By all means, where did what you quoted misrepresent Sharia law in my questions? FearGod had a rather informed answer to a serious question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's not about terrorists, it's about theocracy
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
I never said we shouldn't be defensive when they try to force their culture onto us, nor do I believe that we shouldn't criticize.
I just don't believe we should be forcing our culture onto them, either. That's equally dangerous, but the fact that it's dangerous is ignored because the danger isn't to us.
For the record, in case it wasn't clear, I'm playing devil's advocate. I, too, am very critical of any form of theocracy. What I have a problem with is the idea that secularism is somehow "objectively" better, when it's only "better" in terms of its own subjective values.
What about a theocracy devoted to Aphrodite?
I kind-of agree with this. I'm no fan of imperialism. On the other hand, I'm a BIG fan of universal human rights. While in theory theocracies can support something like the UNDHR, in practice theocracies tend to be among the worst human rights offenders.
That is a nuanced study. And the numbers reflect that. So when discussing theocracies, knowing what people want is important. I particularly noted:
When Muslims in different regions of the world say they want sharia to be the law of the land, do they also share a vision for how sharia should be applied in practice? Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.
And it should be noted that religious courts are a feature of the Israeli legal system which would make Israel a theocracy. The Israeli system of courts is close to a traditional Khalifat system where each religion had a separate court system for its members.
That all said, I think a secular system is better.
Imo, it looks to me that you've moved to the right a fair bit. Your ideas sound a lot like neoconservatism to me.Hmm... interesting question, because I've been thinking about the answer for a good while myself.
I don't identify as a conservative. That's for certain. I also haven't identified as a liberal in... I don't remember exactly how long, but it wasn't a short time ago either.
Many—possibly most—self-identified "liberals" in Egypt are neither really liberal nor even moderate compared to the standards of actually secular countries. Most of them oppose LGBT rights, for example. When a self-identified liberal, a TV host, says, "Of course I don't advocate legalizing same-sex marriage or incest," you know the label he has adopted for himself doesn't mean much at that point.
As far as liberalism goes in many Western countries (including the U.S.), I also see an alarming trend in it to be accepting of harmful and, in my opinion, conspicuously toxic ideologies and beliefs in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity." Just look at how a lot of far-left liberals attack strong criticism of Islam and certain trends and aspects of the Muslim world as "Islamophobia." Faisal Saeed al-Mutar put it really well: he called that trend the "regressive left." I know he didn't come up with that term, but the way he used it pretty much summed up how I feel about this issue of indiscriminate acceptance and sometimes even defense of harmful beliefs by many liberals.
So I identify as neither a conservative nor a liberal in the most common usages of those terms. I find myself most comfortable adopting the label "secularist." It describes my position accurately while at the same time avoiding associating myself with the problematic aspects I see in what is branded as "liberalism" both in my country and in some other countries. More precisely, some parts of my views square with some common conservative beliefs, like moral objectivism and reduced emphasis on the need to be "politically correct" compared to liberalism when criticizing certain things (like other cultures), and others square with common liberal beliefs, like gender equality, support for LGBT rights, and religious pluralism (but not universalism in the sense of accepting all religions as equally valid or respectable), among other things.
That was kinda long. Sorry about that. I just wasn't sure how to answer the question adequately while being brief. Couldn't have my cake and eat it too, I guess.
I was actually speaking more generally. Excuse me, I'm way overtired.
China is not a theocracy but is amongst the worst offenders. Not too far in the past the Soviet Union would have been another, especially during Stalin's era.
But I also am a BIG fan of universal human rights so we agree on that fundamental point.
I was about to say "make it Isis (the Egyptian Goddess) or Shakti and I am game".What about a theocracy devoted to Aphrodite?
Then I realized that people would reach the most varied ideas about what would be proper under their examples and inspiration.
Hmm. I wonder what a theocratic state based on OBOD Druidry would look like...
LOL.
For starters, there would at least be annual celebrations of the arts. The arts would actually get funded and stuff. Theatre for everyone!
LOL.
For starters, there would at least be annual celebrations of the arts. The arts would actually get funded and stuff. Theatre for everyone!
Then it's the practice that needs to change, and that change needs to be internally driven. Secularism is all about universal human rights, but, again, in practice America (in particular) REALLY sucks at it. That doesn't mean secularism inherently can never work.
I mean, my question was never answered. Wouldn't Japan technically qualify as a constitutional theocracy?
Hmmm... I'm not sure what the technical definition would be, but my guess is that Japan's laws are secular-ly based?
For the most part. But Tenno Heika (Emperor Akihito) is technically a deity in Shinto.
blue taylor
Active Member
Any democracy can become a theocracy simply by a vote of the people.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
I think if there's a connection between theocratic states and terrorism, but I think the religion plays a part in the formation of theocratic ideology.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Secularism doesn't have to cave into such ways, it just has to prevent it from coming. And while we should continue to share ideas, we just can't force others to change their ways. It tends to turn out bad when you do. America should end its alliance with Saudi Arabia, but America shouldn't tell Saudi Arabia how to run themselves and what policies they should enact. The seeds for reform have been planted some time ago, but the West keeps interfering and it never happens.
Just because you support the idea of cultural relativism doesn't mean you have to give it a free pass. Places like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, yes, the are in a dire need of complete reformation, and objectively speaking the would be better off "catching up" to most of the world with promoting various rights and civil rights and liberties. Every culture does decide their own morality, but we have many examples to provide examples of how things turn out with certain ideologies. Though there is nothing cosmic to ordain that any way is actually better than any others, it can be objectively stated what works better to promote the well fare and well being of the people and society. And I say better because I don't consider any state that has been to be perfect or even ideal. Some have just been better than others.
I can see many people not liking it, but I can also see education and arts being promoted while mandating major shifts in our treatment of the Earth and overall way of living in regards to sustainability. It would lead to a much healthier earth, no doubt, which makes me inclined to say it would be a better system if it allows us to last longer as we wouldn't be like a crotch rocket blazing towards a reinforced wall.
Last edited:
Fine with me! XD
I totally agree. I have friends here from Norway and the thing that most impresses me is that they have free education to the level of graduate degrees, or mostly free, and totally free healthcare. They are also encouraged to take time for themselves to redirect. seems to me American pales in comparison to some other countries and that we think 'we are the only way' is totally baseless and more than a little arrogant.
Forgive me but you make this sound as if it is something that you have given to women as a gift perhaps. From my POV, what you try to say here is that women are second class and being able to drive a car is some kind of gift from God.