If you want religious nuts... (12 Viewers)

[Zé Tahir]

@Rami
I've heard that in an ideal Islamic country people of other religions are judged according to their beliefs. So if for instance a Christian is brought into court, he will be punished according to Christian law.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[JCK]

... Lebanon is an exception as its muslims are not a majority

This is not true, but I guess it doesn't matter, you will not be convinced anyway. int:

 

[Muha]

This is not true, but I guess it doesn't matter, you will not be convinced anyway. int:

When i said muslims i didnt mean all factions of muslims.. Because they are treated differently in lebanon...

ps: i wouldnt disagree with you IF you satisfy me with your reasoning.:eyebrows:

 

[Slagathor]

Why would they need this kind of system if they have inhereted a system that would give them a leave for Eids, give them shorter working days in Ramadhan, give them Islamic loans instead of profitable loans in which banks rob people, give them the right to wear Hijabs or vails, give them the right eat Halal and non pork-ified foods, ..etc.

The Dutch Kingdom allows its citizens exactly that. Parliament is currently overviewing plans to scrap Christian holidays as national holidays (an old tradition I personally think is wrong for our modern society). The point is that Muslims in the Netherlands are perfectly allowed to take a day off from work when it’s a religious holiday for them. They may wear religious clothes at work the same way Catholics may wear crosses. Mosques and Churches can make claim to subsidies (the same way theatres can) in order to take financial care of their members if they so wish to do (that would be through providing loans, as you say). The supermarkets here have dedicated sections with different foods for different cultures and religions.

This is why it is so right for Arabic and nations with a majority of Muslims should have an islamic system rather than a religion free system ... Lebanon is an exception as its muslims are not a majority, so it wouldnt be right for Muslims to rule this country, however, in countries such as Syria for example where muslims are a majority, its acceptable to have an islamic system ..

It is, that is true. But why should any other nation in the world get rid of its division between church (or mosque) and state? Since you said you don’t support such a division, I’m assuming you would like to see it removed everywhere.

As i said before, Islam gives people of different faiths the right to practice their religions as far their practices do not obstruct with the muslims' rights to practice their religion.

I dont think the world is ready yet to have wide spread nations that dont endource a main religion.. Churches are still going strong and do have the power to control heaps and heaps of people and can alter govermental desisions sometimes... Even the strongest nation on earth, ( with all the diversity God has blessed it with), it still endources the belief in God.. and this applies on other powerful nations, such as China (Budhism, even though Moa was an athiest), Germany, France, England (Christianty)

The only reason i think Europe still hasnt dropped religion totally is because they know religion gives the state its power.. If goverments drop religion totally, they know they'll face fierce opposition and will lose a large proportion of their nations' faithfull... Its that easy.. religion means power.

That is wrong. Most of Northern Europe (meaning Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the UK and to a lesser extent France) have sworn off religion in their politics. Over 75% of Dutch people say to be atheist, similar patterns are noted all over the region I just described. It makes no sense for there to be strong religious influences in the national governing of those nations. Which is why the European Constitution did not have a single reference to Christianity or God in it. That wouldn’t have been fair to the European Muslims now would it? There is no fierce opposition to governments being formed without religious parties. Throughout the nineties, the Dutch government coalitions consisted of the Labour party, the Capitalist party and the Liberal Democrat Party. The Christian Democrats and the Muslim Democrats were nowhere to be found. And there was no fierce opposition to that whatsoever.

You might say that France for example has a goverment which has recently adoted laws that prohibit any signs of a religious origin, and many people have chareterised this as a step towards religious freedom!!.. i dont understand how this can be called religous freedom?? same applies on other european nations..

You just massively misinterpreted that law (or you forgot to type it). The French have banned religious symbols for teachers and other staff members working in governmental schools. Because there is a strong divide between Church and state (and its schools). Public schools like these must be open for all people in the nation (according to the theory of the church-state divide) and thus the people working there should not express their preference towards any religion. Why? Because in their class there might be ten atheist children, eight christian children and five muslim children. It is important that the teacher (as a representative of government) remains neutral.

