Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:

smoggie wrote:It is impossible for someone to be a true Muslim and a true American at the same time


Would it not be the ultimate aim of islam to make America" a muslim state?

Nope.

Islam's ultimate goal is that a believer reaches spiritual union with God - a state where one's soul is at rest, God is pleased with it and it is pleased with God.

As the American Constitution enshrines freedom of religion - there is nothing in the constitution that prevents Muslims practicing Islam.

It is a people's democratic right to influence the laws that govern them, and Waha says that the Muslims in America may wish to eventually have the whole of America embrace Islam (even if takes millions of years) - but hey, the Bible-bashing south also have fantastical wishes too (and have a lot more influence on laws than the American Muslims do).

Waha makes the sweeping point that 'Islam is not a religion', but she isn't serious on this narrow point - she is arguing that Islam encompasses a political system as well and that Muslims cannot live under non-Muslim rule. This factually untrue and the earliest example of this untruth is the instructions to the earliest Muslims who lived under the rule of the Christian King of Ethiopia - the instructions came from the Prophet, pbuh, himself.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hi...Pardon my ignorance on the workings of Islam.

I am sure that there is a peace loving, tolerant side to it.
But as a westerner, we are fed the radical variety by our media and see a radicals openly preaching hatred of everything un-islamic. This is all going on within our own states (uk).

Once we look beyond the Fox News type headlines, you should find a relatively balanced reporting of the difference between Islam and the 'mad mullahs'.

I'm from the UK too - and when I went back earlier this year, the mosques in London were enjoying an increase in numbers of non-Muslim visitors interested in just learning more about Islam (out of curiosity, not a desire to 'convert' or anything like that).


Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks Rob, It was interesting, I m afraid we can not have a debate cause I m on Wafa's side!

Ahh easy with the "troll" discoverer! he thinks anybody who does not agree with his Ismalic views is a "troll"!

smoggie wrote:
But as a westerner, we are fed the radical variety by our media and see a radicals openly preaching hatred of everything un-islamic. This is all going on within our own states (uk).

Honestly, as an Iranian I haven't seen any better angle of Islam than you! and I know it very well! trust me!

This article seemed very apposite to this discussion. It reports about the views of American Muslims and also of the 'animizing' of Muslims by some sections of the media (and comes from the UK press!):

How Muslim middle America made me feel safer

Every time I enter the United States, I wonder what the lads in Homeland Security have in store for me. But last week, Chicago was a piece of cake. I was arriving from Lebanon, I told the young man at the desk, and I was to address a Muslim conference. ‘Gee, you must have had a bad time out there in Lebanon,’ he commiserated, stamping my passport in less than thirty seconds and handing it back to me with a scriptwriter’s greeting: ‘There you go, partner.’ And so I passed through the barrier, saddled up my white Palomino in the parking lot, and rode off towards the crescent Islamic moon that hung over Chicago. Hi Ho Fisk, away!

I had forgotten how many American Muslims were southwest Asian rather than Middle Eastern in origin, Pakistani and Indian by family rather than Syrian or Egyptian or Lebanese or Saudi. But the largely Sunni congregation of 32,000 gathered for the Islamic Society of North America’s annual gig were not the hotdog-sellers, bellhops and taxi-drivers of New York. They were part of the backbone of middle America, corporate lawyers, real estate developers, construction engineers, and owners of chain-store outlets. Nor were these the docile, hangdog, frightened Muslims we have grown used to writing about in the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. To about 12,000 of these Muslims in a vast auditorium, I said the Middle East had never been so dangerous. I condemned the Hizballah leader, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, for saying he had no idea the Israelis would have responded so savagely to the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of three others on 12 July 2006. Later, a worthy imam told me: ‘I thought what you said about Sheikh Hassan [sic] was almost an insult.’ But that clearly wasn’t what the audience believed.

When I told them that as American Muslims, they could demand a right of reply when lobby groups maliciously claimed that a network of suicide bombers was plotting within their totally law-abiding community, they roared. But I warned them that I would listen carefully to their response to my next sentence. And then I said that they must feel free to condemn – and should condemn – the Muslim regimes that used torture and oppression, even if these dictators lived in the lands from which their families came. And those thousands of Muslims rose to their feet and clapped and yelled their agreement with more emotion and fervour than any rabble-rousing non-Muslim yelling about ‘Arab terrorism’. This was not what I had expected.

While I was signing copies of the American edition of my book on the Middle East some hours later – the real reason, of course, for going to Chicago – these same people came up to me to explain they were not American Muslims but Muslim Americans, that Islam was not incompatible with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some had stories of great tragedy. One young man had written out a short sentence for me to inscribe in the front of his copy of my book. ‘To my parents and siblings,’ he had written on a pink slip, ‘who perished in the hands of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Yousos Adam.’ I looked up to find the young man crying. ‘I am against
war, you see,’ he said, and vanished into the crowd.

There were other more ingratiating folk around: the Pakistani broadcaster, for example, who wanted me to talk about his country’s peace loving principles – until I began describing the continued secret relationship between Pakistan’s intelligence service and the Taliban, at which the interview was swiftly concluded.

Then there was the young man with Asiatic features who said softly that he was ‘Mr Yee, the Guantanamo imam’ – who turned out to be the same Mr Yee foully and falsely accused by the US authorities of passing al-Qaeda-type messages while ministering to the supposed al-Qaeda prisoners at America’s most luxurious prison camp. But there was no bitterness among any of these people. Only a kind of growing pain at the way the press and television in America continued to paint them – and all other Muslims in the world – as an alien, cruel, sadistic race.

One woman produced an article of June this year from the Toronto Star about the Israeli town of Sderot, the target of hundreds of Palestinian missiles from Gaza. ‘Under fire at Israel’s Ground Zero,’ ran the headline. ‘Do you believe in this kind of journalism, Mr Fisk?’ the woman demanded to know. And I was about to give her the ‘both sides of the picture’ lecture when I noticed from the article that just five Israelis had been killed in Sderot in five years. Yes, every life is equal. But who at the Star had decided that an Israeli town with one dead every year equalled the Ground Zero of Manhattan’s 3,000 dead in two hours? All dead are equal in the Canadian press it seems, but some are more equal than others.

And I couldn’t help noticing the degree to which the NewYork Times’s Thomas Friedman is stoking the fires. This is the same man who wrote a few years ago that the Palestinians believed in ‘child sacrifice’ – because they allowed their kids to throw stones at Israeli soldiers who then obligingly gunned them down. Most egregiously for the Muslims I spoke to, Friedman was now ‘animalising’ – as one girl put it beautifully – the Iraqis, and she presented me with a Friedman clipping which ended with these words: ‘It will be a global tragedy if they [the insurgent Iraqi enemy] succeed, but . . . the US government can’t keep asking Americans to sacrifice their children for people who hate each other more than they love their own children.’

So there we go again, I thought. Muslims sacrifice their children. Muslims feel hate more than they love their children. No wonder, I suppose, that their kiddies keep getting Israeli bullets through their hearts in Gaza and American bullets through their hearts in Iraq and Israeli bombs smashing them to death in Lebanon. It’s all the Arabs’ fault. And yet here in Chicago were Muslims dismissing all the calumnies and sophistries and lies and saying they were proud to be Americans. And I guess – for a man who wakes each morning in his Beirut apartment, wondering where the next explosion will be – that I felt a little safer in this world.

The Independent, 9 September 2006

^^^Reminds me of articles in our religious course books in school! we have several of these in articles from elemantary school to all university fields... Unfortunately they are in Farsi and I can not copy and paste the for ONE's relief!

