Errr, I am sorry,what? Secular laws are as much based on abstract notions (“the people”, “inalienable rights”, “freedom”) as any religious laws and religion at least has some sort of appeal to a higher authority.
And legal laws, rules, regulations are by their very nature arbitrary, they have been designed by humans, they are not like the laws of physics. Legal Laws are not “reality based”, they are based on upon presumptions, conjectures, surmises and precedent.
Most of them have no inherent need for our survival as a species, they are there to govern society, we are extremely social animals. There is no inherent need for laws against murder, rape or theft, animals get along fine and thrive doing all those things, but it seems a complex society needs rules against these things, which is why these are as close to universally accepted rules (what exactly constitutes each, is of course a matter of considerable variance in time and place), amongst both religious and irreligious peoples.
But you can measure the results of rational governance - higher literacy, better infant survival rates, longer lifespans. How can you tell if God is more pleased or less pleased?
It’s not really that we needs rules against the act, just that it works better if we have rational standards and procedures for responding to the act, i.e. if someone dies, I’d rather have a police investigation, coroner’s inquest, indictment and trial, rather than, for example, blaming Satan or his minions on Earth who by lucky coincidence happen to be that Jewish family down the street.
Theocracy sucks. It’s organized superstition and runs on the assumption that citizens are either children or idiots who must be protected from bad thoughts.
I believe you are missing an important distinction here. It is by no means irrelevant on whose authority a nation bases its political decisions. If they say “We pass this law, because we believe it to be reasonable.”, they have every option to later say, “We were wrong, so we are changing this law.” If, however the original law was justified as “We pass this law, because it is the word of God.”, that option is pretty much gone. You cannot say “God was wrong.” Sure - you can always wiggle by claiming that the word of God has been misinterpreted. But since all authority of the clergy is based on the notion that they have the capacity to interpret God’s word correctly, that is not a trick they like to pull a lot. As a consequence, organized religions have a hard time admitting that they were wrong. That is not to say they never do it. The Catholic Church has admitted that Gallileo was right and that the crusades were a mistake. Only took a few centuries.
:dubious:
Well, if you have higher literacy, better standards of living and increasing prosperity, a religious society can just as easily say that the Almighty is pleased and has rewarded us. Those things are desirable states, how humans justify them is up to them. They can easily be called the results of either.
I am no fan of theocracy by any means, but that is ridiculous and factually inaccurate. Its been rare that any organized central authority has acted that way. At least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi* (supposedly inspired by the God Marduk according to its text, so by your definition, theorcratic.),. we have seen law codes require evidence for punishment, and at least provide some opportunity to confront accusers/give own evidence.
Now we can certainly say that the standards of proof were poor or evidence was not sufficient, but the idea that religious or for that matter, secular institutions generally did not at least try and conduct (within the limitations of their time) investigations and trials and relied on superstition, is not bourne out by facts, and infact in real life, was quite the opposite. In Europe for instance, where and when Church authority was strong, anti Semitic actions were substantially checked, see Sicut Judaeis. In the new World, the Church was instrumental in getting the Conquistadores to reduce mistreatment of the natives, a fact which the Conquistadores were rather upset about.
While, many people try and pin witch hunting on religion, in actuality where strong Church structures existed, which hunting was rare.The Malleus Maleficarum, which encouraged witch hunting was banned by the Church a couple of years after its publication, the Inquisition expressly forbade its use as a guide. Earlier, we see Church authorities basically say that “witchcraft and sorcery is a load of hooey”. Indeed, most withc hunting took place under secular courts.
Finally, some of the worst examples of human oppression were undertaken by secular and “rational” regimes. The Nazi’s are the most obvious example, but they were not even the first genocidal german government that century. We are all aware of racial sciences, like eugenics, which were once put up as examples of rationalism. People can be superstition and unreasonable, and can use religion or science to justify it.
*The Code of Ur-Nammu is not fully extant and while the text seems to presume that evidence was required, the surviving tablets do not contain any rules thereof.
And a religious state can (and some have) decided that, for example, higher literacy displeases God.
It’s conceivable to me that an officially theocractic state, even one that was serious about religious observance, might be a tolerable place to live, but I won’t ever trust it, based on what theocractic states have done and what they can allow themselves to do, because the basis of their system of government is determinedly irrational.
