Why Does Secularism Hate Theocracy?

[larelo6 3]

Discriminative "wall of separation" in secularism!

Problem I

Secularism guarantees "wall of separation between church and state".

Thus interpretation of religion is fully left to individual citizens.

Why is interpretation of constitution exercised by Supreme Court then?

Why does secularism guarantee "wall of separation" discriminatively?

Problem II

Secularism guarantees "wall of separation between church and state".

Thus legislation of religious policy is fully banned from state bodies.

Why is legislation of public policy exercised by Congress and President then?

Why does secularism guarantee "wall of separation" discriminatively?

Would anyone explain these, please?

Well, thank you very much, everybody!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: larelo6

Problem I

Secularism guarantees "wall of separation between church and state". quote>

Secularism is a concept.  Specifically, the concept that government should exist separately from religion and religious beliefs.  I'm all for it but where is this guarantee you are talking about?

Thus interpretation of religion is fully left to individual citizens. quote>

That would be a good idea, imho.  However, organized religious groups tend to tell individual citizens what to believe.

Why is interpretation of constitution exercised by Supreme Court then?quote>

In the USA, the Supreme Court is part of the checks and balances system.  It is their job to interpert law.

Why does secularism guarantee "wall of separation" discriminatively? quote>

Again, where is this guarantee you are talking about?  and what discrimation are you talking about?   Your questions need some clarification.

Problem II

Secularism guarantees "wall of separation between church and state".quote>

See above

Thus legislation of religious policy is fully banned from state bodies.quote>

One would hope so.  It is difficult to have separation of church and state if the state is dictating religious policy.

Why is legislation of public policy exercised by Congress and President then?quote>

Because it's their jobs to do so.  I'm missing something here.  How did we leap from "religious policy" to "public policy"?

Why does secularism guarantee "wall of separation" discriminatively?quote>

See above

Would anyone explain these, please?

Well, thank you very much, everybody! quote>

I'm trying but I don't understand your questions.

[§haÅ--Ñ€ §hÅŽo 370]

i know i can't >.>

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[larelo6 3]

Oops, I'm sorry for my lack of clarity!

Well, I come from Indonesia where around 80% of its people are muslims.

Few conservatives use that fact to advocate the establishment of an Islamic state.

But nationalists say that such state will destroy freedom of interpretation of Islam.

An Islamic state may lead muslims from different interpretations to clash.

Only a secular state can protect freedom of interpretation of Islam.

Then come up the conservatives with what they call secularism's hypocricy.

Multiinterpretation of constitution is settled by the supreme court.

Multiideology of public policy is settled by the congress and the president.

And such settlements to multiinterpretations do not lead muslims to clash here.

Why can't multiinterpretation of Islam be settled by a body in an Islamic state?

Such settlement of multiinterpretation of Islam may not lead muslims to clash.

So, if secularism can settle legitimately multiinterpretation of constitution and multiideology of public policy, why does it discriminatively refuse to settle multiinterpretation of religion with its "wall of separation between church and state"?

Is the union between church and state unsettleable legitimately?

Umm, does my background make things clearer?

Edit: settlement of multiinterpretation of religion/Islam = formalization of interpretations of religion/Islam into law.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Meg

Because it's their jobs to do so.  I'm missing something here.  How did we leap from "religious policy" to "public policy"?quote>

Because hes using extremely flawed logic. This whole argument seems like a flawed argument against secularism, where he tries to make it seem like its not fair that the government is making decisions, thus enacting a certain policy when they are not allowed to enact a religious policy. 

The background of the poster only makes this clearer.

At the post of this thread. The reason why these things are seperated is because its all about freedom of choice. In a non secular state, the state decides the official religious policy and it is against the law to believe in anything else. To translate it to Indonesia, it would mean that the Islamic state would make for example the Sunni interpretation of the Islam the official one. Any Shia would be forced to adopt the Sunni interpretation or break the law. This would most definitely lead to clashes as we can see if we take a quick look at the rather violent history of the middle east. And if its not about other Muslim interpretations then it will cause problem with the other 4 officially recognized religions in Indonesia. Thats still 20% of the total population, and thats still several million people who suddenly cant believe what they want to believe in a Islamic state. 

A secularist state is the only form of state that can ensure that more then one religion can be safely practiced in the same country. 

