FOR NON-MUSLIMS: What policy?

[Fishman]

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[KAding]

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.

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 .

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.

 

[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

You're a Muslimah, so no.

 

[Kittygyal]

You're a Muslimah, so no.

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

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.

 

[Kittygyal]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

 

[Trumble]

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

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.

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