There are no laws in France against opening your private Christian or Muslim schools and last time I checked that is actually the case, usually funded by churches or mosques.

so if these countries think they are right and islamic nations are wrong than why dont they do wht they believe in right, instead of calling for religious freedom??.. Stipping a girl of her Hijab.. bullying muslim students in schools and universities because they have beards.. Prohibiting muslims from practicing their basic religious activities such as praying just because "it contradicts with the nation's policy of religious freedom" !!

What you describe here is racism. Sad and horrible as it is, it has nothing to do with a division between church and state.

And nobody is prohibiting muslims from praying or anything of the sorts. In fact, you’ll find many offices in the Netherlands for example have several rooms specifically for people to wind down during their lunch breaks or whenever they need 5 minutes. In those rooms you will find people meditating, doing their breathing/stretching exercises or praying.

 

[Slagathor]

Glad you find it interesting, I am more than happy to answer or discuss it more deeply (and you said I don't care)!!!

Oh boo

The following examples may shed some light on what I meant by tolerance:


Source: http://www.kuftaro.org/english/WOT/Islam_and_Religious_Tolerance.htm


This kind of treatment was basically unheard of in other empires...Or am I mistaken??

Tricky question. If you are referring to the Roman Empire, than no. They definitely did not allow other religions, even if theirs was so obviously tackily fake it's not even funny anymore

I know the Dutch Republic in the 1600s became a centre of immigration for religious minorities who were being persecuted throughout Europe, but that was later than the period you described even though the Dutch at that point in time had probably never really seen a Muslim in their lives. Things change, my roommate at uni was Muslim.

I'll say one more thing: the fact the Dutch Republic was such a place of refuge (it being pretty much the only Republic in Europe at the time, surrounded by monarchies and totalitarian regimes deeply influenced by Catholicism) is one of the reasons I strongly support the division between church and state. But, as you said, Christianity was never very tolerant to begin with.

 

[Seven]

Christianity and Islam were both tolerant in the beginning. Why? Because they were marginal religions. Let's face facts here, both Jesus and Mohammed were outcasts no one wanted to know. That's just the way it was. Come to think of it, it's ridiculous they actually founded a religion. But anyways, they found enough morons to follow them and as soon they got big, their tolerance disappeared. You're all very well aware of the fact the Roman Empire knew a time in which Christianity was the main religion, but other religions were accepted. Not so long after that Christianity became the only religion. It's a basic human reaction. The nerd on the playground will try to gather as much friends as possible, even those who rank very low on the social ladder. Should the nerd become cool however, he will drop the other nerds instantly. Long story cut short, religions are tolerant as long as they're marginal.

As for the separation between State and Church, that's all rather complicated. Laws are based on morals and we more often than not receive these morals through religion. Therefore I don't believe that a complete separation is possible.

 

[Seven]

@Rami
I've heard that in an ideal Islamic country people of other religions are judged according to their beliefs. So if for instance a Christian is brought into court, he will be punished according to Christian law.

That's supposed to be what the Mamluks did in medieval Egypt. Though it's difficult to control a nation without uniformity. What about a Christian who commits a crime against an Islamic law, but not against Christian law? Would the Islamic government allow the Christian court to let him go freely?

 

[Rami]

Christianity and Islam were both tolerant in the beginning. Why? Because they were marginal religions. Let's face facts here, both Jesus and Mohammed were outcasts no one wanted to know. That's just the way it was. Come to think of it, it's ridiculous they actually founded a religion. But anyways, they found enough morons to follow them and as soon they got big, their tolerance disappeared. You're all very well aware of the fact the Roman Empire knew a time in which Christianity was the main religion, but other religions were accepted. Not so long after that Christianity became the only religion. It's a basic human reaction. The nerd on the playground will try to gather as much friends as possible, even those who rank very low on the social ladder. Should the nerd become cool however, he will drop the other nerds instantly. Long story cut short, religions are tolerant as long as they're marginal.

As for the separation between State and Church, that's all rather complicated. Laws are based on morals and we more often than not receive these morals through religion. Therefore I don't believe that a complete separation is possible.