[Duke87 1,070]

The argument seems to be thus: if disagreements about how to interpret the constitution are settled by the government, disagreements about how to interpret the Koran should also be settled by the government. To want one left up to the individual but want the government to dictate the other is hypocritical.

The counter-argument would seem obvious: the constitution is a government document, concerning what the government does, and as such it is interpreted by the government. But the Koran is a religious document, concerning what the followers of the religion do, and so it is interpreted by the followers of the religion.

However, the problem is that this idea that what people following a religion do and what the government does are distinct and different is a very western way of thinking. In traditional Islamic culture, this distinction does not exist. After all, a government consists of people, who must, like everyone else, follow the guidelines of their religion. And the guidelines of their religion require that they stand up for it.

This lack of distinction has led to problems before. Remember a few years ago when that Danish guy drew those cartoons of Mohammad, and Muslims around the world started calling for his head? That was the same culture clash at work. See, here in the west, we practice our religion on an individual basis, and believe that in order to be good pious people we must avoid sinning. But Islamic culture doesn't consider that enough. For your average person from the Middle East (or anywhere else that Islam is the dominant religion), in order to be good and pious it is necessary not only to avoid sinning oneself but also to not permit others to sin. Remember, the idea of separation of church and state is unislamic. Everything and everyone must submit to the will of Allah. As such, the Danish cartoonist, according to Islamic culture, does not have any right to violate the rules of Islam, even if he is not himself a Muslim.

So I can see where, for someone from Indonesia, letting individuals interpret their religion as they see fit but making everyone follow the court's interpretation of the law would seem inconsistent.

[larelo6 3]

Love your answer, Duke!

Originally posted by: Duke87

The counter-argument would seem obvious: the constitution is a government document, concerning what the government does, and as such it is interpreted by the government. But the Koran is a religious document, concerning what the followers of the religion do, and so it is interpreted by the followers of the religion.

quote>

But any other thought?

Say there is a country whose people are 100% muslims.

Multiinterpretation of constitution is settled by the supreme court.

Multiideology of public policy is settled by the legislative and the president.

And such settlements to multiinterpretations do not lead muslims to clash.

Why can't multiinterpretation of Islam be settled by a body in an Islamic state?

Why can't such settlement to multiinterpretation produce legitimate religious law?

Why does secularism hate theocracy and democratic one?

Thank you, everybody!

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: larelo6

Multiinterpretation of constitution is settled by the supreme court.

Multiideology of public policy is settled by the legislative and the president.

And such settlements to multiinterpretations do not lead muslims to clash.

Why can't multiinterpretation of Islam be settled by a body in an Islamic state?

Why can't such settlement to multiinterpretation produce legitimate religious law?

Why does secularism hate theocracy and democratic one?

Thank you, everybody! quote>

I think the fundamental issue here is the nature of the "contract," so to speak.  People in democratic nations are either born into them or become part of them after moving to a new country.  Regardless of how you came into the country, you are part of an implied contract.  The contract is that country's constitution, a document written by humans.  We elect people to represent our interests in a government  whose purpose is to make, enforce, and interpret the laws.  

And most importantly, if we, the citizens of the country, decide the constitution needs to be changed, we can change it.  (On a side note, in my opinion,  this is absolutely, without question, the most important power the government and citizens have in a democracy.)

Now, to religion, the most important difference is that the Koran is considered to be the absolute word of Allah as transcribed by the prophet, Mohommed, if I have my facts straight.  The problem with organizing an official worldwide government to interpret the Koran (or any other religious book, for that matter) would be thus:

- Such an organization would presumably claim to speak for every Muslim in the world.  This could be problematic in that many would not agree with what the organization decides.  This essentially leaves you with a religious Supreme Court.  In governments, the Supreme Court's word is final until the constitution itself is changed.  However, the Koran cannot be changed.  The only alternative for many who disagree with this sort of Supreme Court will be some kind of war or conflict.

Personally, I feel it's best for governing bodies to leave religion alone and let religion sort itself out on its own.  Having differing denominations in religions seems to keep things more peaceful since people will be able to worship as they please with no governing body looking over their shoulder telling them what to do.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: larelo6

Oops, I'm sorry for my lack of clarity! quote>

This happens sometimes when people are coming from different cultural backgrounds.  Assumptions can be made about what the other people know.  Thank you for coming to clarify.

Well, I come from Indonesia where around 80% of its people are muslims.

