FOR NON-MUSLIMS: What policy?

[Fishman]

:sl:
THIS POLL IS FOR NON-MUSLIMS ONLY!!!
In a realistic world, what would you think the ideal policy towards religious minorities should be?
:w:

[snakelegs]

i'm not sure i understand your choices.
how is "multi faith" different from "secular"?
also, i don't know how the version of secularism in denmark, holland and france is different from the one in u.s.

[Fishman]

i'm not sure i understand your choices.
how is "multi faith" different from "secular"?
also, i don't know how the version of secularism in denmark, holland and france is different from the one in u.s.

:sl:
Multi-faith: Everybody has the right to practice their religion fully, in private and in public, as long as they don't hurt other people. All cultures are respected and allowed, as long as nobody is hurt. All religions are given high status.

Secular (as in Denmark): Everyone may practice their religion in private, but they may not show any faith in public. Everybody must assimilate into the culture of the host country. No religion (except possibly atheism) is given high status.

The US system is like the UK system, except that the Church is separated from the state, and thus the country is more secular.
:w:

[KAding]

I also have some trouble understanding the difference between "multifaith", "light secular" and "secular". I mean, the UK might be multifaith, but I thought it was also one of the only industrialized countries that actually has an official state religion, namely Anglicanism.

Nor am I sure how for example the US approach to religious minorities is different from that of, say, the Netherlands.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[KAding]

:sl:
Multi-faith: Everybody has the right to practice their religion fully, in private and in public, as long as they don't hurt other people. All cultures are respected and allowed, as long as nobody is hurt. All religions are given high status.

Secular (as in Denmark): Everyone may practice their religion in private, but they may not show any faith in public. Everybody must assimilate into the culture of the host country. No religion (except possibly atheism) is given high status.

The US system is like the UK system, except that the Church is separated from the state, and thus the country is more secular.
:w:

I don't think your view on 'secular' is right. In both Denmark and the Netherlands people most certainly may show their faith in public. Nevertheless, I'll vote according to your view on those concepts :).

[Fishman]

I don't think your view on 'secular' is right. In both Denmark and the Netherlands people most certainly may show their faith in public. Nevertheless, I'll vote according to your view on those concepts :).

:sl:
In France hijab is banned because it is an expression of religious views, along with the cross, turban and Yarmuke. Things have definately gone that way in other European countries too.
:w:

[Kittygyal]

Assalamualikum warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

do i answer? :X

walikumassalam warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

[Trumble]

Multi-faith, although I agree with the others that the distinctions are vague, and that in the real-world they are rather less distinct.

I believe people should have the personal freedom to follow and faith they wish, providing it does not hurt others. Really, most of the options would allow that except for theocracy, where one religion is effectively enforced at the expense of others (although I guess you could come up with a multi-faith theocracy?) Secularism is a difficult one, as it is perfectly possible to have a secular society that does not restrict religious freedom in any way; indeed in the case of "multi-faith" I would argue some form of secular civil society was essential to allow it to function. I don't think those countries are particularly good examples, something like the former USSR better demonstrates secularism as a form that would damage religious interests. Restrictions on displaying religious symbols etc are, I think, relatively minor when compared to actively suppressing a whole religion.

[Fishman]

Assalamualikum warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

do i answer? :X

walikumassalam warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

:sl:
You're a Muslimah, so no.
:w:

[Kittygyal]

:sl:
You're a Muslimah, so no.
:w:

Assalamualikum warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

but but.... am a revert so i'll give it a go okay no am out of here if you want me to :hiding:

walikumassalam warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

[Fishman]

Assalamualikum warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

but but.... am a revert so i'll give it a go okay no am out of here if you want me to :hiding:

walikumassalam warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

:sl:
I am also a revert. We know that most Muslims would prefer a Muslim country to be an Islamic state, so there is no point in a poll for Muslims.
:w:

[Kittygyal]

:sl:
I am also a revert. We know that most Muslims would prefer a Muslim country to be an Islamic state, so there is no point in a poll for Muslims.
:w:

Assalamualikum warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

i disagree with that i say USA (thats my country)

walikumassalam warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu

[Keltoi]

I don't necessarily agree with the choices given, but I chose the "light-secular" form. All recognized religions are allowed to worship freely in the U.S., without the government propping one religion up over others. I can't think of a better scenario.