And right now I am so maaad because I just saw the film of police guards which hitting people with their cars in the streets! DD they drive 4*4 like you!

shafique wrote:Wafa is being controversial - but controversy is good if people actually listen to the arguments on both sides and look for the truth.

Exactly. Controversy is a way to gain attention (which is closely related to populism) but more importantly, to discuss different visions and getting to understand eachothers arguments and learn from them without immediately resorting to weapons and destruction.

Unfortunately, there are some Muslims who do actually share the 'Islam means we need to be ruled by Sharia' and 'we need to fight to establish Muslim rule' philosophy. There are religious nutters in all religions, we have our fair share (and, arguably, an unfair share of media attention paid on these fringe nutters).

Agreed, I also think that the minority of religious nutters (extremist fundamentalist or the modern-day barberian term - Terrorists) is highlighted in the debate, for a good reason though.
The peaceful muslims around the world (close to 1.3 billion) are living their lives on a more moderate manner in my observation. So these religious fanatics are clearly spoiling a religious atmosphere for a majority of world citizens with cruel and barbarian ways of disagreement. Those groups are disruptive for modern day live and use means that have high impact (e.g. public transportation like airplanes) due to its potential of high casualties in one of the savest transportation means available on this planet.

The more awareness about this small group of extremists, the more people tend to reflect on their communities and identify its problems instead of ignoring them. Media can be controversial, but generally does address numerous problems in society and gives the common people an opportunity to reflect on those problems and progress the laws for the better.

Progression, instead of keeping the status quo. (no matter how large or small the (open or closed) community problems are)

However, the question still remains - is Islam, the religion, incompatible with Western Law.

Well, in what way could Islam (the religion) be incompatible? Islam requires a Muslim believe in God, believe Muhamad, pbuh, is His Messenger, pray five times a day, give alms/charity, fast during Ramadhan and perform the pilgrimage to Mecca if he can afford to do so. It says that one should obey the 10 commandments - specifically to not murder, lie, fornicate, commit adultery... etc etc

So, I would submit, on the religious side - there is nothing incompatible with 'Western Law' - which typically enshrines a 'freedom of worship'.

Similarly the social interactions in Islam (for 'ordinary' Muslims - those not in power) - Islam teaches that of the three levels of 'virtue' - the lowest is to be fair to all people (treat them with justice), the next level is to be kind (do more for them then you get in return) and the highest is kinship (treat others like you would treat family - do good for them even if they are ungrateful or would do you harm).

Islam also teaches how Muslims should behave as citizens of any state. God says:

4:59, O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the
Last Day; that is best and more suitable to the end

'Those in authority' can be taken to be those in power. We have concrete examples of this from the time of the Prophet, pbuh - where the Muslims who emigrated to Ethiopia were instructed to be obedient to and be good citizens of that Christian Kingdom. That country was always on good terms with the Muslim empire and was never invaded by the Muslims.

The problem I see with Islam (where religion and law are intertwined) or any other belief system for that matter, is that beliefs and convictions rule undividely into state law. From an atheist perspective (like me) every religion is emotional or subjective. Its a conviction system I do not share, although I could, to some degree, enjoy these charming utopian views.

For example:
If a group of islamic believers live in a society where they follow the Koran (nevermind the many different versions) and where the woman has to be sheltered from the vices of their men, then Western morality sees a conflict of interest in the treatment of freedom as it is locked in the moral (not religious) equalities of Western Law systems.

The problem in the West is that this conflict (religious freedom vs. human rights and equality) is separated in Western lawsystems. So when islamic believers fall back on our laws for freedom of expression, our laws see a conflict of interest in the human rights part.
Next to that, the moral system in the West likes to see a face when we talk to eachother. Also we great by giving one a hand. An increasing amount of islamic believers are using their right for freedom of expression to disregard our moral uses, which are not related to religion in Western society. It only affects social communication and behaviour. Their convictions divide people into groups, where the essence is to culturally motivate people to connect and intertwine for greater cohesion.

So, due to the nature of the Western lawsystem, and the growing influence of islamic viewpoints in Western society, there is a feeling of discomfort with the people that religion shuold be kept at home, for the individual, but not on the workplace and public places. Its the need for separation of church and state as its called in the West as this avoids conflicts.

So lastly we come to the instructions for Muslims who are in power.

Again, Islam gives clear guidelines on how to rule. It advocates consultation with people, but doesn't proscribe democracy (it doesn't actually proscribe any form of government, just stipulates how those in power should behave). Therefore Islam is not incompatible with democracy, monarchy etc.

Sounds pretty totalitarian to me! If we look at history of totalitarian regimes, they always end in suppression, limiting the freedom of people by decree, preferably by religious law.
Poor people don't have much demands, but a population with increasing wealth and prosperity want a say in modern society. So as the people grow stronger, autocratic regimes usually falter or end up in fighting its own people. Just look at Iran nowadays, or the Soviet Union a while ago.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the Orientalist notions that Islam teaches that all non-Muslims should be engaged in warfare, or that Muslims need to conquer and rule etc. These Quaint Beliefs have been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere.

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. From early examples of Muslims living in peace in Ethiopia to todays Muslims living in 'Western' countries - Islam is clearly compatible with 'Western Laws'. The only way that Islam is made to be incompatible is when we construct a strawman of a militant, bloodthirsty creed that won't accept Kafir rule - a view that rightly belongs in the 18th and prior centuries (and I conced that there are examples of both Muslims - the 'mad mullahs' - and quaint Orientalists who still cherish these views).

Cheers,
Shafique

Well, the orientalist notions do have a resemblence of the warfare policies in the United States, if you ask me. Alot of Christians think they should use their power to influence the world with their utopian view of freedom and prosperity, but this is the same fallacy every other fundamentalist religion entices.

A modern day development that is observable in society of today, is that an increasing number of people are resorting to atheist beliefs due to the influence of advanced science and education in public schools. People are becoming smarter and see that religion is a major aspects in conflicts around the globe, and a drag on economic prosperity because of these unstable regions and governments that rule them.

One day we discover another planet (or galaxies) full of life and then we won't be focussing on ourselves anylonger. It would pose the same problem we have today and requires us to set a lawsystem based on common morals, without religous convictions. We would have the same and other problems to deal with. Probably larger than the ones we have now, in terms of power.

Extraterrestrial communication...how on earth do we do that, if we can't even agree on this little globe we use today...

Thanks for your insight Shafique.

Cheers

shafique wrote:Once we look beyond the Fox News type headlines, you should find a relatively balanced reporting of the difference between Islam and the 'mad mullahs'.

I'm from the UK too - and when I went back earlier this year, the mosques in London were enjoying an increase in numbers of non-Muslim visitors interested in just learning more about Islam (out of curiosity, not a desire to 'convert' or anything like that).


Cheers,
Shafique

I think it should be clear that Fox News is the worst kind of newschannel you can think of. Its biased and totally unbalanced. Its more like a christian fundamentalist channel if you ask me.
Just absurd. Especially that Bill O'Reilly, who really could use some anger management courses.

I think CNN has the most diversified/balanced look on American issues with a democratic leaning.

I rather watch a hundred sources on the internet and make up my own mind instead of watching 1 or 2 channels only.

melika969 wrote:Thanks Rob, It was interesting, I m afraid we can not have a debate cause I m on Wafa's side!

Ahh easy with the "troll" discoverer! he thinks anybody who does not agree with his Ismalic views is a "troll"!

I simply cannot believe that an intelligent and highly educated woman like yourself is totally devoted to just one person like Mrs. Wafa.

