Islam the religion of peace?

Imaginos1892 wrote:

dscott8 wrote:Worst of all, throughout history they have called time and again for "holy wars", littering history with piles of corpses who didn't believe in the "right" god.

Or those who did believe in the 'right' god, but disagreed about what he wanted.
-----------------
It takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make war.

A distinction without a difference. During the Thirty Years' War (see 1632 Series) both Catholics and Protestants believed in the Galiliean carpenter's son. The major difference in detail was that Catholics believe that the Church was the one true intermediary between their god and the people, while Protestants believed that individuals could find a direct personal relationship with their god, and their churches were there to coach them.

This difference should have been debated peacefully by theologians, but was instead used as an excuse for political and territorial ambitions. And blood watered the fields of Europe.

WeirdlyWired wrote: <internal quotes snipped, see above>

Religion, government, and economic system are the supposed three pillars of society. What we have here is the collision of two intolerant societies having two intolerant religions. Buddhism and Hinduism are two "tolerant religions" whose societies fight back when threatened.

Google "pillars of society" and you will find anywhere from three to seven, depending on whose opinion you read and which axes that person has to grind. If I had to pick them, I'd go for:

1. Respect for individuals and their rights. This is where "tolerance" comes in, see below.

2. Education for all, to the limits of their ability and curiosity.

3. Responsibility of every member of society to help make it work.

4. Government that is responsible and accountable to the people.

5. Free trade, with protections against unfair practices.

Tolerance is one of those admirable ideals that is difficult to implement. Since we're talking about religion, let's look at the supposedly "tolerant" USA. The Framers (and that word is important) of the Constitution were brilliant people trying to design a workable nation "with liberty and justice for all". As Framers, they built a FRAMEWORK for that society that laid out some basic rules and limits, and expressed a principle that it was the people's responsibility to work together and make it function. Sure, they had some blind spots. As products of their times, they did not see women and minorities as full partners in that effort, but the FRAMEWORK they built allowed the conscience of the people to move in that direction.

It took us time to see the wrongs in society and act to alleviate them. Some folks lagged behind, resisting the abolishment of slavery or women's suffrage or disability accommodation or LGBT equal rights. Tolerance can be mandated by law, but as Bruce Hornsby sang, "the law don't change another's mind when all he see at the hiring time is the line or the color bar". I believe that this is where our society has not done enough. We've relied mostly on our adversarial legal process to implement tolerance, forcing it on people who resent it. Not enough has been done to educate people about those unlike themselves, to deconstruct negative stereotypes. Different demographic groups don't really know each other, and fear of the unknown is common. Tolerance is tough when all you know about "those people" is what you've heard from people pushing an agenda.

Another problem is defining the limits of tolerance. We may feel that we should tolerate other people's religious beliefs and practices, but sometimes those practices conflict with the law. US law forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy -- was that justified? In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court established a difference in law between religious beliefs and practices; while it could not regulate beliefs, it could regulate practices to the extent of ensuring that the actions were lawful. A later decision (Sherbert vs. Verner) refined the position to require of the government a "compelling interest" for regulating religious practices.

So, we have a legal principle that you may practice your religion as you will, UNLESS the practices (not the beliefs) violate the law. This legal enforcement of tolerance does little to persuade people to tolerance. If your religion requires you to wear a niqab, that's your right. But if you want a driver's license, you may have to reveal your face because there is a compelling public interest in the use of photo identification.

These legalities do nothing to alleviate individuals' prejudices against persons in religiously mandated garb. False rumors have been spread that "Islamic terrorists" had won a lawsuit to force states to issue driver's licenses to Muslim women with their faces concealed. The internet being what it is, thousands of people who never examine their own prejudices passed this on as truth, feeding the public panic.

To sum up, protections are in place to prevent abusive religious practices, but intolerance will continue until we put some effort into understanding other people.

dscott8 wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote: <internal quotes snipped, see above>

Religion, government, and economic system are the supposed three pillars of society. What we have here is the collision of two intolerant societies having two intolerant religions. Buddhism and Hinduism are two "tolerant religions" whose societies fight back when threatened.