Few conservatives use that fact to advocate the establishment of an Islamic state. quote>

So a "few" people want to dictate to 20% of the population?   Not a good start, imho

But nationalists say that such state will destroy freedom of interpretation of Islam.

An Islamic state may lead muslims from different interpretations to clash.

Only a secular state can protect freedom of interpretation of Islam. quote>

If the Islamic state is Shia, won't the Sunni object?  and if the Islamic state is Sunni, won't the Shia object?

A secular state would allow the Shia to be Shia and the Sunni to be Sunni since neither group would be the official one.

Then come up the conservatives with what they call secularism's hypocricy.

Multiinterpretation of constitution is settled by the supreme court.

Multiideology of public policy is settled by the congress and the president.

And such settlements to multiinterpretations do not lead muslims to clash here. quote>

Sounds like a good system.  Why let a few people mess it up?

Why can't multiinterpretation of Islam be settled by a body in an Islamic state?

Such settlement of multiinterpretation of Islam may not lead muslims to clash. quote>

I imagine it would if either the Shia or the Sunni felt their views were being trampled on

So, if secularism can settle legitimately multiinterpretation of constitution and multiideology of public policy, why does it discriminatively refuse to settle multiinterpretation of religion with its "wall of separation between church and state"? quote>

The basic concept of secularism states that government should be separate from religion.  Settling a multiinterpretation of religion is against the basic concept of secularism.  Where is the hypocrisy?   I don't see it.

Is the union between church and state unsettleable legitimately?quote>

In my opinion, yes.   The state can legislate behavior but it can not legislate belief.   and each religion has groups with different views on what that religion should be.   To make it law is to trample the religious beliefs of others.

Umm, does my background make things clearer? quote>

Yes, it does.  Thank you.

Edit: settlement of multiinterpretation of religion/Islam = formalization of interpretations of religion/Islam into law.quote>

and since all Muslims don't interpret things the same way, there are going to be clashes if one view becomes the law.

Originally posted by: Duke87

This lack of distinction has led to problems before. Remember a few years ago when that Danish guy drew those cartoons of Mohammad, and Muslims around the world started calling for his head? quote>

A coworker and I were discussing this at lunch.  His view is that people are reluctant to discuss Islam for fear of being the target of a death threat.  I believe that it is difficult to learn about something if people aren't talking about it.

For your average person from the Middle East (or anywhere else that Islam is the dominant religion), in order to be good and pious it is necessary not only to avoid sinning oneself but also to not permit others to sin. Remember, the idea of separation of church and state is unislamic. Everything and everyone must submit to the will of Allah. quote>

and how is everyone supposed to know what the will of Allah is?   What is the difference between knowing the will of Allah and knowing the mind of God?

As such, the Danish cartoonist, according to Islamic culture, does not have any right to violate the rules of Islam, even if he is not himself a Muslim. quote>

And this is where many non-Muslims get lost trying to understand Muslim beliefs.  For many Americans, their first awareness of Islam was in the 60s when several well known people converted and changed their names.  Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali.  Lew Alcindor became Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  They both said that Islam is about peace.

Then we hear about things like the Danish cartoonist and it sounds like Islam is about peace except for when they are obligated to kill you.   This makes no sense to many people.

An important thing to keep in mind is something larel06 mentioned:  "A few" conservatives want an Islamic state.   That isn't everyone.  and I suspect that all Muslim do not agree with the notion that the Danish cartoonist should be killed or he would be dead already.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: larelo6

Why can't multiinterpretation of Islam be settled by a body in an Islamic state?

Why can't such settlement to multiinterpretation produce legitimate religious law?quote>

It would be perfectly possible to set up some sort of court system that would settle disputes with regards to Islamic doctrine, and many countries do make laws based upon the teachings of the religion. There is absolutely no reason why the things you suggest can't be done, the question is whether or not they should be done. And that is a question that is ultimately up to the people of the nation to answer.

Here's the thing, though: any given jurisdiction can only have one set of laws. You can't just let people decide for themselves what the laws are and how to interpret them, then you have anarchy. I could decide that it's okay to kill that neighbor of mine that I hate, and no one could stop me or officially rule that I am wrong. In other words, anyone would be free to do harm to anyone or anything, and that is dysfunctional.