There should always be room for debate. You might be disappointed.

ps: The 'troll dudes' have nothing useful to say, so they resort to ignorance. Its a common stance in that region. Gladly we have education nowadays. (sorry for the generalization, pun intended)

uaebadoo wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHFgM-VKY14

Thanks Badoo, interesting video.

I agree with his argumentation about the Constitution of 1776 regarding the 3/5ths of the rights of white for black people. Just absurd!

My personal belief is that 'the Constitution gives a decent guideline' for prosperity, but doesn't answer all questions of modern times.

You should try and read about our European lawsystem, which is more Western than its American counterpart in my 'utopia'

ps: Utopia, or the ideal world, doesn't exist in my conviction. Its all about concessions and middle ways to suit most of todays people in modern society.

Problem then arises...what do you consider a modern society! I would, perhaps logically, resort to the European model of moderate socialist economies and countries like Holland, Sweden, France, Germany etc.

Some interesting viewpoints about Morality:

1. Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God?

For Melika and others who can't watch Youtube due to political restrictions, or simply because they want to see the entire debate: http://fora.tv/2007/05/07/Al_Sharpton_a ... ullprogram

2. Does Morality Need God?

And again, the full program with chapter selection: http://fora.tv/2009/12/07/The_Great_Iss ... ullprogram

Shafique, what do you make of these video's? With what do you agree or disagree?

Thanks

RobbyG wrote:If a group of islamic believers live in a society where they follow the Koran (nevermind the many different versions)..................
.............
the moral system in the West likes to see a face when we talk to eachother.

So what exactly are you trying to say here. Could these be the ramblings of the so called "educated mind" ?

Bahh ! so much for that, someone who does not even know the basics of something he decides to criticize and debate against.

Like I said in my 1st post go down to the roots. Its obvious you have a hard time with some basic facts and diffrentiating between culture and religion

Look up Samuel Huntington and his clash of cvillisation. This whole issue is addressed there. Although I might not agree with him totally but respect his views and credibility. Not someone who wants to make hay while the sun is shining likethe idiot wafa !

desertdudeshj wrote:

RobbyG wrote:If a group of islamic believers live in a society where they follow the Koran (nevermind the many different versions)..................
.............
the moral system in the West likes to see a face when we talk to eachother.

So what exactly are you trying to say here. Could these be the ramblings of the so called "educated mind" ?

Why do you constantly try to demonize the individual (aint working) instead of accepting that an educated mind is not an ownership characteristic. You can obtain it also, by opening up to different mindsets and critical thinking.

Stop making a fool of yourself DD.

Bahh ! so much for that, someone who does not even know the basics of something he decides to criticize and debate against.

Like I said in my 1st post go down to the roots. Its obvious you have a hard time with some basic facts and diffrentiating between culture and religion

Look up Samuel Huntington and his clash of cvillisation. This whole issue is addressed there. Although I might not agree with him totally but respect his views and credibility. Not someone who wants to make hay while the sun is shining likethe idiot wafa !

Culture and religion are not two pillars of Western society. Religion and Law are. Besides, culture and religion are often closely related or derivative from eachother in its characteristics.

Nearly every country in Europe has an authentic culture, but its society is based on the same two pillars known as Secularity.

Your superiorty complex and condesending tone are getting annoying now.

Unlike Shaf I don't have the time, energy or patience to deal with fools like you. So peace out and I leave you in clog land hoping one day you will land a job here.

desertdudeshj wrote:Your superiorty complex and condesending tone are getting annoying now.

Unlike Shaf I don't have the time, energy or patience to deal with fools like you. So peace out and I leave you in clog land hoping one day you will land a job here.

There is no superiority complex. As far as I have experienced, its the Emirati who tend to feel superior over Western expats. Ego and influence abound.

You could perhaps argue that I have a condescending tone towards you following your individual attacks. I'll give you that.

If you have valid points, I'm happy to agree with you mate. I know you are not a nasty person, you just aren't open to viewpoints that disagree with your state of mind. Hence you resort to some form of ignorance. I could even argue that you are trying to be superior...which I won't.

Think again and please keep it on substance from now on.

RobbyG wrote:Some interesting viewpoints about Morality:

1. Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God?
...
Shafique, what do you make of these video's? With what do you agree or disagree?

Excellent clip - I agree with Hitchens that we don't need God to come up with a set of moral values, and humans can indeed decide what is right/wrong and set up laws to regulate societies.

For me the argument is more fundamental - i.e. is there a God. If there is, what would that God logically do?

Would he send down guidance for His creation? If so, would this include social rules (as well as spiritual guidance?)? If yes, then we need to look for these rules? Then we need to establish that they are from God and not what man has written/corrupted - then we need to decide whether we follow them. On this, I agree with the thrust of the argument that we should not blindly follow what priests etc tell us God commands.

I disagree with Hitchens that religions had the monopoly on evil until relatively recently. I disagree that people's left to their own will self-regulate - there are too many examples of what happens when law and order breaks down and people turn into monsters - Rwanda, for example.

The natural state of society, I would argue is the primal need to protect oneself at the expense of the 'other' - this can be a neighbour, brother or person who looks/speaks differently. This has led to wars etc. Laws and regulations are required for society to function in a 'civilised' way and these need to be put in place by those 'in power'.

I agree with Hitchens (and Dawkins etc) when they rightly point out the wrongs that have been done in the name of religion. I can't fault Dawkin's analysis of Christianity in 'The God Delusion', for example, but I don't agree with the 'leap of faith' that they have to conclude that there probably isn't a God.

Cheers,
Shafique

RobbyG wrote:
I simply cannot believe that an intelligent and highly educated woman like yourself is totally devoted to just one person like Mrs. Wafa.

There should always be room for debate. You might be disappointed.

ps: The 'troll dudes' have nothing useful to say, so they resort to ignorance. Its a common stance in that region. Gladly we have education nowadays. (sorry for the generalization, pun intended)

I'm extremely flattered Robby, thanks But you are right I'm either disappointed or bored of such a debate!

shafique wrote:Excellent clip - I agree with Hitchens that we don't need God to come up with a set of moral values, and humans can indeed decide what is right/wrong and set up laws to regulate societies.

For me the argument is more fundamental - i.e. is there a God. If there is, what would that God logically do?

Would he send down guidance for His creation? If so, would this include social rules (as well as spiritual guidance?)? If yes, then we need to look for these rules? Then we need to establish that they are from God and not what man has written/corrupted - then we need to decide whether we follow them. On this, I agree with the thrust of the argument that we should not blindly follow what priests etc tell us God commands.

From what I read from above, it is clear you question whether or not God exists. Following your further reply I can clearly derive an Agnostic belief. Refute me if I'm wrong.

I disagree with Hitchens that religions had the monopoly on evil until relatively recently. I disagree that people's left to their own will self-regulate - there are too many examples of what happens when law and order breaks down and people turn into monsters - Rwanda, for example.

I can't follow your line of thinking in the above. In the case of Rwanda, religion did had a major influence (or historic monopoly). Let me elaborate shortly:

Rwanda had a colonial influence from Europe in the 19th Century. Here the Catholic influenced racist brainwashing began, so I can't agree with you saying that Rwanda had the 'self regulation', let alone by Atheist (as Hitchens means with 'self regulation', by means of 'the individual mind above religious indoctrination').

