Playing Islam's advocate

[icehorse]

Hey Luis,

Can you give some examples of "religious expectations" and "religious privilege"?

 

[Shad]

Hey Luis,

Can you give some examples of "religious expectations" and "religious privilege"?

Pacifism (Jainism) or a light form of would be a good example For example being drafted into the military would created conflict with a religious view. One person will not make or break the military. Privilege would be denying same-sex marriage on religious grounds for those that do not share such a view.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Why settle for laws when you can have the living values instead?

To enforce and moderate those living values, I guess. The are people out there that want to rape children, kill the defenseless, robe the weak, etc. They are willing to break the living values. Such people need laws to stop them. There is also spreading awareness of the living values that laws play an important role in.

Are you saying we should live without laws? If not, then please forgive my misunderstanding.

 

[icehorse]

Pacifism (Jainism) or a light form of would be a good example For example being drafted into the military would created conflict with a religious view. One person will not make or break the military. Privilege would be denying same-sex marriage on religious grounds for those that do not share such a view.

Nice! Can you talk about the boundaries of "religious expectations"? For example, would it cover ideas like workers who want to take prayer breaks? Is it only for individuals, or can REs be invoked for groups?

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you give some examples of "religious expectations" and "religious privilege"?

Sure. Take for instance the idea of a Conscientious Objection. To those who may not have heard of it, it is the refusal to serve in the military out of ethical objections.
Like most other rights, citizens can invoke it or decide that they would rather not. Either choice has consequences of its own.
It is an individual decision and it should be acknowledged and justified individually, with no attempt to use the weight of a religious label to third-party or collectivize that responsibility.
It may appear to be the same thing as an objection to serve (or to be allowed to serve) on ethnic, place of birth or religious identification grounds, but there is a very significant difference: it falls to the individual to take or leave the right and its consequences. The matter should be, and should be consistently presented as, one of individual choice. It is not anyone else's to decide that the faith (or absence of one) one is raised in or chose to adopt entitle one for any specific rights or duties. There is neither need, nor advantage nor moral justification to dressing such matters with religious labels.
A Jain may refuse to serve in the army or even to support the armed forces in any way on conscientous grounds, which for him will more likely than not also be religious grounds. But it will be his decision every step of the way. Nor will non-believers be denied the very same choices and consequences.
Justice and true rights can only be kept, let alone attained, when such individual choices are respected and general labelling made consequenceless. If Jains, or Muslims, or Socialists, or Tea Partiers, or "Mrs. Harriet's no-good youngest son" or whoever decide that they want to conform the expectations of the labels people assign to them, they should have the right. If they decide not to, the space to enforce that decision should also be allowed.
The basis for deciding what is reasonable or not should of course be informed by general trends, including political and religious beliefs.
Decision making must be informed by religious beliefs of both the majority and the minority, simply because that is a practical concern, and policies should strive to be accurate in their predictions. But there must always be room for learning better, lest we learn worse.
But a government with the power to make and enforce laws has no business whatsoever making religious, ethnic, nationalistic or even political labels a part of the criteria to establish rights. That is discrimination that consistently removes rights as opposed to ensuring them. It forces people into literal or virtual ghettos and encourages tribalistic "us vs them" thinking. It can only lead to disaster, and repeatedly has.

Pacifism (Jainism) or a light form of would be a good example For example being drafted into the military would created conflict with a religious view. One person will not make or break the military. Privilege would be denying same-sex marriage on religious grounds for those that do not share such a view.

As elaborated above, I think we should accept refusals, but never by requiring a statement of religious allegiance.

To enforce and moderate those living values, I guess. The are people out there that want to rape children, kill the defenseless, robe the weak, etc. They are willing to break the living values. Such people need laws to stop them. There is also spreading awareness of the living values that laws play an important role in.

No. Laws are actually worse than useless in spreading values. They only spread the expectations of the authority, which is nearly the direct opposite of values. At its absolute best, laws may be created or interpreted in accordance to the values of the community, but that is unreliable at the best of circunstances.

Are you saying we should live without laws? If not, then please forgive my misunderstanding.