Religion is different in this way: most varying interpretations are ultimately personal matters on the part of the person practicing the religion and have no impact on other people. What is it to me if my neighbor dresses a little less modestly than I do? Or decides to pray just four times a day instead of five? It does not in any way bring harm upon me. So, he can practice his religion differently and there is no conflct. No intervention is necessary for the functioning of society unless my neighbor decides that his religion is demanding he do something destructive.

Ultimately, the law is what the government is there for and the government has to maintain control over it. There really isn't a choice.

The government can maintain control over religion, but there is no pressing reason why it needs to, nor is there an obvious undeniable benefit to it doing so. As such, government control of relgion is purely optional from a functional standpoint. Whether or not it is a good idea is then merely a matter of opinion.

Why does secularism hate theocracy and democratic one?quote>

Secularism and theocracy are opposite ideas which are in direct contradiction to each other. So, naturally, the supporters of one are not going to think highly of the other. True, you can be in between the extremes, but you can't be on both ends at the same time. A staunch secularist will detest theocracy, and a staunch theocrat will detest secularism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "democratic one".

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The idea of an Islamic State is one often proposed by radical members of the Shia schism of Islam.  Their fundamentalist interpretation would lead to full application of the out-moded Sharia code, which is unsuitable for modern times.

In Indonesia, were it to become an Islamic State, you would have a situation like Spain in the 16th century, probably complete with a Holy Office (Inquisition) and all kinds of penalties for not being Shiite, including executions, especially for Sunnis who would be counted as unbelievers.

One assumes the remaining 20% of the population is divided between Christians (people of the book, and therefore safe) and Buddhists who are considered to be heathens, with a few smatterings of Taoists and others.  Well, religion is a personal item and the state has no business meddling in the thoughts of its citizens.  Since fundamentalist Shia wants everyone to think alike, this is not an issue for a government.  Look at Iran, and wince.  Only strife comes from legislated religion, even the Roman Empire knew that, as did the British Empire which left the people to worship as they pleased.

Proper Islam has no imams.  Muslims are supposed to be very much like Jews, and deal with Allah on a personal basis with no intermediary interpreting for them.  Yes, it is nice to get together for prayer, but it is not mandatory.  Mosques are nice for concentration on Allah and the principles of Islam, but not mandatory.  The main purpose of a mosque, I have always believed, is to support the Ashram so that good Muslims can be educated, but not in any one sect.

Are there any Sufis in Indonesia?  I thought they were mostly in Turkey.

[larelo6 3]

Originally posted by: Meg

An important thing to keep in mind is something larelo6 mentioned: "A few" conservatives want an Islamic state. That isn't everyone.quote>

Indonesia's semisecularism, Pancasila, is actually so powerful here.

No significant Islamic power threatens it as state ideology.

It is defended not only by nonmuslims but also by muslims.

But there always be few people taking far path of thought.

They advocate the establishment of an Islamic state.

Thus I try to explore how uncompromiseable secularism is.

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Are there any Sufis in Indonesia?quote>

I know one legend named Sheikh Siti Jenar from 15th century Java.

He called himself Allah and was "excommunicated" for his belief.

But I'm sorry for not being knowledgeable enough to explain more.

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

Now, to religion, the most important difference is that the Koran is considered to be the absolute word of Allah as transcribed by the prophet, Mohommed, if I have my facts straight. The problem with organizing an official worldwide government to interpret the Koran (or any other religious book, for that matter) would be thus:

- Such an organization would presumably claim to speak for every Muslim in the world. This could be problematic in that many would not agree with what the organization decides. This essentially leaves you with a religious Supreme Court. In governments, the Supreme Court's word is final until the constitution itself is changed. However, the Koran cannot be changed. The only alternative for many who disagree with this sort of Supreme Court will be some kind of war or conflict.quote>

What about democratic circulation of justices of religious supreme court?

You may then say that some groups are not able to influence such democratic circulation.

But don't secularisms have some groups that are too big to neglect but too small to influence law?

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Well, religion is a personal item and the state has no business meddling in the thoughts of its citizens. Since fundamentalist Shia wants everyone to think alike, this is not an issue for a government.quote>

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

The reason why these things are seperated is because its all about freedom of choice. In a non secular state, the state decides the official religious policy and it is against the law to believe in anything else.quote>

So freedom of religion is individual freedom?

Is freedom of ideology not individual freedom?

Don't Republican Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Democratic Americans increase tax for controversial social service?

Don't Democratic Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Republican Americans spend budget for controversial wars?

What does make freedom of religion different so that it's separated from state?

