poltitical forum

[Kaftan Barlast]

Just saw on the news that Donald Rumsfeld has met with Saddam Hussein and did supposedly offer him limited amnesty in exchange for assisting in quenching the insurgents(which are believed to be by a large extent, led by former members of the Feddayin Saddam)

 

 

But the amount of truth to this is very uncertain.

[Reveilled]

OH sh*t that was an honest mistake i did mean to write shi'a/shi'te instead of sunni. That was me being unmindful   :">

 

Those issues which the koran and hadith do not cover are not up for debate by everbody. The only decision considered canon would be a bunch of clerics deciding how to deal with it. In the past they have always erred on the side of caution. They may be in the minorty but their influence is far greater than you seem to give them credit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who gets to decide in order to make it canon rather depends on the particular variation on Islam you ascribe to. Yes, many Muslims beleve that the consensus of the Islamic community is only applicable if it is the Scholars who are making the decisions, but ask a second or third generation Muslim immigrant in a Democratic state what they think and you'd probably get a different answer. Alternatively, ask someone from Turkey what they think of Democracy.

 

Yes, for the next few years Iraq will have a shaky hold on its Democracy, but the fact that even death threats didn't stop 60% of the population from coming out to vote in my opinion bodes extremely well for Iraq's future as a democratic nation.

[Darth Flatus]

Fastest growing constituent of fanatical muslim groups in England is 2nd gen muslim immigrants.

 

Although it is a fair point that not all or even the majority of muslims in democratic countries are of the same mind. But these people are hardly representative of Iraqis.

[Saber Rider]

I really don't think that Saddam can do a damn thing about the terrorist attacks in Iraq. Just look towards Egypt. There were attacks on tourists again, and that has nothing to do with anything else but ethnical differences caused by religion. Same goes for Israel and Palestine, Saudi Arabia and most other countries with similar cultures. It's mostly the religious hardliners in the middle east, that try and prevent any kind of social evolution. As long as religion is maintained as a deciding factor in those countries, there will always be fundamentalists who want to change things by force.

 

As I mentioned before, we've had the same problems in our "western" societies until the enlightenment stripped the church of alot of it's influence. So f*** religion, and then we can move in to a more openminded world.

[Darth Flatus]

Its not wise to dismiss the place of religon in society. Enlightenment is subjective, religion is needed to provide a moral framework in society.

 

The problems in the middle east are political in nature, its a power grab and those who want power are misusuing religion to gain support.

[213374U]

As I mentioned before, we've had the same problems in our "western" societies until the enlightenment stripped the church of alot of it's influence. So f*** religion, and then we can move in to a more openminded world.

That's pretty much it.

 

In our societies first we became "enlightened", and then we began experimenting with democratic formulas that stripped the Church, nobility and monarchy of their power. I don't know if doing it the other way around as they are doing it in Iraq will guarantee their maturing as a society. I hope it does, but only time will tell.

[213374U]

Its not wise to dismiss the place of religon in society. Enlightenment is subjective, religion is needed to provide a moral framework in society.

No, it isn't. Religion is something you choose, while morality is something that, in the unlikely case that you lack it, is imposed on you by law.

 

Perhaps in the past it was religion that inspired some philosophers and pointed them in the right direction regarding moral issues, but today, organized religion is nothing but a tool for control of the masses, and an obstacle in the way of social progress.

 

At the very least, I think we can all agree that organized religion does more harm than good.

[Darth Flatus]

At the very least, I think we can all agree that organized religion does more harm than good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I totally agree and i dont mean to sound arrogant but IMO it requires a certain level of intelligence and education to arrive at that conclusion.

[Saber Rider]

Its not wise to dismiss the place of religon in society. Enlightenment is subjective, religion is needed to provide a moral framework in society.

No, it isn't. Religion is something you choose, while morality is something that, in the unlikely case that you lack it, is imposed on you by law.

 

Perhaps in the past it was religion that inspired some philosophers and pointed them in the right direction regarding moral issues, but today, organized religion is nothing but a tool for control of the masses, and an obstacle in the way of social progress.

 

At the very least, I think we can all agree that organized religion does more harm than good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what I'm talking about!

 

Religion is perfectly OK if you use it as a personal moral and ethical compass, but as soon as people try to force their ways upon others something is very wrong!

"Enlightnment", as subjective as it may be, sort of gave us the freedom to make our own choices without being burned as a witch.

[Rosbjerg]

Its not wise to dismiss the place of religon in society. Enlightenment is subjective, religion is needed to provide a moral framework in society.

