Topic: Islamism

[SP]

Right now, ISIS are telling everyone that their mission is to convert everyone to Islam or kill them. They say this is Allah's command. If you think that has absolutely nothing to do with your religion, I'd love to hear why.

It is nothing to do with his religion. His belief set is completely different although they are derived from the same source material. Framing the question in those terms homogenises Islam, and renders any answer trite. The disconnect between the 2 of you is that you are trying to place the atrocity at the door of the Quran, whereby Doc is claiming that the ISIS ideology justified by a  misinterpretation of the Koran.

Your direct questions are not going to advance your case, and are probably needlessly antagonistic.

Personally, I agree with you that it is obvious that ISIS are a religiously motivated group. But I don't conflate their ideology with mainstream Islam. Their beliefs are a perversion. Would you lay the blame for the Manson family on the Beatles?

[Yorkykopite]

Would you lay the blame for the Manson family on the Beatles?

Certainly not! (Well, Ringo maybe).

However if thousands of Manson-like families started to spring up all over the world and began to murder and eviscerate people while carrying flags of the Fab Four I'd start to think that maybe there was something in 'Helter Skelter' that was, at least, a bit dodgy.

[SP]

As a British Asian (I am Sikh though and not Muslim) I would question the comparison between Muslim Asians and other Asians to provide any explaination. Other then skin colour, a Muslim Asian is as different to say a Sikh or Hindu culturally as they are to a European/Christian.

I think the point being made is not that all Asians look or act alike. More that the experience of being a minority in a very different culture could be expected to produce similar issues in other minorities. He could equally well have compared with  the experience of Jamaicans. Looking at the differential in education and economic outcomes for young black British boys, I could see ample cause for a seething sense of injustice leading to radicalisation.

There are an awful lot of minorities in the UK, but it is a valid question to ask why radicalisation is a particular problem for the Muslim community? I suspect that much of it may come done to the Saudi sourced money meaning that Islamist radicals are much better funded and structured.

[Alan_X]

What's wrong with that? That's how the Zionist movement began which led to the eventual creation of Israel.

Zionism was about finding a home for a people subjected to discrimination and pogroms. It was a home for a people who were not wanted in Europe. And your comment misses out the fairly fundamental issue of the Second World War and the Holocaust that finally forced the World's hands into allowing the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine. The Jewish state was established as a secular state, not a religious state.

If it hadn't been for the pogroms and the massacres of millions of Jews, particularly in Eastern Europe but also the rise of anti-antisemitism in Western Europe, then the historic practice of Jewish assimilation would probably have continued.

[Corkboy]

It is nothing to do with his religion.

It is his religion.

His belief set is completely different although they are derived from the same source material.

That's a difficult concept, and probably the main one I've been trying to winkle out on this thread. How can that be? How can one guy get peace and love from a source and the other guy get killing, when they're the same source?

Personally, I agree with you that it is obvious that ISIS are a religiously motivated group. But I don't conflate their ideology with mainstream Islam. Their beliefs are a perversion. Would you lay the blame for the Manson family on the Beatles?

The Westboro Baptists have some horrible ideas about religion and what it says. They are indisputably Christian, though. They base all their ideas on the Bible. Do I blame all Christians for what the Westboro nuts think? No, but the difference is that Westboro have a couple of dozen followers. Millions of Muslims think apostasy should be punished by death. Millions of Muslims think adultery should be punished by death. Millions of Muslims think it is permissible to kill people in order to defend Islam (whatever that means). I've already given the stats, these are not splinters or tiny minorities. You can't dismiss a phenomenon as lightly as that when those sorts of numbers are in play.

[Broad Spectrum]

The Talmud is not medieval, it is older than that. Also the Zionist movement wanted a homeland for Jews where they could be free from persecution. They did not attempt to create a Jewish state. They created a secular state with a Jewish majority.

The points you raise are true, the major factor in the development of the Zionist movement was anti-Semitism. If I remember correctly the Tsar of Russia in the late 19th Century persecuted and exiled Jews based on religion and this very much provided the catalyst for the early Zionism movement.

But the Zionist movement was still heavily influenced by text which of course, pre-dated that of Christ. They chose Palestine for the creation of their homeland as they believed this is where they could best prepare, as a collective society, for the coming of the Messiah.

And although the movement began peacefully, once they gained the support of the USA and Britain in the early 20th Century, they quickly began to alienate 'non-Jews' from the Zionist movement.

