[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Unlike Christianity, there is no “separation of church and state” tradition in Islam.

---

LOL!

Ya, those Christians, say what you want about them, know that attempts to sway government to please their God would be inappropriate, and so they just don't go there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Ya, those Christians, say what you want about them, know that attempts to sway government to please their God would be inappropriate, and so they just don't go there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
I'm often a little annoyed by this "separation of church and state" formulation in reference to Islam. Why? Because the notions of "church" and "state" do not apply in the same way to Muslim societies. There is no church, for one thing. And historically speaking, the concept of "state" was rather fluid, or at least differently structured. Given a few centuries of colonialism, we don't know what it would actually have become.

---

Do you think that what's maintaining the separation of church and state is the church? Or the state?

I think it's obvious that it's the state. Christians of a certain stripe would love nothing better than to be little Arkansas Mullahs, if they could. It would be no better.

quote:

---

Unlike Christianity, there is no “separation of church and state” tradition in Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, the United States is getting closer and closer to theocracy. So far the Christian right hasn't succeeded, entirely.

---

So say that the Christian right “hasn’t succeeded entirely” is probably the understatement of the week here on babble.

Iran is a theocracy. France is not. Are you asserting that the US form of government is closer to Iran’s theocratic structure than France’s secular government? That’s absurd.

quote:

---

Western democracies are in theory based on Greek ideas not Judeo-Christian ones. You only have these states because some people decided to revive the classics, not due to some inherent property of Christianity. Christianity, by contrast, fought it tooth and nail.

---

quote:

---

ran is a theocracy. France is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
I see. So every Islamic nation that has ever existed has been a theocracy, is that your understanding? While European nations have expunged all traces of Christianity from their systems of governance? Really?

---

Ron, you know the matter is more nuanced than that. No, not “every Islamic nation that has ever existed” has been a theocracy. So, no, that's not my “understanding”. Likewise, European nations have not “expunged all traces of Christianity from their systems of government”.

Let me ask you this: If you look, on balance, at the models of government in the various Muslim countries, are they, normatively, no better or worse than, say, western European countries?

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
But Great Britain is a theocracy. Ever heard of Henry VIII?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
"This notion of the separation of church and state is the figment of some infidel's imagination." W.A. Criswell

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
OK, I'll unpack it for you: I'm saying that the fact that "Western" governments typically restrict the influence of religion is entirely due to the diligence of citizens, not the goodwill of the various Christian churches.

---

Let me further unpack it for you: When the US government was created, the people were, essentially, Christians. But, what did those Christians do? They established a country that was not to be ruled by the leader of the dominant religion and they expressly wrote into the Constitutional that there would be a separation of church and state.

quote:

---

If you look, on balance, at the models of government in the various Muslim countries, are they, normatively, no better or worse than, say, western European countries?

---

If I look, on balance, at the models of governance of most Muslim countries I see that in most cases they are in fact only recently formed cartographic fictions created by Western European countries to enrich Western European elites. Most had some form of European-style "Monarch" foisted on them. They are struggling, as are most post-colonial governments, "Islamic" or not, with the bitter aftermath of colonialism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Unlike Christianity, there is no “separation of church and state” tradition in Islam. Instead, the political and the religious are melded together. If Muslims are not integrated and when Muslims come to represent the majority of French citizens in a few decades, what will that mean to liberal socialism in France?

---

The quotes I linked to were in answer to this post, in which you say 'unlike Christianity....'. If it were up to religious fundamentalists - who are LIKE Muslim fundamentalists and UNLIKE "liberal" Muslims who prefer living under a secular government - there would be no separation of church and state. Furthermore, they believe that those who disagree are not Christians at all. The fundamentalists and evangelicals I know actually believe this.

quote:

---

Riiiiiiiight. GB’s “theocracy” is just like Iran’s theocracy.

---

For two centuries, the people in the western democracies of Europe, the US and Canada have been overwhelmingly Christian. And, unless you completely pervert the word, none of those countries are “theocracies”.

The same cannot be said of all Muslim countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:

Dude. You can put quotes around it if you like. The Queen is both Head of State and the head of the C of E. Even Iran doesn't go that far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

And that is “evidence” that the US is a theocracy? That’s ridiculous. The US is no more a theocracy than France is.

---

What about Pat Bobertson declaring fatwa on Hugo Chavez ?. Pat was only a presidential candidate and prominent member of the elephant party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Do all the Moslems in France belong to one religious group that is cohesive enough to pass laws discriminating against other peoples religious and secular freedoms?