Great Job 7, you just can never stop....The majority of Arab tribes gathered around Muhammed before his death. So you basically called the Arabic race moronic....Thank you...

I would like to add, that most of the examples I provided in this thread, Islam was not the nerd on the playground. On the contrary it was the cool new kid on the block, and kicking the Roman and Persian empires asses! I provided two examples of Omar's tolerance, that same Omar who was locking horns with both the Romans and the Persians at the same time!! Then I provided examples in the Abbasiad empire, were they still the nerds? they practically ruled from China to Morocco, so far for nerds...

And the ultimate example of tolerence lies in Andalucia!! Three religions converged over there, where all three collaborated to create heaven on earth, but under Islamic rule. Andalucia was founded when Islam was around 100 years already and fell 800 years later....so far for Nerds and outcasts....

 

[JCK]

When i said muslims i didnt mean all factions of muslims.. Because they are treated differently in lebanon...

ps: i wouldnt disaree with you if you satisfy me with your reasoning.:eyebrows:

Well, shiites and sunnis are muslims and they are the majority in Lebanon. When you say muslims, you mean muslims, you don't mean something else.

 

[Rami]

Oh boo



Tricky question. If you are referring to the Roman Empire, than no. They definitely did not allow other religions, even if theirs was so obviously tackily fake it's not even funny anymore

I know the Dutch Republic in the 1600s became a centre of immigration for religious minorities who were being persecuted throughout Europe, but that was later than the period you described even though the Dutch at that point in time had probably never really seen a Muslim in their lives. Things change, my roommate at uni was Muslim.

I'll say one more thing: the fact the Dutch Republic was such a place of refuge (it being pretty much the only Republic in Europe at the time, surrounded by monarchies and totalitarian regimes deeply influenced by Catholicism) is one of the reasons I strongly support the division between church and state. But, as you said, Christianity was never very tolerant to begin with.

Hmm, if I remember correctly, Indonesia was under Dutch rule in the 16th century...never really seen a Muslim??

Plus Spain was only a couple 100 kilometers south.

I highly doubt that the two cultures did not cross roads...

Anyways I am not hinting that the Dutch got it from the Muslims, it's just that I am having trouble in believing your claim....

 

[Muha]

The Dutch Kingdom allows its citizens exactly that. Parliament is currently overviewing plans to scrap Christian holidays as national holidays (an old tradition I personally think is wrong for our modern society). The point is that Muslims in the Netherlands are perfectly allowed to take a day off from work when it’s a religious holiday for them. They may wear religious clothes at work the same way Catholics may wear crosses. Mosques and Churches can make claim to subsidies (the same way theatres can) in order to take financial care of their members if they so wish to do (that would be through providing loans, as you say). The supermarkets here have dedicated sections with different foods for different cultures and religions..

It is, that is true. But why should any other nation in the world get rid of its division between church (or mosque) and state? Since you said you don’t support such a division, I’m assuming you would like to see it removed everywhere..

Holland is a very multicultural state.. and muslimsa are increasing in it.. so no wonder all of this is provided for muslims.. a country like Holland where there Roman Catholics 31%, Protestants 21%, Muslims 6.1%, Hindus 1.5%, and not religious 40% (1998) cant be ruled by a single religion .. its just not right.. mainly because there is no obvious majority in the population.. and also there are 41% and more who are not believers in the first place!

In this case we shouldnt call it division between church and state.. because there is no church to start with .. (and im talking about Holland).. the church obviously hasnt got the power.. As seven said above, rules are built on morals..so religions are the source of morals in most cases.. so i still wouldnt call for a full division between state and church, because christianity and Islam can contribute to a fair system. not neccssarily a stick christino-islamic system, but more of a flexiable system that endourses all faiths while keeping in mind their needs.

