Most exciting thing to happen this year

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

 

I am going to be following this story. Should be fascinating.

[Dark_Raven]

Yeah, quite.

[Nick_i_am]

Turkey keeps doing things to restore my faith in humanity before knocking it back down again.

[Hurlshort]

That's wonderful news. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the Muslim world reacts to it.

[Sand]

This is exactly why we need to keep religion out of government. Church and State, gotta keep them separated.

[Walsingham]

This is exactly why we need to keep religion out of government. Church and State, gotta keep them separated.

 

 

Zzzz-zzz-zzz phibwubwuwbwuwbwuwbwub

[Kaftan Barlast]

Still, Sand is completly right. Separation of church and state is a staple of democracy, and in most cases a necessity. Religion is inherently undemoctratic* and discriminating**.

 

 

 

 

* no religion allows you to disagree with what is declard "the will of god"

** when a religion is established as the norm of a society, unbelievers will find themselves shut out at best and persecuted at worst.

[Walsingham]

Still, Sand is completly right. Separation of church and state is a staple of democracy, and in most cases a necessity. Religion is inherently undemoctratic* and discriminating**.

 

* no religion allows you to disagree with what is declard "the will of god"

** when a religion is established as the norm of a society, unbelievers will find themselves shut out at best and persecuted at worst.

 

But shouldn't freedom for the individual include the option to believe in a God and a religion?

 

This is an important step, which will attempt to remove anachronisms, and locally relevant (no-longer relevant) advice from the Quran, leaving ideally just the words of the prophet. This would be an excellent step in further marginalising extremists. Indeed, it is something which Christianity coud do worse than to consider. Last, but not least, I think it rather undermines the misperception that religions are uniformly square wheels in the machine of progress.

[Sand]

But shouldn't freedom for the individual include the option to believe in a God and a religion?

 

Of course. No one here is denying that. Go to your church, your mosque, or whatever. Just when it comes to government policies and the laws in which everyone has to obey that it is fair and equal for every single citizen regardless they are a believer or not in the dominant religion. Women are treated equally as men, homosexuals are treated equally as heterosexuals, bhuddists is treated equally as muslims, and so on.

[spartan117]

Eh... Same thing on my old forums- ended up being too much so the moderators closed it down. They were arguing over whether homosexual citizens should have equal rights. For democarcy, equality is neccessary. Turn your head if you don't like it and be happy.

[samm]

What kind of forum was that, if I may ask?

 

Modernization is a good thing, though turkey has a history of a quite violent and seemingly overly fast version of that. Let's hope it all goes well.

[Kaftan Barlast]

But shouldn't freedom for the individual include the option to believe in a God and a religion?

 

 

In the ideal state, a citizen is free to believe whatver he wants. But he knows that when its time to vote, he should rely on reason, not faith.

[Azarkon]

Of course. No one here is denying that. Go to your church, your mosque, or whatever. Just when it comes to government policies and the laws in which everyone has to obey that it is fair and equal for every single citizen regardless they are a believer or not in the dominant religion. Women are treated equally as men, homosexuals are treated equally as heterosexuals, bhuddists is treated equally as muslims, and so on.

 

You're ignoring the fact that religion and the state are often fundamentally conflicted in the laws they prescribe, and therefore cannot coexist without one or the other giving in. This is why the process that ultimately enabled Christians to coexist with the secular state is precisely a reformation of the religion itself. Otherwise, the only possible coexistence is a state of heresy, in which the practitioners of the religion merely pay lip service to its doctrines; for the true believers, this can never be an acceptable compromise. This is why traditional Islam cannot coexist with a modern secular state - because in order to follow its doctrines, as they are currently interpreted, traditional-minded Muslims must place Shariah laws above state laws.

 

Only a reformation of the religion can bridge the differences between the scriptural tenets and modern secularism. This is a good move on the part of Turkey, which has always existed in a precarious balance between its dedication to secularism and its traditionally Islamic population. I can only hope the process is a success, though it could easily fail and result in the revisionists being branded heretics.

[spartan117]

I hope all goes well anywhere where church and state is an issue. Good for Turkey. Is Turkey a part of the UN or EU?

[Azarkon]

In the ideal state, a citizen is free to believe whatver he wants. But he knows that when its time to vote, he should rely on reason, not faith.

 

For a true believer, faith is reason. Why do you think there is such a huge controversy in nominally "secular" states over things like homosexuality and abortion? These are not arguments that can be solved solely by reason, not for the religious, at least.

[spartan117]

In the ideal state, a citizen is free to believe whatver he wants. But he knows that when its time to vote, he should rely on reason, not faith.

 

For a true believer, faith is reason. Why do you think there is such a huge controversy in nominally "secular" states over things like homosexuality and abortion? These are not arguments that can be solved solely by reason, not for the religious, at least.

 

Good point if I may insert.

[Sand]

For a true believer, faith is reason. Why do you think there is such a huge controversy in nominally "secular" states over things like homosexuality and abortion? These are not arguments that can be solved solely by reason, not for the religious, at least.

