Religion -vs- Theocracy
I'd like to see the group's thoughts on why there isn't more politicians or media pointing out that Islam is technically a theocracy, and therefore arguably does not deserve to be protected as a religion.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
From the conservative viewpoint, freedom of religion is not only guaranteed by the Constitution, it is sacrosanct in protecting one's own freedom to worship. The real conflict comes when those who choose Islam want to override the Constitution and create a sub-culture where Sharia is supreme. And we have seen plenty of objection to that from conservatives.
From the progressive standpoint, they don't see any problem with it because Sharia's authoritarian bent is exactly what they want. Their problem is in deceiving themselves that if they give in to Sharia and support it that it won't eat them alive afterwards. It's very similar to the mainstream media's suicidal support of the progressive agenda because the progressive agenda wants to ban free speech!
Libertarians are probably some of the most outspoken about this because they want neither religion nor a theocratic/authoritarian government. But this portion of people is rather small and not particularly paid attention to in the news media.
The part that confuses me is that we know Islam comes with Sharia, it's inseparable, it's part of it, you can't have one without the other, and we can't abide Sharia, yet we don't attempt to stop Islam simply because it has a religious element.
Among many examples, the "penitentiary" was invented by Quakers. Prisons were never intended as punishment per se, but only as a holding cell before execution of sentence (fine, flogging, death...). The Quakers locked people up in solitary so that they could get right with God. Solitary confinement, of course, is torture. And those were Quakers, perhaps the nicest of all religionists...
and you will see the Quakers were correct, being alone is not torture, the rack is..
Philosophy is not religion. Science is not "creation science." A fascist dictatorship is not just another kind of constitutional republic, even though just about every nation on Earth today has a constitution, even those ruled by despots and hetmen. Words have meanings.
The primary objection I see with many in today's world is that they want to attribute to "religion" the notion of the divine and attribute to "philosophy" a purely atheistic approach. You could try arguing such a point to Socrates and Plato, but you'd be met with an immediate rebuke. Philosophy itself is a Greek word rooted in filia (friendship) and sophia (wisdom): put together it is the wisdom of friends found in discussion. Socrates himself died from hemlock poisoning not because he was atheistic, however, but because he denounced the Greek Pantheon and their capricious ways in favor of a monotheistic approach - absolute heresy to the Ancient Greeks.
If one chooses to pretend that only one side of the coin exists, that is their prerogative and their own self-deception. I choose to ignore the appellations and meaningless strawman arguments and focus on principles. I look for truth wherever it may be found. A kernel here, a nugget there, but I am very suspicious of any who claim an exclusive authority. Those who seek to disparage other lines of thought are generally those who are trying to protect some fundamental doctrine that should be called into question.
Plenty of American Christians think America is or should be a Christian state.
Islam has had a history of religious tolerance at times. It's not monolithic. That doesn't deny all the violent and theocratic aspects of its history and teachings.
I'm not going rehearse all of Islamic history here, but other times and places have known tolerance, too. The Ottoman Empire was nominal Muslim and indeed, IIRC, claimed the Caliphate (i.e., to rule over all Muslims). But it was a mix of religions, much more tolerant than its successor states.
Tolerance is a rare commodity.
I also must point out that no one here was very concerned when the IRA terrorists raised money among the Catholic communities in the USA.
Politicians don't publicly reject the Sharia law agenda because they are morally intimidated to not say anything against religion.
Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives.
In Objectivism, to Objectivists, Self is the origin of all things so to seek or cede authority outside Self (particularly something mystical) is irrational.
You cannot separate a person from their beliefs, even in government.
https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyam...
"Seperation of church and state means separating government from irrational church doctrines..."
And what is rational to one isn't going to be rational to another. That's the challenge. There is a very fine line between allowing everyone the right to pursue happiness according to their own desires and proscribing certain behaviors because they violate someone else's pursuit of happiness. But the very act of proscribing certain behaviors is in fact to act based on a belief in what is right and what is wrong. Instead of falsely labeling an idea as a "church" doctrine, a secularist doctrine, etc., it's simpler to avoid the guilt-by-association fallacy and just state what the moral principle under discussion is. Let the evidence speak for itself and the chips fall where they may. There is nothing that says that a principle espoused by a religion is automatically false nor the contrary.
A government based on defending the rights of the individual to protect his freedom of action does not "proscribe certain behaviors" based on whatever someone pronounces as a "belief in what is right and what is wrong". There is no place for religious beliefs, or any other arbitrary, non-objective emotionalism, as a method in government.