Lets take a short look at Rwanda's religious history;

Colonial period
Although the ethnic divisions and tensions between Hutu and Tutsi predate the colonial era, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) report on the genocide states;

In the colonial era, under German and then Belgian rule, Roman Catholic missionaries, inspired by the overtly racist theories of 19th century Europe, concocted a destructive ideology of ethnic cleavage and racial ranking that attributed superior qualities to the country's Tutsi minority, since the missionaries ran the colonial-era schools, these pernicious values were systematically transmitted to several generations of Rwandans

When the Roman Catholic Missionary "White Fathers" came to Rwanda in the late 1880s they developed the "Hamitic" theory of race origins which taught that the Tutsi were a superior race.
The Church itself has been considered to have played a significant role in fomenting racial divisions between Hutu and Tutsi.

1994 Genocide
A Human Rights Watch report notes that the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church refrained from condemning the 1994 genocide. Four days after the genocide began, the Catholic church issued a statement asking its followers to support the new government. Similarly, Archbishop Augustin Nshamihigo and Bishop Jonathan Ruhumuliza of the Church of the Province of Rwanda acted as spokespersons for the government in a news conference, blaming the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front for the genocide.

The lack of a clear stance from the leadership resulted in many clergy members continuing to attend local security committee meetings, in their roles as prominent members of the community, despite the work of those committees in organizing the mass killings. It further allowed politicians and propagandists to claim divine inspiration for the genocide; interim president Théodore Sindikubwabo assured listeners in a speech that God would help them against the "enemy".

Many clergy did not protect civilians who sought their help, either out of fear for personal repercussions or out of desire to see them killed. A smaller number actively incited the genocide. These include most prominently Seventh-day Adventist Church pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the case of Theophister Mukakibibi and Maria Kisito, Rwandan Roman Catholic nuns sentenced for helping to kill hundreds of Tutsi during Rwandan genocide. Also involved were Roman Catholic priests Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Athanase Seromba, and Emmanuel Rukundo, all of whom have been convicted of genocide.

My point is; A poor people are very susceptible to religious influence and therefore will not be able to 'self-regulate'. When people earn a better standard of living by education, then will the people start thinking for themselves. So Rwanda is a bad example for Atheist style 'self regulation' as Hitchens means. The self regulation requires full absence of influence from religious doctrine, which was not the case here in Rwanda due to its history of Catholic influences.

The natural state of society, I would argue is the primal need to protect oneself at the expense of the 'other' - this can be a neighbour, brother or person who looks/speaks differently. This has led to wars etc. Laws and regulations are required for society to function in a 'civilised' way and these need to be put in place by those 'in power'.

I agree with Hitchens (and Dawkins etc) when they rightly point out the wrongs that have been done in the name of religion. I can't fault Dawkin's analysis of Christianity in 'The God Delusion', for example, but I don't agree with the 'leap of faith' that they have to conclude that there probably isn't a God.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interestingly, your viewpoints are very aligned with my personal thinking.
I'm going to dive into some matters about your final point about Dawkins ' leap of faith'.

So far, would you agree with my stance on the absence of 'self regulation' in Rwanda?

melika969 wrote:

RobbyG wrote:
I simply cannot believe that an intelligent and highly educated woman like yourself is totally devoted to just one person like Mrs. Wafa.

There should always be room for debate. You might be disappointed.

ps: The 'troll dudes' have nothing useful to say, so they resort to ignorance. Its a common stance in that region. Gladly we have education nowadays. (sorry for the generalization, pun intended)

I'm extremely flattered Robby, thanks But you are right I'm either disappointed or bored of such a debate!

I cannot argue with honesty.

Enjoy the final day of the year

RobbyG wrote:
From what I read from above, it is clear you question whether or not God exists. Following your further reply I can clearly derive an Agnostic belief. Refute me if I'm wrong.

Note quite - I just have a personal view that any belief should be logical, and that in the absence of positive proof either way, I would indeed be an agnostic. However, I'm not and do believe in a Creator - an intelligent being that is outside of the realms of our Physical Universe. (In short, I'm a Muslim who believes - that for me - that all beliefs should be questioned and accepted only if they meet the test of logic)

RobbyG wrote:

I disagree with Hitchens that religions had the monopoly on evil until relatively recently. I disagree that people's left to their own will self-regulate - there are too many examples of what happens when law and order breaks down and people turn into monsters - Rwanda, for example.

I can't follow your line of thinking in the above. In the case of Rwanda, religion did had a major influence (or historic monopoly). Let me elaborate shortly:

Ok - I have to admit I have not read that the massacres were down to religious differences - my understanding was that it was a tribal and not religious issue between the Hutu and Tutsis.

The Christian missionaries have much to answer for!

However, I still think that religion is one of a number of natural rallying calls that have been used to justify violence against an 'other'. This has been nationality, language etc (all factors within 'nationalism'). Romans wanted to destroy Carthage - Persians fought Byzantines.

RobbyG wrote:

The natural state of society, I would argue is the primal need to protect oneself at the expense of the 'other' - this can be a neighbour, brother or person who looks/speaks differently. This has led to wars etc. Laws and regulations are required for society to function in a 'civilised' way and these need to be put in place by those 'in power'.

I agree with Hitchens (and Dawkins etc) when they rightly point out the wrongs that have been done in the name of religion. I can't fault Dawkin's analysis of Christianity in 'The God Delusion', for example, but I don't agree with the 'leap of faith' that they have to conclude that there probably isn't a God.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interestingly, your viewpoints are very aligned with my personal thinking.
I'm going to dive into some matters about your final point about Dawkins ' leap of faith'.

So far, would you agree with my stance on the absence of 'self regulation' in Rwanda?

I'll have to admit that I thought Rwanda was a pretty clear-cut example of what humans are capable of doing to others without religion egging them on, but to find that Christianity has had a part to play in this latest massacre is a surprise.

I'm still not convinced that left to themselves humans won't regress to a 'Lord of the Flies' scenario before laws are agreed to enforce social good.

Thanks for making me think and re-examine what I believed about Rwanda - I'll have to do a bit more research into the issue of the 'natural state of societies' without religion/social laws. I'm hesitant to point to the various regions of the world which are termed 'lawless' - such as NW Pakistan, Somalia etc and historically places such as Haiti - for I suspect that 'religion' is a feature in those places as well!

Food for thought indeed.

I've also argued in the past that non-religious wars (fought for territory, nationalism, tribalism) etc have caused more harm than religous wars - but it's one I haven't quantified. The death tolls in the 20th century world wars are what is behind this unsubstantiated theory of mine - and I guess what is behind my objection to the characterisation that religion's bad effects outweigh the good it does.

But, at least we agree on the main point that God is not +needed+ to establish what is right or wrong - men can (and do) set their own laws.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:
From what I read from above, it is clear you question whether or not God exists. Following your further reply I can clearly derive an Agnostic belief. Refute me if I'm wrong.

Note quite - I just have a personal view that any belief should be logical, and that in the absence of positive proof either way, I would indeed be an agnostic. However, I'm not and do believe in a Creator - an intelligent being that is outside of the realms of our Physical Universe. (In short, I'm a Muslim who believes - that for me - that all beliefs should be questioned and accepted only if they meet the test of logic)

A critical believer,...the world could definitely use a few more like you mate.

RobbyG wrote:

I disagree with Hitchens that religions had the monopoly on evil until relatively recently. I disagree that people's left to their own will self-regulate - there are too many examples of what happens when law and order breaks down and people turn into monsters - Rwanda, for example.

I can't follow your line of thinking in the above. In the case of Rwanda, religion did had a major influence (or historic monopoly). Let me elaborate shortly:

Ok - I have to admit I have not read that the massacres were down to religious differences - my understanding was that it was a tribal and not religious issue between the Hutu and Tutsis.

