muslims PART 2

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

News flash, BJ; the "majority" are fundamentalist, by the def. we're working with.

I don't think so. I think most people, no matter what their belief systems may be, vote according to real world issues. Quality of life issues. Ideological voters (i.e. the ones that will vote for the "christian" or "conservative" or "liberal" candidate no matter what they say or do) make up a minority. And it is usually a fractured minority all championing different fundamentalist point of views.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think people's beliefs and actions must be judged separately. There are people who dress up as vampires and worship satan, yet are also nice law-abiding citizens. Let's not judge people just by what they believe in.

As long as that person does not actually burn babies alive, they are free to worship as they wish. What's the alternative you would suggest?

What do you mean, alternative?

All right. Is a worldview which holds human life to be of no value, or human rights to be nonexistent, equal than one more in accordance with modern views?

They are indeed free to worship as they wish (within limits). But the fact that they are free to believe what the wish, or worship as they wish, does not mean it is right to do so.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't think so. I think most people, no matter what their belief systems may be, vote according to real world issues. Quality of life issues. Ideological voters (i.e. the ones that will vote for the "christian" or "conservative" or "liberal" candidate no matter what they say or do) make up a minority. And it is usually a fractured minority all championing different fundamentalist point of views.

Perhaps, people vote on quality of life issues (almost without exception, quality of their life), but most people do hold to a literal belief in a religious system. They merely vote in a selfish manner (such as people on welfare voting for supporters of welfare, or rich people voting for those likely to give them tax cuts), as a rule, though. It's not a matter of a secular viewpoint being more important than a religious.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Come across this:

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/idolc...ot-muslim.html

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with most of your post, GreyMouser. I just don't see how it invalidates any of what I said .

Okay, we've drifted kind of far from the original point which was:

I don't think (miracles aside) that there is any realistic possibility of converting enough Muslims in any reasonable amount of time to make any diference in the War on Terror, and I base that on the observation that no large group of any of the major modern religions has been converted to any of the others.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What do you mean, alternative?

All right. Is a worldview which holds human life to be of no value, or human rights to be nonexistent, equal than one more in accordance with modern views?

They are indeed free to worship as they wish (within limits). But the fact that they are free to believe what the wish, or worship as they wish, does not mean it is right to do so.

Which is why we have democracy, and not scripture, to determine what is and is not right.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Perhaps, people vote on quality of life issues (almost without exception, quality of their life), but most people do hold to a literal belief in a religious system. They merely vote in a selfish manner (such as people on welfare voting for supporters of welfare, or rich people voting for those likely to give them tax cuts), as a rule, though. It's not a matter of a secular viewpoint being more important than a religious.

I think there is often a disconnect between what people believe and how they act. You see this in polling all the time. People speak of high morals but in the end vote selfishly as you point out. So while a majority may hold a certain belief system, they only vote according to it in situations where it doesn't really directly effect their life at all (i.e. abortion, gay marriage).

It is very easy to take a moral stance on something which effects you positively or not at all. It's much harder to take one on an issue that may work against you. As such, most people tend to shape their belief systems in ways that reflect the way they feel about real world issues. This is why there are so many different varieties of christians or muslims in the world.

In the end, people may hold all kinds of religious beliefs close to their hearts, but the tend to act very "secular" on the important issues.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Perhaps, people vote on quality of life issues (almost without exception, quality of their life), but most people do hold to a literal belief in a religious system. They merely vote in a selfish manner (such as people on welfare voting for supporters of welfare, or rich people voting for those likely to give them tax cuts), as a rule, though. It's not a matter of a secular viewpoint being more important than a religious.

Should read "most people in America do hold to a literal belief in a religious system" ; other countries, it depends.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Which is why we have democracy, and not scripture, to determine what is and is not right.

So, then, democracy is the standard by which right and wrong are measured?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think there is often a disconnect between what people believe and how they act. You see this in polling all the time. People speak of high morals but in the end vote selfishly as you point out. So while a majority may hold a certain belief system, they only vote according to it in situations where it doesn't really directly effect their life at all (i.e. abortion, gay marriage).

It is very easy to take a moral stance on something which effects you positively or not at all. It's much harder to take one on an issue that may work against you. As such, most people tend to shape their belief systems in ways that reflect the way they feel about real world issues. This is why there are so many different varieties of christians or muslims in the world.

It's unfair to assume that abortion and gay marriage do not affect the lives of those who oppose them at all. First, someone could be homosexual, but opposed to gay marriage. Second, abortion can easily affect the lives of everyone below a certain age.

You're right that it's easy to take a moral stance on something which does not affect you. But to then say that people shape their belief systems i ways that reflect the way they feel about real world issues does not in any way follow.