[snakelegs]

thanks for the clarification. give me "light" secular please.
i think it is the best system for a diverse population. one of the things that disturbs me is that in recent years the separation of church and state in the u.s., tho never perfect, is being steadily chipped away.

[KAding]

:sl:
In France hibab is banned because it is an expression of religious views, along with the cross, turban and Yarmuke. Things have definately gone that way in other European countries too.
:w:

The hijab is not banned in France, let alone any other European country. They are merely banned in France in schools. Meaning that they believe places of education should be free of religious symbols.

But nevertheless, you are right that France is more secular than the UK or US. I am not sure if the same really applies to other continental European countries though. If there are differences, they are really quite minor.

[KAding]

:sl:
I am also a revert. We know that most Muslims would prefer a Muslim country to be an Islamic state, so there is no point in a poll for Muslims.
:w:

What are you basing that on? How many Islamic States are there on this planet? How many countries are there with Muslim majorities? Clearly, not all Muslims want an Islamic state.

[justahumane]

:sl:
THIS POLL IS FOR NON-MUSLIMS ONLY!!!
In a realistic world, what would you think the ideal policy towards religious minorities should be?
:w:

Okay, but what made U think that Islamic governments of Saudi Arabia and Afganistan were Theocracies?

[Fishman]

What are you basing that on? How many Islamic States are there on this planet? How many countries are there with Muslim majorities? Clearly, not all Muslims want an Islamic state.

:sl:
Prehaps it would have been better to say that most Muslims here would prefer an Islamic state.

Okay, but what made U think that Islamic governments of Saudi Arabia and Afganistan were Theocracies?

They are/were based on religious laws. whether they follow the true Islamic laws is a different matter.

I would also put communism under theocracy, because it claims that one religion (atheism) is better than the others.
:w:

[Trumble]

I would also put communism under theocracy, because it claims that one religion (atheism) is better than the others.
:w:

Atheism is not a religion, it is a rejection of religion, or at least of any form of religion involving God or gods. Even if you wanted to play with the definitions of 'atheism' and 'religion' it still makes no sense to speak of an atheist regime as a theocracy, as 'theocracy' implies not only that the leaders are follows of the 'religion' concerned but that they also rule as representatives of, and enforce the laws/rules of, the deity. Atheism has no such rules or deities, only an absence of them.

[Fishman]

Atheism is not a religion, it is a rejection of religion, or at least of any form of religion involving God or gods. Even if you wanted to play with the definitions of 'atheism' and 'religion' it still makes no sense to speak of an atheist regime as a theocracy, as 'theocracy' implies not only that the leaders are follows of the 'religion' concerned but that they also rule as representatives of, and enforce the laws/rules of, the deity. Atheism has no such rules or deities, only an absence of them.

:sl:
Atheism is a religion. Athiests have no proof that there is no God. They reject God through at least as much faith as Believers.
:w:

[Trumble]

:sl:
Atheism is a religion. Athiests have no proof that there is no God. They reject God through at least as much faith as Believers.
:w:

You can have faith, without 'proof', in many things... that doesn't mean they are all religions!

[The Ruler]

that doesn't mean they are all religions!

they are...and you know why??...because they all preach it :D

:w:

[justahumane]

Posted by Fishman
They are/were based on religious laws. whether they follow the true Islamic laws is a different matter.

Okay, will U like to live under a theocratic state?

[Fishman]

Okay, will U like to live under a theocratic state?

:sl:
An Islamic state is a theocracy, so yes.
:w:

[snakelegs]

to those muslims who would like to live under shar'iah -
altho the shariah may be a perfect system - you do realize that it would be interpreted and carried out by human beings, whose interests are often less than holy?

