Freedom of religion -Isn't this a basic human right?

[CoolSunshine]

I believe the freedom of religion is a basic right of every human being.Secularism is the political doctrine that enables every one to practice their own religion or lack of it.

But some religions like to enforce their belief on others by oppressing secularism .Islam is one of the religions ( as some Muslims here say ) that tells Islamic rule is better than secular rule.

Secularism is not religiously neutral....it stems from the notion that either there's no God , or if there's , he should mind his own business and let what to cesar to cesar

If you say that there is no God,you should be able to prove it.But you cannot.Hence, Islamic rule is the best option.If you want secular law,then show us how Allah doesn't exist.

in your opinion. besides who's going to prove people who represent so-called secular system have no beliefs at all? everyone has beliefs. each law holds a belief within. at least we say Allah is unseen while Western show us faces of people who has personal desires, greed, hatred and say that's the representetive of neutral system. get over it, friend. don't treat religious as if we have faith to prove you God. we don't have it for you and we don't owe anything by believing in our true owner

.

I find this biased and lop-sided.Should personal beliefs Islam ,Christianity etc be associated with the political law?

On the side note,how should the people of the East deal with Islam.There are significant minorities of Muslims in eastern countries.Islam does not match with the eastern religions like Buddhism,Shinto,Chinese folk Hindu etc nor does it match with atheism.Should they see Islam as how some Muslims may see sorcery?

Notelease don't associate secularism with the west.Secularism is universal principle.I am not against religions being called "State religion" as long as they follow secular rule.

 

[dust1n]

If someone wants to prove to me how good their religion is, they can do it by it's effects on followers and spectators, not the effects of political decisions.

 

[Riverwolf]

Freedom of religion is an extension of freedom of opinion. As such, if someone is opposed to secularism, they are free to be so.

EDIT:

On the side note,how should the people of the East deal with Islam.There are significant minorities of Muslims in eastern countries.Islam does not match with the eastern religions like Buddhism,Shinto,Chinese folk Hindu etc nor does it match with atheism.Should they see Islam as how some Muslims may see sorcery?

Absolutely not. In fact, there are some Vaisnavic sects that accept the Qur'an as Vedic Sruti. Hindus don't really pay much attention to the "different" religions, rather viewing them as just different paths to God. We don't have to follow a path to accept its validity.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

I believe the freedom of religion is a basic right of every human being.Secularism is the political doctrine that enables every one to practice their own religion or lack of it.

You are exactly correct.

But some religions like to enforce their belief on others by oppressing secularism .Islam is one of the religions ( as some Muslims here say ) that tells Islamic rule is better than secular rule.

Well that's my word against theirs and so on and so forth. The difference is that I will not shoot someone for practicing differently than what I think is right. I would never oppress someone or look down on them in any fashion for practicing differently, even if I were let's say, christian, in a christian ruled town, I would not be there if there were issues with others from outside being there and practicing freely. It's a control and ego personality flaw they share with their God as do many others.

So they can keep their crap away from me. They can oppress and shoot each other for dumb religious crap all they want on their land. More power to them. Natural selection at it's finest. Hopefully the smart ones will escape.

I find this biased and lop-sided.Should personal beliefs Islam ,Christianity etc be associated with the political law?

HELL NO! Why would you even ask such a thing. It makes up some of the basics already which shouldn't be removed you know... Thou shalt not kill, steal, blah blah et cetera, but that's just because, well, the only reasons churches exist is because people are (particularly were) too dam dumb to realize that they ought to be moral, and that is where enforced/universal morality began to form... I think. Then you have some religions that just make it up as they go, or more particularly the people of some.

On the side note,how should the people of the East deal with Islam.There are significant minorities of Muslims in eastern countries.Islam does not match with the eastern religions like Buddhism,Shinto,Chinese folk Hindu etc nor does it match with atheism.Should they see Islam as how some Muslims may see sorcery?

