Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Globally Imposed Separation of Church and State?

Professor Silly

18:13 / 13.09.02

I've seen more and more suggestions flowing through the media suggesting that any country that has an Islamic government represents a threat to the West. Now, we're talking about quite a few countries here, in various parts of Asia and Africa.

So far the U.S. Government only seems concerned with those Islamic Governments that have some type of connection with oil production (Iraq) or transportation (Afghanistan) while those that do have weapons of mass destruction (Pakistan) have been left alone. Whether war occurs or not seems irrelivant--one way or the other the U.S. will find some way to meet its energy consumption desires.

I wonder how long the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will remain allies? After that the rest of the Islamic countries in that area will follow close behind. Extrapolating further: when will Israel come under international scrutiny? Sure individuals have begun speaking out against Israeli action, but we still haven't seen whole countries denounce Israel and threaten (U.N.) action....

Meanwhile most U.S. politicians have Christian beliefs, further exasperating the situation.

Does the idea represent the answer to all these issues...and more importantly does any country (or group of countries) have the right to inforce such a principal?

19:33 / 13.09.02

I've seen more and more suggestions flowing through the media suggesting that any country that has an Islamic government represents a threat to the West.

I haven't gotten this impression. What seems to be the threat is a radical government. A fundamentalist interpretation of Islam among the leaders of a nation could lead to governments that make U.S. citizens incredibly uneasy. Part of this is because the Koran can read like a lawbook, complete with very specific rules of behavior.

Imposing upon other governments separation of church and state in the U.S.-sense would be dispicable. This rule is nothing more than a means to religious freedom, and is especially designed for the United States.

autopilot disengaged

22:12 / 13.09.02

i don't think the issue for the US is religion - it was quite prepared to work with the Taleban till the shit hit the fan... governments that use fundamentalist muslim positions to oppose the US fundamentalist free trade position will be aggressively targeted, but the US ain't gonna get out of bed with the Saudis unless they're dumped out. too much vested interest.

the US don't care what you do in yr own time. just co-operate when asked.

by the way - although the seperation of the church and state in the US is formally observed - over here in europe - well, the UK - the amount of public god-worshippin' always seems a touch perverse.

although our present PM is a trendy vicar. cunt.

01:26 / 14.09.02

"Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we're there. We are Americans - part of something larger than ourselves.For two centuries we've done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity.

What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future."

Maybe Islamic nations are a 'threat to decency' and the 'universal aspiration of... the rule of law'. Or maybe dealing with the Middle East, like the Eastern Europeans before is a transitional phase of the new world order.

There are more Muslims than Christians in the world and, although they are divided now, if they were united they would be a formidable bloc.

Professor Silly

13:26 / 14.09.02

Obviously if a country exists where 100% of the population believes in the same religious interpretation...the their government will by definition be made up of people that share religious views. But does this exist anywhere? In Iraq for example they have at least a couple different interpretations of the Islamic faith. Afghanistan until recently was ran by a religious minority, enforcing hardline laws that we've all read about.
Then there's the well publicized story of the woman in Africa who's been convicted of adultry and sentenced to death by stoning. The law by which she was convicted has its basis in Islamic law, not secular.

despicable? wow SMS--I hadn't expected such a reaction.

World-wide freedom of religion doesn't seem like a good idea?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:42 / 14.09.02

Tango- Who are you quoting?

Chaos is relative

06:20 / 15.09.02

Religious freedom is an inalienable right of humanity in my opinion and working toward a N.A.T.O. imposed law governing this principal would seem a huge step forward. Keep in mind, however, that even in the United States we have people convicted of murder, anyone hear of the West Memphis Three? http://www.wm3.org/, on the basis that the music they choose to listen to seems satanic to a few redneck cops who botched an investigation and are afraid to admit it down in Arkansas. An additional step toward banishing the superstition and ignorance through improving education would also seem relevant. I applaud the idea and would love to see it in place. Thank you for the thread.

11:27 / 15.09.02

Lada-

Sorry I was being a bit precocious and thinking everyone knew this quote. It's from George Bush Senior around the time of the Gulf War and is famous for it's use of the phrase 'new world order'.

By the way, I live in a Muslim majority country, Malaysia, which is supposedly known for its tolerance. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in our constitution but in actual fact if you are born a Muslim, you are not allowed to convert to a different religion (a friend of mine goes to underground church meetings) and you have to follow the tenets of Islam such as fasting during Ramadan or you get thrown in the slammer! Personally i think most of the world religions are a bunch of crap with the possible exceptions of Deism, Zen Buddhism and ...er... discordianism.

02:12 / 17.09.02

Freedom of religion and separation of church and state are not the same things. We tend to think that separation of church and state is necessary for religious freedom, but this is a finer point. If a sovereign nation takes land away from people on the basis of religion, then the international community has every right to put appropriate pressures on that nation to stop. If, on the other hand, every student of that nation is required to read from the Upanishads, or from the Holy Bible, or from the Koran, then no nation or collection of nations has any right to interfere with this decision. This is a violation of separation of church and state, but is hardly a human rights violation.

Religious freedom is an inalienable right of humanity in my opinion and working toward a N.A.T.O. imposed law governing this principal would seem a huge step forward.
That religious freedom is an inalienable right I will not dispute, but it doesn't follow that NATO ought to impose their laws on other nations. How far should they be willing to go to enforce the law? Shall they oust any government that fails to comply? How much do you trust them?

Professor Silly

15:04 / 20.09.02

some great point from all! Freedom (of religion) does seem a more relevant focus....

Also I don't mean to imply that some military-oriented group (such as NATO) should inforce principles of freedom with force. I have a hard time justifying war in my mind...or at least war in the traditional sense. The idea of sending explosives (via missle) and possibly killing those who deserve the freedom seems to me a step backwards.

Which raises the question: how can we, that live in relative freedom, help those in other parts of the world enjoy similiar freedoms peacefully?

08:17 / 21.09.02

Define freedom

19:15 / 22.09.02

how can we, that live in relative freedom, help those in other parts of the world enjoy similiar freedoms peacefully?

I doubt we can do very much at all. The primary concern ought to be living in freedom ourselves, more or less however we define it. If this is successful, the cause might spread slowly. If it does, we shouldn't get in the way of freedom movements. We can cheer them on, but if the people can't make their own freedom, why do we suppose we can make it for them? If we were gods, we might do more. But we are not gods. Two days ago, my president submitted his security plan to my congress. He speaks of bringing freedom and prosperity to the world. His plan might work if America were truly an indestrucible, irresistable nation. It might bring the world to hopeless ruin if we were the great satan. Instead, we are a nation of people, governed by people, and led by one person, making terrible mistakes.