Originally posted by: Duke87

Religion is different in this way: most varying interpretations are ultimately personal matters on the part of the person practicing the religion and have no impact on other people. What is it to me if my neighbor dresses a little less modestly than I do? Or decides to pray just four times a day instead of five? It does not in any way bring harm upon me. So, he can practice his religion differently and there is no conflct. No intervention is necessary for the functioning of society unless my neighbor decides that his religion is demanding he do something destructive.quote>

Let me think of it first, Duke.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: larelo6

Why can't multiinterpretation of Islam be settled by a body in an Islamic state?

Why can't such settlement to multiinterpretation produce legitimate religious law?quote>

It would be perfectly possible to set up some sort of court system that would settle disputes with regards to Islamic doctrine, and many countries do make laws based upon the teachings of the religion. There is absolutely no reason why the things you suggest can't be done, the question is whether or not they should be done. And that is a question that is ultimately up to the people of the nation to answer.quote>

Originally posted by: Duke87

The government can maintain control over religion, but there is no pressing reason why it needs to, nor is there an obvious undeniable benefit to it doing so. As such, government control of relgion is purely optional from a functional standpoint. Whether or not it is a good idea is then merely a matter of opinion.quote>

In short, the union between church and state is fully about simple like and dislike, isn't it?

It's okay if a diverse muslim nation democratically amends its constitution to unite "church" and state then?

Well, thank you, everybody!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: larelo6

So freedom of religion is individual freedom?

Is freedom of ideology not individual freedom? quote>

Freedom of religion can be both individual and group.  As an individual living a free society, I am not required by law to go to religious services, observe any particular religious practices, or attend classes indoctrinating me in a particular religious belief system.

From a group point of view, it's the freedom to congregate and worship as the group sees fit.   In America, we have churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship.  They all have a legal right to be here.

Don't Republican Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Democratic Americans increase tax for controversial social service?

Don't Democratic Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Republican Americans spend budget for controversial wars? quote>

It isn't an issue of "giving up their freedom".   It's an issue of sharing power and finding a balance.   Here, power is shared among a wide array of people and institutions.  The President can't do certain things with Congress and visa versa.  Either can be overruled by the Supreme Court if they have strayed too far from our founding principles. We have a wide variety of political ideologies and religious beliefs.  The key is finding a balance among them.  It isn't easy.

In short, the union between church and state is fully about simple like and dislike, isn't it? quote>

There isn't much "simple" about it.  and there is more to it than that.

It's okay if a diverse muslim nation democraticaly amends its constitution to unite "church" and state then?quote>

I'm all in favor of democratically amending a constitution when the need arises.  Whether it's okay to do it to unite church and state would depend on the founding principles of the nation.  I think it should be made clear to everyone what they are giving up.  which is a lot, imho.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: larelo6

So freedom of religion is individual freedom?

Is freedom of ideology not individual freedom?

Don't Republican Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Democratic Americans increase tax for controversial social service?

 Don't Democratic Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Republican Americans spend budget for controversial wars?quote>

Yeah it is. However, in all the examples you cite the individual freedom of ideology is not at stake. Its merely not acted upon. Democrats and their ideological believes do not become outlawed the moment the Republicans get into office. They remain free to profoundly disagree with the Republicans. 

In a non secular state you get that the church becomes the government and the government becomes the church. So I would suddenly go against the church what is also the government when I do not agree with what they believe in. The church would suddenly have the legal authority to make me believe what they believe. You get the religious police like you have in Saudi Arabia where people get arrested if they do not follow the exact rules of the Islam according to the state. you can already see this happening in Indonesia where women are no longer allowed to wear pants in certain parts of the country because pants are against the Islam. Now its only pants, but in a country where there would be no separation between the church and state the state could do enforce anything they want under the guise of religious protocols. 

[Zelgadis 638]

Don't Republican Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Democratic Americans increase tax for controversial social service?

Don't Democratic Americans give up their freedom of ideology when Republican Americans spend budget for controversial wars?quote>

quote>

Again, we go back to the contract (Constitution).  The contract of most democratic nations state, in some way or another, that we get to choose our leaders and majority wins.

When the Democrats win in the US or the NDP wins in Canada (I have ties in both countries), then yay for me.

When the Republicans win in the US or the Conservatives win in Canada, then boo.  However, as a member of a democracy and an adherent to the contract, I accept the results.  Oh, I'll rant until I'm blue in the face over Republican and Conservative policies, but I still accept that the outcome of the vote is final.  Until the next one, of course.

