Yes, horrible injustices. It would be unimaginably worse if the wall between Church and State in the US were any lower. That was my point.
Right, so that whole thing arguing that a state without codified secularism being unable to do this as good if not better than secular democracies was all fluff. Okay.
No, I quite enjoy being alive. I sometimes get concerns about my safety as an atheist even here in the US, I wouldn't set foot in any religious state outside of Europe if you paid me.
This explains why you think the USA is great when it comes to religious freedoms. Travel the world a bit. You'll find religion is tolerated better elsewhere.
The hell? I didn't say "all". I said "most". I am fully aware of the European nations that are unsecular. The difference there is that religiosity is very low compared to the Middle East and Africa (as well as the US, for that matter). This limits the harm of not having a secular state immensely. But that's not the case in the Middle East and Africa, which is why secularism is such a vital thing to develop there.
I never did say you said all. In fact I made a big point of showing how you acknowledged it, and cursed Norway for ruining your ability to say all. You are walking on stereotypes with the Middle East and Europe though.
Secular autocracies are still autocracies. There aren't all that many of them, there's China, I suppose.
Yes, there isn't a lot of autocracies that survive the test of time. Amazing how that works. Non-secular democracies do fine too.
I sincerely doubt that. You'll also have to define what constitutes an Islamic law.
No, I don't. Sharia (which is Islamic Law) is a nice little codified thing, similar to Common Law. You can look up the items quite easily. It differs from country to country as precedent and interpretation applies to it, but it spells out the laws pretty darn well.
Personal attacks are against the rules.
Context my boy, context.
Not all that much. A good deal of the Founding Fathers were quite un-Christian, a significant number of deists among them. They wrote the Constitution, which has nothing to do with "Judeo-Chrisitan" ideas (that also being very hard to define). The Constitution is the basis of all US law, or at least that's what the government tries to live up to, and so it follows that the law has little to thank religion for.
Define not that much. Your typical Sharia isn't much different from the laws of any other nation. You even have religiously motivated laws in the United States defining what you can and cannot wear.
Let me ask you this, why is wearing a shirt in public required for a woman? How come I can't go around with my junk flapping in the breeze? It's our society, which is based on certain religious principles. Are they wrong? Perhaps for some, but not for others. This is why we can't make one unified law around the globe. I don't think it is offensive to point a shoe at me, but don't you dare slurp in my presence. Other places, it's highly disrespectful to not slurp. And some places, pointing shoes at others is very offensive. You can't control what is/isn't appropriate in a society, so you need to allow that society to handle it. Sharia allows for that in the same way common law allows for it.
As for what the US government trys to live up to, I won't touch that one.
Iran tried to meet that ideal. Iran got a theocracy because secularism got thrown out with the Shah, and now has one of the worst human rights records in the world.
Iran made some very specific choices on how to interpret it's holy word, just as Spain did when it delivered the sword to the Americas.
I don't care if they practice their religion or not. That they believe it does not concern or bother me. For all I care about that aspect every imam in the Middle East in North Africa can spread any message; from that only way to get to paradise is to kill every non-Muslim in the world to utter pacifism and peace towards everyone, everywhere, forever, and every message in between. I will only be concerned about any religion from a legal standpoint if secularism is lacking, because if it is not, then the actual power in the region will be at least somewhat resistant to religious influence. As a matter of fact, Muslims would be a lot more free to practice their faith under a secular state than a religious one, especially considering the rather unpleasant tension that exists between Sunnis and Shias/Shi'ites in some areas.
I don't disagree about the abuse and neglect standpoint (although the point about the dictatorships being foreign-sponsored is rather blanketing), but it certainly isn't the only important aspect by far, and I put developing a secular state on the same level. Hence avoiding a repeat of the Iran issue.
I will grant you that Sunnis and Shias tend to have conflicts that result in more persecution than either really should get, but I don't think that forcing every nation to be Non-secular will solve the problem. The middle east is already very accepting of other religions, you just don't have much experience with it. You are falling to propaganda and refusing to get outside evidence to support your theories. This sounds like it isn't what you believe in doing. I suggest you go visit the middle east. The UAE is pretty stable, I'd suggest there. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are also both somewhat stable, but I've heard they got some odd laws so you should familiarize yourself with common protocol them before you go. There are plenty of others. Go out and broaden your horizons.
For governments formed in areas of strong religious conflict or past theocratic regimes (and you can make an argument for the US having such a history from the early state and colonial governments) protecting from unconscious religious bias being incorporated into law or political structure is vital. The strength of the US separation, in law at least, should be the default in my view.
That is your point of view. Mine is a little different. I feel that even in countries that codify a strong separation, that separation can break down at the desire of the masses, which means the masses have the control over this issue. Therefore, forcing a point of view on them can cause unnecessary tension. Sharia isn't really any worse than any other legal system I see in the world. It does what it can to preserve order and give a sense of justice. What more do you want out of it? Cessation of all death penalties? When we can figure out how to do that with Secular states, perhaps we can tackle that in non-secular states. Either way, there is too many real oppressive and stupid laws in the United State's legal books for anyone to go off saying that being a secular state ensures a better system of law. It's the people who matter, and not the basis of the system.
Author
Topic: Egypt and the world and Libya - Now without Ukraine! (Read 376909 times)