[wilberhum]

I’m seeing a lot of slamming of secular governments. So I was just wondering
Who wants to live in a country where the laws are based on a specific religion?

 

[Fishman]

If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

I would like to live in an Islamic theocracy, but failing that a secular state.

 

[Trumble]

I believe one of the most essential human rights is the freedom to believe in, and practice, the religion of your choice. A theocracy cannot be compatible with that (it must always go deeper than just "laws"), and hence a big "NO!!" from me.

 

[MusLiM 4 LiFe]

i'd love 2 liv in an islamic country! it would be like a dream come true, but then again as bro fish sed, i wud leave da country if it became a Christian country but i doubt thatl eva happen or itl be ages til it will happen bcuz britain iz multicultured and aint 2 bothered abt turnin britain in2 a Christian country (or whatever religion) tho it wud b wikid if britain became a islamic country

 

[wilberhum]

I have always been appalled at the thought of living in a theocracy.

To me it only makes sense that if you don’t belong to the state religion; you are at a serious disadvantage. I have no desire to be disadvantaged and have no desire to disadvantage my friends and neighbors. So, “no theocracy for me”.

On many occasions I have seen people state how wonderful it is for the unbeliever under there system, but that conclusion seams to be only reached by the believers. From what I have read the unbelievers tell a different story. There surly are documented cases where the government that people lived under was so suppressive that they preferred to be an unbeliever in a theocracy. That is hardly an inspiration to me. Daily people risk there lives to cross from North Korea to South Korea. Is that because South Korea is so wonderful? I hardly think so. It is because North Korea is so bad. I make the same correlation with those that preferred to be an unbeliever under a government that had a state sanction religion.

I also see it as a disservice to provide social/economic advantages to people who will change, at least superficially, there religious affiliation.

Diversity within a governed group surreally has problems because of the diversity. But I think that disadvantage is greatly outweighed by the advantages of diversity.

The poll is still quite young, only 11 votes, including me. No one has picked the option of living under a state religion that is not there’s. In fact two of the three that posed there thoughts, said that if the government they are under became a theocracy that was not based on there religion, they would leave. That surly gives support to my conclusion that a theocracy is only good for the believers in the state religion.

If my government would declare a state religion, I too would move.

For the prosperity of all and with it’s many problems,
I only want to live under a secular government

 

[Keltoi]

I voted a resounding NO as well. A secular society is the best way to have people of different faiths living together. There will be confrontations over law and the like, but as a Christian I can honestly say that I would prefer to live in a country where a non-believer can say and do what he pleases within the law than a theocracy.

 

[Ghazi]

I'm Leaving the UK ASAP just need to sort a few things like a job ect.

 

[Ubaidah]

I love living in a country with religious freedom, and where the LAWS aren't based on any religion. Some politicians might be driven by religious motives, but that's another story. I love the whole "melting pot" idea that we have here in America. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Hawa]

I think the idea is a bit daunting because we're used to living in a secular environment. Living in a theocracy may have plenty of advantages regarding legislation. If indeed the state religion stuck to the main principles of most religions today then it wouldn't be a problem for any of its citizens, regardless of their religion....or lack thereof.
Islam, for example, permits Religious liberty; There is no compulsion in religion...(Quran 2:256). In the early Islamic state jews lived in harmony with muslims. The Prophet (s.a.w.) signed truces with them so that he could build the state, spread the faith and make it firm inside for his followers. Their share in the constitution, which he made for the state, was considerable. If a state took into account the religious beliefs of the minority then I think it would prosper as a country under the guidelines of Divine Law.

 

[S_87]

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

 

[Nawal89]

i would love to live in an islamic state.

true peace true rights true safety.

i totally agree

 

[Woodrow]

I also would want to live in a theocracy, provided it is of my religious belief.

However, wants and reality are not always the same. With that said living in a secular state is a workable alternative.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I believe one of the most essential human rights is the freedom to believe in, and practice, the religion of your choice. A theocracy cannot be compatible with that (it must always go deeper than just "laws"), and hence a big "NO!!" from me.

Well then I got good news for you:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur'an
2:256)

So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?

 

[Trumble]

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur'an
2:256)

What is the context of that? From "Truth stands" onwards it rather implies acceptance of Judeo-Christians, but that wouldn't do me a lot of good!

So if there were a truly Islamic state that respected all rules including this one, then you'd have no problem with it right?

Subject to the above, no. The question is, though, whether what you call a "truly Islamic state" in that sense could operate in practice. I'm afraid the Taliban have rather demonstrated that that is unlikely.

 

[wilberhum]

and believes in Allah

So none of it applies to a non-muslim.

 

[snakelegs]

No! No! and No!
in a pluralistic country especially, secularism is essential.

 

[Joe98]

I'm Leaving the UK ASAP just need to sort a few things like a job ect.

Perhaps go to a place where you can afford a Lamborghini :happy:

 

[therebbe]

If the UK became a 'Christian country' I would except their right to do that, and simply leave.

Would the majority of people do what you would do? Absolutely not. Would the majority of Muslims scream bloody murder because the UK became "Christian", for sure.

true peace true rights true safety.

Please elaborate on true rights... what kind of 'rights' would you have? The ones your religion dictates?

 

[ripsnort]

I also would want to live in a theocracy, provided it is of my religious belief.

However, wants and reality are not always the same. With that said living in a secular state is a workable alternative.

Iran 'fits your bill'. Seems like a nice place to live.:giggling:

 

[Keltoi]

Iran 'fits your bill'. Seems like a nice place to live.:giggling:

I assume what Woodrow was talking about is a true Islamic state, which for a Muslim, would be the best situation for him. I doubt Woodrow believes Iran fits that criteria.