The Christian missionaries have much to answer for!

However, I still think that religion is one of a number of natural rallying calls that have been used to justify violence against an 'other'. This has been nationality, language etc (all factors within 'nationalism'). Romans wanted to destroy Carthage - Persians fought Byzantines.

I could not agree more with you about religion as a means to justify a cause. Thats one of the reasons I so dearly appreciate e.g. my parents decision for not committing me to their (weakened) religious doctrine, but to let me decide for myself when I grew older. I was born without water on my head (christianity) and without my genitals cut (islam), and due to my quest for education and general knowledge, I'm happy to consider myself an clearcut atheist believer with nationalistic tendencies.

If due to science there would be a proven God, I would study it and consider accepting that logic and at the same time thank God for letting me keep my genitals intact...besides, we all know now how to clean "ones little puppet" nowadays don't we? Retract the skin and take a shower
Its not like islamic believers are still living in the 7th Century nomad-style desert surroundings, moving from one oasis to another without a daily clean up

Some say that non-religous believers are non-believers, which is obviously not true. I have my own set of moral and ethic values that are part of my core being. Those values are my character. They are me, pur sang! (ps: I'm not pefect either, perfection doesn't exist)

Not one religion or person can take that away from me, or make me do things I could never endorse in my honesty, gathered logic and scientific knowledge.

So far, would you agree with my stance on the absence of 'self regulation' in Rwanda?

I'll have to admit that I thought Rwanda was a pretty clear-cut example of what humans are capable of doing to others without religion egging them on, but to find that Christianity has had a part to play in this latest massacre is a surprise.

I'm still not convinced that left to themselves humans won't regress to a 'Lord of the Flies' scenario before laws are agreed to enforce social good.

I agree, a group of people cannot be roaming around without two basic requirements for a sustainable society. History got all the answers for a prosperous society. It can even be concluded from past experiences like the Roman Empire, what went wrong!
The main problem is, people have to sacrifice their (often wrong) beliefs to do so, and when you lived your life according to such beliefs...would or could you drop it just like that? Of course not, let alone whether your Ego would allow you to do so.

Allow me to give you an insight about the pillars of a prosperous society. The Romans.

For a society to perform its basic function of law and order, you need to have a political structure and a law structure with enforcement (military or police for defense and order).
Please focus on the DEFENSE part, as it is crucial to distinguish a military from offensive acts since offense is closely related to greed (wealth, resources confiscation) and empire/colonisation/nation building. (please feel free to see the historic relation with; Spanish/Dutch/English colonisation (16-18th Century), English hegemony and fall (19th Century), American hegemony and fall (20th Century) and China in the 21st Century, emerging as we speak

So you are right in saying that a 'Lord of flies' doesn't provide a controllable societal structure. You need law and order. The Romans knew this very well in their rise. The Romans knew that cities are to bond people together and create cohesion. Also a city with rights based on law and order will attract people from its rural areas that want to educate or learn a profession and earn a decent living in society. Here you have a gathering of intellect that seek solutions to problems in society as the knowledge grows. This is going on for centuries.

Unfortunately, their greedy status-like ego's were the problem in its decline and fall. You can't force people to do things in the outer regions of an empire. The larger your empire or society, the less influence and responsiveness your military apparatus (or police apparatus) will have.
The problem of political leaderships is the same as we have today. Politics is about elections and constituents aswell as about power. Power and greed are connected.

Nations that know when to stop expanding and focus on societal sustainability, will have a much larger chance for survival instead of the war mongering empires in our world. Its better to keep your defense, instead of roaming around in territories you cannot control in the long run since this requires huge amounts of MONEY.
Besides, its nearly impossible to convince every rural community about your way of living like in Rome (city). Not everybody wants that and a clash of beliefs and traditions are more often the cause of its problems from integration into the empire.

In my view on history and of today, we humans haven't really learned much from history. Today the Americans try to pursuit the same 'utopian empire' as other tried. It will never work. Today we don't have barberians anymore who strike a club in your neck or slice a sword through your spine...but we have modern day terrorists with advanced explosives and public means of transportation to hit society in the core of its existence and prosperity.

To summarize my long (but very shallow explanation) of the basic pillars for a basic society to develop into the a more advanced society, you need: a) Political structure (government) and b) Social Order (law and rights)

Thanks for making me think and re-examine what I believed about Rwanda - I'll have to do a bit more research into the issue of the 'natural state of societies' without religion/social laws. I'm hesitant to point to the various regions of the world which are termed 'lawless' - such as NW Pakistan, Somalia etc and historically places such as Haiti - for I suspect that 'religion' is a feature in those places as well!

Food for thought indeed.

History does have alot of food for thought. There are alot of answers we haven't bundled into a giant comprehensible information package. But with modern day Information Technology, we could be passing this giant knowledge gap as we document it all nowadays. The question then remains...will we actually do something for the better with ancient knowledge of religion and greed?
...I highly doubt the intellectual capacity of our current leadership around the world. Most voting systems are based on money (again power) and emotional low-educated voters that easily appeal to populism etc.

But who knows. Anything can happen. I do believe that humans can do the right thing, if they are allowed to be non-biased towards its choices. Sometimes it takes alot of suffering to finally do the right thing in life. Others never learn and will be erased by Darwinism. The evolution of life.

I've also argued in the past that non-religious wars (fought for territory, nationalism, tribalism) etc have caused more harm than religous wars - but it's one I haven't quantified. The death tolls in the 20th century world wars are what is behind this unsubstantiated theory of mine - and I guess what is behind my objection to the characterisation that religion's bad effects outweigh the good it does.

But, at least we agree on the main point that God is not +needed+ to establish what is right or wrong - men can (and do) set their own laws.

Cheers,
Shafique

I also have difficulties to quantify the amount of deathtoll that wars and/or religion have produced in history. Perhaps that IT (Information Technology) could help us gather the lessons from the past in digital format.

As you know, history had a lot of books and knowledge disappear in the fire of disagreement.

I hope we don't kill eachother because of the lack of education some people in some areas encounter nowadays. The global imbalances (between rich and poor) are one of the reasons people tend to resort to barbarian means of disagreement like war and terrorism. Religion is not always key to that, but history sure has alot of evidence that it does play a significant role, just as the humans in power have a need for greed and more wealth. (see WallStreet)

Equality and Secularity could pose the solution perhaps?
If we get rid of the strong hierarchy in society and develop matrix societies?

Competition at its best right? Just imagine the opportunities we could have.
Perhaps, that is a step too deep and too far ahead in time for this particular topic.

A critical believer,...the world could definitely use a few more like you mate.

Indeed. Shafique also believes that humans share a common ancestral link with lower primates because of what the Koran says.

Oh, wait....

event horizon wrote:

A critical believer,...the world could definitely use a few more like you mate.

Indeed. Shafique also believes that humans share a common ancestral link with lower primates because of what the Koran says.

Oh, wait....

Yeah wait...the missing link named 'Ida':

I'm not convinced. I'll have to consult the Koran to see if I believe in evolution or not.

event horizon wrote:I'm not convinced. I'll have to consult the Koran to see if I believe in evolution or not.

Yeah well nevermind looking in the Bible for that matter. You won't find support,...

...as they still seek constituents

RobbyG wrote:A critical believer,...the world could definitely use a few more like you mate.

Thanks.

RobbyG wrote:I could not agree more with you about religion as a means to justify a cause. Thats one of the reasons I so dearly appreciate e.g. my parents decision for not committing me to their (weakened) religious doctrine, but to let me decide for myself when I grew older. I was born without water on my head (christianity) and without my genitals cut (islam), and due to my quest for education and general knowledge, I'm happy to consider myself an clearcut atheist believer with nationalistic tendencies.