The point I'm raising is this. Since the West 'openly' intervened in the governance of Iraq (I say openly because Saddam Hussein held close ties with America throughout most of his totalitarian leadership) the Sunni population have suffered greatly at the hands of the majority Shia government and overall population. This has been one of the major triggers in the recent sectarian, xenophobic etc. violence which ISIS have been committing over the past few months.

Many are quick to forget that many of these young men fought our very own soldiers during the 2003-2011 Iraq War. I'm sure many of these men have seen barbaric things happen to their very own families at the hands of British mortar shells, or US tank shells. It is the West who've indirectly bred this new breed of insurgent within the region.

Now, although the methods implemented by ISIS are far more barbaric than that of the original Zionist movement, is there really much difference between movements created by discrimination, hatred and persecution, and which are somehow guided by text which is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old?

[Yorkykopite]

That's a difficult concept, and probably the main one I've been trying to winkle out on this thread. How can that be? How can one guy get peace and love from a source and the other guy get killing, when they're the same source?

Because the source itself is full of contradictions. Much of the Koran, famously, is plagiarised from the Bible which itself is all over the place. Some of the Koran is a manifesto of peace and love. Other bits constitute a code for hatred and violence.

[west_london_red]

I think the point being made is not that all Asians look or act alike. More that the experience of being a minority in a very different culture could be expected to produce similar issues in other minorities. He could equally well have compared with  the experience of Jamaicans. Looking at the differential in education and economic outcomes for young black British boys, I could see ample cause for a seething sense of injustice leading to radicalisation.

There are an awful lot of minorities in the UK, but it is a valid question to ask why radicalisation is a particular problem for the Muslim community? I suspect that much of it may come done to the Saudi sourced money meaning that Islamist radicals are much better funded and structured.

The educational and economic situations of Muslims in the Uk are pretty clear, they come at the bottom of just about any index you look at. Some will just explain it away as being due to Islamaphobia, but I dont think thats really it as Islamaphobia is pretty recent thing here I would argue, pre 9/11 an Asian was an Asian and what discrimination there was was suffered by all Asians not just Muslims (I would agree that thats probably changed now) and the discrepency between Muslim Asians and other Asians has existed for a long time. The other thing to bare in mind is that Muslims being towards the bottom with regards to education and income isnt just a phenomenon in this country, its pretty much the case in any country with a Muslim population, and I would hazard a guess its been that way for a long time.

As for radicilisation, the other thing to remember if that if the young Jamican man feels he has nothing left to live for and wants to go and fight somewhere he doesnt have a war zone to go to and fight, while the young Muslim man has plenty of choices sadly.

[Yorkykopite]

Now, although the methods implemented by ISIS are far more barbaric than that of the original Zionist movement, is there really much difference between movements created by discrimination, hatred and persecution, and which are somehow guided by text which is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old?

Yes, there's lots of difference.

But, honestly, you have such a tenuous hold on the history of zionism that it's no wonder your conclusions are so wrong.

[Doc Red]

It's true that no one is defending violent jihadist politics in this thread (although clearly we have different explanations for where they come from). But it's wrong (and invidious) to say that this thread "tends to drift into discussions on the evils of Islam". It doesn't.

It obviously hosts people - like myself - who believe that the Koran is 'make-believe' and its message is 'contradictory' but that's a different thing altogether. Just about everyone who has criticised Islamism here is also tolerant. You don't mind living next door to a neighbour who worships a falling rock; I don't mind living next to one who worships a man in the sky. And why should we? It's none of our business what our neighbour gets up to in private.

Obviously, I disagree with you, and I've mentioned in an earlier post why I think this thread has been used to push alternative agendas beyond simply "debating" Islamism. Other posters, as well as yourself, have felt comfortable presenting the views of terrorists as as if it's the "gospel". Whilst completely ignoring the fact that anyone that pushes for ethnic or religious clensing is in all intent and purposes going against what their religion states, instead you're holding them up as examples of "deeply religious people". Instead of accepting that the vast majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims are a more accurate representative of Islam, you're comfortable picking examples from fringe extremist groups, or ulta conservative governments, and using that as examples to show how extremism and terrorism can be easily derived from Islam.

At any rate, I don't want to keep discussing this stance, the thread is open for everyone to read through and decide for themselves what they think our personal agendas are. As one of the mods mentioned earlier, this is a football forum first, and everything else grew on the side (I'm paraphrasing!). I'm not overly concerned about a thread titled "Islamism" that resides within a massive football forum.

