Virtually all “Christian countries” in the world have such an intertwining of church and statement.
Most westerners are so close to the issue, they just don’t even notice it.
For example, you clearly think of New Zealand as a “secular country” and imply that it’s more secular than Assad’s Syria, even though not only does it not have separation of church and state but on it’s flag it has the jack honoring three Christian saints(St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick), has two national anthems, “God save the Queen” and “God Save New Zealand”, and of course all parliamentary sessions are opened with Christian prayers.
You’re just so used to it that you don’t even notice it. Sort of the way many westerners get antsy when they see Muslim women wearing hijabs, but think nothing of Jewish men wearing yarmulkas.
In most Muslim countries, with exceptions like Saudi Arabia and Iran, Islam in mildly entwined with the government as in your New Zealand, but it’s hardly a theocracy and is only disconcerting to westerners who are unused to Islam and therefore notice the speck in their neighbor’s eye while ignoring the beam in their own.
In fact, if anything, in most Muslim countries, there is, if anything strong suppression of Islam due to the fact that so many of the countries are led by dictators who saw Islamic political movements as threats.
I didn’t mean to imply that; no comparison intended. I was saying that having a statement that “our laws are inspired by God’s laws” in a secular Constitution would make me very uncomfortable.
Oh, I notice it, and ain’t a fan – particularly of the anthems and the parliamentary prayers – last voted to be retained in 2007. It’s a bit odd – most of the Christians in NZ tend not to be pushy evangelist types, and most non-religious sorts (myself included) tend not to be pushy atheists, so bits of historical baggage mooch along, never getting removed, and have no actual effect on day to day life.
The Union Jack is a bit different – those who aren’t fans of it in NZ tend to be republicans of one stripe or another and dislike it for its representation of the UK and Queen… I doubt too many know and fewer still care about its 3 crosses. It’s an interesting bit of historical vexillology, but hardly culturally relevant.
Meh, a hijab doesn’t even rate raised eyebrows, though I’ll admit to not liking niqab much.
Absolutely. When a Pakistani probably means to say ‘Be a good human being’, he will often say ‘Be a good Muslim’. Maybe their upbringing is such that it comes to them naturally. Rather innocuous examples which display their mentality : Their national cricket team’s captain, after losing a match, apologizedto all Muslims of this world. Another captain after another loss sayshearts of Indians are small and can never be as big as hearts of Muslims or that of Pakistanis. Sports and religion have no connection but when their National team captains speak such communal language, it gives an insight into the people’s psyche.
Um, what planet are you on? Turkey’s secularism only looks reasonable compared to the atrocious records of other Islamic countries. One would have to be either completely uninformed or disingenuous to place it in any category near any of those Western countries in terms of separation of church and state.
No, it’s not that I think they are all in the Mid East, it’s just that I think of the area as one big religious quagmire of people stuck in the 8th century. It doesn’t matter how many people manage to stumble through the day without going postal over a book burning there is always a percentage that is just batshit crazy and willing to act on it.
So in other words you’ve got nothing and are unwilling to admit your error. I’m not the one “whining” about the boundaries of the Middle East. Calling Pakistan part of the Middle East is really stretching it, but nobody in their right mind considers India or Indonesia to be part of the Middle East. Again, you are simply entirely factually wrong in stating most Muslims are in the Middle East. For your edification:
So unless you are going to claim that South and Southeast Asia are part of the Middle East, you don’t have a leg to stand on, and if you claim they are part of the Middle East your understanding of geography is woefully incorrect, as nobody else in the world defines them as part of the Middle East. Whining over the boundaries of the Middle East indeed.
that’s not what I said. I said most Muslims live in predominantly Islamic countries. And the problems endemic in the Mid East are present in them. When I refer to problems in the Mid East I’m lumping them all together. But feel free to continue arguing over it. It’s not going to change my point. I realize Indonesia isn’t part of the Mid East but the psychotic violence that springs from Islam is just as real there. Same behavior, different location.