Eventually. For the time being, we should remind ourselves often that laws are only invoked when harmony and virtue have both died, and adjust our behavior and expectations accordingly.
Laws are necessary, but never helpful. Even at their best, they are no more a gross substitute for actual mechanisms of society-building. Those are spontaneous, highly individual in their expression, and gloriously unpredictable.

Nice! Can you talk about the boundaries of "religious expectations"? For example, would it cover ideas like workers who want to take prayer breaks? Is it only for individuals, or can REs be invoked for groups?

It can be invoked for groups, obviously, but it must be consistently understood and enforced as an individual right.
Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, may want to ask for specific privileges for their religious practice on Saturdays. That is very much their right and should be accomodated for within reasonable parameters. Nor should they want or need to hide their religious motivation, obviously. But the final decisions and enforcement have no business relying on their religious identification. The right, when granted, will be extensive to those who want it arbitrarily as well, and it must be allowed for self-identified SDA to refuse it if it suits them. Their churches may or may not have an issue with that and deal with it internally. But the political authority should make a point of refusing to become involved.

 

[Smart_Guy]

No. Laws are actually worse than useless in spreading values. They only spread the expectations of the authority, which is nearly the direct opposite of values. At its absolute best, laws may be created or interpreted in accordance to the values of the community, but that is unreliable at the best of circumstances.

Eventually. For the time being, we should remind ourselves often that laws are only invoked when harmony and virtue have both died, and adjust our behavior and expectations accordingly.
Laws are necessary, but never helpful. Even at their best, they are no more a gross substitute for actual mechanisms of society-building. Those are spontaneous, highly individual in their expression, and gloriously unpredictable.

Cool. Thanks for the reply, L.D.

I also fixed the spelling of "circumstances" for you

 

[Jumi]

To enforce and moderate those living values, I guess. The are people out there that want to rape children, kill the defenseless, robe the weak, etc. They are willing to break the living values. Such people need laws to stop them. There is also spreading awareness of the living values that laws play an important role in.

There are some people who know good values and still hurt people. I agree that there needs to be something to put these people in their place.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are some people who know good values and still hurt people. I agree that there needs to be something to put these people in their place.

How do you explain those situations, Jumi?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

Can you please explain how you are reaching this conclusion?

 

[icehorse]

Back to #141, Luis said:

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.

This was an interesting side trip (seriously), I'd be up for a thread discussing expectations vs privilege!

But back to the main point "just like any others". Like many legal concepts, the hard part is when you start poking around the edges and into the corners. So I imagine there is a boundary between expectation and privilege, and that the religious are constantly trying to shift the boundary - just a tad - so that more of what they want falls into the expectations category. For an evangelist or apologist, anything that can get moved from the privilege pile into the expectation pile is a win! For those of us playing defense, we have to hold the current line - imperfect as it may be - and allow no incursions into our values and liberties.

 

[Shad]

Can you please explain how you are reaching this conclusion?

Read the verse in which it has multiple parameters of people that are not socially and experience based equals. Different jobs, different events experienced, different acts they or someone else did. Theses are all examples of people being unequal in a Earthly context. All are treated the same in the spirutal context by the very last parameter which is "heaven". It is also in Ibn Kathi/ It is the standard exegesis of the verse

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3151
http://www.islamicstudies.info/quran/maarif/maarif.php?sura=3&verse=195

 

[arthra]

Take for instance the idea of a Conscientious Objection. To those who may not have heard of it, it is the refusal to serve in the military out of ethical objections.

This applies when Selective Service is active and citizens are obligated to register on their 18th birthday... Each Board decides whether they will accept an application for an IO or Alternative Service (IAO) meaning alternative to an actual role in combat. The board reviews an applicant's sincerety and passes on it. Groups that have a traditional peace testimony such as Quakers or Brethren are usually accepted.. Baha'is were encouraged to seek a non-combatant service in the US.

 

[LuisDantas]

This applies when Selective Service is active and citizens are obligated to register on their 18th birthday... Each Board decides whether they will accept an application for an IO or Alternative Service (IAO) meaning alternative to an actual role in combat. The board reviews an applicant's sincerety and passes on it. Groups that have a traditional peace testimony such as Quakers or Brethren are usually accepted.. Baha'is were encouraged to seek a non-combatant service in the US.