What the thread is about is Islamism. At its most basic it's therefore about the absurd desire on the part of some Muslims to create a society (by violence or otherwise) based on a medieval text. I think we have unanimity on that idea as well.

Although perhaps not?

Hang on a second,  your issue isn't just about Muslims creating a society based on misinterpretation of the Quran, and doing so via violent means?. You also have an issue with Muslims creating a society, if even via peaceful means, based around their religion? I fail to see why that would be a problem, and certainly a problem that you, living all the way across the world, would consider it to be a problem? People seem to assume that living in a society based around Islam would be a replica of what we now see in Iran, or Saudi, or the Taliban etc. And that's not the case.

I don't have an issue with a Muslim country that adheres to the religion, I have a problem with any Islamic regime that imposes a strict (or ultra conservative) interpretation of their religion, eliminates debate on religion, and creates strict punishments for any that break what they consider is "moral" within the religion. The options are not either a "Western" form of democracy and governance, or an ultra conservative Islamic regime, there's is plenty of space available in the middle ground.

Quite frankly, I'm incredibly surprised that anyone would have an issue if Muslims built their countries based on an Islamic foundation. Why should they be singled out any different than all the other societies that have shaped their governance as per their views on moral and ethical issues?

[Doc Red]

The "unacceptable actions" are based in Islam, motivated by Islam and often mandated by Islam. They may not be mandated on a global basis, but the numbers involved are far too large for you to dismiss them as statistical outliers.

The actions of ISIS are not based in Islam, motivated by Islam, or mandated by Islam. It's why you won't see the remaining 1.6 BILLION Muslims conduct themselves in that sort of fashion. Speaking of statistical outliers, what percentage of Muslims are part of ISIS? It makes far more sense to assume that the majority are following the religion as per the rules, and an extreme minority (we're talking 0.0001%) are manipulating the Religion to accomplish their own agendas.

As far why there seems to be forms of extremism and terrorism within Muslim countries (or specific countries) at this moment, I've already explained my stance a few posts above.

So if I point out something that is undesirable about Islam in one country or another, you dismiss it as me trying to tarnish the religion. If it helps you feel better about yourself and your religion, feel free. However, it might serve you better if you were to ask yourself why these "unacceptable actions" seem to emanate from your religion above all others at this point in time, and what that might say about the development of the religion.

Quite frankly, there are a lot of things that I find undesirable within certain Muslim countries. The difference between you and I, is you determine that to be a natural outcome of a government following Islam, whilst I consider that to be the consequence of governments imposing their will on their own people, imposing a specific interpretation of Islam on their people, and preventing any other avenue of religious discussion. You present terrorists as "deeply religous" people, I label them as extremists with a thirst for power, an extreme level of intolerance for all other opinions, and are masquerading as Muslims behind the flag of Islam so as to present themselves as people with pure intentions.

Right now, ISIS are telling everyone that their mission is to convert everyone to Islam or kill them. They say this is Allah's command. If you think that has absolutely nothing to do with your religion, I'd love to hear why.

It isn't all that hard to explain. If it truly was "Allah's command" to wipe out any and all civilians that follow different religions, or different interpretations of the Religion, than it would be quite clearly highlighted within the Quranic verses and Hadeeths. As it is, I have yet to hear an Islamic scholar, or the remainder of the Muslims all around the world (not part of ISIS), present the members of ISIS as "deeply religious", or "good Muslims" or anything along the lines of condoning those actions. Now, we can ignore everyone else and accept the statements of the terrorists, that they are in fact following the wishes of Allah, or we can assume that they're "statistical outliers". If you still choose to use the terrorists as examples of Muslims following their religion, or choose to present verses of the Quran as per your interpretation in an attempt to strengthen your conclusion, I'd argue that you're simply debating with an ulterior motive.

[Corkboy]

If you still choose to use the terrorists as examples of Muslims following their religion, or choose to present verses of the Quran as per your interpretation in an attempt to strengthen your conclusion, I'd argue that you're simply debating with an ulterior motive.

Spit it out, man. What's my ulterior motive? Might I suggest you look up what "ulterior" means before answering.

[Corkboy]

Not sure exactly what you mean, Corkboy

Sorry, I missed this. You said...

