What's your religion?

[Vexx]

Well... the US *tries* to throw away such things.. .but it is an ongoing process and there are more than a few citizens who'd *like* to have a theocracy of sorts here.

[Zoned87]

They are a vast minority

[WanderingKnight]

Cue Bush loudly claiming his war on Iraq to have a divine purpose

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Cue Bush loudly claiming his war on Iraq to have a divine purpose

I don't recall ever hearing that, unless oil is divine.

The Iraq war was all about oil, most of the crap about it being the "right thing to do" was just bullshit to feed to international press.

Now that american oil companys have taken over Iraq oil, Bush is happy.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

I don't recall ever hearing that, unless oil is divine.

The Iraq war was all about oil, most of the crap about it being the "right thing to do" was just bullshit to feed to international press.

Now that american oil companys have taken over Iraq oil, Bush is happy.

but he DID say that, whether you heard it or not.

And thats just the point isnt it? When religion is 'mixed' with politics, its only because often mixing religion with politics works. You get support for it. While it may seem like the party is religiously motivated, thats hardly ever the case. While were on the topic, tactics like those are hardly restricted to religion. gathering support based on racial superiority, has been prevalent for a long time, and is still used, if you look into things enough..
Also, i hardly think the US is where it is because it didnt mix religion and politics. It probably has very little to do with why the US is a superpower now. If complete detachment of religion and politics is the key to success, tell me, why arnt the old communist countries the most powerful in the world? While i certainly dont condone the mixing of religion with any sort of government activity, there have been enough instances of parties with 'religious' campaigns, which have helped nations a great deal.
Those 'inferior third world nations' which you mentioned, arnt third world nations because they mixed religion with politics. I suggest you look into why the majority of the world is in the state its in before throwing around statements like that

[Reckoner]

The United States is the most successful country in the world because of our diversity in population. There is no other country with so many different types of immigrant waves throughout the last centuries. Also, Europe happened to destroy themselves in their world wars. Capitalism feeds off the poor countries, we built a fortune on the destruction of all these countries in Europe. Now we're a technological nation so we don't got to dump all our goods on someone like we did while we were an industrial or agricultural nation.

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

but he DID say that, whether you heard it or not.

And thats just the point isnt it? When religion is 'mixed' with politics, its only because often mixing religion with politics works. You get support for it. While it may seem like the party is religiously motivated, thats hardly ever the case. While were on the topic, tactics like those are hardly restricted to religion. gathering support based on racial superiority, has been prevalent for a long time, and is still used, if you look into things enough..
Also, i hardly think the US is where it is because it didnt mix religion and politics. It probably has very little to do with why the US is a superpower now. If complete detachment of religion and politics is the key to success, tell me, why arnt the old communist countries the most powerful in the world? While i certainly dont condone the mixing of religion with any sort of government activity, there have been enough instances of parties with 'religious' campaigns, which have helped nations a great deal.
Those 'inferior third world nations' which you mentioned, arnt third world nations because they mixed religion with politics. I suggest you look into why the majority of the world is in the state its in before throwing around statements like that

When a government allows religious nonsense to slow science and fact, it damages and slows development of that country. It also bars people from making new discoveries, or people of different ethnicitys from contributing their part to society.

For instance IF a religious text said the world was flat, people in that country who said or tried to discover otherwise would be shunned or possibly imprisoned.

Or perhaps in a muslim country suppose there was a woman who could have cured cancer, had she been allowed to attend school. But it never happened because the government mixed religion and politics.

This is why countrys who do so will never become successful, all they can do is poorly attempt to copy what others have accomplished.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

When a government allows religious nonsense to slow science and fact, it damages and slows development of that country. It also bars people from making new discoveries, or people of different ethnicitys from contributing their part to society.

For instance IF a religious text said the world was flat, people in that country who said or tried to discover otherwise would be shunned or possibly imprisoned.

Or perhaps in a muslim country suppose there was a woman who could have cured cancer, had she been allowed to attend school. But it never happened because the government mixed religion and politics.

This is why countrys who do so will never become successful, all they can do is poorly attempt to copy what others have accomplished.

well, sure. thats pretty damn obvious. it became pretty damn obvious about a century ago. While what youre saying is true, its over-simplified and completely hypothetical - do you seriously think that thats the reason, or even one of the more important reasons that there are 3rd world countries?

Originally Posted by Zoned87

This is why countrys who do so will never become successful, all they can do is poorly attempt to copy what others have accomplished.

I'm sorry.. what? what on earth do you mean?

[Zoned87]

China (and countrys like it) is what I mean, they have no freedom and no technological progression of their own, so they copy the work of others.

[Amirali]

Originally Posted by Vexx

These... are simply excellent examples (appalling as they are) of why Church and State absolutely should be completely separated. The only thing I can say is these sorts of events were pretty much the situation for Christianity until the last few centuries or so.