Cool. My background is different - I was brought up as a practicing Muslim but taught to study all other religions and establish a direct relationship with God and not blindly follow anything. (My dad is a bit of a lefty and I turned out to be a bit to the right of his views - but he's ok with that, I think!)

RobbyG wrote:If due to science there would be a proven God, I would study it and consider accepting that logic and at the same time thank God for letting me keep my genitals intact...besides, we all know now how to clean "ones little puppet" nowadays don't we? Retract the skin and take a shower

Similar arguments are put forward for why Jews and Muslims don't eat pork - that it was an unhealthy meat to eat in the past (no refrigeration etc). The fact that both had health benefits in the past does not necessarily mean that was the primary purpose God ( ) ordained these as religious practices. And even if they were, legacy practices aren't necessarily abandoned when newer systems are invented (I'll wager you're typing out messages on a QWERTY keyboard that whose layout was originally designed to slow typists down so that mechanical typewriters would not jam! )

Male Circumcission and not eating bacon isn't really harmful - and arguably is beneficial to health.

RobbyG wrote:Some say that non-religous believers are non-believers, which is obviously not true. I have my own set of moral and ethic values that are part of my core being. Those values are my character. They are me, pur sang! (ps: I'm not pefect either, perfection doesn't exist)

I totally agree. There are those that have a firm belief in their way of life/religion and there are those whose religion is just a convenient label. (Just like there are fanatic football fans who know all the players names etc and those who just look at the results at the end of the season and watch the occasional match). This applies, IMO to atheists and deists alike.

I've often argued that I don't have enough faith to be a 'believing' atheist - and I mean it. A believing atheist has more faith than I have for they have made up their mind that there isn't a God despite the 'evidence'. I guess I would be an agnostic if I weren't convinced there was a God, but an atheist is a logical step too far for me.

RobbyG wrote:Not one religion or person can take that away from me, or make me do things I could never endorse in my honesty, gathered logic and scientific knowledge.

I'd fight for your right to exercise this right! I honestly don't believe that God would ask us to do anything illogical.

RobbyG wrote:I agree, a group of people cannot be roaming around without two basic requirements for a sustainable society. History got all the answers for a prosperous society. It can even be concluded from past experiences like the Roman Empire, what went wrong!

I agree. I think that all civilisations/empires go through the same basic stages - from their early rise characterised by discipline, their peak and then their fall. The various stages all have distinct features in a number of areas. One is social/military structure, another is religous/moral - which linked to the first and also, interestingly, is economic (whether the empire is a net creditor or net debtor). I also see a very similar development in religions - they start small, accepted by the weak initially, become big, become powerful etc and similarly go into decline.

RobbyG wrote:...
Please focus on the DEFENSE part, as it is crucial to distinguish a military from offensive acts since offense is closely related to greed (wealth, resources confiscation) and empire/colonisation/nation building. (please feel free to see the historic relation with; Spanish/Dutch/English colonisation (16-18th Century), English hegemony and fall (19th Century), American hegemony and fall (20th Century) and China in the 21st Century, emerging as we speak

(As an aside, it is interesting to note that the Romans offered all conquered peoples automatic full Roman citizenship - its been argued that if the US did that there would be less 'insurgents' in Afghanistan and Iraq and the whole of the Middle East and most of Far East will be clamouring for the US to invade!)

RobbyG wrote:So you are right in saying that a 'Lord of flies' doesn't provide a controllable societal structure. You need law and order. The Romans knew this very well in their rise. The Romans knew that cities are to bond people together and create cohesion. Also a city with rights based on law and order will attract people from its rural areas that want to educate or learn a profession and earn a decent living in society. Here you have a gathering of intellect that seek solutions to problems in society as the knowledge grows. This is going on for centuries.

I'm with you so far. However, where I think we differ is that the 'laws' a society can implement are 'wrong' or 'dangerous' if they come from God. My paradigm is that the 'just laws' are indeed from God and the ones that don't work are the one's that are from Man. Where Man's coincides with Gods - they work. I fully understand that the opposite view is possible - but I thought I'd throw that one in.

That just establishes what laws a society chooses to follow. The progress of civilisations (before and after laws are laid down) is a function of human nature (sociology etc) - and what you write of the fall of the Roman Empire, the greed etc - I totally agree with. I think that it would happen with or without religiously based laws or religous people.

I'd say that just as there are 'noble' stages in the development of empires, there are the noble and pure stages of religion as well.

RobbyG wrote:Unfortunately, their greedy status-like ego's were the problem in its decline and fall. You can't force people to do things in the outer regions of an empire. The larger your empire or society, the less influence and responsiveness your military apparatus (or police apparatus) will have.

The problem of political leaderships is the same as we have today. Politics is about elections and constituents aswell as about power. Power and greed are connected.

Nations that know when to stop expanding and focus on societal sustainability, will have a much larger chance for survival instead of the war mongering empires in our world. Its better to keep your defense, instead of roaming around in territories you cannot control in the long run since this requires huge amounts of MONEY.
Besides, its nearly impossible to convince every rural community about your way of living like in Rome (city). Not everybody wants that and a clash of beliefs and traditions are more often the cause of its problems from integration into the empire.

Well said. Agree 100%.

RobbyG wrote:In my view on history and of today, we humans haven't really learned much from history. Today the Americans try to pursuit the same 'utopian empire' as other tried. It will never work. Today we don't have barberians anymore who strike a club in your neck or slice a sword through your spine...but we have modern day terrorists with advanced explosives and public means of transportation to hit society in the core of its existence and prosperity.

I'm an ardent advocate for the first point - that we haven't learnt from history!

In my view the US hegemony is in its death throes. The 'terrorism' are actually symptoms of unjust practices and a by-product of a struggle to bolster the military and economic might. I believe the economy is now the US' achilles heel and that the US 'empire' is well on its way to being one of the shortest in history. I can't see the US being the super power it is now in say 50 years - it will then be China. The US will have to adjust to being a has-been in the same way Britain had to face up to this, and before her the Spanish, Greeks, Italians/Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Muslims etc etc.

RobbyG wrote:To summarize my long (but very shallow explanation) of the basic pillars for a basic society to develop into the a more advanced society, you need: a) Political structure (government) and b) Social Order (law and rights)

I can't argue with that. I just approach it from the view that these structures and laws can be influenced positively by religion. The fact that society and religions get corrupted over time, is a inter-related issue - but does not mean that the religous values or laws were wrong when they were set up.

(However, I think we are only disagreeing at the periphery of our view of how societies operate - we agree more than we disagree - even on the point that religion can and was used for evil)

RobbyG wrote:History does have alot of food for thought. There are alot of answers we haven't bundled into a giant comprehensible information package. But with modern day Information Technology, we could be passing this giant knowledge gap as we document it all nowadays. The question then remains...will we actually do something for the better with ancient knowledge of religion and greed?

I'm still in awe as to how much history there is out there! And the staggering fact is that the majority of it wasn't recorded!
(I'm still eating 'The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire' by Gibbons in small chunks - for example!)

RobbyG wrote:I hope we don't kill eachother because of the lack of education some people in some areas encounter nowadays. The global imbalances (between rich and poor) are one of the reasons people tend to resort to barbarian means of disagreement like war and terrorism. Religion is not always key to that, but history sure has alot of evidence that it does play a significant role, just as the humans in power have a need for greed and more wealth. (see WallStreet)

Equality and Secularity could pose the solution perhaps?
If we get rid of the strong hierarchy in society and develop matrix societies?