As I said, based on several of the rather foolish statements you’ve made, you don’t inspire confidence in your ability or judgement to make such a statement and the above one makes little sense.
Would you mind giving me the name of any 8th Century countries where the government fully funds transgender operations and grants full rights and protections to transexuals.
For that matter, I’ll assume that you’re furious the US government doesn’t do the same, though perhaps you could enlighten us on your own opinions on the subject.
followed by post 31:
Quote:The majority of Muslims live in Muslim majority countries. Define it how you like. It’s the same religious mentality as described by Chief Pendant.
And I can say the same thing about Christians. Warren Austin, ambassador to the UN, said “Jews and Arabs should settle their differences like good Christians.” How often do you hear someone equating doing the right thing with “the Christian thing to do”? How often do you hear athletes thanking Jesus and the Christian god for their successes? It’s just that you are so used to it in the west that it becomes background noise. It’s only jarring when you hear it coming from another religion that you aren’t as accustomed to.
Sure, there are similarities between the different Abrahamic faiths, and other major world faiths. But there are also differences. There are differences in the source texts and the traditions that have observable real world effects.
Muhammad was a 7th century warlord, and the Koran is plainly a handbook for warfare, concerning itself with rules of war, commandments to kill non-Muslims, promises of eternal carnal rewards for death in service to Islam, rules for diving up war treasure, including giving explicit permission for the rape of captives.
It’s fine for people to make up a new religion that is compatible with their modern lives and call it Islam. Just don’t try to pretend that most Muslims are going along with your u-turn. And don’t be so critical of people for generalizing when the generalizations are true.
Sure, there are many different meanings of Islam, just like anything else. But we come to some kind of linguistic consensus when we use words, and based on that, inherent in Islam is a belief that the Koran is the final, perfect, literal word of God.
When a handbook for Dark Age warfare is regarded and used in that manner, well, we see the results in that minor region of the world that includes, to name a few: Nigeria, North Africa, much of South Asia, the Middle East, Indonesia, and, as we have recently been reminded, Chechnya.
Of course, the generalizations are actually false, particularly when applied to all the adherents across the world.
Every religion changes over time and you are the one pretending that only Islam does not do that.
It changed when it migrated from the M.E.N.A. to Southeast Asia through proselytization. It has changed when it entered Europe with the Turks and then stayed as the Turks were driven out. It has changed, again, when it more recently began to enter Europe through economic immigration. It is certainly changing as it moves into North America.
You’re correct. Islam has traditionally been more tolerant of members of other faiths and of women than either Christianity or Judaism.
However, that hardly means that the other two are bigoted religions.
Bullshit.
Actually, that’s not true at all. Muhammad very specifically commands that other believers in the God who are “people of the book” be protected and he accords them recognition.
This is in stark contrast to Judaism and Christianity which don’t and why the Islamic world was traditionally far more tolerant of Jews and Christians than the Christian world was of Jews and Muslims. That’s not to say that they were accorded equality or exempt from soft discrimination, but as Bernard Lewis pointed out, “Those accorded Dhimmi status certainly faced discrimination but with rare exceptions, were never persecuted. Even then, many laws such as the repairing of churches and synagogues were rarely enforced.”
It’s obvious that you have not actually read the Quran but only select passages and seem to be referring in part to hadiths not the Quran.
FWIW, you’re certainly correct that there are quite a few passages amongst both that modern audiences would be shocked by but the same is true of the holy books of both the Bible and the Jewish Bible.
Just as Christians pick and choose who they believe in the same is true of Muslims.
Whereas the characters in the Bible are all warm and cuddly.
You’ll also notice that according the Bible Jesus is going to commit genocide on a grand scale dwarfing that which was committed by any of the 20th Century dictators.
However, Christians, like Muslims choose the parts of the Bible they choose to believe and choose to ignore other passages which they don’t like.
