Mixing too much politics with religion

[ShivaFan]

This is my opinion but I could be wrong. I do not have any answers. Just suggestions but only based on personal experience.

The mixing of politics with religion is an easy thing to do in the modern age. But this is a digital voice. But soon the human voice is within the reach of global impact to any person of any situation, rich, poor, living in a garage or a half-naked hunter in Africa, anyone even homeless.

The digital voice can be powerful. Soon a twitter will be not just script but a human voice.

There is nothing more powerful than the human voice. It will be electronified. If such a word even exists. The cheap printing press carried Islamic extremism from the North West Frontier Province of India in the late 1800's all the way to the Arab world in more modern times. But soon will come the human voice. It will ride on the rat of the digital voice.

Modern Islamic terrorism is a result of mixing politics and religion into a politicized theocratic agenda. A politicized theocratic agenda is an Islamic danger, a Christian and Hindu and Jewish danger.

Other dangers place a paranoid but all too real element of fear to thjngs - and to chaos. Now mix drugs into this situation, chemicals hitting the brain. Disease will and is going to add to this chaos. We cannot really control weather, and disease will have it's way and victory after victory to come even if stemmed for a moment.

Modern Islamic terrorism is the result of mixing politics with religion. It results into a politicized theocratic agenda. There is no way you can completely separate religion from politics nor politics from religion. But once the political side of it exceeds 50% of the focus, then you have entered the danger zone. The fact of the matter is that politics is largely a competition, a war, of words that is almost always vicious.

So when you mix politics with religion, and cross that line, it is an extreme danger to Muslims, Chritians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, to all.

In the modern world with so much technology - and methods to kill - such politicized theocratic agendas led to very bad results.

Therefore we must emphasize a secular state. It is best for the nation. The most violent are the Muslim jihadi extremists who are more about politics frankly than the very religion they promote. But there are also the same problem with small sects of politicized Christianity, Hindus, Jews, et all - even some small number of Buddhists.

I have no idea if there are any solutions to this. It may not be controlled, today no message can be silenced - impossible.

All "we" can do is recommend a secular state. There will be no utopia.

There never will be.

I have tried to explain in detail my perspective from an historical view, but too tired to keep doing this. Within the rise of Nationalism, an upside is most Nationalists do not trust this emphasis of mixing politics with religion. Not all. But most.

One day at a time. Try to offer those another form of excitement. Something to do. Yes, this is a cheap method. Turns things into a sophomoric ad campaign. But maybe we cannot afford other less cheap methods - we do not have enough money to do the more expensive methods.

One day at a time.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree, secular rule is our best option. Any ideas of religious influence in our laws or government needs to be shot down.

The current threat is Sharia law. Any religious control is bad, but there seems to be some consideration that we should be tolerant of Sharia law. We should not be tolerant of Sharia law. If someone wants to abide by it for themselves personally, that's their private choice. No one else needs to have any respect for it.

 

[sun rise]

I basically agree. Too often we've seen Christians going into politics to further their agenda which is making Christian fundamentalist doctrine the law of the land.

We now have an administration full of such people who are substituting theology for science and we're starting to see the damage that is causing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As a Pagan, I don't recognize such a concept as secularism as that's a result of Abrahamic thinking. I want the world to be resacralized and don't recognize such a distinction between spheres of influence.

 

[metis]

Gandhi said that those who believe church & state can be separated really don't understand religion, and let me add that they really also don't understand politics.

With that being said, I do believe it's best to separate them as much as possible because theocratic states tend to have a dismal record historically when it comes to the issue of freedom.

 

[Yerda]

All "we" can do is recommend a secular state. There will be no utopia.

Agreed.

 

[Yerda]

As a Pagan, I don't recognize such a concept as secularism as that's a result of Abrahamic thinking. I want the world to be resacralized and don't recognize such a distinction between spheres of influence.

Hi. Why do you think secularism is a result of Abrahmic thinking?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hi. Why do you think secularism is a result of Abrahmic thinking?

Christian thinking, specifically. Christianity removed the divine from the world and placed it in another realm. It doesn't typically see everyday life as part of the sacred. Animistic and polytheistic spiritualities don't have such a distinction. It's a nonsense in our religions that something can be outside the sphere of the divine. This includes the affairs of the State. There are also deities and spirits that watch over and influence civic affairs.