Some say region and politics shouldn't mix, and I'd broadly agree, but is somewhat dependent on which religion.

You seem to be saying that religion and politics shouldn't mix but that rule doesn't apply to all religions. Are you saying that some religions are better than others, or less harmful? Is there a religion you think can be safely mixed with politics?

[SP]

Is there a religion you think can be safely mixed with politics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party

Spoiler

I know it is not a belief system, but I wanted an excuse to post the yogic flying PPB.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RnbLqM1EUE?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_GB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/0RnbLqM1EUE?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_GB</a>

[close]

[Alan_X]

...You also have an issue with Muslims creating a society, if even via peaceful means, based around their religion? I fail to see why that would be a problem, and certainly a problem that you, living all the way across the world, would consider it to be a problem? People seem to assume that living in a society based around Islam would be a replica of what we now see in Iran, or Saudi, or the Taliban etc. And that's not the case.

I don't have an issue with a Muslim country that adheres to the religion, I have a problem with any Islamic regime that imposes a strict (or ultra conservative) interpretation of their religion, eliminates debate on religion, and creates strict punishments for any that break what they consider is "moral" within the religion. The options are not either a "Western" form of democracy and governance, or an ultra conservative Islamic regime, there's is plenty of space available in the middle ground.

Quite frankly, I'm incredibly surprised that anyone would have an issue if Muslims built their countries based on an Islamic foundation. Why should they be singled out any different than all the other societies that have shaped their governance as per their views on moral and ethical issues?

I have a problem with any society being based on any religion. Most religions were established by people with no real knowledge of the world - they are bronze-age and iron-age (pre-industrial and pre-technological) texts that have only a rudimentary appreciation of science. As such they contain rules for living in largely rural societies with small family groups. The largest cities had a few hundred thousand inhabitants and contact between them and outlying towns took days by horse, cart or by foot on land or by ship on rivers and by seas.

With no knowledge of medicine, food preservation or genetics they had to resort to crude taboos and culinary practices... and so on.

The basics of do not kill, don't steal, don't fuck your sister, which are common to all societies regardless of religion, are best embodied as secular laws for the benefit of fellow human beings rather than punishable because they offend a bearded man in the sky.

I can't think of a single benefit that is gained by founding a society on religious texts.

[Corkboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party

Spoiler

I know it is not a belief system, but I wanted an excuse to post the yogic flying PPB.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RnbLqM1EUE?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_GB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/0RnbLqM1EUE?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_GB</a>

[close]

I studied TM, a long time ago. Never flew. Interestingly, the only guy I ever met who studied it and did claim he flew is now a novice monk trying to convince me of the historicity of the Resurrection.

[Broad Spectrum]

I have a problem with any society being based on any religion. Most religions were established by people with no real knowledge of the world - they are bronze-age and iron-age (pre-industrial and pre-technological) texts that have only a rudimentary appreciation of science. As such they contain rules for living in largely rural societies with small family groups. The largest cities had a few hundred thousand inhabitants and contact between them and outlying towns took days by horse, cart or by foot on land or by ship on rivers and by seas.

With no knowledge of medicine, food preservation or genetics they had to resort to crude taboos and culinary practices... and so on.

The basics of do not kill, don't steal, don't fuck your sister, which are common to all societies regardless of religion, are best embodied as secular laws for the benefit of fellow human beings rather than punishable because they offend a bearded man in the sky.

I can't think of a single benefit that is gained by founding a society on religious texts.

I completely agree.

[zero zero]

You seem to be saying that religion and politics shouldn't mix but that rule doesn't apply to all religions. Are you saying that some religions are better than others, or less harmful? Is there a religion you think can be safely mixed with politics?

In the letter I quoted the foremost, influential religious leaders of the land were holding the President to account to do his job to build a just and humanist society. This is a sentiment I can get behind.

[Corkboy]

In the letter I quoted the foremost, influential religious leaders of the land were holding the President to account to do his job to build a just and humanist society. This is a sentiment I can get behind.

I take humanist to be sort of the opposite of religion, in which case your quote is more like turkeys voting for Christmas. Either way, it isn't religion mixing with politics, more like suggesting the opposite.

[Doc Red]

Most religions were established by people with no real knowledge of the world - they are bronze-age and iron-age (pre-industrial and pre-technological) texts that have only a rudimentary appreciation of science. As such they contain rules for living in largely rural societies with small family groups. The largest cities had a few hundred thousand inhabitants and contact between them and outlying towns took days by horse, cart or by foot on land or by ship on rivers and by seas.