[Fishman]

to those muslims who would like to live under shar'iah -
altho the shariah may be a perfect system - you do realize that it would be interpreted and carried out by human beings, whose interests are often less than holy?

:sl:
There will be no true Islamic state until the Madhi comes. His interests will be completely holy, and after the events that accompany the coming of the Mahdi take place, nobody would dare take power for themselves instead of for the sake of Allaah (swt).
:w:

[wilberhum]

I picked “Secular Light” but really what I want is “Secular Heavy”.
I want total separation of church and state.
The poll I took “Who wants to live in a Theocracy”, no non-Muslim wanted a theocracy.
I want equality. I don’t want special privileges given out because of one’s religion and I don’t want laws that give any special/different privileges to any group.

[snakelegs]

:sl:
There will be no true Islamic state until the Madhi comes. His interests will be completely holy, and after the events that accompany the coming of the Mahdi take place, nobody would dare take power for themselves instead of for the sake of Allaah (swt).
:w:

are you saying that no muslim state should attempt to define itself as "islamic republic of", etc? so when muslims are saying how much they would love to live under shari'ah, they mean when the mahdi comes? do you think a muslim state should attempt it in the meanwhile, or wait for the mahdi?
i was thinking of the blasphemy laws for example. it is a simple matter for a corrupt person to claim that somebody said something blasphemous about the prophet, for example, pay a couple of witnesses, and get the person packed off to rot in prision for revenge or other less than pure motives.

[Fishman]

do you think a muslim state should attempt it in the meanwhile, or wait for the mahdi?

:sl:
Oh yes, an attempt to make such a state should certainly be made. It would definitely fail somehow, but Allaah (swt) doesn't help those who don't try to help themselves.
:w:

[snakelegs]

:sl:
There will be no true Islamic state until the Madhi comes. His interests will be completely holy, and after the events that accompany the coming of the Mahdi take place, nobody would dare take power for themselves instead of for the sake of Allaah (swt).
:w:

do you find the concept of death for blasphemy and death for deliberately neglecting your prayers acceptable?

[north_malaysian]

Malaysia - light theocracy?

You're making the Islamists laughing... But I think that ... yeah ... why not calling Malaysia a 'light-theocracy' country.:okay:

If you read the history... Malaysia was INTENDED to be a Secular country... just look at our flag (you can see which country WAS our inspiration).

Islamisation started in 1980s....

[MTAFFI]

light secular

[Fishman]

Malaysia - light theocracy?

You're making the Islamists laughing... But I think that ... yeah ... why not calling Malaysia a 'light-theocracy' country.:okay:

If you read the history... Malaysia was INTENDED to be a Secular country... just look at our flag (you can see which country WAS our inspiration).

Islamisation started in 1980s....

:sl:
I know malaysia was intended to be a secular country, and about the US flag thing. But the good thing is that Malaysia has been Islamised without a war, through the choice of the people. I view Malaysia as one of the best Muslim countries in the world. It implements Islamic rules and laws (but unfortunately not all of them), without turning into Taliban-like extremism. It is also a country of the people, where the rich and the poor are relatively close together in wealth, as opposed to some of the gulf states (UAE in particular), which are comprised by a tiny upper class of rich capitalist oilmen, and a huge underclass of poor construction workers.
:w:

[limitless]

:sl:

I don't see Canada; which should be. Canada has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in constitution. Hence, every muslim is protected by that, free to practise it's belief, religion, and conscience without being discriminated or baised. Also, Equality Rights as well. Now that's a system that should be world wide! Which is better than Britain, USA no offense.

:w:

[north_malaysian]

:sl:
I know malaysia was intended to be a secular country

That's one of a condition the British gave in order to set us free without spilling any blood.

and about the US flag thing.

Luckily the government didnt change our flag, which might be inspired by Japanese flag when they started 'Looking East Policy' in 1980s.

But the good thing is that Malaysia has been Islamised without a war, through the choice of the people. I view Malaysia as one of the best Muslim countries in the world. It implements Islamic rules and laws (but unfortunately not all of them), without turning into Taliban-like extremism.