Even if you might have a point in theory, in practice I disagree. In countries like Pakistan, religious and traditional law are a major source of credibility. If the state sets up its own religious courts, and ensures they're fair, credible and governed according to a reasoned interpretation of religion, that is far better than the alternative of letting informal, unqualified bodies fill the void.

For example, there is a long history in Pakistan of tribal councils (jirgas) deciding law in many villages., despite being almost completely unqaulified, uneducated in Islam, and more governed by tribal superstition than actual religious tenets. One example I can remember is when a dispute between two families (over a murder) was resolved by handing a teenage girl in marriage to a member of the victim family. Not only is this trading of women, and forced teen marriage offensive, I shudder to think how the girl would have been treated by her new in-laws, given the family feud.
Another example of a shocking case:

Shazia Mangi and Ehsan Chachar of Daharki decided of their own free will to marry, and they did so on October 16, 2003, according to the requirements of law, but without the permission of Shazia's father. That same day, her father, accompanied by six members of his tribe, physically attacked the house of Ehsan's parents, threatening to kill Shazia, declared by them to be a 'kari' and Ehsan, her legally wedded husband, a 'karo'. The two were lucky to escape. They managed to get to Sukkur, and were able to move the Third Additional Sessions Court Judge, Naseem Ahmed Sheikh, to order that the Sukkur Darul Aman give them shelter and protection. The police proved to be hostile to the desperate couple, their sympathies, for whatever reasons, lying firmly with the Mangi tribal elders.

On October 25, the seven assailants held a jirga, Shazia's father-in-law was summoned and asked to hand over Shazia so that she could be murdered. He could do little but promise to so do, and in the bargain the jirga imposed on him a fine of Rs.500,000.

The complete article is here, if anyone's interested......it details the Supreme Court effort to ban such tribal councils. The problem of vigilante councils (jirgas)

My point is that when a large portion of the populace does have faith in religious law, the state is perhaps better served to regulate it so as to forestall other bodies/ people taking it into their own hands. I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but ground realities are ground realities.

P.S: To be entirely fair to Pakistan, the judiciary did eventually take notice of both the above cases, and come to the aid of the victims. And I should emphasize, in both cases, the jirga acted completely contrary to any reasoned or scholarly view of Islam.

[Zoned87]

"Fair" according to some religions could be interpreted as being sacrificed to a spectral boogyman or a stone statue.

Nothing involving religion can ever be completely fair

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

China (and countrys like it) is what I mean, they have no freedom and no technological progression of their own, so they copy the work of others.

Well China is, more or less, a first world country, now. It has a rightful place on the G8 (even if America will never allow the current China to assume such a position). So, it is not like China is not a successful nation.

And, realistically, mimicking the success of Western countries is not bad. In fact, most foreign aid sent to "underdeveloped" countries, seeks to instruct those various countries on how to advance their country's basic foundations in similar fashions to how Western countries have advanced themselves. China's drastic economic shift in the 1990s (under the leadership of the great if somewhat villainous Xiaoping Deng) was based partially on a combination of Eastern and Western economic reform...

...And this is getting really off topic.

Originally Posted by Zoned87

"Fair" according to some religions could be interpreted as being sacrificed to a spectral boogyman or a stone statue.

Nothing involving religion can ever be completely fair

Nothing concerning law can ever be truly "fair" either. Both are man-made (or at least lead by man), so both are subject to subjectivity and change over time.

[Anh_Minh]

amirali: I don't think the alternative to religious law Vexx was thinking of was biker gang law.

[Amirali]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

"Fair" according to some religions could be interpreted as being sacrificed to a spectral boogyman or a stone statue.

Nothing involving religion can ever be completely fair

Well I respect your opinion, and won't try to convince you religious law is best (I personally would prefer living in a secular state, truth be told).

But a state is shaped by it's people. If the people , or a large segment of society credit religious law, the state can't impose a different belief system from above. All it can do is make sure that the rights of minorities are protected, that personal vendettas are left out, and that any influence from religion is taken as fairly as possible. Sure , it can never be done perfectly, but as seen with crazies like Al-Qaeda or some of the examples I gave...........things could be much worse.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

amirali: I don't think the alternative to religious law Vexx was thinking of was biker gang law.

Agreed..... but I'm not pulling the comparison between the two out of thin air. Such tribal bodies would champion themselves as following traditional religious values, which is why I pose the contrast. I do think it pressures the state to present a more reasonable religious interpretation, rather than allow it unchallenged. I'm not being argumentative, so much as trying to give a different perspective. I respect vexx's views completely, and have no intention to challenge his opinions.

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Or perhaps in a muslim country suppose there was a woman who could have cured cancer, had she been allowed to attend school. But it never happened because the government mixed religion and politics.