Competition at its best right? Just imagine the opportunities we could have.
Perhaps, that is a step too deep and too far ahead in time for this particular topic.

I share your hope that we don't resort to killing each other. I personally believe that the greatest threat to peace is lack of justice (this is a political rather than a religious view, even though I believe all relgions emphasise justice).

There's economic, national and judicial justice - and I see that as the root of much (if not all) of what is wrong today.

Thanks for another thought-provoking post.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Some say that non-religous believers are non-believers, which is obviously not true. I have my own set of moral and ethic values that are part of my core being. Those values are my character. They are me, pur sang! (ps: I'm not pefect either, perfection doesn't exist)

I've often argued that I don't have enough faith to be a 'believing' atheist - and I mean it. A believing atheist has more faith than I have for they have made up their mind that there isn't a God despite the 'evidence'. I guess I would be an agnostic if I weren't convinced there was a God, but an atheist is a logical step too far for me.

I agree although I don't agree whether I would say an Atheist belief is based around faith. I do understand it from a religious perspective.
For an Atheist, all that really matters is logic (instead of faith) that is expressed through proven laws of science and technology discovered and understood in our universe. From that perspective, faith is more spiritual and therefore shouldn't influence an Atheist decisions much.

As far as 'evidence' is concerned. Do you have faith in Archaeology?

RobbyG wrote:...
Please focus on the DEFENSE part, as it is crucial to distinguish a military from offensive acts since offense is closely related to greed (wealth, resources confiscation) and empire/colonisation/nation building. (please feel free to see the historic relation with; Spanish/Dutch/English colonisation (16-18th Century), English hegemony and fall (19th Century), American hegemony and fall (20th Century) and China in the 21st Century, emerging as we speak

(As an aside, it is interesting to note that the Romans offered all conquered peoples automatic full Roman citizenship - its been argued that if the US did that there would be less 'insurgents' in Afghanistan and Iraq and the whole of the Middle East and most of Far East will be clamouring for the US to invade!)

Theres good logic in that, oh the irony!

RobbyG wrote:So you are right in saying that a 'Lord of flies' doesn't provide a controllable societal structure. You need law and order. The Romans knew this very well in their rise. The Romans knew that cities are to bond people together and create cohesion. Also a city with rights based on law and order will attract people from its rural areas that want to educate or learn a profession and earn a decent living in society. Here you have a gathering of intellect that seek solutions to problems in society as the knowledge grows. This is going on for centuries.

I'm with you so far. However, where I think we differ is that the 'laws' a society can implement are 'wrong' or 'dangerous' if they come from God. My paradigm is that the 'just laws' are indeed from God and the ones that don't work are the one's that are from Man. Where Man's coincides with Gods - they work. I fully understand that the opposite view is possible - but I thought I'd throw that one in.

That just establishes what laws a society chooses to follow. The progress of civilisations (before and after laws are laid down) is a function of human nature (sociology etc) - and what you write of the fall of the Roman Empire, the greed etc - I totally agree with. I think that it would happen with or without religiously based laws or religous people.

I'd say that just as there are 'noble' stages in the development of empires, there are the noble and pure stages of religion as well.

Indeed, at this point we clearly differ. I wonder how you can say that the 'good laws' are from God and the lesser laws are from the influence of the people and politics. I thought most people believed that God controls all things on this planet? In that case God's work is perfect right?

Rise of an (historic) empire:
Weaker fooks in society (low or no education, fear of a host of Gods and natural disasters etc) are susceptible to the influence of political and religious 'leadership', often using religion as a means to point all heads in the same direction. They all fear the same Gods eventually, perhaps they name them differently. In the end, everything that happens beyond their understanding, rises fear levels and therefore cannot be explained other than 'an act of God', according to their early conviction.
A coincident (mis)use of power by its leadership is used to fight surrounding Barbarians or invading nations (protection). Besides that, winning the wars are expanding the empire and confiscating wealth to saturate the greed for more power and influence.

My point: At this stage the people (often believers in early stages) still lack the knowledge and logic to explain the natural disasters or 'acts of God'. Do you see the relation for the abuse of religion to use fear for a greedy 'greater' cause?

Hence the problems I see with 'modern day' Islam and Western law (moral and ethics). Without dividing the politics and religion, power and greed will remain, followers will back its leadership in the name of populism and/or religion, criticizing leadership is not allowed, so no room for genuine debate. Seems to me like Facism.

It doesn't really matter if you are Atheist (Stalin, Hitler) or a Christian, Islamic, Hinduist, Buddist or Jewish leader in search for world domination. The core of religion is to give a handle to people who are fearful. Who need some form of reliance or support. The problem is the abuse of politics mixed with religion. And the religious leaders that abide to the influence of its security providing political leadership, when times get tough.

I say it would be better for all of us if we just not mix politics and religion together (secularism), so to focus on the real problems of society rather than the emotional beliefs and traditions that result in hatred and war.

Its about eliminating the risks that pose threats to societies other than your own. What do you think?

I'm an ardent advocate for the first point - that we haven't learnt from history!

In my view the US hegemony is in its death throes. The 'terrorism' are actually symptoms of unjust practices and a by-product of a struggle to bolster the military and economic might. I believe the economy is now the US' achilles heel and that the US 'empire' is well on its way to being one of the shortest in history. I can't see the US being the super power it is now in say 50 years - it will then be China. The US will have to adjust to being a has-been in the same way Britain had to face up to this, and before her the Spanish, Greeks, Italians/Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Muslims etc etc.

The problem with the US, is not only its interventionist foreign policy (which isn't cheap) but also its low educated religious base in the Mid and South of the USA. Those voters still represent 50 percent of the votes in every election. And due to their religious conviction, the churches preach them incentives to vote for their best interest. So American leadership is still highly influenced by religion.
Also, the American voting system is based on money. Without money, no exposure. The major broadcast networks are all sponsored or bought up by major investors who have political ties in Washington. They lobby their butts off to get things done. Lobbying means throwing money at politics. No more than that. The US system is more corrupt than it was 10 years ago and not even close to following the Constitution nowadays.

Bush did a 'great job' by exporting all manufacturing jobs to China and India, while transforming the US economy to a service economy, shifting paper in the financial services industry. Now the US economy is based on 70 percent consumer spending, 15 percent manufacturing (large part is military industrial complex) and some others minor sectors.

I assume you know how an ecnomy works. So I won't explain how savings are needed to form capital for investments. Without savings, no producing assets. Hence the trade deficit, as the US now has to import more than it can export. The result is borrowing money from abroad to finance its activities and standard of living.

That is the real problem of its decline. As a result of that, I expect the war activities of the US to increase, as the military industrial complex is the largest contributor to manufacturing exports in the US. Every dime of spending into defense, is jobs, food, GDP increase and food for politicians to distract the attention from the people of the real problems in the USA of today...bad leadership with short term vision.

RobbyG wrote:To summarize my long (but very shallow explanation) of the basic pillars for a basic society to develop into the a more advanced society, you need: a) Political structure (government) and b) Social Order (law and rights)

I can't argue with that. I just approach it from the view that these structures and laws can be influenced positively by religion. The fact that society and religions get corrupted over time, is a inter-related issue - but does not mean that the religous values or laws were wrong when they were set up.

(However, I think we are only disagreeing at the periphery of our view of how societies operate - we agree more than we disagree - even on the point that religion can and was used for evil)

I share your hope that we don't resort to killing each other. I personally believe that the greatest threat to peace is lack of justice (this is a political rather than a religious view, even though I believe all relgions emphasise justice).