---

If the Muslims are not fully integrated into French society and not inculcated with western principles of democracy, then I think that will be a concern.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
What about Pat Bobertson declaring fatwa on Hugo Chavez ?. Pat was only a presidential candidate and prominent member of the elephant party.

---

You cannot be seriously comparing Robertson to, say, the clerical leaders of Iran, are you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
I think we can all safely ignore Sven "Le Pen" now. This thread is vile.

---

quote:

---

I think it’s beyond laughable to assert that the Western democracies are just as likely to be theocracies if the majority of their citizens are Christians as they would be if the majority of their citizens were Muslim.

---

...and it's the height of historical ignorance to assert that Muslim countries have some default "theocratic" impulse. They simply don't. Their history is largely as secular as ours. The 200 years of democracy in Europe you mention? That just happens to coincide with the 200 years the west subjugated much of the Islamic world.

You keep harping on Iran as if it was some trump card. You can throw the Taliban in there too, if you like. Guess what connects those two cultures? I'll give you a hint, it isn't religion, because they play for opposing teams in the Islamic schism, it is their status as former British colonies with phony "Monarchs" left in charge after the Colonial era ended.

quote:

---

Right. Just like Iran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
[Muslim countries’] history is largely as secular as ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
No, it's "Le Pen" to be concerned about hordes of Muslim immigrants. I'm very specific with my comparisons.

If you look to the history of the US, you'll understand why there was separation of Church and State (nominally). There were many diverse Christian sects in the New World, and the early framers of the Constitution were rightly concerned that the establishment of a single religious authority (be it Lutheran, Moravian, Anglican, Catholic, whatever) would tear their union apart. They likely still envisioned the US as a Christian state, just not beholden to a specific brand of Christianity.

---

In contrast to Le Pen, I’m not concerned about “hordes of immigrants”. I think that the huge number of immigrants we in the US have is one of the great strengths of our country. My concern is with the large presence of Muslim extremists.

Sven (who I should be ignoring) said:

quote:

---

Unlike Christianity, there is no “separation of church and state” tradition in Islam. Instead, the political and the religious are melded together. If Muslims are not integrated and when Muslims come to represent the majority of French citizens in a few decades, what will that mean to liberal socialism in France?

---

I must've missed your use of the word "extremist" here.

quote:

---

Let me ask you this: If you look, on balance, at the models of government in the various Muslim countries, are they, normatively, no better or worse than, say, western European countries?

---

And here.

quote:

---

I think it’s beyond laughable to assert that the Western democracies are just as likely to be theocracies if the majority of their citizens are Christians as they would be if the majority of their citizens were Muslim.
For two centuries, the people in the western democracies of Europe, the US and Canada have been overwhelmingly Christian. And, unless you completely pervert the word, none of those countries are “theocracies”.

The same cannot be said of all Muslim countries.

And, therein lies the concern.

---

Also here. An oversight, to be sure.

quote:

---

In contrast to Le Pen, I’m not concerned about “hordes of immigrants”. I think that the huge number of immigrants we in the US have is one of the great strengths of our country. My concern is with the large presence of Muslim extremists.

---

edited to clarify the object of my post. Sorry, my post wasn't directed at you, briguy

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

quote:

---

Really?

---

Yes, really. Read a book for Chrissakes. Sultans, moghuls, these were secular rulers just as European Monarchs were. The Caliphs are roughly analogous to the extremely powerful Bishoprics that existed in Christendom and lasted roughly as long. If you want to argue that Islamic rulers are all theocrats because they were muslims, we're back to Great Britain STILL having the head of their official church as their Head of State. You're just seeing theocracy where you want to see it and ignoring it where it is inconvenient. You dislike Islamic culture, and you admire Christian culture. It's pretty obvious.

quote:

---

Let me further unpack it for you: When the US government was created, the people were, essentially, Christians. But, what did those Christians do? They established a country that was not to be ruled by the leader of the dominant religion and they expressly wrote into the Constitutional that there would be a separation of church and state.

---

That's super. But if you equate that with some kind of tradition, on the part of Christianity, which you seemed to be suggesting with this post:

quote:

---

Unlike Christianity, there is no “separation of church and state” tradition in Islam.

---

... then you're sadly mistaken. That, or "Christianity" has recently decided to break with this "tradition" and try to get passing laws to impress Jesus again.

Really, where on earth do you get the idea that there's some kind of "tradition" in Christianity of staying out of politics?