I don't really think religion can work properly this way.  To be honest, I'm not comfortable with religious organizations or hierarchies interpreting holy books for me.  Like I said before, the Koran is the inspired word of Allah as transcribed by the Prophet, but we are humans, destined to be flawed.  Most religious organizations set themselves up to be the final word in interpreting religious scripture, which I am personally not comfortable with since humans are flawed.  The situation of having the final word is also an anathema to the very nature of democracy itself.  The two must remain separate to avoid this fundamental conflict.

What about democratic circulation of justices of religious supreme court?

quote>

If the people can accept the democratic circulation of justices on a religious supreme court, then I would be fine with this.  Unfortunately, history is not on the side of this working out, particularly if the supreme court changes the interpretation.  I'm thinking the Vatican reforms of the 1960's here.  Many people take comfort in the fact that religion is constant, consistent, and predictable.  Take that away and many people would be very upset, and there are a lot of Catholics who are still very displeased with the Vatican reforms.

ISF

 

[s.i.X 13]

To be the Queen of the United Kingdom, you have to be protestant. If you are in line to the throne and you marry a non-protestant, you are disqualified and removed from the line of succession. The Queen or King of the United Kingdom is, simultaneously, the head of the Church of England, the state church. Until a couple hundred years ago, everyone in the government was required by law to be a member of that church.

To be the President of the United States, you simply have to be a follower of a religion the population doesn't hate to ensure that they vote for you. You could be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Satanist, Atheist, whatever. That is separation of Church and State.

Just because you have Freedom of Conscious (the term used in Canada) doesn't mean the government isn't allowed to do something you find unconscionable. If that was the case, government wouldn't be able to operate at all, as having even a small group of people disagree with it would make it illegal. That there will be people who disagree with the actions of the government is an inherent aspect of any form of governance.

As for the title, secularism "hates" theocracy because they're opposites.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: larelo6

Well, thank you, everybody! quote>

Whoa, tiger!  You may think you have some kind of resolution in favour of an Islamic State, but you don't.  If Allah wanted such a set up, it would be in the Koran, and it is not.

Islamic States are inventions of ill-intentioned sect members with a goal of excluding others.  This is a crime against humanity similar to the Russian Pograms of the 19th century and the Racial Purity laws of Adolph Hitler in the third Reich.  These guys are extremists.  Wolves hiding in sheeps clothing until they get control of the fold.  Then expect the fangs.

Do not be deceived.  Terrorism and intolerance comes in many guises.  Islam is a perfect vehicle for the anti-Christ in which to hide.  The anti-Christ may be a Christian idea, but the idea behind it is the destruction of the world as we know it.  Just because the Islamic State idea is not concentrated in one nation does not make it any better than Naziism.  I am hearing echos of "Ein volk, Ein Riech, Ein Fuhrer".  Be very careful how you look at these people.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Such a nice, civil discussion of an inflammatory subject... then I come along. LOLz

The idea of church/state separation(SoCaS), believe it or not, was a Protestant innovation (for obvious reasons). Bush wasn't the first leader to sway people of faith by using the language, and the faithful forget that even religious institutions become corrupt. Giving one the keys to the other (whichever direction it flows) is a plain bad idea. For years Jesse Jackson was bandied about as a possible nominee for SCOTUS by Democrats; that right there should give pause to anyone rethinking SoCaS from any perspective. I intentionally didn't use the misleading 'Rev.' prefix.

China has Atheism as its state-enforced dogma, yet some churches are allowed to operate but with pastors controlled by the state. These churches are very closely monitored and all attendees are under surveillance. While we wouldn't tolerate that here (yet, give it time) it is for all intents and purposes, little different from 1600s England. The church needs adequate protection from state more than vice-versa, typically. The most damage is done when the two are bedfellows, and even the most conservative of my brethren would readily admit as such. Atheist anti-theocracy is no better than the worst theocratic states, as referenced by North Korea, Vietnam, and China.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Interesting points, I suppose, but we are trying delicately to point out to our friend in Djakarta that the idea of an Islamic state is a form of national suicide.  If you think things were difficult in the reformation, take a look at what was going on just before Queen Victoria came to the throne.  The resurgent Stuarts were crypto-Catholics, and if they had succeeded, they would have caused another revolution in England complete with regicide.  When it comes to stupid, the Stuart line take the first prize.  Did you know that Bonnie Prince Charlie couldn't attend the battle of Culloden because he was down with scurvy?  He would only eat meat.  When it comes to smart, I'll take the Saxe-Coburg Gotha line (the Windsor's) any time.