No, it isn't. Religion is something you choose, while morality is something that, in the unlikely case that you lack it, is imposed on you by law.

 

Perhaps in the past it was religion that inspired some philosophers and pointed them in the right direction regarding moral issues, but today, organized religion is nothing but a tool for control of the masses, and an obstacle in the way of social progress.

 

At the very least, I think we can all agree that organized religion does more harm than good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Controlling the masses? I don't know about you, but the local priest here has absolutely no influence over my life .. Religion is nothing today, not even a means of control .. it's simply faith, some believe some don't .. sure some countries are under the influence of power hungry Imam or Pope (or whatever) .. but if they didn't have religion they would use something else, like Hitler or Lenin/Stalin did for instance .. so just because some stupid **** use religion to control certain aspects of life doesn't mean religion in general is a bad thing!

 

Religion holds a certain place in our history and our culture, laws are based on religious morals .. so I don't think we should ban it!

[SteveThaiBinh]

Its not wise to dismiss the place of religon in society. Enlightenment is subjective, religion is needed to provide a moral framework in society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion is not the only source of a moral framework. There are non-religious belief systems that do just as well, and arguably better, since they are not based upon a false premise.

[Reveilled]

Its not wise to dismiss the place of religon in society. Enlightenment is subjective, religion is needed to provide a moral framework in society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion is not the only source of a moral framework. There are non-religious belief systems that do just as well, and arguably better, since they are not based upon a false premise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Aren't they? Ask an Objectivist whether Communism is based on a false premise (or visa-versa), and I doubt they'd agree with you.

And how do you know that religious belief systems are based on a false premise? On the contrary, I think my religion is based on a very true premise.

[Darth Flatus]

There are non-religious belief systems that do just as well, and arguably better, since they are not based upon a false premise.

 

 

yes but what is false to you could be a universal truth to somone else.

 

 

EDIT: on a somewhat unrelated note if th ethreadstarter could spell POLITICAL that would be peachy

 

xxx hugs and kisses

 

 

DF

[213374U]

I totally agree and i dont mean to sound arrogant but IMO it requires a certain level of intelligence and education to arrive at that conclusion.

Yeah, I know what you mean. After all, it's fashionable to be a hater. And if you hate religion, you are usually regarded as "cool", even if you don't have the slightest idea why you hate it. I see a lot of people like that, and I can only feel pity for them, for they are just a different brand of fanatics. More civilized, perhaps, but fanatics anyway.

 

And I don't give a flying f*ck if I sound arrogant. )

 

 

Controlling the masses? I don't know about you, but the local priest here has absolutely no influence over my life .. Religion is nothing today, not even a means of control .. it's simply faith, some believe some don't .. sure some countries are under the influence of power hungry Imam or Pope (or whatever) .. but if they didn't have religion they would use something else, like Hitler or Lenin/Stalin did for instance .. so just because some stupid **** use religion to control certain aspects of life doesn't mean religion in general is a bad thing!

You tell that to the millions of Polish that flooded Rome for a last goodbye to the late John Paul II. Or to the North American christian fanatics that are against any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. Or to the palestinian kamikazes.

 

Yeah, religion is nothing today.

 

And who said anything about banning religion? Tobacco kills arguably many more people yearly, and I don't think it should be banned. Don't place words in my mouth.

[SteveThaiBinh]

There are non-religious belief systems that do just as well, and arguably better, since they are not based upon a false premise.

 

 

yes but what is false to you could be a universal truth to somone else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is why I said 'arguably', because of course different people have different opinions. I just don't agree that religions have a monopoly on moral values. But I do acknowledge that many religious people are also deeply moral and good people, judged by both their standards and mine.

[213374U]

Aren't they?  Ask an Objectivist whether Communism is based on a false premise (or visa-versa), and I doubt they'd agree with you.

And how do you know that religious belief systems are based on a false premise?  On the contrary, I think my religion is based on a very true premise.

Well, at best, religion is based on an indemonstrable premise. It is, obviously, a matter of choice, a matter of belief or faith, if you will. Therefore they may or may not be valid for everyone. If anyone refuses to accept the premise of religion, the whole moral system crumbles.

 

However, philosophical theories that deal with moral issues, specifically those that address the "moral minimums" are somewhat solider in that they stem from formal reasoning. It's not so easy to dismiss them, unless you want to assume a relativist stance. We could do that, and I reckon it's a valid approach, but it's not a very efficient or fruitful one, as I'm sure you will agree.