With no knowledge of medicine, food preservation or genetics they had to resort to crude taboos and culinary practices... and so on.

The basics of do not kill, don't steal, don't fuck your sister, which are common to all societies regardless of religion, are best embodied as secular laws for the benefit of fellow human beings rather than punishable because they offend a bearded man in the sky.

I can't think of a single benefit that is gained by founding a society on religious texts.

You're entitled to your opinion, but your first point is based around the assumption that Religions aren't real, and there isn't a God, and your subsequent points therefore present arguments based on your initial premise. Obviously, I disagree with you on the first point (as would anyone else that follows a religion), and your subsequent points.

[Yorkykopite]

I take humanist to be sort of the opposite of religion, in which case your quote is more like turkeys voting for Christmas. Either way, it isn't religion mixing with politics, more like suggesting the opposite.

I don't mind political parties in democracies having creeds influenced partly by religion. It's hard to deny, for example, that the early Labour party derived some of its inspiration from the 'Sermon on the Mount' or that many of its leaders and thinkers called themselves 'Christian Socialists' - men like George Lansbury and RH Tawney for example. Nor do I think it's a problem that democratic parties of the right in post-war Europe often referred to themselves as 'Christian Democrats'. But in both these cases religion was soft-pedalled and, as the years went by and society became more secular, the accent on religion declined proportionally. That's the way it should be, especially in a multi-confessional and multi-cultural society like ours - or like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan....should I go on?



 

[Yorkykopite]

You're entitled to your opinion, but your first point is based around the assumption that Religions aren't real, and there isn't a God, and your subsequent points therefore present arguments based on your initial premise. Obviously, I disagree with you on the first point (as would anyone else that follows a religion), and your subsequent points.

Although to be fair most religious believers in the West (ie people who DO think that religion is "real") draw the same conclusions as Alan just did. They don't want the State to be based on religion because they know it ends by destroying tolerance and, likely as not, creating poverty.

[Corkboy]

I don't mind political parties in democracies having creeds influenced partly by religion.

I do. If you can have part of a religion influencing politics, that leaves the door open for all of a religion. As I said a long time ago in this thread, the moderate believers enable the true nutters by giving their insanity a respectable footing. I cannot conceive of any political question which can reasonably be answered by the phrase "because my religion says so".

[Doc Red]

Although to be fair most religious believers in the West (ie people who DO think that religion is "real") draw the same conclusions as Alan just did. They don't want the State to be based on religion because they know it ends by destroying tolerance and, likely as not, creating poverty.

I don't think it's because religious believers in the West neccessarily doubt their religions, it's probably more about them having doubt on the governments being able to restrain themselves. One of the reasons why so many Christian countries in Europe actively strove to separate religion from the state was because the Church had wielded an exorbitant amount of power over the people, and had used that to further their ends. I would argue that the "religious" establishment at that time had failed the people, not the Christian faith. The Bible didn't tell them to oppress and suppress, whilst gaining political power. It's why the American constitution specifically emphasises the right to assemble and the right to follow one's own religion, because many had come from countries in Europe where they faced religious oppression.

I Just don't think the option is either we kick religion out of politics completely, or build the political entity completely around a specific religion (or interpretation). There is a middle ground, you can have a balanced government that is influenced by their religion, but still functioning as a political system (with elections etc).

[Yorkykopite]

I do. If you can have part of a religion influencing politics, that leaves the door open for all of a religion. As I said a long time ago in this thread, the moderate believers enable the true nutters by giving their insanity a respectable footing. I cannot conceive of any political question which can reasonably be answered by the phrase "because my religion says so".

That's not what I'm saying Corky. I certainly can't imagine Lansbury ever said "because my religion says so". I know he wouldn't. Just as I imagine ML King wouldn't. These men were broad-minded and tolerant and both believed that the State should be de-Christianised. But what harm is there in their political beliefs being influenced, in part anyway, by religious ideas? I can't see any. It certainly can't be true that your mad and fundy Westboro Baptist ever took any solace from the political views of Martin Luther King.

I don't think it's because religious believers in the West neccessarily doubt their religions.

I didn't say they did. I simply said they have learned over the centuries to avoid confusing their own religious beliefs with the construction of political society. That's not a sign of them being any more doubtful about their religion that you are of yours. But - I humbly suggest - it does mean they have a better grasp of history and, as a result, make more modest claims about what their religion can do.   