Essentially, you're right. There's a lot of discrimination against women in many (though not all) Muslim countries, which many idiots justify using religion. That's a reality, and I do believe it holds development back. But to clarify, that's got nothing to do with Islam.........which in fact explicitly commands education as compulsory for every male and female. Tribal custom is often less enlightened, and religion is shamelessly exploited to borrow credibility.

...And this is getting really off topic.

Ah, sorry. This thread just seems to have been a debate for quite a while now, before I posted on it. I'll refrain from future debate here, since it is off topic as you say.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

China (and countrys like it) is what I mean, they have no freedom and no technological progression of their own, so they copy the work of others.

Well... that's just basically incorrect. Many countries have had marvelous technical progress under "non-free" governments, even religious ones... including China. But this isn't the place for extensive lessons in world history over the last 3000 years.......

-----------------------
Separately -- Amirali1985 is contrasting theocracy to rule by unpleasant village elders with social customs from hell Under those conditions, certain types of religious rule might be a step up ... but often people have trouble distinguishing between what was sourced in religious principles and what is simply social taboo codified into the religion. I find it impossible to "respect" any social norms that justify "honor" killings or mistreatment of women, outsiders, etc.

[Amirali]

Agreed entirely. I don't think any reasonable person, religious or otherwise, could respect such disturbing customs rooted in ignorance/

[WanderingKnight]

The United States is the most successful country in the world because of our diversity in population.

Wrong. You're the most powerful country because you took advantage of several key moments in world history, the main one being the aftermath of World War I. It has absolutely nothing to do with your diversity in population. If anything, the latter is a consequence of your status as the most powerful country.

This is why countrys who do so will never become successful, all they can do is poorly attempt to copy what others have accomplished.

This is rapidly getting offtopic, but PLEASE, think with your head, not with your nationalistic heart. History is a very complex affair, and there are several reasons as to why the US is the most powerful country and why other countries can't get out of its status as dominated.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Wrong. You're the most powerful country because you took advantage of several key moments in world history, the main one being the aftermath of World War I. It has absolutely nothing to do with your diversity in population. If anything, the latter is a consequence of your status as the most powerful country.

I did mention this, and no the diversity in population did help us. Where do you think we got all our labor to fuel our industrial revolution and railroads, etc?

[Irenicus]

Wandering Knight:

Spoiler for because it's all off-topic:

while I agree that the rise of the USA was a far more complex affair than just "diversity is good," I think saying that America rose because it was opportunistic when the opportunity is good is also equally misleading. World War I did confirmed the USA's new position in the world stage for all to accept, while devastating Europe back quite a few years, but the USA was already an economic giant by the turn of the century, and it already started to pull its own weight around what's with the Spanish-Cuban-Filipino-American War and Teddy's Big Stick.

When we talk history long-term we often talk economics, and for the Americans their economy was easily competitive with other economic giants Great Britain and Germany (who, of course, turned their industries to war matters in the Great War, so it is involved), so in a way the rise was "inevitable." In this, however, diversity might play a role: the USA's diverse -- despite xenophobia from the dominant white Protestant group, and inter-racial conflicts among the minorities themselves -- society played a large if secondary role in bringing forth the masses of immigrants from Europe and elsewhere. Secondary because other, more important factors also exist, best summarized as the unprecedented worldwide population boom of the 19th century and the USA's own geographic advantages (big is good, no?) aside from the growing economy and a freer government and society that is attractive to immigrants.

And when I mean "inevitable" I don't literally mean inevitable, of course. Anything can happen, but the likelihood of the USA becoming a world power was near-certain by the start of the century bar some catastrophic events (say, an early Great Depression...the 1890's own depression hit the USA quite hard, IIRC; just read about the rise of the Populists). By all means the USA could have retarded -- your own Argentina is a failed attempt to become something akin to the Big Neighbor to the north, despite rapid economic growth in this very period, to no fault of the common people: I suppose dictatorships just aren't very compatible with laissez-faire booms.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I did mention this, and no the diversity in population did help us. Where do you think we got all our labor to fuel our industrial revolution and railroads, etc?

Spoiler for same reason:

That isn't diversity so much as it is, well, population pulling weight, though.

It doesn't matter if it's Chinese immigrants or Civil War veterans who get to hold the hammer; if it's nailed, then it's nailed, and the pig irons will run.

Plus, America was quite xenophobic. The Irish, the Mormons, the Chinese, the Japanese, and of course the Mexicans*, among others, will attest to that. It was just a big enough place that xenophobia -- which is often synonymous with racism, despite being different concepts -- didn't ever have to express itself in mass killings and pogroms. That didn't stop the race riots, though.

*I'm not just talking about modern day either: the Californio's post-1848 should be able to tell you a few horror stories of their own...if any of them were living in present day, anyway.

[Theowne]

Well China is, more or less, a first world country, now.

Do you really believe that? If you have been to China outside of Beijing or Shanghai or all the hyped news stories in the past while, or compare things like per capita GDP, human development index, etc...compared to other "first-world" countries......I don't think one would hold that opinion....