2
   

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 10:28 am
c.i. and spendius,

We had been discussing whether Iraq's new constitution would have separation of church and state (mosque and state). Obviously establishing security in Iraq has greater priority than writing a new constitution.

Any thoughts on separation of mosque and state in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 04:59 pm
"Freedom of religion" would be the best goal for Iraq. Some other Arab/Muslim countries allow religious freedoms, so it seems like a viable solution.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 10:57 pm
I don't think it's easy to have a strict separation of state and religion in Iraq where religion is deeply rooted and where there's a mistrust of foreign influence.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 07:45 am
If Iraq incorporates religion into its government, can it still be considered a democracy?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 07:49 am
Ray wrote:
I don't think it's easy to have a strict separation of state and religion in Iraq where religion is deeply rooted and where there's a mistrust of foreign influence.


I just want to remind that the US has a so-called seperation of state and church, but refers to God and Christianity whenever possible (and even - in European eyes) when it seems to be impossible.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 08:52 am
Quote, "I just want to remind that the US has a so-called seperation of state and church, but refers to God and Christianity whenever possible (and even - in European eyes) when it seems to be impossible." This president used religion during his reelection campaign, and the majority of "citizens" voted for him. This president continues to use "religion" to push his religious' agenda, and the American people follow like sheep.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:10 am
Hang on c.i.:-

Millions voted Kerry and even more millions didn't vote at all.I don't think"sheep" would apply to them.
There is a thing known as "Entryism" in the UK.It is when a minority win an election by inducing apathy and distractions.It is usually applied to Trades Union elections.
If I was to risk an opinion I would say that there is no possibility of separating church and state in Iraq in the forseeable future.After that who knows.Saddam did allow a fair degree of freedom of religious expression.He seems to me to have been more secular than anything else.Perhaps we could have seduced him into a Western way of life had we had a little more patience.As it stands now, by all accounts,religion has been politicised.

Here the satire directed at the religious is commonly quite vitriolic even though we don't have the separation.I don't detect that in the US.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:10 am
Hang on c.i.:-

Millions voted Kerry and even more millions didn't vote at all.I don't think"sheep" would apply to them.
There is a thing known as "Entryism" in the UK.It is when a minority win an election by inducing apathy and distractions.It is usually applied to Trades Union elections.
If I was to risk an opinion I would say that there is no possibility of separating church and state in Iraq in the forseeable future.After that who knows.Saddam did allow a fair degree of freedom of religious expression.He seems to me to have been more secular than anything else.Perhaps we could have seduced him into a Western way of life had we had a little more patience.As it stands now, by all accounts,religion has been politicised.

Here the satire directed at the religious is commonly quite vitriolic even though we don't have the separation.I don't detect that in the US.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:07 am
Spendius writes
Quote:
If I was to risk an opinion I would say that there is no possibility of separating church and state in Iraq in the forseeable future.After that who knows.Saddam did allow a fair degree of freedom of religious expression.He seems to me to have been more secular than anything else.Perhaps we could have seduced him into a Western way of life had we had a little more patience.As it stands now, by all accounts,religion has been politicised.


Saddam himself was secular. I think, however, he encouraged the Sunni minority to prevail over and make life generally miserable for the larger groups of Shias and Kurds. So long as Christians and Jews remained out of sight, they were of no concern to him. But it would be a stretch to say that any predominently Islamic country is entirely secular including Iraq. Even Turkey, the most democratic of the predominently Islamic nations, definitely favors Islam over any other.

But can Iraq favor Islam and still be democratic? Of course it can. The first Americans came to the New World in search of freedom of reloigion from an oppressive Church of England. They had no intention of granting religious freedom to anybody else, however, and in fact dealt very harshly with their 'heretics' including putting them to death in most unpleasant ways.

Despite all of that, the founders of the United States of America managed to forge an enduring republc based on democratic principles without infringing on an of the myriad religious groups who came here, and in so doing ensured peace among those religious groups. And religion was given a high status via the very first amendment and it was expected and considered highly beneficial that those in government be people of deep faith. Neverthless, the federal government was prohibited to favor any religion over any other or infringe on the right of the people to be as religious as they chose wherever they chose to be religious. And they allowed the religiously monoplies in the various states to remain monopolies until they evolved out of that kind of mindset.

If Iraq does the same, they will be just fine. They can even favor Islam in a predominently Islamic country and they will be just fine. If they should favor the Shias over the Sunnis and Kurds or give give special status to any of their various Islamic sects, they will guarantee civil war for as long as we can imagine. If their national government stays out of it, however, and allows the people to peacefully be whatever they wish to be, I suspect the Iraqis will eventually evolve out of a religious monopoly mindset as well.

To think that our form of government after two hundred plus years of evolvement is the only possible successful model for the Iraqis flies in the face of history.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:31 am
Foxy:-

I would agree with most of that but I might have phrased it a bit differently.

I'm still waiting for a definitive response to the "Better chips/frocks" post.And don't say you have forgotten because I know you haven't.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:40 am
spendius,
I can't believe you are still obsessed with frocks!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:45 am
Spendius, The Catholic Church discouraged its flock to vote for Kerry; and Bush used his religious' beliefs to win votes. An editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News written by Leonard Pitts reports on a ABC News audtiotape in which a preacher said, "If you vote for John Kerry this year, you need to repent or resign. You have been holding back God's church way too long." I'm sure this scenario has been repeated throughout America in hundreds, if not thousands, of churches. In comparison, we had a Catholic President named John Kennedy who did not allow his personal faith to dictate public policy. It makes me shiver.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:47 am
No Spendius, I honestly don't, but if you'll provide a link I'll promise to go look at it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:56 am
Foxy:-

I don't know how to do that now.I thought you would remember.It was about birthday presents and deep fat fryers to make better chips for your darling or a frock to make you look sexy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:58 am
ROFL. I'm sorry I missed it. Smile
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:59 am
spendius wrote:
It was about birthday presents and deep fat fryers to make better chips for your darling or a frock to make you look sexy.


How could anyone forget!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:10 am
c.i.

I heard about that.I watch CBS news at our 00.30 hrs GMT to keep a vague track on what you lot are up to.

I would bet that the quote from Pitts didn't come from a Catholic pulpit.They are not so crude.

Why does it make you "shiver"?Is it really that bad.
I don't think you have anything to worry about.They lost the argument years ago.

It seems to me that Sunday worship,and other stuff,is just a social occasion where they get to put their best duds on and parade looking really sexy and virtuous.I noticed that the ones who can't look sexy lay the virtue on thicker.It's good business for clothes shops and dry cleaners and florists.Oh-and the preachers too.Pass round the contracts-you know?

If you read The Decameron you'll see that it starts in a church and if you read between the lines I'm sure that you will conclude that it isn't all negative.
There is something particularly exquisite in seducing virtuous young ladies I always thought.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:04 am
Quote, "It seems to me that Sunday worship,and other stuff,is just a social occasion where they get to put their best duds on and parade looking really sexy and virtuous." Thanks for the laugh for today, but I'm afraid many religious people follow the instructions of their preists/pastors of their church. Many are just too lazy to understand the politics of any issue, and out of shear laziness just follow what they are told from the pulpit.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:26 am
Well I have been in the Church, including numerous denominations, all my life. I have worked for the Church and for Church-based organizations including ecumencal groups. And I have never once--I emphasize never once--have heard a minister, pastor, priest, or any other person from any religious order tell me or anybody else who to vote for or what political party to support, nor have I seen any literature to that effect, nor has there been any such policy even remotely suggested.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 10:26 am
double post
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 02:56:08