The Nazi regime is quite the obvious counterexample to secular/rational government, actually.
It’s a good question and I don’t really have an answer as to what I mean by Islamic democracy. All I know is that some of the more benign and secular exemplars that are tossed out by apologists for Islamic majority countries are Turkey and Bangladesh. And both are having MAJOR issues when it comes to Islamic attitudes imposing their dictates and will on others. Either through terror and intimidation or the stripping away of freedoms of speech and press in the case of Erogan, jailing of dissenters, a former coddling of ISIS elements within his own nation.
These “exemplars” of Islamic democracy and secular governance and societies seem like puss filled boils about to explode and spread disease around the world.
You likely have a much better grasp of Islamic majority countries than I do. Where is the model? Where is the success story? Turkey is going backwards, as is Bangladesh, so what and where?
My dark view of Islam is not limited to what it reaps on its home nations either. I see the continued agitations against host countries from muslim immigrants.
Not all muslims
#Not All !!!
But around the globe, the parties of god as Hitchens would have called them have gone to town on murderous rampages in the US, the UK, Spain, France, India, Germany (more rape than slaughter… so far), etc etc
I am an atheist, but ideally a beneficial religion ought to be a force to lift people up out of their own darkness, not MAGNIFY those impulses or encourage them. And Islam seems to be the MOST caustic and combustible belief system in the world today. If Jainism is like a still pond against the sparks of mans violent nature, Islams seems to function as more of a patchwork or dirt along with clumps of California Brush, with wahabi/salafi strains acting as California brush doused with lighter fluid in 120 degree sunlight + lightning strikes. It’s just not a belief system prone to encouraging the better angels of peoples nature, or to the extent that it does, it has a MUCH bigger downside compared to other belief systems.
And to see the devastation it has wrought in its long conquest. No peace in Kashmir, in Nigeria. The incalculable devastation of the rich Persian heritage of Zoroastrianism and other religious minorities as the Islamists culled and abused anyone not like them. Persia was one of the greatest losses, if they had withstood the conquest they could be a modern beacon for the world, They still can be if they could only unshackle themselves to that religious/state theocracy Islam seems to encourage in its very core tenants. To see such an ancient wonderful civilization that produced so much diminished like they are now in large part due to the influences of Islam is a waste. Iran shouldn’t be an enemy to us, they should be an ally, they should be at the forefront of science and learning and culture but theocracy damps it all down.
Istanbul, Beirut, each of these cities seemed to be bastions of progress in a sea of religiosity, but the Islamists and their desire to dominate destroyed it all.
Am I going overboard? Probably, but it just seems to be that Islam has been a net negative for the world. People would have been better off had Muhammad been beaten back and his followers kept contained to Arabia. Majority rule with those values? What’s the point and difference? Dictatorship via the state vs the tyranny of a religious majority.
If I was living in a majority muslim country where a majority wanted a heavy handed Islamist government, I’d prefer a benign secular dictatorship. But it’s not my decision obviously. If that is where the power base is, that’s where it will land.
I do think it interesting to reflect on the beliefs of the first modern democracies founders. I remember reading that Jefferson thought that they should form a government for the people but not by all people. He deeply mistrusted the will of the majority, many of the founders were worried about what it would bring towards minorities (in the general sense). Hence the bill of rights and similar documents in other constitutions the world over. Now his form is not something we’d accept today, only allowing white male landowners to vote is not a good policy. But the concern over the nature of the democracy was there from the start of the modern age.
For myself, democracy in and of itself is no longer something I can wholeheartedly support. I support liberal democracy, secular democracy. Not theocratic/Islamic democracy. But people like Shadi Hamid are of a similar mind to you.
He wrote a book recently called Islamic exceptionalism, and is making the rounds. His main thesis is that the Islamic world will not take the same sort of liberal democratic path of the west, in large part due to the nature of Islam (here he acknowledges there are consequential differences in how Islam relates to the state compared to other faiths like christianity). And that while we may not like the character of their democracies, we should learn to accept and deal with them as they are, not as we want them to be.
He was opposed to the coup in Egypt, and the same went for the coup against the Islamist government in Turkey. He just favors democracy, period.