This is your opinion, but it is based on a view which accepts only a limited existence. For those who believe that this existence carries on into another, they accept a whole other range of possibilities. Is it irrational to wish for one's continuation? Only an advocate of suicide says yes. Is it irrational to believe that what follows this life is better than what exists now? No one who lives seeks a worse existence now. Is it irrational to believe that actions in the here-and-now have consequences that carry over into the next existence? Not to anyone who believes in the irrevocable law of choice and consequence: of precedent and consequent. Those are the foundations of the "faith" you decry as irrational. They're not irrational at all - just different from what you believe.
Let us suppose the following question: would enforcement of a belief in limited existence upon society be any more just than the enforcement of the opposite? Reason cries "No". It would by very definition constitute an "establishment of religion". And it is for that reason that the Founders neither proscribed religious sentiment nor allowed for its funding as a function of good governance. They recognized the dangers in trying to force the conscience of men and they wisely resisted the temptation. They even went so far as to enshrine the liberty of such in the Bill of Rights.
"There is no place for religious beliefs, or any other arbitrary, non-objective emotionalism, as a method in government."
Governments are created by the governed to seek their interests based on their beliefs about what is good and what is evil. Are people going to be perfect in ascertaining what that may be? As evidenced by the millennia of civilizations which have come and gone prior to the Constitution, even the Founders admitted that it (the Constitution) was only the best they could come up with. As much as we might wish otherwise, men are irrational. Given that governments are a product of their constituents (even the best of them). What you are talking about is the notion that there exists a person - let alone a group of people - on this planet who is wholly objective. If you seek for such, I wish you well in finding them.
You can choose to reject what you want. I reject any definitions and logic as being descriptive of reality which rely primarily on negatives to do their work. I reject defining things predominantly in terms of what they are not. It is self-limiting. I focus on what is - not what is not.
I am for leaving alone non-falsifiable claims, such as your claim of an afterlife. I take issue with part of how you get there. You say an afterlife is desirable, but that in itself is not evidence of its existence.
"men are irrational."
Regarding your point about humans never being wholly objective, I agree with that, but I think we should try our best.
"Instead of falsely labeling an idea as a "church" doctrine, a secularist doctrine, etc., it's simpler to avoid the guilt-by-association fallacy and just state what the moral principle under discussion is. "
Yes! I agree. Talk about the individuals, not the whole group.
There is also no evidence that the imagined 'afterlife' is desirable, but it's all irrelevant; those who confuse knowledge with whatever they want in their fantasies will claim anything they want to about what is "desirable" just as they claim whatever they want in everything else, including the fire and brimstone they imagine in order to try to frighten those who reject the fantasizing in a metaphysical good-cop bad-cop scheme. The irrational faith mongers do not have "just different beliefs" no worse than anyone else; they are irrational on principle and entirely cognitively irrelevant.
Rationality is required to live. It is our means of survival. The philosophical question is how to be objective and rational in thinking by following the right principles, not writing off humanity with a slogan of "men are irrational" in order to excuse those who want to be irrational with the "I'm no worse than you are" fallacy.
Keeping church dogma out of the government is about the moral principle, not a "fallacy". The 'guilt by association' is a consequence after it's too late for those subjected to it.
I agree. But at the same time, we only seek what we desire to find. The question of whether or not an afterlife exists presupposes one's desire to explore the possibility. Without such a desire, there is no effort made.
"I think we should try our best."
Agreed. It is all we can do.
"Yes! I agree. Talk about the individuals, not the whole group."
No. Talk about principles - not people. People are mutable because they exhibit self-will. They change their minds. We can objectively analyze principles because we can identify what they mean. Talking about people in groups only adds to the problem.
Yes, but we try to overcome this. We try to make ourselves look into questions we may not like the answers to.
"We can objectively analyze principles because we can identify what they mean."
That's true. I'm saying people aren't always aligned with principles. For example, you cannot understand the Northern Ireland Troubles by looking at theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It's worthy to study the principles, but they don't explain human behavior.
Principles are explanations about why something is desirable, but they don't impel behavior. Human behavior is based on the comparison of outcomes according to one's perception and guided by principles. They are value judgments but are only accurate insofar as A) people have sufficient information AND B) are principled enough to seek truth. It is an inclusive logic test where both must be true for the outcome to be true.
To further complicate matters, behaviors are individual. Trying to study people in groups leads to very ambiguous results because of individual differences in perception. The larger the group, the less precise the results.
Yes. Except in the world of science fiction, where Hari Seldon's psychohistory could actually predict events better in large groups. The only reason I bring up this off-topic point is a I remember Seldon saying exactly the opposite of what you said. That was fiction, of course. It seems like Asimov had the view that great people don't drive history but rather when the time is ripe a "great" person will appear. I have almost no knowledge or opinion about this, but I find it intriguing.
