Why settle for laws when you can have the living values instead?
-
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!
Playing Islam's advocate
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
Why settle for laws when you can have the living values instead?
Perhaps, but now it seems you're getting into a different form of society. It might be awesome, but you'd have to describe it first
Is it different at all?Perhaps, but now it seems you're getting into a different form of society. It might be awesome, but you'd have to describe it first
Maybe living in Brazil made me realize how irrelevant law actually is. I don't know.
At the end of the day, it is the behavior of people, not the letter of the law, that makes or breaks a society. Any society.
If immigrants are given reason to try and learn from their "host" culture, odds are that they will to some degree. Particularly if their original culture is repressive. Encourage the heck out of them towards learning the local language, finding some sort of jobs, social interactions, common subject matters, hobbies... in short, invite them constantly and sincerely to learn new values.
That, I feel, is very much the way to go. I suppose it may work better if immigrational cotas are established at first, which would have the added advantage of building the groundwork for easier interaction with newer batches of migrants.
Repression of any kind should be reserved to true troublemakers, and even then it should aim to deport them at most.
In short, we all must strive to be acknowledged and understood by those who we expect to captivate... and then we must strive to deserve it and to keep deserving it.
Last edited:
Considering that I wrote the OP, I guess not. Not enough to justify ... repressing our values, I guess.
I'm sincerely surprised you don't get where I am coming from. I am at somewhat of a loss at guessing what is there to explain.
What is a society? What makes, say, Iraq Baathists any different from a Quaker community in the USA?
It is the informal rules and roles that exist and guide the people within. And, to a lesser degree, their resources (mainly a common language and access to education) to build and maintain that lifeblood.
In order to nullify the dangers of what presents itself as typical Muslim immigrants, there is no better - and probably no other - way than to sincerely and seriously present them a better deal and keep it.
We must dare them to find reason not to become one of us. We must truly accept them, which is a far more ambitious proposal than simply accepting their settlement in some specific areas. We must strive to learn their languages and ways and offer them ample opportunity and encouragement to learn ours.
At some point, if we are true, they will just have no reason left to fear, let alone hate, us.
Luis,
I agree with everything you just said, but it seems that sometimes this approach just doesn't work. From what I can tell, in much of Europe - for whatever reasons - Europeans have been exceedingly generous, and many immigrants appear to want to both be "on the dole" AND not assimilate.
I agree with everything you just said, but it seems that sometimes this approach just doesn't work. From what I can tell, in much of Europe - for whatever reasons - Europeans have been exceedingly generous, and many immigrants appear to want to both be "on the dole" AND not assimilate.
We're out of synch timewise somehow...
Anyway, I agree with your approach - ambitious as it is - with the caveat that the hosts must not compromise their values.
So, if we take your approach, how would you deal with what recently happened in Cologne and other German cities?
Anyway, I agree with your approach - ambitious as it is - with the caveat that the hosts must not compromise their values.
So, if we take your approach, how would you deal with what recently happened in Cologne and other German cities?
I suppose we may have to ignore that to some degree and try even harder. I would have to be better informed about the situation in Europe to have more certainty.
That you may be right is the main reason why I approve (reluctantly) of the decision to deport some of those migrants. It may simply be too fast, too soon, for them to assimilate in truth.
May you explain to me what constitutes a host compromising its values?
My past experience is ringing so many alarm bells on this subject that I find it uncomfortable to discuss. My intention was not to mis-underand you Luis, but the line between the rule of law and enforcing a particular set of values through the law is a very fine one. these are distinctins that have come up in the past during the McCarthy era. Adherents of Ideologies that were felt to be "unamerican" were (and continue to be) barred from becoming citizens of the United States. This was potentially a violation of first amendment rights, if it weren't for the fact they were not US citizens. ideological restrictions on immigrants on the basis of demonstratable political commitments is one thing, but a broader definition which blurs into freedom of religion significantly expands those restrictions. the McCarthy era is not a precedent that we should seek to repeat or to exceed.