[Doc Red]

I don't mind political parties in democracies having creeds influenced partly by religion. It's hard to deny, for example, that the early Labour party derived some of its inspiration from the 'Sermon on the Mount' or that many of its leaders and thinkers called themselves 'Christian Socialists' - men like George Lansbury and RH Tawney for example. Nor do I think it's a problem that democratic parties of the right in post-war Europe often referred to themselves as 'Christian Democrats'. But in both these cases religion was soft-pedalled and, as the years went by and society became more secular, the accent on religion declined proportionally. That's the way it should be, especially in a multi-confessional and multi-cultural society like ours - or like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan....should I go on?

We're probably not in full agreement, but I agree somewhat (ever so slightly) with the essence of what you're saying (or at least, as how I've understood it). There isn't a country today that is comprised 100% out of Muslims. And even there was a country, not everyone would be on the same wavelength in terms of how they personally chose to follow the religion. And I think because of that, you can't have rules that impose conditions that are specific to Muslims, or specific to one interpretation of Islam, and place that on everyone. But you can have shades of grey, that enable leeway for people to still make a choice. For instance, I wouldn't have a problem if a majority Muslim country banned the public drinking of Alcohol (or limited the sale of alcohol to specific locations instead of in general stores), just as long as people had the right to drink in their own homes (or specific establishments). It would be derived from the rules of Islam, whilst still allowing those that are not Muslim (or maybe Muslim but liberal?) to still be able to make their choice and follow their own beliefs.

I think the concept of Muslim countries having governments that are influenced by Islam is not in itself a problem, just as long as there is a grey area that enables people with alternative beliefs to live within the rules, whilst maintaining the respect for the country. Is that a hard concept to translate on a real life governmental scale, let's just say it doesn't get any easier if the people of the country are unable to discuss religion without facing discrimination from the government.

[Corkboy]

But what harm is there in their political beliefs being influenced, in part anyway, by religious ideas? I can't see any.

Because of the nature of the claim. If you have a politician who says that his faith has convinced him that society should be more equal then that may sound like a Good Thing. But if you accept the principle of someone putting a view into the political arena because of his faith then you run the risk of the next guy wanting something else less palatable put in there for the same reason. So if we accept that some politicians can foster mild religious ideas in the political arena then, in principle some other politicians can foster barking mad ideas.

[Doc Red]

Because of the nature of the claim. If you have a politician who says that his faith has convinced him that society should be more equal then that may sound like a Good Thing. But if you accept the principle of someone putting a view into the political arena because of his faith then you run the risk of the next guy wanting something else less palatable put in there for the same reason. So if we accept that some politicians can foster mild religious ideas in the political arena then, in principle some other politicians can foster barking mad ideas.

Well as long as the people have the right to vote, and the ability to determine their own representatives in the government than it shouldn't be a problem. People just won't vote for the politician with "barking mad ideas". Isn't that the whole point of democracy?

[Corkboy]

Well as long as the people have the right to vote, and the ability to determine their own representatives in the government than it shouldn't be a problem. People just won't vote for the politician with "barking mad ideas". Isn't that the whole point of democracy?

Yes, but not the point of religion. I have seen, in my own lifetime, people hold hateful views for the sole reason that their religion said so, and then when the religion "adapts" over time, lo and behold the hateful views are gone. When you are dealing with certain people, threatening their eternal existence is much more powerful than appealing to their reason. I am from a country where people buried their heads in the sand and kept their fucking mouths shut while religious people did horrible things. Police, politicians, parents all did nothing because the religion was too powerful. We used to have priests literally tell people how to vote and tell them just how big the sin was if they didn't.

[Alan_X]

You're entitled to your opinion, but your first point is based around the assumption that Religions aren't real, and there isn't a God, and your subsequent points therefore present arguments based on your initial premise. Obviously, I disagree with you on the first point (as would anyone else that follows a religion), and your subsequent points.

Sorry, the reality or not of God is not relevant. The texts were written in pre-industrial times and unless I'm mistaken they do not include any guidance on genetics, radio, nuclear power, aeroplanes or space flight, particle physics, stem cell research, anti-biotics. They don't account for modern medicine and it's impact on life-expectancy or infant mortality or the ability to treat and cure illnesses and infectious diseases. There is no information on new diseases and a complete absence of any useful knowledge of about anything apart from a relatively small area around the Eastern Mediterranean (Middle Earth) Sea. 

