Organized Religion & personal Spirituality

In addition you are not the only Islamic person in the US, or on the planet. I love how you talk for people within the midEast as if you are their representative. There are people from that region that do not think as you do... and are Islamic. That's the catch. With more moral control you would feel threatened and you would not like it.You can't have it both ways. Brother you haven't studied much US history have you? Catholics and Protestants can't get along, much less them with Muslims and Jews.Since you are for more moral control, you would be happy when only Sunday is allowed to be for worship/day of rest in accordance with Xian doctrine? Atheists can be more prudish than theists.As it stands I am an atheist who isn't. So you believe that if my friends outnumber you, then it would be fine if we fix your immoral practices and make sure you practice the moral action of openmindedness, including forcing you to watch porn and attend gay marches at least once a year (or watch one season of Queer Eye).I mean that is how the cookie crumbles. If you are for moral legislation then that means any moral system can be enforced, as long as it gets the votes. That is a contradiction. You mean to say separation is not required for Abraham-founded religions to practice their religions in peace... generally speaking.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

With the possible exception of adultery (and even that is questionable), those are not morals laws. Indeed the most immoral person might agree with them (including adultery) as they are the legal protection of personal civil rights, and not the persecution of someone's moral lapses.This is of course why atheists and other theist groups could agree with these same set of laws with the X-I-J crowd, and why we do not have laws regarding who is God and how you can use his name and etc etc.Of course there are morals laws, and many stem from social conventions just as arbitrary and bigoted as religious rules, some even based on religious rules or practices. But these are generally on the local level, and they are usually contentious.And of course I would argue that they need to be eliminated.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

While this is true, it also has led to the instant demonization of anyone living as long as they have been accused of something unpopular... even if it is trivial.Its like we've created an emotional pressure cooker and its warping society's usual coping mechanisms.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree, but one can always find a way for a person to be considered victim, if there are no objective definitions or criteria of what makes someone a "victim".For instance in the examples PB gave you, I certainly did not see the speeder as a crime given a lonely highway. You saw potential for victims (disagree that it would be high) as being treatable as if there are victims.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Let me try and help you gain perspective on this. Kind of a brain-building session.Moral laws have to do with social expectations, including from religious beliefs. Civil (or Civic) laws are those that are formed by the populace through their gov't, for their protection. Neither are inherently connected to the other. Morality=/=legality.It is not surprising that the civil laws people make reflect many of the same situations that moral laws deal with. That is of course the nature of laws in the first place, and that is dealing with unjust situations. It is just that morals laws can go further because their base is not just dealing with practical matters of action, but also thought and spiritual action.In practice of making laws the degree that civil and moral laws match each other will depend on the culture and the nature of their gov't.Where morality is allowed into gov't function, the laws lose their civic nature. Where secularity is important, morality is not generally found within the laws.The US gov't is secular and so the laws are primarily civil, except where moralists have convinced the people they are actually based on morals and so should reflect all our most common moralities. Some are confounded to know what laws are if not based on morality, what can a secular law be? Well, it is preservation of each citizens rights. That is based on our rights (the freedoms we expect for ourselves), what laws would logically be necessary to deal with issues where individuals' rights intersect.Interestingly enough John Ashcroft during his tenure as US attorney general gave a speech (I think it was to a religious group) explaining that US law is NOT civic law and instead is based on the moral law of God. His derision was firmly poured on concepts that we should trust in ideas of civil law and secularity.Thus, even some of the fundies get the distinction. Well I guess most of them do whether Islamic, Judaic, or Xian. They want their civic laws based on, or seen to be based on Religious principles, and not be possible through rational means. This is of course why fundies lie all the time about where our laws come from and indeed how the Mosaic laws were the first and most influential code of laws this world had.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you break the speed limit and there is no one around, is it really a crime?If you break the speed limit and there is no one around but a camera which catches your speed an license plate number, is it a crime? Nitpicking... I think you meant to say prevent people from becoming victims, not protect the victims. The latter is usually about victims rights.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If the people are not free to choose to practice that way of life, and instead are obligate under law to practice it, then isn't that a lack of faith in the power of your religion?In any case it certainly undercuts your arguments about freedom of religion under a religious gov't.Of course I would still like to see you address the reply I wrote earlier which pointed out you do not speak for "Islam" or what an "Islamic government" would be like. Let's say one gets installed... whose version of Islam will be set into law, and why? Yes, and some believe Allah cares whether her head and face are covered and some do not. Which ones get legal power? They are both Islamic.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, this was the point of my question. If a people actually had a strong faith in their religion, why would they need to reinforce conditions and behaviours through legal fiat, which is simply forcing people to behave in ways they might not want to? Okay, but what would be nice is if you would explain which conditions and behaviors are set into law, and how the setting of one grouping would not contravene the beliefs of some Islamic followers.You said there would be no lessening of freedom of religion, but by arguing it is best to set laws to free Islamic believers, you are by definition restraining a certain population of Islamic believers and so restricting their freedom. But it certainly does hinder some Islamic denominations. The fighting between different Islamic factions over interpretation is not a manufactured division from outside the Islamic religion. It is internal and does exist.By making striving easier for some, you can and do make it difficult for others.Let me make something clear before this goes further. I am not arguing that any nation will be wrong for choosing an Islamic based gov't. It will not necessarily turn out bad for people in general, and I for one like diversity in cultures and governments.My problem is your asserted fact that a gov't based on religious principles will not limit religious freedom. That is pretty patently false. You can argue that a population may find the benefits of aiding a majority population's "striving", outweighs the deficits of hindering the freedoms of others not in that majority. What appears to be a false argument is a statement that one is not making that trade-off.Secular gov'ts are the only gov'ts capable of not interfering in personal religious practice as they deal only with practical day to day affairs, outside of the religious sphere.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It does not need moral foundations, it has civil foundations. That is a mistake that moralists within the US have made and so are struggling over.The "culture war", if you look into its history, was created and perpetuated by fundamentalist Xians and to some lesser degree conservative feminists. It is artificial and unproductive and unnecessary for the US to survive. Atheists get their morals from experiencing life, thinking about life, and learning about other people's experiences and thoughts about life. This is not much different than any theist.But morals are separate from laws within a secular nation, which are based on preservation of civil rights. Read Locke for starters, as that is who many of the founding fathers read to formulate their philosophy on political systems. It is interesting that you see that, when the top executive and many top legislators are clearly trying to take the role of clerics. Why are you living in the US? Now I think you are a Xian fundie posing as an Islamic follower. This is the first time I have heard this from anyone outside the Xian persuasion.In any case, Rome did not fall due to lack of moral foundations. It took many years to "fall", and as it turns out did so after converting to Xianity, and well past the days of its greatest debauches.Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think morality had anything to do with Rome's demise, rather than economics, agriculture, and shifting political landscapes.(edited in):
You can also explain how the Islamic nations managed to fall despite being based in Islamic law, how Isreal fell despite Judaic law, and the Xian "empires" splintered and fell, with secular gov'ts rising in their place.This message has been edited by holmes, 04-10-2005 04:00 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)