That is wrong. Most of Northern Europe (meaning Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the UK and to a lesser extent France) have sworn off religion in their politics. Over 75% of Dutch people say to be atheist, similar patterns are noted all over the region I just described. It makes no sense for there to be strong religious influences in the national governing of those nations. Which is why the European Constitution did not have a single reference to Christianity or God in it. That wouldn’t have been fair to the European Muslims now would it? There is no fierce opposition to governments being formed without religious parties. Throughout the nineties, the Dutch government coalitions consisted of the Labour party, the Capitalist party and the Liberal Democrat Party. The Christian Democrats and the Muslim Democrats were nowhere to be found. And there was no fierce opposition to that whatsoever..

quote from en.wikipedia: " Unlike many countries today, which are officially secular, the UK is an officially Christian country. This is reflected throughout British public life, for instance, there are established state churches in England and Scotland and the Head of State is a Christian monarch crowned by an Arch-bishop in a church. British society is said to belong to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. An overwhelming majority of Britons, 72%, identify themselves as Christian".

Even though france has stripped off their connection with the church, it still has 10national holidays, 5 are Christian holidays. which is understandable when you see that the Roman Catholicss 83%-88%, Protestants 2%, Jewish 1%, and Muslims 5%-10%...

You just massively misinterpreted that law (or you forgot to type it). The French have banned religious symbols for teachers and other staff members working in governmental schools. Because there is a strong divide between Church and state (and its schools). Public schools like these must be open for all people in the nation (according to the theory of the church-state divide) and thus the people working there should not express their preference towards any religion. Why? Because in their class there might be ten atheist children, eight christian children and five muslim children. It is important that the teacher (as a representative of government) remains neutral..

"Following from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, France guarantees freedom of religion as a constitutional right and the government generally respects this right in practice."....

"A 1905 law instituted the separation of Church and State and prohibited the government from recognising, salarying or subsidising any religion. In the preceding situation, established 1801-1808 of the Concordat, the State used to support the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church and the Jewish religion and provided for public religious educations in those religions. For historical reasons, this situation is still current in Alsace-Moselle, where the national government salaries clergy from those four religions as state civil servants, and provides for non-compulsory religious education in those religions in public schools and universities. Also, for similar historical reasons, in French Guiana, Catholic priests are civil servants of the local government.".. they are not neutral here are they?

There are no laws in France against opening your private Christian or Muslim schools and last time I checked that is actually the case, usually funded by churches or mosques..

not all people can get their children into private schools, thats why they go to goverment schools even though girls know they wont be allowed a basic right of their lives.

What you describe here is racism. Sad and horrible as it is, it has nothing to do with a division between church and state. .

of it has.. france is using the terms division between state and church to to strengthen its grip on muslims.. they dont want them to be a seperate race of french.. the french goverment wants them to integrate into France, the way the way it wants... is this the religious freedom france has been calling for 'supposedly' through its unique division between state and church system?

And nobody is prohibiting muslims from praying or anything of the sorts. In fact, you’ll find many offices in the Netherlands for example have several rooms specifically for people to wind down during their lunch breaks or whenever they need 5 minutes. In those rooms you will find people meditating, doing their breathing/stretching exercises or praying.

Thats good. Im happy to hear that. although a muslim would probably wont a Musalla of some sort to practice his prayers in quitely.

I wish all european states do the same, and stop making excuses just to hold muslims back as much as they can.. If christians are allowed to practice their religion with total freedom, then so should muslims.. Division between state and church shouldnt be used as an umbrella term to hold certain ethnic groups back, and force them to integrate into european lifestyle.

 

[Slagathor]

Hmm, if I remember correctly, Indonesia was under Dutch rule in the 16th century...never really seen a Muslim??

Plus Spain was only a couple 100 kilometers south.

I highly doubt that the two cultures did not cross roads...

Anyways I am not hinting that the Dutch got it from the Muslims, it's just that I am having trouble in believing your claim....

Indonesia became a colony later, it wasn't acquired upon the foundation of the Republic. As for the Spaniards, I seem to recall they were predominantly Catholic at that point in time :undecide:

You're right, there have probably been a few encounters, but compared to nowadays when 1 million inhabitants of the Netherlands claim to be Muslim... It pales in comparison I'm sure.

 

[Muha]

Well, shiites and sunnis are muslims and they are the majority in Lebanon. When you say muslims, you mean muslims, you don't mean something else.