I can’t go there with him. If the consequence of democracy is oppression against religious minorities and secularists and gays, that is NOT something I as a liberal want to tolerate. And if any of you find that view vulgar and illiberal, let’s ramp up the extremes. Imagine a democracy filled to bursting with Himmlers. Still want democratic rule to set the agenda or would you prefer a more benign dictatorship?
Democracy in and of itself is no guarantor of the kinds of societies I want to see flourish and promoted. And to allow the Islamists to swallow up the secular among them, and the gays among them and the non Islamic among them is no virtue, even if most of them are in favor of those abusive policies.
I think many of us are waiting to see if a predominantly Muslim country can, at least one that can last two generations without a coup or built on systematic human-rights abuses. I have hopes for Turkey, cautious pessimism for Bangladesh and Indonesia. Jordan looks very promising.
funny the same things written with the great confidence and the equally informed prejudices about the latin catholics, etc. even in my lifetime.
Jordan? Jordan???
The royal dictatorship that is run as the outsourcing of the USA foreign policy at the billions USD yearly subsidy…?
Incredible, well it is easy to understand the slanting and misinformation… Jordan looks promising for democracy… incredible the slantedness.
**AK: **it is sad but we will never be more than the subhumans to much of these people. I do not have great hope they will not revert to their ancient liquidationist habits with the provocation of the DAESH.
I’m not sure “prejudice” is the right word - numerous central and south American republics have managed to form stable democracies. Venezuela is in trouble, though. Maybe in the next 20 years we’ll see the same development in the Middle East and other regions where the majority populations are Muslim. What’s your example of a majority-Muslim democracy, or a majority-Muslim country that is working toward democracy?
Well, Jordan isn’t rated highly for freedom of the press, but by various rankings of economic freedom and political stability, it does better than most of its neighbors. I have some hope for it.
Don’t be ridiculous. The genetic difference between a Muslim who wants Sharia law and one who doesn’t want Sharia law is nonexistent, but I know which I’d prefer as my neighbor. It’s the religion (and its influence on politics) that is retarding development, not any kind of racial or genetic aspect.
Now, now Ramira, you’ve gotta admit when you start stacking Turkey up against the Eastern Orthodox countries they’ve all been stable democracies much longer, been far more tolerant of minorities with no authoritarian tendencies.
I mean there’s… uh Russia,… ok let’s not go there. How about Serbia…uh…never mind… How about Bulgaria, I mean yes, they were a fascist dictatorship who became a communist dictatorship…uh… ethnically cleansed Turks…still have problems… Ok… let’s forget them.
Look at Greece! I mean… well… yes… they’ve had their problems like the Black Colonels and various incompetent corrupt governments fanning the flames of xenophobia…but surely they’ve gotta have a better record than Turkey.
Damn, any I forgot.
So, does that mean maybe Islam is better for Democracy than Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or does it mean that maybe it’s a lot of historical and cultural factors other than religion that are at play?
Yes, but while I don’t know where my lifetime and Ramira’s stand with regards to each other, I can say like she does that within my lifetime a lot of Latin American countries were political dumps that weren’t expected to get better. El Salvador. Nicaragua. Panamá. Chile. Perú… Argentina. Argentina again. What did the Argentinians do this time…
And every single Western nation where the Muslim terrorists have attacked has had its own home-grown brand of terrorism, most commonly carrying a secularist “religion is the opìate of the masses” label. Also within my lifetime.
You aren’t that young that you can say “oh, but that’s before mine”, Bryan.
Anyway, fine, I remember when Eastern Europe was pretty much under the thumb of the USSR and Central America was pretty much under the thumb of the U.S., and neither were especially nice places to breathe free. In any event, I’m genuinely hoping Turkey can restabilize and I feel a certain kinship with a fellow NATO member.
And of course, I operate from the perspective of someone who lives and enjoys the benefits of a liberal democracy, to the level where I honestly don’t give a fuck what a fellow Canadian’s religion is, or their race, or whatever… I only care if they’re as committed as I am to rational, sane government by the consent of the governed. My fellow Canadian and I could disagree on an issue and vote accordingly. If he or she has more voters on his/her side than I do, fine, their side carries the day and possibly my side will do so in future. If he or she wants to vote in such a way that I’m forever barred from seeking the outcomes I want, which would be the case if the secular laws were replaced by the arbitrary interpretations of scripture, I feel morally bound to object, possibly violently.