[larelo6 3]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

And if its not about other Muslim interpretations then it will cause problem with the other 4 officially recognized religions in Indonesia.quote>

There are actually five other officially recognized religions in Indonesia, Lexus.

They are Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

you can already see this happening in Indonesia where women are no longer allowed to wear pants in certain parts of the country because pants are against the Islam.quote>

Religious local laws contradicting semisecular national constitution are a target of criticisms here, Lexus.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

The reason why these things are seperated is because its all about freedom of choice. In a non secular state, the state decides the official religious policy and it is against the law to believe in anything else. To translate it to Indonesia, it would mean that the Islamic state would make for example the Sunni interpretation of the Islam the official one. Any Shia would be forced to adopt the Sunni interpretation or break the law. This would most definitely lead to clashes as we can see if we take a quick look at the rather violent history of the middle east.quote>

Would you tell me some relevant clashes from the Middle East, dude?

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

If the people can accept the democratic circulation of justices on a religious supreme court, then I would be fine with this. Unfortunately, history is not on the side of this working out, particularly if the supreme court changes the interpretation. I'm thinking the Vatican reforms of the 1960's here. Many people take comfort in the fact that religion is constant, consistent, and predictable. Take that away and many people would be very upset, and there are a lot of Catholics who are still very displeased with the Vatican reforms.quote>

Some Wikipedia links on the Vatican Reforms of 1960's, please?

Well, thank you very much for your posts, everybody!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: larelo6

Some Wikipedia links on the Vatican Reforms of 1960's, please?  quote>

Commonly called the "Vatican II" reforms: link

The Vatican II reforms seriously altered my perception of Catholicism.   For the first 12 years of my life, I was raised a Catholic (first communion, confirmation, etc.)   Along the way the Vatican II reforms happened.  Some parishs, like the one my family attended embraced them.  Others, not so much.

Some of the changes were a bit confusing to a kid.   All my life I had been told not to eat meat on Friday, although I was never told why.  (Back in those days, McDonald's didn't have fish sandwiches so, if you were out and about on a Friday, it was more difficult to grab a quick lunch.)   Suddenly, eating meat on Friday was okay.  but, again, we were not told why.

There had always been a St. Christopher medal hanging from the rear view mirror of the car.  He was the patron saint of travelers.  Suddenly, he wasn't a saint anymore.

The priest had always said mass with his back to the crowd while speaking in Latin.  Suddenly, he was facing the crowd and talking in English.

If there was any music at all during Mass, it involved a choir and an organ.  Suddenly we had guitars, tamborines, and trumpets.  

All of this really freaked some people out.

Gradually, my parents perceived that the church as back pedalling on the Vatican II reforms.  To them, that meant the church was ignoring their own edicts as to what constituted the word of God.  (I'll spare you the details.  It involved some kind of group inspiration among the cardinals.)      By the time I was 12, my parents decided they had to leave the church due to philosophical differences.  They invited my brother, sister, and I to continue attending.  We all declined.

Well, thank you very much for your posts, everybody! quote>

You're welcome.  It's an interesting discussion.

[panthersimcity4 162]

As someone who does practice religious... erm, stuff, I think that theocracy is a very bad idea. It usually causes persecution of people who don't follow the same religion as the "official state" religion. Even the most peaceful religion can be warped into a totalitarian war machine.

As for Vatican II, IMHO, it was a step forward. There's nothing wrong with them changing as time goes by. I think the problem many people make is try to assume the Catholic Church some sort of magical entity that is just perfect and covered in sparkles and rainbows. The Church is a human institution... and humans make plenty of mistakes. Any Catholic who would say the Catholic Church has never made a mistake would just be in denial. The Vatican doesn't sit on clouds in heaven, it's located on earth... where civilization changes... but that's just my opinion though.

[L'orignaux inconnu 0]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

As someone who does practice religious... erm, stuff, I think that theocracy is a very bad idea. It usually causes persecution of people who don't follow the same religion as the "official state" religion. Even the most peaceful religion can be warped into a totalitarian war machine.