That's not why there are so many different varieties of Christians or Muslims in the world; but that's a different topic.

In the end, people may hold all kinds of religious beliefs close to their hearts, but the tend to act very "secular" on the important issues.

So then gay marriage and abortion are not "important" issues?

[hectorberlioz]

Democracy isn't morality. It's a system, and often times it doesn't work.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Democracy isn't morality. It's a system, and often times it doesn't work.

Yay! You are a monarchist!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yay! You are a monarchist!

Well, let's just say I would mind me ruling the earth completely...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So, then, democracy is the standard by which right and wrong are measured?

Yep. Which by its very nature will always be fluid. Let individuals make decisions collectively and take the blame collectively when things don't work out in hopes that better solutions will be acheived over time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So then gay marriage and abortion are not "important" issues?

On the realtive scale with things like poverty, hunger, disease, survival, no.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Then, in a non-democratic society, there is no right or wrong? There was no such thing as morality in, say, medieval Germany?

What is your reason for saying that democracy is the standard of right and wrong?

[hectorberlioz]

I think BJenkins, that you mistake common sense and courtesy or anything else collective, for democracy.
Say, in an african tribe back when, laziness is looked down on...democracy because people decided it was bad? or because laziness didn't achieve anything except laziness?

Even just "collective efforts" aren't necessarily "Democracy", though they may be democratic...

Monarchs may well have worked with their chamberleins and viceroys etc...it was collective, but it wasn't democracy...at least not on the scale that the Greeks expositioned.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Then, in a non-democratic society, there is no right or wrong? There was no such thing as morality in, say, medieval Germany?

What is your reason for saying that democracy is the standard of right and wrong?

Right and wrong is determined by the people with the power to enforce it. It's relative to individual societies. And history has shown that what is best for society as a whole is best decided by all the people of that society, as opposed to a small subset of the people via theocracy, monarchy, etc. The most successful societies in today's world are mostly democratic, or moving towards it. Though no society has attained anything near a true democracy yet, if it's even possible.

As I mentioned elsewhere, one could argue that the best form of government is an enlightened monarchy. But even the best monarch dies one day, and there is no way to assure that his successor will be as enlightened.

A similar problem exists via rule by the monarchy of "scripture". It may set down strict guidelines, but since the monarch himself (god) is unavailable for clairification, the clerics of any given faith essentially become the regents of that monarchy and determine interpretation. Once again putting the power of right and wrong in the hands of the few.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Right and wrong is determined by the people with the power to enforce it. It's relative to individual societies.

Then might makes right?

When he killed his friend in a drunken rage, Alexander slaughtered the inhabitants of a city as a sacrifice to the dead man's ghost. Since he had the power to enforce this, was it right?

And history has shown that what is best for society as a whole is best decided by all the people of that society, as opposed to a small subset of the people via theocracy, monarchy, etc. The most successful societies in today's world are mostly democratic, or moving towards it. Though no society has attained anything near a true democracy yet, if it's even possible.

Firstly, I would argue that, but that's a different topic.

Secondly, it seems to run counter to what you said before. If "Right and wrong is determined by the people with the power to enforce it", then how is it possible that "what is best for the society as a whole is best decided" by any one in particular? It seems that, if the one with power determine right or wrong, it does not matter if it is a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy.

As I mentioned elsewhere, one could argue that the best form of government is an enlightened monarchy. But even the best monarch dies one day

I disagree. I don't think the best monarch will ever die.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Then might makes right?

When he killed his friend in a drunken rage, Alexander slaughtered the inhabitants of a city as a sacrifice to the dead man's ghost. Since he had the power to enforce this, was it right?

In his place and time, yes. To you and me, no. Probably to the inhabitants as well.

Might does make right. It always has and always will. What has changed is that over time societies have come to realize that to sustain themselves they have to balance personal desires with those of the people at large.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Secondly, it seems to run counter to what you said before. If "Right and wrong is determined by the people with the power to enforce it", then how is it possible that "what is best for the society as a whole is best decided" by any one in particular? It seems that, if the one with power determine right or wrong, it does not matter if it is a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy.

You leave out the factor of history and cultural evolution. When I say "best", I mean most successful, and I'd say democracy has supplanted most monarchies over time and will continue to.

Simply put: The more people with a voice as to the morality of a given society, the more equitable the morality becomes. This leads to a generally peaceful populace, which is good for everyone, even those who hold the power.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I disagree. I don't think the best monarch will ever die.

If you mean god, it still doesn't change the fact that he is not actively-involved in helping direct his creation on a day to day, year to year, or even generation to generation basis. So the monarchy passes to those who interpret his words.

And an absent monarch that hasn't written in 2000 years leaves a lot to interpretation.