that you object to the removal of religious references, but you blithly ignore the actions and intentions that put them there in the first place?

The way you make it sound, it's ok for religious people to engrave their views on government, but if we try to remove them it's draconian enforcement of the first amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

And the mere fact that things like "in god we trust" are now defended as being historic parts of our government (when they are not), is proof positive that such iconography *is* an establishment of religion, even if nobody arrests you for not believing it. It seems to me that there can be no more fundamental establishment of anything than to mislead future generations of Americans as to the accuracy of US history. How many people on the street know that "in god we trust" was not part of our original currency, or that "under god" was placed into the pledge in the 1950's? And if they start allowing ten commandment displays in court houses, how many generations will it be before nobody remembers a time when they weren't there? That is establishment, no doubt about it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Peaceful co-existance is the much better way.

Agreed, so get the religious right to quit forcing their crap into everyone's face and we'll all get along just fine, like we did before all this crap started to accumulate in our government institutions.

0 Replies

It's all in whose ox is being gored. You, Ros, seem to think the religious right is 'forcing its crap' into everybody's face while the religious right seems to feel they are availing themselves of their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and resent when others presume to restrict that right.

Why something was put there in the first place is not at all important. The important thing is what right is being violated by that something. Do you have the right to object to a da Vinci painting hanging in the public library or even in the courthouse? Do I have a right to object to a copy of the Communist Manifesto hung in the library or an ugly sculpture of a dubious historic figure on the courthouse lawn?

Yes, we both have the right to object. But do we have the right to overrule others who like those things being there? No we do not as they in no way violate anybody's rights.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It's all in whose ox is being gored. You, Ros, seem to think the religious right is 'forcing its crap' into everybody's face

Yes. What do you call it when they put "In God we Trust" on everyone's currency? How can that *not* be considered shoving it in everyone's face?

Foxfyre wrote:

while the religious right seems to feel they are availing themselves of their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion

They have the right to exercise their own religious freedom. Nobody is infringing that. But the first amendment explicitly limits how and where they can express that religious freedom, and the government is one place where they are not allowed to "express" in any way which might be construed as public policy, and this is exactly what they are trying to do when they put commandments in public foyers of court houses, and when they put In God *we* trust on public currency, and when they put Under God in our chilldren's pledge of allegience to their country, they are establishing historic precident for public policy. It couldn't be any clearer.

0 Replies

Ros writes

Quote:

But the first amendment explicitly limits how and where they can express that religious freedom,

And here is where we disagree the most. The First Amendment in no way limits how and where "they" (the religious right) can excercise their religious freedom; in fact it explicitly says that government may not limit it. The government cannot tell you what you must believe or how you must demonstrate religion or the lack thereof nor can it tell you that you can't believe what you wish or practice religion when and where you please so long as nobody else's rights are violated.

A religious slogan, motto, image, icon, or whatever is onlyjust that and is not a policy unless people are required to believe it or are rewarded for believing it or are in some way punished because they do not.

Is the American Eagle a policy? Is Mount Rushmore a policy? Is a president's image on a coin a policy? Is E Pluribus Unum a policy? Or are these all symbolic? So also is a slogan or motto that happens to contain a religious word or implication a symbol, not policy. To deny people of faith their symbols would be very much against the letter and intent of the First Amendment.
.

0 Replies

Foxy:-

Somebody was objecting to something when they pulled down a sculpture of Saddam Hussein.And I've seen a fair number of Stalin statues tumble in the dust.
Why can't the religious right,as you call it,confine their icons to the private premises they control.Surely shoving them into everybody's face is an aggressive act of the first order.You'll be running around next exorcising us sinners with rituals of your own devising blissfully unaware that you are committing the blackest of all sins by trying to conjure the aid of a god for your own purposes which,it goes without saying,are selfish.
Displays of the swastika are banned in Germany and if you would take the trouble,which I don't suppose you will,you could find out about a whole range of images and icons and whatnot which have caused mayhem and bloodshed right down the ages.A battle was even fought about allowing perspective into art and an even bigger one over lifelike imitations of people and divinities.

As an American judge once said-"free speech doesn't run to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

It could look like you want to aggravate people with other beliefs just for the hell of it.Aggravated people sometimes aggravate back.

You're just bored due to lack of serious study and have a need to rant.If you want to rant why not focus on an educational system which has led you to such a daft and well discredited way of thinking.

The Eagle is a rapacious bird of prey.There are religious viewpoints which have doves and chickens for symbolic expression of their ideas.
When you call up God to your aid you just look infantile.It's just name magic and went out in Europe along with religious war and medicine men.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And here is where we disagree the most. The First Amendment in no way limits how and where "they" (the religious right) can excercise their religious freedom; in fact it explicitly says that government may not limit it.

The first amendment actually does both, it keeps government out of religion and keeps religion out of government. Or at least it tries to do so.

A grey area develops because some people are religious, and people are a part of government. So nobody is saying that people can't express their religion as part of their personal approach to doing their job (even if they are a government employee), but they are only allowed to do so at a personal level, not a policy level.

Foxfyre wrote:

A religious slogan, motto, image, icon, or whatever is onlyjust that and is not a policy unless people are required to believe it or are rewarded for believing it or are in some way punished because they do not.

Come on Fox, if your example were true, then you would find it acceptable to put Crusifiction Crosses on our dollars, after all the cross is just a couple of lines which happen to intersect in a particular way. And words like "in god we trust", those are just jumbles of letters, they don't mean anything do they? Of course they mean something.

If words and symbols don't rerpesent the policy of the institution they are engraved on, then why put them on churches, why put them on synagogues, why put them anywhere. Of course they mean something.

Maybe when the population of the United States becomes mostly Muslim and they want to put the icon of Islam on the Capital Building (even though you are not *required* to believe it), maybe then you'll see things differently.

0 Replies

Ros, I think most people, including most of the religious right, would object to a Christian cross or Minorrah or Buddha or any other denomination-specific symbol on our currency though a fair number of County seals still include a cross or a church or something similar as a symbol of a significant part of the history of the area. Religion has played such a significant part in the history of the founding and development of the United States, it is both foolish and dishonest to neither acknowledge or teach that. That's why an incidental non-coercive, non-denominationally-specific religious word or reference in a national motto or slogan is perfectly logical, legal, and harmless. The vast majority of Americans like it; it in no way infringes on the collective or individual rights of those who don't.

At such time as a majority of Americans don't like those non-coercive, non-denominationally-specific mottos, slogans, or symbols, they will disappear from the public scene. Meanwhile they harm no one. Most people I think have no strong feelings about them one way or another. If I was to have opportunity to vote on whether to keep them, I would probably vote yes as they do comfort and reassure some that the United States has not yet succumbed to the Godless heathen hordes. Meanwhile the rest are free to believe or not believe as they wish. Nobody's rights are infringed.

Live and let live.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know