 

To have faith is to have a belief that has no empirical data justify such belief, therefore by its very nature faith is unreasonable. Having faith in a religion is an act of being unreasonable.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Its my opinion that a person who is so religiously devoted that he lacks the ability to make an informed decision based on reason, should not be allowed to vote, hold office or otherwise posses the ability to change the lives of others. Religion shouldnt be an excuse not to think for oneself

[Azarkon]

*shrug* Most people don't think for themselves.

[Hurlshort]

For a true believer, faith is reason. Why do you think there is such a huge controversy in nominally "secular" states over things like homosexuality and abortion? These are not arguments that can be solved solely by reason, not for the religious, at least.

 

To have faith is to have a belief that has no empirical data justify such belief, therefore by its very nature faith is unreasonable. Having faith in a religion is an act of being unreasonable.

 

Not really. Having faith in something doesn't necessarily make it unreasonable. People put their faith in the unknown all the time. It's impossible to reason out everything in this world, no matter what the empirical data is, you will always have anomolies (sp?).

 

For example, why do people put their faith in a certain sports team winning a game? Why can't we just put together all the empirical data and determine the winner based on that? Because there are too many variables, too many possible outcomes, too much complexity.

 

Life is the same way. Through reason and science we can explain an enormous amount, just like we can calculate who has the better players or the better gameplan. But it's impossible to always predict the outcome. So most people put their faith behind a team, and it's reasonable in their own minds, even if it is a longshot according to the empirical evidence.

[Gorth]

Hey, you stop being reasonable in this unreasonable thread right away!

 

I am not exactly religious myself, but I know that if I want to remove the civil rights of people who have a faith, I am guilty of bigotry the same way as people who wants to remove my rights because I don't share their faith.

 

Pot, Kettle and something third.

[Guest The Architect]

How in the freaking heck can a turkey revise Islamic texts?

[Tigranes]

It's an interesting question. Now, it's easy to repeat the old adage, separate religion from state. But, remember that religion is just one of the many epistemological methodologies we humans use to try and understand ourselves and the world. Just like science. And modern rationalism. And various cultural traditions. And mythologies, animisms. Etc, etc.

 

So, if you want to completely separate religion from state, and say that any law or policy that is created for religious reasons or is based on a religious maxim, is wrong, then should that not be the case with science? Religion offers its own sets of evidence and for religious people, what religion wants to do is perfectly sensible. Science offers its own sets of evidence, too. So, making a law to ban abortion because God says certain things; or making a law to ban some chemical because scientific experiments says something; they are exactly the same. Why ban one and not the other?

 

The answer is that as a product of our times and society, we are often predisposed into thinking that our brand of rationalism and 'reason' is the best thing since sliced bread; reason and scientific proof cannot be wrong. We can make unreasonable mistakes or screw up our science, but if we didn't, they would be perfect. However, we do not have the same kind of 'natural' response towards faith or religious logic. (for it is a logic in itself). So, the maxim that religion should always be separate from the state, unless it comes from a cynical political science observation that it causes trouble, is grounded on a subconscious perception that reason and science is (or can be) right; religious logic and faith, not really. That's what it is about. I mean, you say, a state based on Christian logics would disadvantage atheists. Well, a state based on modern rationalism would disadvantage those who believe in works of God and miracles, or animism!

 

What am I saying? That separation of church and state does not mean a "balanced", "Impartial", state; that simply means that one has decided that the laws and logics a state should be run by, is modern rationalist and scientific. So you are saying, religious logic is unfit for societies; modern rationalist reasoning is. But one would do well, in that case, to remember that if one would argue that religion was the invention of Man, so is modern rationalist logic and science; that the latter two have, in the past, made as many farfetched claims, caused in their name as many atrocious disasters and civilisation setbacks, as any religion in the world.

 

As somebody last page said, for the faithful, faith IS reason. Or rather, faith is reason for everyone; its just that some people believe in that particular 'reason'/logic, some people believe in the modern secular version (which, by the way, is not the only secular one to exist, and is just as contested, ever-changing and possessing various deviant strands, as Protestants).

 

Back to topic, though: Architect is right. I am very curious to know how Turkey, or whoever is actually doing this, has the 'right' to actually edit the Koran. Will this be widely accepted even?

[Walsingham]

How in the freaking heck can a turkey revise Islamic texts?

 

A Turkey is not much worse qualified than the average Al Qaeda 'scholar'.

[Sand]

Sorry, Tigger, but I disagree.

 

Most religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions, is often composed of "make believe" aspects such as the supernatural. Angels, devils, and an all powerful invisible God that punishes the naughty. There is no quantifiable aspect of God.

 

You cannot see God.

You cannot touch God.

You cannot hear God.

You cannot smell God.

You cannout taste God.

 

So, how can you say something exists if you cannot see, touch, hear, smell, and/or taste (or combination thereof) it? The reasonable answer is that it simply does not exist. While those who are unreasonable have faith and believe that it does.

 

Now, I am not saying that people cannot have their beliefs, but we shouldn't be basing our laws and government policies on those beliefs.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Sand