I could agree with this point.

..as opposed to some of the gulf states (UAE in particular), which are comprised by a tiny upper class of rich capitalist oilmen, and a huge underclass of poor construction workers.

Actually, Malaysia IS GOING TO BE like that, many of us treat the 3 millions immigrants like dirts....:cry:

Anti-immigrant statements exist everywhere.. in the media, comic books, etc.

[GARY]

I don't believe religious minorities should be tolerated to exist in any country.
If it is a christian country then you should be christian, be quiet, or leave.
If it is a muslim country then you should be muslim, be quiet, or leave.

Then you would not have the problems associated with multi-religious societies. Britain for example could state that if you immigrate to Britain, only christian faith will be tolerated. Saudi could say only Islam will be tolerated (they kind of already say that though).

[Muezzin]

I don't believe religious minorities should be tolerated to exist in any country.
If it is a christian country then you should be christian, be quiet, or leave.
If it is a muslim country then you should be muslim, be quiet, or leave.

Then you would not have the problems associated with multi-religious societies. Britain for example could state that if you immigrate to Britain, only christian faith will be tolerated. Saudi could say only Islam will be tolerated (they kind of already say that though).

Question: were you drunk when you wrote this?

[GARY]

Question: were you drunk when you wrote this?

No, I had a few, but I wasn't even close to drunk.

[thirdwatch512]

i would prefer a secular government, with no religion in it at all, and where religion doesn't influence decision.

although i am a devout christian, i disagree with imposing morals on everyone, christian or non chrisitan. i am a christian, and yes, i should follow the Bible and the rules.. but i shouldn't impose it on everyone else. people should be able to live their lives how they want, and not be told what to do because of religion. now if they choose to be told what to do because of their religion, then they can do what their religion says.. but don't make everyone else do so!

[Muezzin]

No, I had a few, but I wasn't even close to drunk.

Okay. It just seemed a bit... well, extreme. Needless to say, I disagree with that post. Tolerance in all its forms is a great boon to society.

[GARY]

Okay. It just seemed a bit... well, extreme. Needless to say, I disagree with that post. Tolerance in all its forms is a great boon to society.

I agree that tolerance is a great thing. I also think that no matter what system is in place, as long as different cultures and religions are mixed, there will be major problems. No system works perfectly. Just some better than others. The system I mentioned won't work all that well either, just better than the others (in my opinion). As long as people are free to move to where they can enjoy there own beliefs, over time they will do that. Things would get better.
It is only an opinion.

[Gator]

Voted light secular (based on your definitions given you your post, though I may slightly disagree with them).

You are allowed to worship whatever you are and ideally no religion is given favoritism or support by the govt.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I voted for 'secular' before reading the rather confusing definitions given by the OP.

A 'secular' society as I understand it is closer to the definition given under 'multi-faith' rather than the one given under 'secular'. And Britain doesn't count as an example of what is described as 'multi-faith', since Anglicanism is the official religion of the UK.

Whew! How confusing was that?

Essentially, I believe the government should ignore religion totally unless or until it starts causing hostility to develop between people (which, let's face it, it has done for centuries).

In an ideal world, a person's religion would matter to another person no more than their star sign or their favourite vegetable.

[wilberhum]

I didn't vote. The question confused me.

But I don't want any mix of religion and state.

[MaiCarInMtl]

The issue of "reasonable accomodation" was a huge topic here in Quebec (Canada) last summer. I was more than sickened by what people said and thought.

On this issue, I am a major hippy: live and let live! We all come from different places, with different views on religion, different concepts of culture and roles. I think we should embrace our differences as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Go ahead, wear a hijab, turban, wig, saree, big gold chains in combination with a button-down shirt, baggy pants, bandana, baseball cap, nun outfit, etc etc etc. As long as you respect everyone else's right to practice their religion as they so wish, then I see no problem.

I do realize this is a eutopian way of seing things, but I can still dream and try to set a good example.