You can have your God but please explain how he missed out information about so much that we now take for granted. 

I mean on the most basic level - religious laws against eating pork! Any civiisation that prohibits the bacon sandwich is an abomination. Still, there are good reasons for it according to this scholar:

http://islamicvoice.com/february.99/zakir.htm

The Qur’an prohibits the consumption of pork in no less than 4 different places. Its prohibited in 2:173, 5:3, 6:145 and 16:115.

Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked a name other than that of Allah. [Al-Qur’an 5:3] The above verses of the Holy Qur’an are sufficient to satisfy a Muslim as to why pork is forbidden.

My favourite reason:

6. Pig is the most shameless animal

The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. It feels no jealousy. And among people who consume pork, the practice of wife swapping and other forms of promiscuous behaviour is common.

And the Q'uran refers to the camel:

Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made? And at the sky, how it is raised high? And at the Mountains, how they are fixed firm? And at the earth, how it is spread out? Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish.” (Al-Ghashiya - The Overwhelming, 88: 17-21)

Do you accept that camels are the result of evolution? That the 'sky' doesn't actually exist and therefore can't be 'high'. That the mountains aren't fixed at all and are the result of massive geological and tectonic forces. And that the Earth is not 'spread out' but is spherical and all over the shop.

It's a primitive view of the world based on the best information available at the time. It's up to you to decide how that is relevant to your own belief in God but it is clearly not a useful text for understanding the modern world.

Having said that - there are clearly attempts to make the attitudes of 7th Century Arab society fit better with modern society. This is great advice about understanding the verse about a husband's right (or duty) to beat his wife:

“Men are the guardians of women, because God has given advantage to some people over another, and because they spend from their wealth. Consequently, pious women are obedient [to their husbands] and keep their secrets for God also keeps secrets. And as for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them [first] and [next] refuse to share their beds and [even then if they do not listen] beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Indeed, God is Exalted and Mighty.” - Al Nisa' 4:34

Conclusions:
 
We can easily reach a conclusion by putting together all the above twelve points as a summary of observations on the verse 4:34:
 
Men by nature and by their obligation to be financially responsible are the guardians of their wives and heads of the family. The wife may disagree and as it happens, can even occasionally disobey her husband. However if the wife’s disobedience to her husband means rejecting the authority that the husband has been given by the Almighty, then this will be a serious problem as it can easily break the structure and the sanctity of the family. In this case the Qur’an has given (not an instruction but an) advice that could easily fit with the socio cultural norms of the Arab society of the time. According to this advice, the husband is allowed to beat her wife in the above condition, if admonishing her and leaving her bed does not work. The Prophet (pbuh) has advised Muslims that the beating should be light and should not leave a mark. In fact the beating should not be to satisfy the anger, it is merely a gesture of disapproval and dissatisfaction. This is a one off solution that should either result in peace or should be followed by the next major step that is involving closed ones to help.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/islamic-beliefs/understanding-the-verse-of-beating-women-in-the-quran-9356

I'm glad that's all cleared up. If it wasn't for that explanation I might have left a mark when I beat my wife...

It's as relevant in the twenty-first century as the nonsensical rules in Leviticus.

[Broad Spectrum]

.

However, there are still aspects of Religion which can benefit even modern day society. I agree in that it certainly shouldn't be used as a governing tool the way in which it once was in many cultures throughout the centuries, but there are many beliefs and messages within religious text which enable us to be better people. The parables contained within chapters of the New Testament are a perfect example of this.

[Corkboy]

However, there are still aspects of Religion which can benefit even modern day society.

Please name one aspect that does, one that could not have been arrived at through simple reason.

[Broad Spectrum]

Please name one aspect that does, one that could not have been arrived at through simple reason.

There are none that I can personally think of which would not have already been established in the modern World without the help of Religion.

However, my point still stands in that there are messages within religious text which provide guidance on how to live a better life, even if common sense by later cultures would have arrived at the same point regardless.

Let me be honest here though, you're asking someone who's from a heavily science-influenced background here! Maybe others have better examples...

[Alan_X]

However, there are still aspects of Religion which can benefit even modern day society.

Could you name one?

