Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless everyone is singing off of the same page, I agree with you and I’m sure our founding fathers had that thought in mind...
I think that Mystic is spot - on here (I said we agree on more than we differ on). I just wonder actually whether this isn't actually a politics topic rather than religious.
For once (well actually there have been a few times), I am in total agreement with Mystic.
Agreed.
Quote:
... Thailand, where about 95% of the population (and therefore the power structure) is Buddhist, while the other roughly 5% of the population is Muslim.
Last time I was there (2018) it looked more like 40%. It was quite a shock as (before then) I'd hardly ever seen a Hijab, even in the south.
Quote:
And what's worse is that the Buddhist power structure is so mixed in with the secular power structure. You have monks blessing the police. You have monks blessing the military. You even have monks blessing weapons. And that all works fairly well for most of the population. But, particularly when you get down into the Deep South where most of the Muslim population lives, it doesn't work so well with these Buddhist-blessed police and soldiers who are controlling the Muslims. A really good, extreme example was a time many years ago when unrest in the South was boiling over, and the At least 78 people died from suffocation while being locked in military tractor-trailer type trucks after a violent demonstration, and another 6 were shot to death and about 20 were wounded during the demonstration back in 2004. It ushered in an even more violent time period.
A simple mismatch of cultures that spilled over into law and law enforcement.
Laws should be based on shared expectations of a culture. And that's a pretty broad perspective.
Nobody minds the religious doing their thing like blessing Taxis or selling amulets, but the American model is good - keep it out of politics - and that goes for the UK, too.
The first time I did Jury service, I had to make a special request not to swear on a Bible. last time, I could simply choose swear or affirmation. Ideally it should be swear or affirm without mention of religion and if you want to swear by Allah (which was about the only god mentioned last time) you must make a request. But I want to make things easy for the believers, insofar as it isn't crossing a state/religion divide which I think the UK ought to adopt.
IWMN would probably say my time would be better spent on a UK forum working for that He may be right.
Objecting to secular laws based on religious beliefs is unavoidable because we cannot control what individuals believe. Violating secular laws based on religious beliefs is not acceptable no matter what the reason. There is a specific problem with Islamic law (Sharia) because it does not recognize any such thing as secular law. In Islam, all law comes from God. Their accommodations to secular law are temporary until they achieve majority control over a country.
Is this based on actual facts, doctrine or history within democracis or simply your opiniin?
Last time I was there (2018) it looked more like 40%. It was quite a shock as (before then) I'd hardly ever seen a Hijab, even in the south.
Nobody minds the religious doing their thing like blessing Taxis or selling amulets, but the American model is good - keep it out of politics - and that goes for the UK, too.
The first time I did Jury service, I had to make a special request not to swear on a Bible. last time, I could simply choose swear or affirmation. Ideally it should be swear or affirm without mention of religion and if you want to swear by Allah (which was about the only god mentioned last time) you must make a request. But I want to make things easy for the believers, insofar as it isn't crossing a state/religion divide which I think the UK ought to adopt.
IWMN would probably say my time would be better spent on a UK forum working for that He may be right.
wow, I was happy to do it. It meant I could lie my arse off ... if needed that is ....
I think that Mystic is spot - on here (I said we agree on more than we differ on). I just wonder actually whether this isn't actually a politics topic rather than religious.
wow, I was happy to do it. It meant I could lie my arse off ... if needed that is ....
In fact an affirmation meant for me that I was responsible for my own integrity with which I discharged Jury duty. And I felt that responsibility keenly.
I may mention that the televised hearings about the phone scandal which involved celebrities and politicians had a few bods swearing on the Bible and then proceeding to lie their heads off.
Actual facts, doctrine, and history within countries of the Ottoman Empire even before the existence of nation-states.
Right, while your country a allowed slavery.
Up until the creation of Isreal Jews had more acceptance in the Muslim world then they had in the Christian one. And how about the lack of acceptance of other religions in all of the European colonies? Just practicing the Ghost Dance was reason for death to a native American.
And just how many democracies were there are before nation states. Athens and Iceland, but who else?
As long as Residential Schools are part of our recent history we should be very careful of how we judge other religions. When we allowed churches to beat, abuse and rape native children to be darker coloured little white English speaking Christians we can not hold our heads above others.
Objecting to secular laws based on religious beliefs is unavoidable because we cannot control what individuals believe. Violating secular laws based on religious beliefs is not acceptable no matter what the reason. There is a specific problem with Islamic law (Sharia) because it does not recognize any such thing as secular law. In Islam, all law comes from God. Their accommodations to secular law are temporary until they achieve majority control over a country.
Stereotyping sits between racism and being intellectually lazy. There are many Germans descended from Turkish guest workers who welcome living in a secular Germany, but are also worried about the move from Kemalism in Turkey.
This particular issue invades most of the threads and posts as a generic underlying motive for the promotion of atheism or antireligion. This just muddles the threads and renders objective consideration of the merits of religious beliefs in God. I agree with the desire to eliminate religious beliefs as the source of secular laws. Any such laws need to have a legitimate societal motive unrelated to any particular religious beliefs in God. This is just sensible because there are too many diverse religious beliefs to reconcile across society. Imposing religious beliefs is anathema to a society based on freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Religious beliefs are and should remain between each individual and God. Secular laws must be applicable to all members of the society to promote and maintain social order, period.
Your thoughts?
It is very complicated subject.
3"His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He may be right.
.
In fact an affirmation meant for me that I was responsible for my own integrity with which I discharged Jury duty. And I felt that responsibility keenly.