I'll rephrase wht i've said so certain people can fully comprehend what i meant... and obviously you didnt understand wht i mean, and thats why i had to further explain it to you in a simpler and a more intresting way.

Christianity and Islam were both tolerant in the beginning. Why? Because they were marginal religions. Let's face facts here, both Jesus and Mohammed were outcasts no one wanted to know. That's just the way it was. Come to think of it, it's ridiculous they actually founded a religion. But anyways, they found enough morons to follow them and as soon they got big, their tolerance disappeared. You're all very well aware of the fact the Roman Empire knew a time in which Christianity was the main religion, but other religions were accepted. Not so long after that Christianity became the only religion. It's a basic human reaction. The nerd on the playground will try to gather as much friends as possible, even those who rank very low on the social ladder. Should the nerd become cool however, he will drop the other nerds instantly. Long story cut short, religions are tolerant as long as they're marginal..

That is totally disrespectful to the Islamic and Christian faiths. I would strongly advise you to avoid similar use of words, as it can hurt many of the users' feelings. You woudnt want anyone to swear at the closest thing to you, would you?

As for the separation between State and Church, that's all rather complicated. Laws are based on morals and we more often than not receive these morals through religion. Therefore I don't believe that a complete separation is possible.

i agree.

 

[Slagathor]

Holland is a very multicultural state.. and muslimsa are increasing in it.. so no wonder all of this is provided for muslims.. a country like Holland where there Roman Catholics 31%, Protestants 21%, Muslims 6.1%, Hindus 1.5%, and not religious 40% (1998) cant be ruled by a single religion .. its just not right.. mainly because there is no obvious majority in the population.. and also there are 41% and more who are not believers in the first place!

In this case we shouldnt call it division between church and state.. because there is no church to start with .. (and im talking about Holland).. the church obviously hasnt got the power.. As seven said above, rules are built on morals..so religions are the source of morals in most cases.. so i still wouldnt call for a full division between state and church, because christianity and Islam can contribute to a fair system. not neccssarily a stick christino-islamic system, but more of a flexiable system that endourses all faiths while keeping in mind their needs.

That's absolutely true, I agree. About the figures though, they are misleading. Until I took action about two years ago, I was officially registered on the local church's member list as well. Why? Because my grandparents had joined said church and unless you actively have yourself removed from it, you will be a 'member' of the church courtesy of ancient rules regarding transition of religion from parent to child. Which is ridiculous. In reality there are much fewer Christians in the Netherlands than the above figures would have you believe.

quote from en.wikipedia: " Unlike many countries today, which are officially secular, the UK is an officially Christian country. This is reflected throughout British public life, for instance, there are established state churches in England and Scotland and the Head of State is a Christian monarch crowned by an Arch-bishop in a church. British society is said to belong to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. An overwhelming majority of Britons, 72%, identify themselves as Christian".

That is true, but there is a difference between theory and practise. In theory the above is all true, in practise there is no Christian Democrat party in the UK as it exists in virtually every other European nation I can think of off the top of my head. As for the 72%: I have come across similar studies and the questions tend to be along the lines of "Do you identify with Christian values".

If they ask me that, I would have to answer yes because I do identify myself with Biblical terms along the lines of "respect" and "love". That doesn't mean I am Christian.

Just to point out those studies can be very deceiving. Something you quickly learn to use to your advantage when you take courses in market research like I have.

Even though france has stripped off their connection with the church, it still has 10national holidays, 5 are Christian holidays. which is understandable when you see that the Roman Catholicss 83%-88%, Protestants 2%, Jewish 1%, and Muslims 5%-10%...

"Following from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, France guarantees freedom of religion as a constitutional right and the government generally respects this right in practice."....

"A 1905 law instituted the separation of Church and State and prohibited the government from recognising, salarying or subsidising any religion. In the preceding situation, established 1801-1808 of the Concordat, the State used to support the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church and the Jewish religion and provided for public religious educations in those religions. For historical reasons, this situation is still current in Alsace-Moselle, where the national government salaries clergy from those four religions as state civil servants, and provides for non-compulsory religious education in those religions in public schools and universities. Also, for similar historical reasons, in French Guiana, Catholic priests are civil servants of the local government.".. they are not neutral here are they?