The Pope? Did he stay out of the affairs of sovereign nations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Really, where on earth do you get the idea that there's some kind of "tradition" in Christianity of staying out of politics?

The Pope? Did he stay out of the affairs of sovereign nations?

The Catholic Church in Quebec? Or Ireland? The Anglican Church in England? A separation of church and state does NOT simply mean that the Pope can't also be the President, or the Archbishop can't be the Emperor. It means exactly what it suggests: politics and the political life of the state do not march in step with any particular religion. I think you'll find that over most of history, Christian religions were just as happy as Islam could ever be to influence the state. And they still are, despite any alleged "tradition" otherwise.

---

The issue wasn’t whether or not religion “stayed out of politics,” it’s the definition of “theocracy”.

"Theocracy":

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Of course, all of this is a fancy way of saying "I think Muslims are backward savages, they should all adopt 'democracy", which is shorthand for Christianity with a thin gloss of modernity that has been applied over the past 100 years."

---

I do agree that everyone should adopt democracy. Why would you argue for an aristocratic, theocratic or some other form of authoritarian government? I’m not saying we impose it, but I am saying we should champion it. If you think there is a better form of non-democratic government that we should promote, I’m all ears.

quote:

---

I couldn’t care less about Christianity, here or elsewhere. I don’t believe in it or any other doctrinal theology.

---

I mean, there are a million and one posts about GWB, Falwell, Robertson, Moore, etc., etc. and how awful they are with their extremist Christian beliefs but only the tiniest a fraction of such criticisms of extremist Islamic beliefs.

quote:

---

Why is there a seething hatred on babble of Christian fundamentalism but relative (though not absolute) silence about Islamic fundamentalism?

---

Proximity effect.

Islam will not likely become the dominant religion in Canada or the U.S., and it's unlikely that I'll ever be forced to pray facing Mecca, nor be banned from eating non-halal meat, etc.

On the other hand, there's a very real possibility that the next time I need a prescription filled, my pharmacist will have made a new friend named Jesus that he wants to impress by denying me my medication. Or that my kids will one day be forced to pray to Jesus in school, as I was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
That's funny. You're content to assume that the Islamic culture and religion are inseperable, while Christian culture is easily divorced from the doctrine. Pick one. Trust me, you live in a Christian culture. take a close look at which holidays you celebrate if you don't believe me. You may not believe in Christian doctrine - niether does Salman Rushdie believe in Islamic theology BTW - but you are nevertheless participating in a Christian culture.

---

I don’t disagree that our, Europe’s and your society is based, in part, upon a Christian culture (not entirely, though, as one of the posters above correctly discussed the strong influence of non-Christian Greek culture on western thought, for example). But, it’s a culture that has fostered democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, women’s rights, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Proximity effect.

Islam will not likely become the dominant religion in Canada or the U.S., and it's unlikely that I'll ever be forced to pray facing Mecca, nor be banned from eating non-halal meat, etc.

On the other hand, there's a very real possibility that the next time I need a prescription filled, my pharmacist will have made a new friend named Jesus that he wants to impress by denying me my medication. Or that my kids will one day be forced to pray to Jesus in school, as I was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

With regard to France, there is a blithe, “no biggie” attitude about a France that is likely to become majority Muslim in a few decades.

---

Have you ever been to France? The place is lousy with churches and cathedrals. You can't cross a road without tripping over a calvaire. Although the French are nominally secular, the Church seeps throughout every stratum of their society. This is the home of The Crusades for cryin' out loud! France isn't ever going to become a Muslim theocracy.

quote:

---

Why is it that more of the babblers on this thread are more worried about the dangers of western/Christian “theocracies” than they are about the possibility of Muslim theocracy in France once Muslims become the majority in France?

---

I dunno, because most of our crania aren't cast in a hardened alloy of ignorance and batshit lunacy?

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[France] is the home of The Crusades for cryin' out loud! France isn't ever going to become a Muslim theocracy.

---

quote:

---

Sven wrote: quote:

Why is there a seething hatred on babble of Christian fundamentalism but relative (though not absolute) silence about Islamic fundamentalism?

Magoo wrote:

Proximity effect.

Islam will not likely become the dominant religion in Canada or the U.S., and it's unlikely that I'll ever be forced to pray facing Mecca, nor be banned from eating non-halal meat, etc.

On the other hand, there's a very real possibility that the next time I need a prescription filled, my pharmacist will have made a new friend named Jesus that he wants to impress by denying me my medication. Or that my kids will one day be forced to pray to Jesus in school, as I was.