[/quote]I agree in that it certainly shouldn't be used as a governing tool the way in which it once was in many cultures throughout the centuries, but there are many beliefs and messages within religious text which enable us to be better people. The parables contained within chapters of the New Testament are a perfect example of this.
[/quote]

The few useful parables aren't religious in nature. They just restate aspects of common human decency that are common to most human societies. The majority are largely irrelevant and useless you believe in God, Jesus, Heaven and the Last Judgement.

They have given us a few proverbs but those are largely divorced from their religious meaning - 'hiding your light under a bushel', 'being a good Samaritan', 'the return of the Prodigal Son' etc.

[Doc Red]

Sorry, the reality or not of God is not relevant.

I'm a little confused here, are you really stating that the reality or not of God is not relevant on a discussion concerning religion and it's role in government? How do you not see the distinction? Sorry, but it is relevant.

If you believe there is a God, you'll start with the premise that the the religion is valid, and the challenges (or problem) come from the "human" side of the equation. That we've chosen to interpret (misinterpret) it the wrong way. If you think believing in God is akin to believing in Santa Claus, you'll start of with the premise that because the religion was written during medieval times (and without aid from a higher power) that its scope is limited, weak, and not capable of being used to as a fulcrum (or assistance) in creating governmental policies, and you'll probably also assume that terrorist groups like ISIS are a natural perverse occurance of following medieval texts

You can have your God but please explain how he missed out information about so much that we now take for granted. 

He didn't explain the smart phone either, must have missed that as well. Jokes aside,  I'm not sure what your issue is. Is your argument that in order for God to exist he much have explained every single creation and scientific advancement in history, otherwise it's all a load of rubbish? Obviously, you can use whatever criterion you'd like to dismiss the concept of there being a God, it's really your choice to make. I just don't see answering or not answering your query justifies (or not) the existence of a God. I'm not going to speak on behalf of God, though I will say that the religious books (Bible, Torah, Quran, Hindu scripts) seem far more of a manual for life with an emphasis on the moral and ethical guidelines of society, as opposed to a guide book for dealing with upcoming scientific advancements.

And I'm going to skip the whole "pig" ramble you've just gone on. If you like to eat pork, go for it. For the Jews and Muslims, it's something we'll avoid. Is that really an issue for you? In a society where we have vegetarians, vegens et al, surely everyone is entitled to follow their own interpretation of what they consider is right or wrong to eat. Either way, I don't understand how the discussion of pork is really relevant on a thread concerning Islamism. Especially considering you feel that the reality of there being a God (or not) is not relevant in this discussion.

I'm sure you can google some links for scientific proofs of Islam, but I'm not here to discuss whether Islam is right or wrong, or to present my proofs for why I think it's right. I'm her to debate Islamism.

[Alan_X]

There are none that I can personally think of which would not have already been established in the modern World without the help of Religion.

However, my point still stands in that there are messages within religious text which provide guidance on how to live a better life, even if common sense by later cultures would have arrived at the same point regardless.

I would say that the converse is true. All human societies have similar rules for living and it's far more likely that the 'rules' for living were established as society itself developed long before they were rationalised into oral tradition let alone religious texts. Possibly tens of thousands of years before even the crudest forms of writing.

[Doc Red]

I would say that the converse is true. All human societies have similar rules for living and it's far more likely that the 'rules' for living were established as society itself developed long before they were rationalised into oral tradition let alone religious texts. Possibly tens of thousands of years before even the crudest forms of writing.

That's categorically wrong. You presenting an opinion as fact.

[Corkboy]

I'm a little confused here, are you really stating that the reality or not of God is not relevant on a discussion concerning religion and it's role in government? How do you not see the distinction? Sorry, but it is relevant.

You tried that one on me a few pages back too and it didn't work then, either.

[TepidT2O]

I would say that the converse is true. All human societies have similar rules for living and it's far more likely that the 'rules' for living were established as society itself developed long before they were rationalised into oral tradition let alone religious texts. Possibly tens of thousands of years before even the crudest forms of writing.

I think we can go further and say that these altruistic rules of society actually were part of out evolutionary process.

We evolved these social rules as they helped us to favour the genes of our family groups (which are genes we also tend to have).

[west_london_red]

I would say that the converse is true. All human societies have similar rules for living and it's far more likely that the 'rules' for living were established as society itself developed long before they were rationalised into oral tradition let alone religious texts. Possibly tens of thousands of years before even the crudest forms of writing.

They quite clearly don't, as your post on wife beating highlighted