No they are not, and I strongly believe that is wrong. Very wrong. However, it's not an excuse for other people to disrespect the fundamental ideas as well.

not all people can get their children into private schools, thats why they go to goverment schools even though girls know they wont be allowed a basic right of their lives.

Governmental funding regarding (for example) child support should make sure everyone can choose the schools as they please in theory. In practise, I admit, that is sadly not always the case.

of it has.. france is using the terms division between state and church to to strengthen its grip on muslims.. they dont want them to be a seperate race of french.. the french goverment wants them to integrate into France, the way the way it wants... is this the religious freedom france has been calling for 'supposedly' through its unique division between state and church system?

Not integrate, assimilate. Something I don't, by definition, support. Assimilation may seem like a solution but stands equal to a destruction of cultural wealth. Sadly France has been in the grip of right-wing politicians for some time now...

Thats good. Im happy to hear that. although a muslim would probably wont a Musalla of some sort to practice his prayers in quitely.

I wish all european states do the same, and stop making excuses just to hold muslims back as much as they can.. If christians are allowed to practice their religion with total freedom, then so should muslims.. Division between state and church shouldnt be used as an umbrella term to hold certain ethnic groups back, and force them to integrate into european lifestyle.

Absolutely true. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Seven]

Great Job 7, you just can never stop....The majority of Arab tribes gathered around Muhammed before his death. So you basically called the Arabic race moronic....Thank you...

I would like to add, that most of the examples I provided in this thread, Islam was not the nerd on the playground. On the contrary it was the cool new kid on the block, and kicking the Roman and Persian empires asses! I provided two examples of Omar's tolerance, that same Omar who was locking horns with both the Romans and the Persians at the same time!! Then I provided examples in the Abbasiad empire, were they still the nerds? they practically ruled from China to Morocco, so far for nerds...

And the ultimate example of tolerence lies in Andalucia!! Three religions converged over there, where all three collaborated to create heaven on earth, but under Islamic rule. Andalucia was founded when Islam was around 100 years already and fell 800 years later....so far for Nerds and outcasts....

Let's look at it this way. There's this guy who comes up to you and says he's got this great book. He tells you he can't write himself and so he has had someone writing it down for him. The opinions expressed in the book are coming directly from god. What would you do? You'd problably call him a lunatic and get as far away from as possible straight away.

As for the Islamic expansion that did come by force, so no need to talk about religious tolerance here. Spain was conquered.

 

[Seven]

That is totally disrespectful to the Islamic and Christian faiths. I would strongly advise you to avoid similar use of words, as it can hurt many of the users' feelings. You woudnt want anyone to swear at the closest thing to you, would you?



i agree.

And that's where any religious discussion ends. You can't simply say "that's disrespectful" and add not a single argument. I do have arguments to call them moronic and marginal.

 

[Muha]

Wht about East Asia.. Indonesia???.. the largest islamic state on earth.. how did Indonesians get into Islam?

 

[Rami]

Indonesia became a colony later, it wasn't acquired upon the foundation of the Republic. As for the Spaniards, I seem to recall they were predominantly Catholic at that point in time :undecide:

You're right, there have probably been a few encounters, but compared to nowadays when 1 million inhabitants of the Netherlands claim to be Muslim... It pales in comparison I'm sure.

Very true, I believe the last Muslim state in Spain fell in 1492.

Not that all this have any bearing to my argument of "introduction of religious tolerence" it was just a comment

 

[Muha]

And that's where any religious discussion ends. You can't simply say "that's disrespectful" and add not a single argument. I do have arguments to call them moronic and marginal.

the use of words such as moronic makes it disrespectful.. we can keep debating for ever, without insulting each other.

 

[JCK]

I'll rephrase wht i've said so certain people can fully comprehend what i meant... and obviously you didnt understand wht i mean, and thats why i had to further explain it to you in a simpler and a more intresting way.

I don't see any paraphrasing nor explanation. You said muslims are not a majority in Lebanon where on the contrary they are a majority. And guess what, they are becoming more and more a bigger majority.