I would like to see a stable majority-Muslim democracy in my lifetime, in the sense that I’d like to see stable democracy continue to spread, displacing dictatorships and theocracies generally. What I’d really like is the global discarding of religions overall (among which Islam is just one arbitrary flavour among many), but I’ve little expectation of that.
Maybe you should first educate yourself on “sharia law” and what exactly it is before you make such stupid statements and how its “retarding development”. Could you please tell me which in country is “development being retarded” by “sharia law”.
Well, let’s see… homosexuals and women who’ve been raped being executed for “crimes against chastity”. I’d say that’s pretty fucking retarded.
I’m just bubbling over with confidence that Sharia is being used somewhere in the world in a sane, just, mature fashion. Saudi Arabia and Iran… not so much.
For you, maybe. Afghanistan is the classic Islamic-law-given-full-license laboratory. After the Soviets left and before the Americans arrived, that was the golden opportunity for Islam to show what it could do when beholden to no outside considerations whatsoever.
Good job, Afghanistan.
As for Iran, I figure the best short-term result of any loosening of its laws is that the smarter Iranians will be able to get the heck outta there and put their educations and skills to better use and personal profit elsewhere, hopefully someplace less execution-happy.
Well, I’m happy to give a few decades more and see if it can evolve into something better. I’ve never said it was impossible for a Muslim majority nation to establish a stable democracy, just the none of them really have. Turkey is the closest, which is why the coup attempt and Erdogan’s abuses are troubling. I’m hoping they’ll do better.
And good luck to all of them. Out of curiosity, in which of these (if any) could we be having a public conversation along these lines without one or both of us having a legitimate fear of arrest? Turkey, perhaps? Any others?
Really? Where exactly has that happened. Or more accurately, where has that happened and the perps not been arrested for it.
:rolleyes:
After the Soviets left the country had 7 years of warlordism. Those guys were expressly not religious, they were either ethnic or socialist. “Islam” as you seem to call the Taliban (wrongly) came in only much later and in opposition; to the warlords. And the Taliban were and are much more heterodox than what traditionally conservative Muslims were and are. Plus most of Taliban laws were based on Pashtun tribal mores not religious texts.
As for Iran, I figure the best short-term result of any loosening of its laws is that the smarter Iranians will be able to get the heck outta there and put their educations and skills to better use and personal profit elsewhere, hopefully someplace less execution-happy.
I got a feeling that the people saying this have never been to any Islamic country. If you had travelled in Indonesia, Malaysia or Morocco you probably wouldn’t feel that way. (Yeah Morocco is a monarchy but it has a parliament and some limited democracy).
Function (variables) = complicated mix of variables
National Outcomes (h,c,r,o,m) = combination of said variables
h = historical influences
c = culture
r = religion
o = outside influences
m = miscellaneous factors not encompassed by the rest
Christianity is no perfect guarantor of non theocratic liberal democracy, but we have multiple example in the modern world where it exists and thrives and seems to function just fine alongside christianity.
Plug Islam into the religion variable or some large percentage of the population being muslim with others and you get conflict. I think there is a reason why.
Listen to the argument.
FIFTY ONE Percent of the doctrine found in the Quran/Sira/Hadith is focused on the Kafir, the non muslim world. That’s christians, jews, atheists, zoroastrians that were largely purged and humiliated in Iran and forced to flee to India, Hindus (Kashmir still flaring up). Is it any wonder EVERY single place you find large clusters of muslims you find some percentage that turn caustic towards others? It’s in the god damn doctrine, and surprise surprise, some muslims actually follow that sh*t!
The bad muslims (by which I mean good people) who pick and choose the good parts and ignore the rest are better than their religion, but I’m concerned about the ones who are not. The ones who need to be lifted out of their own chaos and darkness only to find themselves stepping into an ideology of malice and hatred and murder.
That guy that did the attack in Nice was a nominal Muslim, with clear mental problems, and seemed to be a closet gay. But it was reported that he was convinced that he was in trouble with Allah but could remove his sins and be rewarded if he engaged in jihad. His fragile mind coupled with the darker interpretations of Islam exploded in fire and death. Imagine if some Jain got hold of him? He would not have blown anything up, they would have likely eased his conscience, same with secularists. Some muslims would as well, but again, these are the bad muslims, the muslims that reject the notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of, someone one needs to atone for on a suicide death run.