As for Vatican II, IMHO, it was a step forward. There's nothing wrong with them changing as time goes by. I think the problem many people make is try to assume the Catholic Church some sort of magical entity that is just perfect and covered in sparkles and rainbows. The Church is a human institution... and humans make plenty of mistakes. Any Catholic who would say the Catholic Church has never made a mistake would just be in denial. The Vatican doesn't sit on clouds in heaven, it's located on earth... where civilization changes... but that's just my opinion though.quote>

Eh bien, mon ami!  I most certainly agree with your first paragraph.  There are examples in the Catholic Church.  You only have to look at the period from about 500 CE to around 1600 to see the Church with a grasp like a limpet on everything, and the Inquisition to back them up with fire and other nastiness.

As a non-practicing Catholic, I can assure you that the feet of all those statues are made of clay.  Some early council, probably the one at Nicea that did so much to nail stuff down, promulgated the dogma (arf, arf) that the Pope is infallible when speaking from the throne of Peter.  Nice for the chief executive, but really hard.  Think of the mess that poor Pius XII got into with the NAZIs.  He didn't know which way to turn, and God wasn't talking.

Meanwhile, we are really talking about the possibility that Indonesia might become an Islamic State similar to Iran.  I think there are enough bad examples, including the Taliban (teachers??) regime in Afghanistan to put that idea in its place, the ashcan.  Only the Shia, who have power hungry imams, would dream up such a thing.  What about the Sunnis?  What about the Buddhists?, the Christians as someone said, are People of the Book, and are accepted.  What about the Taoists? etc.

It might start out fairly tolerant, but within two decades you would have thought police all over the place, and a dictator who would be about as benevolent as the Grand Inquisitor at the court of Ferdinand of Spain in 1490.

Maybe I'm being optimistic, what with the long view of history and all, but I think that Islam is in a development period similar to what the Church went through in the Dark Ages.  With good will and luck, we can short circuit that trip for them, and have them emerge into the bright uplands of tolerance and fraternity.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@Meg.  You ate fish on Friday because some Church council, Trent, I think, decided that fishermen weren't getting enough business, and so it was decreed.  Vatican II recognized that this is not a function of the Church.  The tridentine, or three pointed mass, in Latin, was ruled too mysterious for congregations these days where Latin is not the educated language anymore.  Hence the vernacular mass, with the altar turned to face the congregation.  A lot of Seignoria-ism went out with this.  At the time, I was a ranking member of the executive of my council of the Knights of Columbus who were expected to swallow Vatican II whole, without question.  Unfortunately, the behaviour of some Bishops at official events, and the receptions after, turned me completely off, so I just quit, point blank.  In fact, I left the Church cold.  There is only so much hypocrisy that one can put up with.  I had an inside picture, and I didn't like it.

I still count myself as a lapsed-Catholic, but I have given up on the whole idea of organized religion.  The Jews are right on that.  You should speak only to God without an intermediary.  Intermediaries tend to get uppity and want to tell  you what to do.  This, by the way, is also my view on Islamic States or any other religious affiliation with government.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

@Meg.  You ate fish on Friday because some Church council, Trent, I think, decided that fishermen weren't getting enough business, and so it was decreed.  quote>

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Unfortunately, the behaviour of some Bishops at official events, and the receptions after, turned me completely off, so I just quit, point blank.  In fact, I left the Church cold.  There is only so much hypocrisy that one can put up with.  I had an inside picture, and I didn't like it.  quote>

Sounds amazingly like my parents' experience.

I still count myself as a lapsed-Catholic, quote>

I do not consider myself as such, although I imagine the church still does.  My parents eventually returned to the church, sort of.   My dad decided he wanted to return to the Byzantine rite he grew up in.   They welcomed him back.  My mom eventually found some priest in some other parish and confessed everything.  He gave her the little old lady exemption and told her she could take communion whenever she wanted to.

My dad has returned to not eating meat on Friday.  From a strictly dietary point of view, it's not a bad idea.   Skipping the meat and eating fish a couple of days a week is considered to be a good idea.

but I have given up on the whole idea of organized religion.  The Jews are right on that.  You should speak only to God without an intermediary.  Intermediaries tend to get uppity and want to tell  you what to do.  quote>

I agree with you there.

This, by the way, is also my view on Islamic States or any other religious affiliation with government.quote>

Indeed.  It's bad enough that clergy think they can impress their view of morality on others.   Having it be law is not acceptable.