Um, (some, apparently a lot of) muslims see sorcery as a blasphemy deserving of death. If I were in the neighboring area, I would see Islam as a serious potential threat. And I don't wanna hear any dam whining about me saying that. When you arrest and kill your own over religious disagreements and nonsense allegations and randomly blow each other up cause you can't freakin work anything out, and chop girls' clits off and whatnot, I'd be a little weary. It's just common sense. If you attack your own so readily and easily and blindly, you would also attack outsiders over equally crazy and nonsense issues.

This makes me so disgusted I could spit. I have no patience anymore for the egotistical malicious blind puppet sheep of any faith. Grow some balls and think for yourself for once.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Originally Posted by maro
Secularism is not religiously neutral....it stems from the notion that either there's no God , or if there's , he should mind his own business and let what to cesar to cesar

Secularism is no religion. NOT yes there is a god, or no there not a god. Secularism is, DON'T FREAKIN WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.... leave it out. The whole subject is not a part. It does not influence either way. It is neutral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaN
If you say that there is no God,you should be able to prove it.But you cannot.Hence, Islamic rule is the best option.If you want secular law,then show us how Allah doesn't exist.

This is a horrible blatant fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. I thought Tashan was smarter than that. I guess his desperation for forced overall Islamic rule shows. You overlook things when you let others do your thinking for you and you become desperate grasping at straws that aren't yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .lava
in your opinion. besides who's going to prove people who represent so-called secular system have no beliefs at all?

Everyone might have beliefs, but when someone says they are secular, it means they do not care, they do not want, they do not talk about it, they do not want to hear about it, or read about it, or have anything religious in their lives, period. Secularism is not a belief or religion, it is lack there of, which is not atheism! Let's not confuse that.

And it doesn't HAVE TO be applied to the person enforcing it in a system. A christian/muslim/hindu whatever can enforce political secularism while still practicing on their own. It's a simple concept really. It's just like how we say over here, that when you go to work you leave your problems at the door. You don't bring your personal drama to work. And when you go home you leave your work at work and don't bring your work problem to your family. Likewise, with secular rule, the person enforcing leaves their personal religion at the door while at work.

I know this is difficult to grasp, but people can do this.

everyone has beliefs. each law holds a belief within. at least we say Allah is unseen while Western show us faces of people who has personal desires, greed, hatred and say that's the representetive of neutral system. get over it, friend.

Muslims show us personal desires, greed, and hatred as well. it is easy to take human nature, which everyone so desperately wants to be in denial of, and generalize it into a religious group. That's what needs to be gotten over. Religion is a tool that can be used for good or bad depending on the hands that are wielding it. Secularism doesn't "fix" human nature/take out the negative duality any more than any religion does. What it does is take that tool out of people's hands so they can't abuse it on a large scale! Like freakin Hitler and his Aryan crap. We don't need some crazy christian/muslim/hindu/satanist/atheist/et cetera getting the brilliant idea that they are divinely justified in throwing everyone who disagrees with their way into a gas chamber. That is why the religious tool should be removed and that is what a secular rule does.



Just look up all the genocides and ethnic cleansings and religious wars. That is why religion and politics should be separate. It's not rocket science.

 

[Sahar]

Secularism is no religion. NOT yes there is a god, or no there not a god. Secularism is, DON'T FREAKIN WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.... leave it out.

Which is a problem. Secularism says no to revelation and Islam says yes to revelation.
Islam says that revelation is not separate from politics, economics and social field, secularism says revelation has no role especially in politics.
Secularism is an ideology that is completely opposite to the Islamic one. Not neutral.

This is a horrible blatant fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. I thought Tashan was smarter than that. I guess his desperation for forced overall Islamic rule shows.

How forced? The Islamic system should come out of people's choice.

 

[kai]

Which is a problem. Secularism says no to revelation and Islam says yes to revelation. Secularism doesnt say no to revelation it allows all revelations to be considered
Islam says that revelation is not separate from politics, economics and social field, secularism says revelation has no role especially in politics.
Secularism is an ideology that is completely opposite to the Islamic one. Not neutral. Thats very true from an Islamic perspective, Secularism accommodates all , Islam doesnt

How forced? The Islamic system should come out of people's choice.