Its uncomfortable to discuss because defending the rights of individuals equally, necessarily includes the rights of the kind of subversives who would seek to use constitutional methods to establish aspects of sharia law in the same what Catholic Parties or "Christian Democrats" try to assert such values in Europe. it's old history, but Otto Von Bismarck waged "culture wars" against catholic and social democrats in the recently unified germany to consolidate the nation-state from alliegeinces to foreign powers and subversives. it didn't work btw. defending the rights of extremists is not the same as defending the extremists themselves, but is a price we pay to ensure liberty for all and not just for some (which is really for none as it compromises equality before the law as a protection for all rights). the "rule of law" is replaced by an ideologically and politically motivated "rule by law". I don't want to defend ISIL, but to be sincere about personal liberty means to defend the rights of those with extremist ideologies even if it does not lead to any violent results. respoding to violent extremism can be based on demonstratable guilt, but preventing extremist violence criminalises belief. it turns every muslim into a potential "suspect". that is not compatable with liberty by any definition of the term. treating "Islam" as the problem makes "Muslims" the problem and I don't think you can seperate the two.
whatever your intentions, in practice I cannot see a way to clearly differienate between defending our values as a collective right, without violating individual rights of Muslims. it comes down to "how many". talking about values and ideologies clouds the exact definition of what rights are lost and gained and by whom. I'm glad you are at least appalled by the idea. I can't guarentee that I am right, but I suspect the more specific your ideas become the clearer it will be how dangerous this sort of thing is. this is not "safe" territory to be in if we want to live in a free society.
Rule of thumb: whenever you see me proposing that it is important to propose or enforce laws, there will be strong evidence that I have been abducted.
A couple of examples:
- If a secular country allows Sharia courts - even if for only a few types of law - for its Muslim citizens, that country is compromising its values.
- If the media refuses to publish cartoons of Muhammad for fear of retribution, it's compromising its values
Allowing Sharia law is fine... except that it must not have religious privilege. It should be strictly voluntary, entirely subordinate to secular law, and secular alternatives must be always and readily available.
Freedom of expression and of press is paramount. Not negotiable.
Freedom of expression and of press is paramount. Not negotiable.
Laika and Luis,
Here's an example:
In the US, I have a right to hear whatever speech I want to hear and to view any cartoon I want to look at.
Should my rights be curtailed to allow someone to subvert the constitution with blasphemy laws?
Here's an example:
In the US, I have a right to hear whatever speech I want to hear and to view any cartoon I want to look at.
Should my rights be curtailed to allow someone to subvert the constitution with blasphemy laws?
We'll have to agree to disagree on the question of allowing Sharia - even in a subservient role - to legal system be a part of the equation. The likelihood of coercion is just too extreme.
I might perhaps agree if I had ever found a clear example of what Sharia is.
Do you have more specifics? Inheritance feels a bit... marginal to me.
Shad
Veteran Member
No it doesn't. It says no matter how unequal a person was on Earth they are equal in Heaven. The key parameters are the various jobs and actions that were inflicted upon or by said people. Read the verse again and reference tafsir that explain this
We might have to disagree here. To me it's a question of principle, not details. In a secular society we need to be constantly on guard to thwart ANY religion wriggling its way into government. Full stop, no compromise. In other words, I would be just as black and white if it was a Christian inheritance court or a Hindu inheritance court. No budging on the separation of church and state.
This is not to say that we have a perfect demarcation now - we don't. But we can take no more erosions.
I do disagree.
My understanding of secularism is that religious expectations must be heard and considered just like any others. It is the expectation of religious privilege that must be denied, literally ignored even. Whatever is reasonable by a religious light should be reasonable by any other light as well.
People will keep being motivated by religious beliefs, though. I see no advantage in encouraging them to attempt to present those as somehow "secular". Let them be what they are and say it aloud, all the while making it clear that belief is a right, not a source of privilege.