9 ms·

Like many things I think balance is key. Unless the government is theocratic religious organiztions have no place in it. But individuals (elected or not) should

• gxt 4y ago
  Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation. > The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. > A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people. I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age. We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it. Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.
  • _8j50 4y ago
    > ... and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious. I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives? I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.
• jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  It is not bigotry. It is separation of Church(religion)and State. It is the corner stone of modern democracy and our modern western legal systems. Edited to add: I think France is doubling down on just one religion that is a minority with an violent history in modern France. Sharia law is problematic for the rest of the world. France cannot abide by public floggings or fatwas issues by religious leaders against its own citizenry. I am curious…there are dozens of countries that are Islamic states and republics where the preferred religious aspects of Islam can be practiced including those that are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Shouldn’t they have an open door policy and offer citizenship for all practicing Muslims? They won’t be a minority anymore. Israel does this. India should probably do it too but likely not possible. Islam has already many established Islamic states where Muslims can live without any religious discrimination. Democracy demands separation of Church/Religion and State. Islam is incompatible with democracy but has a right to exist. So the solution is for Islamic countries to unroll the red carpet to welcome any and all practicing Muslims. I remember watching a documentary clip about a Syrian refugee in Sweden who has two wives and multiple children. He was joking about a third wife(I hope he was only joking!) and all the Swedes had a good laugh. It was actually a heart warming moment because it was this western country that recognized and supported each woman as an individual and paid for her and her children even if it didn’t recognize his multiple Islamic marriages. Perhaps that’s why refugees choose Europe over some 53 officially Islamic countries. France being French and not Scandinavian simply takes a dim view of non-conformity. National and linguistic identify is the grand unifier and religion will always take a back seat. They are justifiably proud of the French state. They were brutal in erasing even their own linguistic heritage. Most people in the south of France don’t have a living memory of speaking or knowing their language. Occitan still lives but has no official status in France. If they could sacrifice their own language for being French, why would they accept foreign religious laws? They would very much balk at the idea of being lumped with the rest of the west. The Revolt of 1772 was called the Bloodless Revolt. The French invented The Guillotine. There seems to be a short memory of the history of France. A more modern history has been summed up by Flanders and Swann in “All Gall” : https://youtu.be/RE88qe67TlA https://youtu.be/RE88qe67TlA [..]This old man he played FOUR; Choose de Gaulle or civil war! Come back President, govern by decree! Referendum: Oui! Oui! Oui! This old man he played FIVE, 'France is safe, I'm still alive.′ Plastiques, Pompidou, sing the Marseillaise: ALGERIE N′EST PAS FRANCAISE![..] But ..on a more serious note..going back to the Algerian War: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War [..]In 1834, Algeria became a French military colony. It was declared by the Constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of France and was divided into three departments: Alger, Oran and Constantine. Many French and other Europeans (Spanish, Italians, Maltese and others) later settled in Algeria. Under the Second Empire (1852–1871), the Code de l'indigénat (Indigenous Code) was implemented by the sénatus-consulte of 14 July 1865. It allowed Muslims to apply for full French citizenship, a measure that few took since it involved renouncing the right to be governed by sharia law in personal matters and was widely considered to be apostasy. Its first article stipulated: The indigenous Muslim is French; however, he will continue to be subjected to Muslim law. He may be admitted to serve in the army (armée de terre) and the navy (armée de mer). He may be called to functions and civil employment in Algeria. He may, on his demand, be admitted to enjoy the rights of a French citizen; in this case, he is subjected to the political and civil laws of France.[47] Prior to 1870, fewer than 200 demands were registered by Muslims and 152 by Jewish Algerians.[48] The 1865 decree was then modified by the 1870 Crémieux Decree, which granted French nationality to Jews living in one of the three Algerian departments. In 1881, the Code de l'Indigénat made the discrimination official by creating specific penalties for indigènes and organising the seizure or appropriation of their lands.[48] After World War II, equality of rights was proclaimed by the ordonnance of 7 March 1944 and later confirmed by the loi Lamine Guèye of 7 May 1946, which granted French citizenship to all subjects of France's territories and overseas departments, and by the 1946 Constitution. The Law of 20 September 1947 granted French citizenship to all Algerian subjects, who were not required to renounce their Muslim personal status.[49][dubious – discuss] Algeria was unique to France because unlike all other overseas possessions acquired by France during the 19th century, Algeria was considered and legally classified to be an integral part of France.[..] There is a LOT of history here that you seem to have simply glossed over or perhaps simply unaware. By contrast, the conquerors of religious wars did not grand citizenship. They made them slaves. Democracy isn’t perfect but is worth defending at this point. A monarchy or dictatorship might be preferable to some but people seem to be fleeing them or rejecting them for various and multitude of reasons.
• rayiner 4y ago
  > But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant. Yes, exactly! From the perspective of government, religion is just like any other philosophical system. Why should policies rooted in Christianity—so long as they are otherwise within the limits of government power—be treated differently from policies based on socialism or or secular humanism or libertarianism? You’re correct that French “secularism” isn’t real freedom of religion, but rather makes atheism the state religion and religion into something you shamefully practice at home with the lights off.
  • drpixie 4y ago
    But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Or alternatively, you could expect/require officials to operate for the good of the country/organisation! It's all very well saying "we knew what he stood for when we elected him" but surely it would be better that the rabidly self-serving or corrupt official is held to a higher standard.
    • rayiner 4y ago
      > operate for the good of the country/organisation People, especially people with different value systems, don't agree on what's good for the country.
      • drpixie 4y ago
        Can't disagree with that :) But most people do agree on lots of things as "bad" - corruption, dereliction of duty, ... insurrection! Could we hold everyone to those?
  • tptacek 4y ago
    French Catholics are not shamefully practicing at home with the lights off.