church and state

[sufi]

what place should religion play in politics?

bit of a loaded question innit, especially in these days of osama and george, not to mention vicar tony...

the iraqi resistance thread made me think...
i see that on both sides there is this whole neo-con flirtation with fundamentalist religion, which only serves to excuse aggressive and brutal behaviour, as i say, on both sides in the current war, and should be incompatible with pragmatist neo-con realpolitik...

so, is that a false distinction? do religious ethics conflict with imperialist conduct?
obviously, many examples of oppressive religious regimes can drop easily from the tongue, but these are by their nature irreligious if they have committed oppressive acts.

should religion be utterly separated from the state - does such a state currently exist?
so would that mean that state would act solely on self-interest, or what would any ethical element to it's conduct be based on??

or is there a way that religious ethics can contribute positively to politics?

i mean they all do agree that:
lying is bad
be good to your mum

thoughts please

 

[rewch]

trouble is allegiance to god tends to override any more temporal hierarchy...unlesss the head of state is some sort of element of god...in which case no conflict...unless you're a heretic...which you are!

 

[sufi]

well yeah...
the queen <cha spit!!!> is like the head of the church and the state innit - like god's representative on earth for the fair isle of yewkay <hawks up a fat phlegm and let it loose ! chwa!!> however, nappy-wearing nobility are not, i would say, an ideal configuration for statedom, but then as you mention rewcha - i am heretical, also treasonous

statedom/nationhood itself involves competition with other national groupings and is thus directly in conflict with any religious ideology that supports human rights. of course, the get out clause is always sectarianism

 

[rewch]

religious ideology supporting human rights...ummm...i'm sure i'll remember one in a minute...it's on the tip of my tongue...oh you know the one...the jainists...???!!

 

[sufi]

they all support human rights
jainism is the only one that extends rights to all living creatures, ¿que no, facetious one?

religions are generally egalitarian and humanitarian movements that only get mixed up with nastiness through the exegencies of statehood and earthly politics

 

[rewch]

how does a crusading christianity support my human rights as a muslim?

in an effort to not be facetious i'll just have to say that i disagree with this one...they might support an interpretation of human rights, but if there is any universality to those human rights i think religion is not going to be the required framework...i.e. in terms of sexual rights, gender rights, ethnic &c. &c. rights in those terms would appear to stand outside religion in that no religion can guarantee them, unless perhaps you are positing an ideal religious framework that has not been corrupted by human frailties & gibberish...?

 

[rewch]

which would be interesting...a sort of revelatory religion that was perfect in conception & corrupt from that moment onward... a sort of quark religion with a measurable but tiny half-life...

 

[sufi]

aye, not so much disappointed at failing to acheive best ethical practise as establishing a target and aiming for it ...

'crusading christianity' is not a theology it's a sectarian political movement,

this is my point (i think, tho this whole concept does make my head spin, thas why i fancied posting something about it...) generally religion gets the blame for failed theocracies... i'd blame the necessities of statehood for twisting up any positive aspect of religion

 

[rewch]

religion may get the blame, but unfortunately someone has to interpret the divine revelation which would tend to lead to the problem...ideally there would have to be some sort of ideologically pure form of religion with built-in incorruptability...not exactly likely...but then religion should get the blame for failed theocracies...after all nazism got the blame for german state-failure...actually probably bad analogy...scratch that...what's the law where first mention of nazi germany loses argument...think i just lost that one...

 

[Woebot]

do i need a membership to the railton road illuminati to post on this thread? are you boys in the same room right now by any chance?

 

[sufi]

nah, we're jus sparring while we wait for the rationalists to turn up, then i'm gonna start talking bout astrology

(anyway it's well known that woebot is grand wizard of railtonroad comparable only with eminence guru selector steve baba )

 

[be.jazz]

Well, in France you can't wear an "Islamic scarf" to school, and neither can you wear a Sikh turban. Which is kind of sad. "No ostentatious religious symbols" was the age-old law, which was recently strengthened to explicitly target the above-mentioned scarves. Ostentatious Nike logos are still allowed, I believe.

 

[sufi]

does god play any role in the french state/constitution? e.g. like US: "in god we trust"

 

[rewch]

hello your overlordship...no we are not in the same room...that is one of the joys of this site!!! (with much obsequious fawning)

 

[rewch]

don't think god does have a formal role in french constitution...constitutionally their god is secularism hence the furore about the symbols...trouble is it looks very much like discrimination because it is a catholic country & children don't tend to wear nun outfits to school...neither do they carry crucifixes...and before anyone deels the need to jump on me...i'm not defending them...they're french


sorry

 

[sufi]

so what is the basis for moral authority in france?
who told them to stop guillotining people - was it Yurp?

 

[sufi]

good morning brother rewch by the way

 

[rewch]

morning...not sure about the basis for moral authority though i suspect it is the law via the constitution in that all citizens are equal before the law regardless of any other factors (liberté, egalité, fraternité)...in a kind of 'l'état c'est nous tous' sort of way ...which would seem to be in the favour of the french state in terms of overt religious symbols...but it still looks like discrimination, especially when you take into account factors of marginalization...as to madame la guillotine...i think they did that themselves...will have to find out why...strange place france...one religion (ish) but hundreds of kinds of cheese...

 

[sufi]

so...
in what way is religion not a useful tool in establishing the moral code of a state,
given that the french experience of enforced secularism is oppressive.

and i'm NOT talking about bizarre taliban style extremist sectarian theocracys like the US frinstance

 

[be.jazz]

does god play any role in the french state/constitution? e.g. like US: "in god we trust"

No. Public institutions enforce laicity. Sometimes "Dieu" will creep into a political speech, but it is, to me at least, almost shocking and nowhere near as prevalent as in the US.

I don't know when it was last used, but the death penalty was abolished in the mid-80s. I don't know when the guillotine was last used.

in what way is religion not a useful tool in establishing the moral code of a state,
given that the french experience of enforced secularism is oppressive.

Whoa! That's quite a leap. Oppressive? Freedom to exercise your religion, just not inside defined non-religious spaces is oppressive? If it is, I prefer that to theocracies. Islam is France's second religion. My intention is not, of course, to paint a rosy picture of the country.