[Saber Rider]

I rember this sceen from "Conan-The Barbarian", where Conan and this other dude were sitting on a hill discussing their beliefs! Conan was like, bla bla... Crom is so friggin powerful and this and that, and the other dude hit him right back with something like, I pray to the God of the winds and he is way more powerful than Crom.

 

Point being, they were having the eternal battle of the religions my god is better than your god. My belief is true and yours is false. So when I say f*** religion, I'm saying who cares!!! As long as your happy with what you belive in and that makes you a better person, than good for you! But don't force me or anyone else to follow that belief just because you feel it's the only truth there is.

[Rosbjerg]

You tell that to the millions of Polish that flooded Rome for a last goodbye to the late John Paul II. Or to the North American christian fanatics that are against any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. Or to the palestinian kamikazes.

 

Yeah, religion is nothing today. 

 

And who said anything about banning religion? Tobacco kills arguably many more people yearly, and I don't think it should be banned. Don't place words in my mouth. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I still respect their opinion (except for the suicide bombers) .. I can understand why you would be against euthanasia or abortion, and they have the right to oppose it .. I think it's should be allowed, but that's just my opinion .. my word is not worth more simply because I don't believe in their God, or theirs because they do .. and I think it's good to show your faith if you posess it! and stick to the scripture, otherwise you can't call yourself Christian, Muslim etc imo.

 

I thought you meant it should be banned .. but you just meant orginazed religion I guess then .. which is incline to agree with you upon, but I'm a bit ambivalent on that subject and need to study the full extent of it better before I can make up my mind!

[213374U]

I still respect their opinion (except for the suicide bombers) .. I can understand why you would be against euthanasia or abortion, and they have the right to oppose it .. I think it's should be allowed, but that's just my opinion .. my word is not worth more simply because I don't believe in their God, or theirs because they do .. and I think it's good to show your faith if you posess it! and stick to the scripture, otherwise you can't call yourself Christian, Muslim etc imo.

Well, the key here is that your opinion is yours. You may have been more or less influenced by the media, political currents, or whatever, but you are supposedly allowed a certain degree of critical thought.

 

Religion (organized religion, that is) on the other hand, does not regard critical thought very highly. People are told to accept certain things, which depend on which religion we are talking about, just because they are dogmas. You don't dissect a dogma and subject it to critical analysis, because it has been given to you by God (or the Pope with his Holy Infallibility) and thus, it's fundamentally right.

 

True faith is like giving the Pope (or whoever is in charge) admin privileges to your mind. That is the risk.

 

Of course, not everyone allows religion to dictate their every action, fortunately.

[Darth Flatus]

dubya duz

[Saber Rider]

Once again you've hit the nail on the head!!! Ther's not much to ad to that. Tolerance and openmindedness are the way to go!

[Kaftan Barlast]

I still say a global ban on all forms of organized religion. Because as soon as there is an organisation, there is a powerstructure, and that will unfailingly lead to abuse.

[Reveilled]

I still say a global ban on all forms of organized religion. Because as soon as there is an organisation, there is a powerstructure, and that will unfailingly lead to abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doesn't denying people with similar religious beliefs the right to assembly strike you as a bit...evil?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I still say a global ban on all forms of organized religion. Because as soon as there is an organisation, there is a powerstructure, and that will unfailingly lead to abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doesn't denying people with similar religious beliefs the right to assembly strike you as a bit...evil?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's cetainly illiberal, as it interferes with the rights of the individual. You could say as much for some other organisations, including political parties. There's nothing more pathetic than seeing some of the sheep that have been elected to our parliament voting for exactly what their masters tell them to vote for. Very little critical thinking, and quite a lot of bullying and abuse, I think.

[Reveilled]

I still say a global ban on all forms of organized religion. Because as soon as there is an organisation, there is a powerstructure, and that will unfailingly lead to abuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doesn't denying people with similar religious beliefs the right to assembly strike you as a bit...evil?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's cetainly illiberal, as it interferes with the rights of the individual. You could say as much for some other organisations, including political parties. There's nothing more pathetic than seeing some of the sheep that have been elected to our parliament voting for exactly what their masters tell them to vote for. Very little critical thinking, and quite a lot of bullying and abuse, I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no denying that such things can be and are abused, and there's no denying that it is a sad thing to see when people do what others tell them purely because they said so, but attempting to prevent that by taking away people's freedom is all the more horrifying, and I would say an olympic-long-jumper-on-the-moon sized leap in the wrong direction.