There's economic, national and judicial justice - and I see that as the root of much (if not all) of what is wrong today.

Thanks for another thought-provoking post.

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree, the initial idea of religion is to provide support and a form of security (reliance) for its people. The problem is when power and greed come together with religion as I described above in the growth of an empire, extracted from historic evidence.

The interrelation is the problem. Hence my view that modern day Islam is arguably not compatible with Western law. Religion and politics need to be divided to keep religion sound and to evaluate politicians on their actions, not on their religious inspired convictions for the 'so called' greater good!

I was hoping you would recognize this relation more stronger, as it is absolutely important for peace and properity in a crowding world.

Thank you also for the contributions so far, Shafique.
It makes one think more about society and its potential problems. And how to limit the risks imposed on us all.

RobbyG wrote:I agree although I'm don't agree whether I would say an Atheist belief is based around faith. I do understand it from a religious perspective.
For an Atheist, all that really matters is logic (instead of faith) that is expressed through proven laws of science and technology discovered and understood in our universe. From that perspective, faith is more spiritual and therefore shouldn't influence an Atheist decisions much.

As far as 'evidence' is concerned. Do you have faith in Archaeology?

The use of 'faith' is used not in the spiritual sense, but in making the connection between 'evidence' and 'belief'. The evidence is out there - what we believe is the conclusions we draw from the evidence. I merely point out that a belief that there is no Creator and we were here by chance requires a belief that the small probability that life came into being spontaneously happened. This is a belief in an very small probability that is what I call 'more faith than I have'. I, subjectively, say that it makes more sense that there is a creator - i.e. it requires less faith to believe there's a God than to actively believe there isn't.

As for 'faith' in scientific observations - I don't understand the question. I accept observations and evaluate the theories that are used to explain the observations - and I guess I would have 'faith' in scientific explanations (but having studied history a bit, would retain a healthy dose of scepticism about whether we fully understand the cause of things).

RobbyG wrote:...

(As an aside, it is interesting to note that the Romans offered all conquered peoples automatic full Roman citizenship - its been argued that if the US did that there would be less 'insurgents' in Afghanistan and Iraq and the whole of the Middle East and most of Far East will be clamouring for the US to invade!)

Theres good logic in that, oh the irony!

Let me credit Robert Fisk for that observation - I've just finished reading 'Age of the Warrior' - a collection of his articles.

RobbyG wrote:Indeed, at this point we clearly differ. I wonder how you can say that the 'good laws' are from God and the lesser laws are from the influence of the people and politics. I thought most people believed that God controls all things on this planet? In that case God's work is perfect right?

Well, firstly by looking at the evidence.

When one looks at the historic development of religions and looks to see what laws are revealed and put into practice at the start of religions and what are imposed later on, we find that there's a common theme. A simple reference would be the 10 commandments - a simple set of laws, which forbid murder, theft, lying, etc.

In Islam we have a set of laws which establish the core values - however there is still a lot of flexibility in the detail and many issues are dependant on circumstances of the time, geography or social conditions.

At the end of the day, it is unquestionably a 'belief' that I have that God's laws are perfect and any imperfections are down to man's meddling - but that is what God says in the Quran! However, let's just say that it is a hypothesis that can be tested.

Note that I'm specifically not saying that man cannot come up with just laws - not at all, just that God also has communicated laws that we can choose to implement or not.

RobbyG wrote:Rise of an (historic) empire:
Weaker fooks in society (low or no education, fear of a host of Gods and natural disasters etc) are susceptible to the influence of political and religious 'leadership', often using religion as a means to point all heads in the same direction. They all fear the same Gods eventually, perhaps they name them differently. In the end, everything that happens beyond their understanding, rises fear levels and therefore cannot be explained other than 'an act of God', according to their early conviction.

I agree there's a logic in that. However, you're describing a religion that is well established - religions in the early part of their cycle have only the weaker members of society as followers and have teachings that are against the powerful status-quo rulers. Religions in early stages speak out against injustices being done by the strong in society.

Once established, they then morph into the ones doing the abuse - and then apathy sets in and disbelief becomes the order of the day (with religion becoming nothing more than rites and rituals) - and the cycle begins again.

Therefore, I do agree with the logic - but would argue you're focussing on a particular part of the 'religous' cycle - and it is the worst part of the cycle. At that stage it has merged into the State machinery, I would argue and shares the good and bad aspects of that (at the early stages of religion being part of State apparatus, the religion is used for good - I would argue)

RobbyG wrote:Hence the problems I see with 'modern day' Islam and Western law (moral and ethics). Without dividing the politics and religion, power and greed will remain, followers will back its leadership in the name of populism and/or religion, criticizing leadership is not allowed, so no room for genuine debate. Seems to me like Facism.

Yes. I agree.

RobbyG wrote:It doesn't really matter if you are Atheist (Stalin, Hitler) or a Christian, Islamic, Hinduist, Buddist or Jewish leader in search for world domination. The core of religion is to give a handle to people who are fearful. Who need some form of reliance or support. The problem is the abuse of politics mixed with religion. And the religious leaders that abide to the influence of its security providing political leadership, when times get tough.

It can be used this way, I totally agree. I also agree the problem is when politics mixed with religion, and the politics take precedence over the religious teachings (where somehow it becomes ok to murder in the name of religion, for example)

RobbyG wrote:I say it would be better for all of us if we just not mix politics and religion together (secularism), so to focus on the real problems of society rather than the emotional beliefs and traditions that result in hatred and war.

Its about eliminating the risks that pose threats to societies other than your own. What do you think?

Actually, I agree with you. I do advocate a society that is based on just laws and with freedom of religion - this is certainly the best model for the 21st century.

RobbyG wrote:The problem with the US, is not only its interventionist foreign policy (which isn't cheap) but also its low educated religious base in the Mid and South of the USA...

...

Well, said - totally agree with your analysis of the situation of the US today.

RobbyG wrote:
I agree, the initial idea of religion is to provide support and a form of security (reliance) for its people. The problem is when power and greed come together with religion as I described above in the growth of an empire, extracted from historic evidence.

The interrelation is the problem. Hence my view that modern day islam is arguably not compatible with Western Law. Religion and Politics need to be divided to keep religion sound and to evaluate politicians on their actions, not on their religious inspired convictions for the 'so called' greater good!

I was hoping you would recognize this relation more stronger, as it is absolutely important for peace and properity in a crowding world.

Thank you also for the contributions, Shafique.
It makes one think more about society and its potential problems. And how to limit the risks imposed on us all.

[/quote]

Thanks for the clarifications. I guess what you are calling 'modern day Islam' is what I would (tongue in cheek) refer to as 'Mad Mullahism'. I've often drawn the analogy that Islam today is going through the equivalent of the Christian 'Middle Ages' - and recalling that the period had religion used as instrument of state and used to oppress people as well as a basis to wage offensive wars. I guess I would have then been arguing that Christianity is what Jesus taught - turning the other cheek etc and not what the Crazy Clergy were advocating.

Cheers,
Shafique

Quran gives Complete and Absolute freedom Unparalleled in human history!

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?�

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but plain warner."

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.

74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!

"So have We appointed for every Prophet an enemy - devils of men and Jinns; who inspire each other with seductive, deceptive speech which leads astray; but had thy Lord willed they would not have done so. So leave them with what they do devise. And let the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter listen to it; and let them be well pleased with it; and let them gain what they can gain!" 6:113-114

"And when you see those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil causes you to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrongdoers. 6:68

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing


Absolute and complete freedom unparalleled in human history.