As for the "Anglican" Church, Virginia specifically did tax people to support the Episcopalian church... the low-church American instantiation of the high church British confession.
See here http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Phi...
What happened during the Dark Ages? Paganism - for that is what Constantine turned Christianity into - ruled for more than 1000 years. Corrupted priests lusting for power invented the notion of supererogation - that somehow "saints" could pardon sins for money. The clergy controlled most of the Western world and did to scientific inquiry what the Islamic nations now do to their own: they controlled, repressed, and persecuted those who pursued truth. Was that wrong and reprehensible? Absolutely. Was it a violation of natural rights? Yes, unquestionably. What I would point out, however, was that the Founders did not ascribe to this false notion of "Christianity" at all.
Then we had the invention of the printing press. What is interesting is that the very first thing to be mass produced was... the Bible. People began to discover for themselves that these paganists who called themselves Christians had been looting them for centuries, preying on their ignorance. So they revolted by seeking out the truths - both scientific and religious - that previously they had been forcibly denied. Many sought to escape the nations of Old Europe for the Americas because they would be free to pursue a life unfettered by a coercive belief system. Couple this with Henry VIII and his divorce (pun intended) from Catholicism and major philosophical shockwaves permeated the Western World. And the powers-that-be were also confronted with invasion from Eastern Lands. Thus the religious stranglehold over Old Europe fell, and the Enlightenment began. The monarchy of France (supported by the clergy) was overthrown. The strict feudalism of England (also supported by the clergy) was replaced with a bicameral legislature due to popular unrest, forging the path for the independence of America based on a governmental structure that respected free thought rather than constrained it.
Are there religions based on false ideas? Absolutely. Many of them. I simply object to the overly-broad disparagement of "religion", however, because it literally encompasses every train of thought imaginable. It is a proverbial windmill to tilt against. Instead, I look at principles. Those religious sects which embrace false principles will be doomed to the results of their own fallacy just as the secular philosophies of men which follow the same path. Truth is truth.
n. pl. selves (sĕlvz)
1. The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual: "An actor's instrument is the self" (Joan Juliet Buck).
2. The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality: "He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world" (Howard Kaplan).
3. One's consciousness of one's own being or identity; the ego: "For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing" (Joyce Carol Oates).
4. One's own interests, welfare, or advantage: thinking of self alone.
5. Immunology That which the immune system identifies as belonging to the body: tissues no longer recognized as self
Self = individual
Why adopt reason as a guiding light if not to benefit self?
Yes, the Foundation series was interesting, but I found the notion that someone could chart the course of human development using an algorithm (however complex) to undermine self-determination. Could be just my lack of imagination, however. ;)
All religions create theocracies because all people base their political ideas on metaphysical assumptions, even if those are only implicitly accepted without examination.
As I pointed out above, until 1839-40 Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregational Church. Until 1990, 14 states barred atheists from holding public office.
"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity."
Taken this way it could be good, bad or perverse, as long as one is completely devoted. We tend to view religion in terms of , God, good and altruistic in the US. However, it could be something darker. It could be a dvotion to politics, to cult ideas, obsession with nature. In all cases, it seems to lead to something that soon surpasses reason, and becomes out of control in volence against others, as the group tries to force their views on others. Look at the violence done in the name of politics. Look at the violence and damage in the name of environmentalism. Then look at the ultimate goal of ISIS, All trying to demand other fall in line with the beliefs of their group.
Should we attempt to create a set of attributes that define a legitimate religion acceptable to have 1st amendment rights? We could define a set of attributes, such as recognition of the supremacy of secular law, and rejection of violence except in defense of the national interest, but undoubtedly we would find ourselves in court, accused of violating a religion of its 1st amendment rights. That may be a fight worth having.
The matter of characteristics of a religion required to qualify for 1st amendment rights is nothing less than recognizing rights for freedom of any thought, not just that called "religion", while recognizing that whatever one thinks it doesn't justify violating other people's rights in the name of "religion" or anything else. Religion should have no special status as either a kind of thought or exemption from proper laws. That is a "fight worth having", but it begins with spreading the right ideas, not a futile attempt to enact the politically incorrect, which today would lead to a lot more and a lot worse than "finding yourself in court".
Does the deliberate killing or torture of a human being, or, the DELIBERATE poisoning and destruction of our ecosystem count as a legitimate expression of "Freedom of Worship"?
https://facebook.com/piphd/videos/101...