I agree but where we may differ is : once chosen, can it be unchosen ? wouldnt it be the duty of an Islamic state to defend itself from being unchosen.wouldnt it become totalitarian?

 

[Tiapan]

The Un has just passed a bill that would make comment on Islam "against the rules".

This sucks!

If I find islam extremely flawed and am not afraid to say so.

As a signitory to the UN we Australians should comply, I say lets disband the UN.
Its like asking the rest of the world being asked not to make comments on Nazism which I see as a similar system.

UN anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say

This ruling is totally against the principle of free speech.

Cheers

 

[Reverend Rick]

We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Big difference.

Then there is the issue of tax dollars. People may say they do not want their tax dollars spent on anything religious. I can understand that, until they try to get me to spend my tax dollars funding abortion.

 

[sonofskeptish]

The Un has just passed a bill that would make comment on Islam "against the rules".

This sucks!

If I find islam extremely flawed and am not afraid to say so.

As a signitory to the UN we Australians should comply, I say lets disband the UN.
Its like asking the rest of the world being asked not to make comments on Nazism which I see as a similar system.

UN anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say

This ruling is totally against the principle of free speech.

Cheers

This is a discraceful assault on human rights... not only has the UN human rights council been overrun by Islamic states with horrible human rights records, now they are passing bills designed to entrench Islam, and further oppress basic human rights like freedom of speech.

Human rights are for humans, not religions.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Which is a problem. Secularism says no to revelation and Islam says yes to revelation.
Islam says that revelation is not separate from politics, economics and social field, secularism says revelation has no role especially in politics.
Secularism is an ideology that is completely opposite to the Islamic one. Not neutral.

I would see this as, not secularism being not nuetral, but Islam being intolerant of neutrality. Secular says, "please do not talk to me about this." Islam says, "I don't care what you want, Allah says I must revelate to you" or whatever you wanna call it. This revelating could be polite or like shoving a kielbasa sausage down someones throat, depending on the person revelating. Islam leaves that detail open to be abused I suspect. One way or another, it forces one to listen to something they wish to have no part of. It violates individual wishes.

How forced? The Islamic system should come out of people's choice.

I applaud you for saying that. Here is what I disagree with... it has to be a persons choice... okay. Yet, in an islamic totalitarian rule, there is no other choice. Here are your options: (a) follow Islam (b) be segregated, exiled, or possibly imprisoned for blasphemy.

Islam would incite personal choices to follow Islam for the wrong reasons, like... survival.

Despite this not4me,
Your attitude is admirable despite how angry this makes everyone, particularly me.

I agree but where we may differ is : once chosen, can it be unchosen ? wouldnt it be the duty of an Islamic state to defend itself from being unchosen.wouldnt it become totalitarian?

Exactly. Which is why religion is seperate from state and state shoudl remain secular.

We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Big difference.

I am trying to understand what you mean here. Could you please clarify further?

 

[ChristineES]

I believe in the freedom of practicing any religion you choose, and in choosing not to follow a faith or religion. And politicians should be neutral in regards to their faith. I personally believe that religion and politics do not mix.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you say that there is no God,you should be able to prove it.But you cannot.Hence, Islamic rule is the best option.If you want secular law,then show us how Allah doesn't exist.

If you say that there is God, then you should be able to prove it. But you cannot. Hence secular rule is the best option. If you want Islamic law, then show us how Allah does exist.

Logic, boy. Logic.

 

[.lava]

Secularism is universal principle.

:biglaugh:

let alone being "universal", it could not even be any more than a theory

.

 

[TashaN]

If you say that there is God, then you should be able to prove it. But you cannot. Hence secular rule is the best option. If you want Islamic law, then show us how Allah does exist.

Logic, boy. Logic.

Well, that wasn't mine. I was just using your "logic, boy. Logic" method to convince him.

He started it ...

If you say that there is God,you should be able to prove it.But you cannot.Hence, secularism is the best option.If you want Islamic rule,then show us where your Allah is.