Ever wonder why we're more concerned with human diseases than with, say, horse diseases? It's because we can catch human diseases. Same idea. If it's more likely to affect you, you're more likely to care.

---

It should also be read into the record that babble routinely plays host to threads decrying, in the strongest of terms, injustices being perpetrated on women, gays, etc in Muslim countries.

And as far as I know, anti-Christian rhetoric is not exempted from the mods' ban on attacking someone's religious beliefs.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

It may not. But, if current demographic trends continue, France will become a Muslim country (by virtue of Muslims representing the majority of the French population in the next several decades).

---

How do you figure?

According to the CIA World fact book, Muslims constitute 5%-10% of France.
http://odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html#People

Looking for a more precise number, I found this page in google.
http://www.utm.edu/staff/globeg/issurank.html
I don’t know anything about the source of this page but it comes from an .edu site and says:

France has the highest Muslim population in Western Europe (7.5-8%)...Islam is France's second largest religion, with over 27 percent of its Muslim population active practitioners of their religion...
Until recently, there has been no apparent unity of Islam in France, because Muslims are divided by class, politics, ethnic origin, socioeconomic status, politics and devotion to practice.

So around 2% of the French population are "active practitioners" of Islam.

As even the Time article points out, the disturbances are about jobs, poverty, racism, youth alienation, etc. It would be like looking at the riots in US black ghettoes in the sixties and worrying about whether America would become a "black country" (higher birthrates and all that) rather than trying to improve the living situation.

quote:

---

It may not. But, if current demographic trends continue, France will become a Muslim country

---

Good golly, then the French will probably become "One nation under Allah" or some other frightening theocratic condition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, back to an earlier question: If you think it’s improper to promote democracy, what would you promote instead?

---

this demographics? :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1595395.stm

or this? :
http://tinyurl.com/7ljuc

or
that France is now expected to bounce from 60 million to 75 million people from now to 2030?
and given the French census does not break down ethnic/racial groups, who is who in these booms?

re Krauthammer (Montreal born, McGill BA '70 & editor McGill Daily):
always a sneer for France, his father was French and he has repeatedly kissed the ground that he was not forced to grow up there;
a real chip on his shoulder in that regard

.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

The only possible way out for France is to undertake the kind of self-reformation that America did in the 1960s, when it finally began welcoming African Americans into mainstream society and spent two generations pursuing that goal.

---

Is it impossible say, for a black person to be elected President of the USA?

I don't think that's true.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]

Why do you reduce it to race vigilante?

Do you really think that ideology is determined by race?

There was, once upon a time, a little country called Rome. Rome was ruled by a man, not the people. This man changed very often, sometimes he was good, sometimes he was bad. But until very late into the Empire he was not only a god, but one of the head priests. In fact, the magistrates were often priests too!

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

Let's not forget Louis the Sun-King. And the Cardinal-Advisors!

How about Charles the Great? He began the tradition that Roman Emperors were to be annointed by the Pope and would become the head of the Frankish Church!

There was also once a thing called the Papal Monarchy! Did you know that it had its toes and fingers in every major nation's political institutions? WOW! I've never seen that many degrees of seperation before!

Sven - I suppose the bullet point of this presentation would mostly be that Seperation of Church and State in Western Europe is a modern myth.

As to France - I don't know what is going to happen. I don't know much about French history from the years 1300-1600. Those 300 years could've had a big swing of political changes and social changes that resonate today. I know NOTHING about post-war France other than that a few of my favourite bands come from it and they get made fun of alot.

I guess what I'm thinking you should take away from this is that I don't know much about modern France, and it would be unjust for me to pass ideas onto that nation.

quote:

---

Do you really think that ideology is determined by race?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Gee, Sven, I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife?

---

Wrong rhetorical tool, Rufus. That was not the structure of my question.

Because you apparently didn't read the prior posts, I'll help you with that:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Of course, all of this is a fancy way of saying "I think Muslims are backward savages, they should all adopt 'democracy", which is shorthand for Christianity with a thin gloss of modernity that has been applied over the past 100 years."

---

To which I responded:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I do agree that everyone should adopt democracy. Why would you argue for an aristocratic, theocratic or some other form of authoritarian government? I’m not saying we impose it, but I am saying we should champion it. If you think there is a better form of non-democratic government that we should promote, I’m all ears.

---

ronb be appeared to be criticizing the promotion of democracy. So, I ask what alternatives would he suggest promoting instead?