 

[Yerda]

Christian thinking, specifically. Christianity removed the divine from the world and placed it in another realm. It doesn't typically see everyday life as part of the sacred. Animistic and polytheistic spiritualities don't have such a distinction. It's a nonsense in our religions that something can be outside the sphere of the divine. This includes the affairs of the State. There are also deities and spirits that watch over and influence civic affairs.

Ok. That's fair enough.

Secularism isn't concerned with metaphysical questions on the imminence of the divine. It's about creating/maintaining a public sphere where having a difference of religious belief has no bearing on how you're treated by the law. The use of the word to mean an anti-religious society or where questions of value have no significance is mostly down to misunderstanding.

For me, if anything is sacred it is our shared rights and responsibilities to one another. Secularism is the best way to protect and uphold that.

National Secular Society - What is Secularism?

 

[arthra]

So when you mix politics with religion, and cross that line, it is an extreme danger to Muslims, Chritians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, to all.
In the modern world with so much technology - and methods to kill - such politicized theocratic agendas led to very bad results.
Therefore we must emphasize a secular state. It is best for the nation. The most violent are the Muslim jihadi extremists who are more about politics frankly than the very religion they promote. But there are also the same problem with small sects of politicized Christianity, Hindus, Jews, et all - even some small number of Buddhists.

Baha'is are required to be non-partisan politically and we refrain from registering in any partisan political group. While we are free to have our opinions and exercise our rights as citizens we refrain from partisan demonstrations.

We also follow the laws of the countries where we reside.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is my opinion but I could be wrong. I do not have any answers. Just suggestions but only based on personal experience.

The mixing of politics with religion is an easy thing to do in the modern age. But this is a digital voice. But soon the human voice is within the reach of global impact to any person of any situation, rich, poor, living in a garage or a half-naked hunter in Africa, anyone even homeless.

The digital voice can be powerful. Soon a twitter will be not just script but a human voice.

There is nothing more powerful than the human voice. It will be electronified. If such a word even exists. The cheap printing press carried Islamic extremism from the North West Frontier Province of India in the late 1800's all the way to the Arab world in more modern times. But soon will come the human voice. It will ride on the rat of the digital voice.

Modern Islamic terrorism is a result of mixing politics and religion into a politicized theocratic agenda. A politicized theocratic agenda is an Islamic danger, a Christian and Hindu and Jewish danger.

Other dangers place a paranoid but all too real element of fear to thjngs - and to chaos. Now mix drugs into this situation, chemicals hitting the brain. Disease will and is going to add to this chaos. We cannot really control weather, and disease will have it's way and victory after victory to come even if stemmed for a moment.

Modern Islamic terrorism is the result of mixing politics with religion. It results into a politicized theocratic agenda. There is no way you can completely separate religion from politics nor politics from religion. But once the political side of it exceeds 50% of the focus, then you have entered the danger zone. The fact of the matter is that politics is largely a competition, a war, of words that is almost always vicious.

So when you mix politics with religion, and cross that line, it is an extreme danger to Muslims, Chritians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, to all.

In the modern world with so much technology - and methods to kill - such politicized theocratic agendas led to very bad results.

Therefore we must emphasize a secular state. It is best for the nation. The most violent are the Muslim jihadi extremists who are more about politics frankly than the very religion they promote. But there are also the same problem with small sects of politicized Christianity, Hindus, Jews, et all - even some small number of Buddhists.

I have no idea if there are any solutions to this. It may not be controlled, today no message can be silenced - impossible.

All "we" can do is recommend a secular state. There will be no utopia.

There never will be.

I have tried to explain in detail my perspective from an historical view, but too tired to keep doing this. Within the rise of Nationalism, an upside is most Nationalists do not trust this emphasis of mixing politics with religion. Not all. But most.

One day at a time. Try to offer those another form of excitement. Something to do. Yes, this is a cheap method. Turns things into a sophomoric ad campaign. But maybe we cannot afford other less cheap methods - we do not have enough money to do the more expensive methods.

One day at a time.

As an old geezer, there was that saying I remember, "Religion and politics make strange bedfellows".

 

[metis]

As an old geezer, there was that saying I remember, "Religion and politics make strange bedfellows".

And they make for unusual children.