Read the whole conversation below:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...n-sentenced-death-sorcery-17.html#post1937156

I think it's absurd to claim that people shouldn't believe in God because *others* believe he doesn't exist!!! :cover:

So yeah, that post of mine was taken out of context. I didn't claim that my religion should rule the whole world, it was rather the starter of this thread who was insisting that God doesn't exist, and that we must adopt secularism because we suck!

Please read:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...n-sentenced-death-sorcery-17.html#post1937808

lol, i really hate it when my words and posts in general are taken out of context. That was really cheap.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Un has just passed a bill that would make comment on Islam "against the rules".

This sucks!

If I find islam extremely flawed and am not afraid to say so.

As a signitory to the UN we Australians should comply, I say lets disband the UN.
Its like asking the rest of the world being asked not to make comments on Nazism which I see as a similar system.

UN anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say

This ruling is totally against the principle of free speech.

Cheers

Do they actually think people will follow that?

 

[Sahar]

I would see this as, not secularism being not nuetral, but Islam being intolerant of neutrality. Secular says, "please do not talk to me about this." Islam says, "I don't care what you want, Allah says I must revelate to you" or whatever you wanna call it.

Yes, Islam is not neutral, Islam is biased to its ideas, values and systems naturally.
Bear in mind that we are discussing the Islamic political system (not about following certain religious beliefs).
The Islamic political system says; "I do care what you want, I can't drive my legitimacy except from your will".

I applaud you for saying that. Here is what I disagree with... it has to be a persons choice... okay.

Disagree with what? And persons' choice of what?

Here are your options: (a) follow Islam (b) be segregated, exiled, or possibly imprisoned for blasphemy.

Under an Islamic government, freedom of belief must be respected and guaranteed, how is that?

Islam would incite personal choices to follow Islam for the wrong reasons, like... survival.

See know you confused personal beliefs and the political system. Islam doesn't accept following it under ANY kind of pressure not to mention under the reason of survival.

Saint Tigeress, the above is based on what? Did you study the contemporary understanding of the Islamic state by Muslim thinkers and scholars and your conclusions are based on this or this is completely uninformed conclusion? Because I gotta tell you you are confusing many things.

 

[AxisMundi]

I believe the freedom of religion is a basic right of every human being.Secularism is the political doctrine that enables every one to practice their own religion or lack of it........

One cannot have Freedom of Religion without Freedom FROM Religion.

It is a no brainer really.

The people of Afghanistan favored an "Islamic System" of government, and look what happened there. The Taliban takes over and everyone suffered.

There is a portion of US Christians who want to turn the US into "Christian System", and they never stop to think either. If Calvinists like Pat Robertson take over, everyone suffers and other denominations are not permitted to worship as they see fit.

The same exact thing happens in "Islamic Systems". The sect that has control ensures that everyone worships in the same manner as that sect.

There is absolutely NO religious freedom in any religiously controlled "System".

 

[Sahar]

Secularism doesnt say no to revelation it allows all revelations to be considered

Really, no need to object for nothing. Secularism says no to revelation in politics especially, in economics and even in the social field.

I agree but where we may differ is : once chosen, can it be unchosen ? wouldnt it be the duty of an Islamic state to defend itself from being unchosen.wouldnt it become totalitarian?

Can't this be said about a secular system too? Because now you get to help me to search for a secular state that allows Islamic political parties (which contradict the very basic values of secularism and calls for an Islamic Shari'a rule) to work legally and take part in elections and such...

 

[Erebus]

My main problem with the notion of a particular religion being "top dog" rather than living in a secular system is simple. How can I be sure that I won't be persecuted for my religion? It's all well and good saying that Islam (or any other religion for that matter) should not be forced on somebody even in an Islamic country, but I still seriously doubt that my own beliefs and practices would be tolerated.
Furthermore, having a particular religion as the main driving force in a country is a little insulting even if they don't interfere with the religions of others. For those who would disagree with that point, think of it this way... Would you be happy living in a country governed by daemonolaters (daemon worshippers) even if they were happy to leave you to your practices? One man's meat is another's poison as they say.