I didn't give him a "yes or no" question (like your little "trick") that boxes him into an admission of a misdeed.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blake 3:17:
From Krauthammer's piece:

"Self-reformation"? Clarence Thomas? Oprah Winfrey? More and more Afro-Americans in prison? What a load of tripe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Besides the democratic fetish that I see here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Condoleezza Rice? Colin Powell?

People who are legitimising the practace of white supremacy. What the bloodclot is your point.

---

As long as it doesn't get creepy and demoralizing and involve whips and hoods.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
There was, once upon a time, a little country called Rome. Rome was ruled by a man, not the people. This man changed very often, sometimes he was good, sometimes he was bad. But until very late into the Empire he was not only a god, but one of the head priests. In fact, the magistrates were often priests too!

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

Let's not forget Louis the Sun-King. And the Cardinal-Advisors!

How about Charles the Great? He began the tradition that Roman Emperors were to be annointed by the Pope and would become the head of the Frankish Church!

There was also once a thing called the Papal Monarchy! Did you know that it had its toes and fingers in every major nation's political institutions? WOW! I've never seen that many degrees of seperation before!

Sven - I suppose the bullet point of this presentation would mostly be that Seperation of Church and State in Western Europe is a modern myth.

---

Rome, by all means, was a sham democracy. But what isn't? All nations in Europe bow before the specter of Rome to justify their existence.

Louis the XIV was a catalyst that embedded in France the seeds of revolution as he put forward his laws and edicts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Ummm...No.

It came out of relatively Eastern ideals and pagan Greece (which I honestly can't classify as Western).

---

Wergeld.

As for Sven, it way beyond conservatism for me as I reject the fake right left dichotome. It's a matter of black people realizing that blackness and race was foisted on them by white people(who due to material luck and other things foisted whiteness on themselves. It's a matter of awknowleging the simple reality that white people happen to rule this world, but at the same time utimately working to destroy the idea of race as such.

Oh and your history is still lacking as is painfully being shown to you. Heck I'm reading Guns, Germs, and Steel at the moment. By all means for the sake of your own shoddy intellect, read that book.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

You asked me what I thought were the greatest creations of the Western world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Wiki's take on the history of democracy. It's a lot older than the US is, if you were actually calling the US the oldest democracy, Sven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
{The USA is) the oldest existing democracy.

---

quote:

---

In addition, Iceland is the birthplace of the oldest parliament in the world, founded in AD 930 and called sometimes "the grandmother of parliaments."

---

quote:

---

It's the oldest existing democracy.

---

Some democracy. Most people couldn't vote and a significant portion of them were slaves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:

Some democracy. Most people couldn't vote and a significant portion of them were slaves.

Bravo.

---

Well, at least Canada isn't torturing people in secret prisons.

None has ever been convicted of any criminal offence in Canada. Welcome to Canada's own Guantanamo Bay.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

And, at the time, no one could vote in Canada, or anywhere else, for that matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

I can vote in French elections, can you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
You cannot be seriously comparing Robertson to, say, the clerical leaders of Iran, are you?

---

That's right, Pat "fatwa" Robertson wouldn't sell missiles to ayatollah khomeini at below cost in order to fund the condoms, er, contras in Nicaragua by way of Honduras. Those kinds of under-handed right-wing capers are only carried out by real right-wing nut jobs like Raygun and the Prescott Bush's genetic baggage, Dubya.

quote:

---

Ralph Nadar and Jesse Jackson were “presidential candidates” and “prominent members” of their parties, too, but they are about as likely to get elected president as Pat Robertson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The relevant time period that Hinterland and I were referring to was prior to current times (specifically, we were discussing the democratic rights at the time the USA was created and we had slaves and non-universal sufferage).

---

quote:

---

And, at the time, no one could vote in Canada, or anywhere else, for that matter.

---

quote:

---

Iceland is also known as the home of the oldest democratic republic in the world of today:

---

I believe Switzerland has a claim there too, doesn't it? Not to mention the 6 Nations/Iroqouis Confederacy - the oldest living participatory democracy on Earth - the inspiration for modern French, and thus American, models of democracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

And, at the time, no one could vote in Canada, or anywhere else, for that matter.

---

If I look, on balance, at the models of governance of most Muslim countries I see that in most cases they are in fact only recently formed cartographic fictions created by Western European countries to enrich Western European elites. Most had some form of European-style "Monarch" foisted on them. They are struggling, as are most post-colonial governments, "Islamic" or not, with the bitter aftermath of colonialism.