For those who’ve never read it. Like the Bible, the Quran is extremely inconsistent and people choose what parts of it they follow and what parts they don’t.
The same is true of the various hadiths.
Hank himself, despite essentially admitting that his research on Islam consisted of few wikipedia links and some youtube clips foolishly insisted on another thread, without a shred of evidence that hadiths claiming Aisha was nine when she married Muhammad were “genuine” and “accepted” while insisting that hadiths which placed her age as being much older were “not accepted” even though they were collected by the same person and both deemed “Sahih”(authentic) by most scholars.
Hank, I’d recommend doing actual research on this religion which terrifies you if 90% plus of your posts here on going to be on it rather relying on youtube videos and wikipedia.
Dude we are talking about Islam now. This meme of yours that tries to flatten all religions into essentially the same thing isn’t getting anywhere.
It certainly is. I note you did not challenge any of my actual claims. Again.
First of all it is only second class citizenship granted to those that submit to Islamic authority, second, it does not extend to people who don’t believe that one book.
Did you happen to read in this thread about the levels of support for death for apostates? You must been blinded by your zeal to present Islam as a force for tolerance in the world. The attempt is laughable.
You should use cites, at least part of the time. So far your sources about Islam consist of one creative writing professor from a California State college. Maybe if you let some of us know where you get your whacky ideas from it would help us to understand them.
Right right they are all the same.
It is simple, if you think that you can pick and choose which parts of the Koran are true then you are not a Muslim, according to the consensus of those who call themselves Muslims.
I don’t remember Jesus ever participating in or authorizing the rape of hostages or children.
Sure they do. In California State colleges. Not so much in Cairo.
You are simply fabricating this out of desperation.
I did not, you are making more shit up. Cite. Show me where I said a Bukhari Hadith was not accepted. Show us dude. Put up or stfu. You are using misdirection. You can not and will not show what you are claiming here.
Right, anyone critical of Islam hasn’t done “actual research” but you can post sloppy revisionism and present it as if it is traditional scholarship, and then ignore the widely available refutation when it is presented to you, like a Stormfronter talking about the Holocaust, no problem.
Let me explain something very simple to you. Facts do not have religions. Sources do not stop being sources because they are compiled by Wikipedia, that what it is for. People influential among Muslims do not stop being so when their lectures are uploaded to YouTube, as much as you would like everyone to get their info on Islam from sources like yours, which are obviously devoted to softening the image of Islam to a Western audience.
I am not condemning “the religion.” I don’t give a crap what philosophical paradigm someone holds personally about how the world works.
I said this: It’s a numbers game. The percentage of people who identify themselves as Muslim, and who are willing to kill and be killed in defense of any and all “attacks” against their religious philosophy is hugely greater than any other large-scale religion.
Therein is the problem. It doesn’t matter what Islam might be if it’s gentler spokespersons held larger sway. They don’t. And the facts are that where this religion is a majority religion, there is a very large percentage of individuals willing to kill and be killed in defense of it. Willing to be insulted should they feel their faith has been damaged–even by so small an offense as a verbal smear of their Prophet–and willing to defend such an insult by violence.
It doesn’t matter if a spokesperson argues that Islam protects women’s rights. What happens in practice where this religion is a majority religion is that women are second class citizens and are substantially more constrained by a male-dominated culture.
It’s not the idealism that counts. It’s what actually happens. And what actually happens is pretty crappy, regardless of of how wonderful Islam’s teachings might be on paper. Generally speaking, it sucks to be a woman or a non-Muslim in most Islamic countries. And the degree to which it sucks is underappreciated by the Western world (and probably even many in the Islamic countries who just sort of take it for granted).
As I said, to appreciate the difference between our system and Islam, try a little public proselytizing for Judaism or Christianity on a street corner in an Islamic country. Or for some real excitement, insult Mohammed publicly. You will find out in a very short time that you are not at speaker’s corner in Hyde Park, and that your comeuppance is a good deal more than a crowd insulting you back.