That is better than having none, of course. But I don't think claiming religious allegiance should be a requirement at all. And even Alternative Service, by my understanding, is still supporting armed forces, which may and perhaps should be too much for some.

 

[arthra]

That is better than having none, of course. But I don't think claiming religious allegiance should be a requirement at all. And even Alternative Service, by my understanding, is still supporting armed forces, which may and perhaps should be too much for some.

Luis... You may want to consider moving this thread to the debate forum... as a staff member...


The history of Conscientious Objectors during war time (WWII) was rather dismal :

"conscientious objector units. The volunteers would be starved, studied, and then fed back to health. Two-hundred COs volunteered, and 36 were chosen for the project. The results of the research have been used by relief workers in hunger crises ever since..."

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0800...braskastudies.org/0800/stories/0801_0107.html
and the following:

".... conscientious objectors “competed to volunteer” to be “human guinea pigs” for “dangerous and life-threatening medical experiments seeking cures for malaria, infections hepatitis, atypical pneumonia and typhus,” according to the PBS Website for The Good War.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/am...s-during-world-war-ii-30494131d25c#.f1yspz9ep

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis... You may want to consider moving this thread to the debate forum... as a staff member...

I currently see no reason to, nor do I expect to, but you are welcome to PM me to elaborate on why you think so.

The history of Conscientious Objectors during war time (WWII) was rather dismal :

"conscientious objector units. The volunteers would be starved, studied, and then fed back to health. Two-hundred COs volunteered, and 36 were chosen for the project. The results of the research have been used by relief workers in hunger crises ever since..."

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0800...braskastudies.org/0800/stories/0801_0107.html
and the following:

".... conscientious objectors “competed to volunteer” to be “human guinea pigs” for “dangerous and life-threatening medical experiments seeking cures for malaria, infections hepatitis, atypical pneumonia and typhus,” according to the PBS Website for The Good War.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/am...s-during-world-war-ii-30494131d25c#.f1yspz9ep

That is part of the payment of a price that I mentioned. A Conscious Objetor, at its best, expects to shame its own government out of military activity.

It is not supposed to be an easy path or anything, quite the opposite, it is a hero's way. Have you read any about the British CO's during World War One?

 

[arthra]

A Conscious Objetor, at its best, expects to shame its own government out of military activity.

I don't know if I'd agree with that statement Luis... that sounds like a generalization and I really don't see how this overall thread you've introduced has much to do with "Comparative Religion".

 

[godnotgod]

I am not aware of that. I would appreaciate a brief mention of where that might be happening.

"Neither in anger nor hatred
Should anyone wish harm to another."

—The Buddha, in the Metta Sutta

"The radical monks have successfully linked buddhadharma with nationalism."

"Buddhism teaches the nobility of all, regardless of caste, race, or creed. But humans can misuse anything, including dharma, and these monks have become fundamentalists who espouse prejudice in the name of dharma."

Buddhists Betray the Teachings: Jack Kornfield on the anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sometimes I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to even find something to agree with when I hear Muslim apologists. Attempting to guess why they make such extreme, unacceptable and often all-out immoral claims and what could be worth listening to behind that all can be very bothersome.

Examples of such claims?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Laika,

You take issue with the word "totalitarian", yet you admit you haven't read the Quran yet? Have you looked up the word "totalitarian"? The Quran is unquestionably totalitarian in the breadth of its commandments to Muslims.

How is it any more "totalitarian" than other religious texts?

 

[LuisDantas]

"Neither in anger nor hatred
Should anyone wish harm to another."

—The Buddha, in the Metta Sutta

"The radical monks have successfully linked buddhadharma with nationalism."

"Buddhism teaches the nobility of all, regardless of caste, race, or creed. But humans can misuse anything, including dharma, and these monks have become fundamentalists who espouse prejudice in the name of dharma."

Buddhists Betray the Teachings: Jack Kornfield on the anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar

For what it is worth, I do not condone that violence.

I do not think it establishes any form of roughly comparable situations, either. Myanmar is an outlier, very much so.