Google "pillars of society" and you will find anywhere from three to seven, depending on whose opinion you read and which axes that person has to grind. If I had to pick them, I'd go for:

1. Respect for individuals and their rights. This is where "tolerance" comes in, see below.

2. Education for all, to the limits of their ability and curiosity.

3. Responsibility of every member of society to help make it work.

4. Government that is responsible and accountable to the people.

5. Free trade, with protections against unfair practices.

Tolerance is one of those admirable ideals that is difficult to implement. Since we're talking about religion, let's look at the supposedly "tolerant" USA. The Framers (and that word is important) of the Constitution were brilliant people trying to design a workable nation "with liberty and justice for all". As Framers, they built a FRAMEWORK for that society that laid out some basic rules and limits, and expressed a principle that it was the people's responsibility to work together and make it function. Sure, they had some blind spots. As products of their times, they did not see women and minorities as full partners in that effort, but the FRAMEWORK they built allowed the conscience of the people to move in that direction.

It took us time to see the wrongs in society and act to alleviate them. Some folks lagged behind, resisting the abolishment of slavery or women's suffrage or disability accommodation or LGBT equal rights. Tolerance can be mandated by law, but as Bruce Hornsby sang, "the law don't change another's mind when all he see at the hiring time is the line or the color bar". I believe that this is where our society has not done enough. We've relied mostly on our adversarial legal process to implement tolerance, forcing it on people who resent it. Not enough has been done to educate people about those unlike themselves, to deconstruct negative stereotypes. Different demographic groups don't really know each other, and fear of the unknown is common. Tolerance is tough when all you know about "those people" is what you've heard from people pushing an agenda.

Another problem is defining the limits of tolerance. We may feel that we should tolerate other people's religious beliefs and practices, but sometimes those practices conflict with the law. US law forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy -- was that justified? In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court established a difference in law between religious beliefs and practices; while it could not regulate beliefs, it could regulate practices to the extent of ensuring that the actions were lawful. A later decision (Sherbert vs. Verner) refined the position to require of the government a "compelling interest" for regulating religious practices.

So, we have a legal principle that you may practice your religion as you will, UNLESS the practices (not the beliefs) violate the law. This legal enforcement of tolerance does little to persuade people to tolerance. If your religion requires you to wear a niqab, that's your right. But if you want a driver's license, you may have to reveal your face because there is a compelling public interest in the use of photo identification.

These legalities do nothing to alleviate individuals' prejudices against persons in religiously mandated garb. False rumors have been spread that "Islamic terrorists" had won a lawsuit to force states to issue driver's licenses to Muslim women with their faces concealed. The internet being what it is, thousands of people who never examine their own prejudices passed this on as truth, feeding the public panic.

To sum up, protections are in place to prevent abusive religious practices, but intolerance will continue until we put some effort into understanding other people.

Sorry, a couple of after I graduated University, TI came out with the first pocket calculators. Imagine having to slog around campus with a slide rule. Things were simpler then, we were taught 3 pillars. The Free Press self-proclaimed itself the 4th pillar.

We have been becoming more intolerant and more polarized. We have lost rudimentary civility and polite behavior. I find nothing in your post that I disagree with. Well, maybe your choices of pillars, and the fact that there can be many. More a function of my education than any real issue.

But about the Constitution: framers and framework...

Is the constitution an architectural blueprint that shall not be changed without approval, or is it more a building code: 3 main rooms plus as many smaller ones as wish to join, but what size, shape color etc left totally up to the buyer?

WeirdlyWired wrote:<internal quotes snipped, see above>


But about the Constitution: framers and framework...

Is the constitution an architectural blueprint that shall not be changed without approval, or is it more a building code: 3 main rooms plus as many smaller ones as wish to join, but what size, shape color etc left totally up to the buyer?

It's more than that. To stay with your builder's analogy, I believe it is a toolbox for building a workable republic. The Framers were educated and thoughtful men, products of the Enlightenment. They knew that times change, and that America would have to adapt to the changes. They also knew that agents of change can sometimes go to extremes. What they gave us was a basic set of rules (rights, duties and limits), a system of checks and balances, and a controlled process for change.

The "buyers" in your analogy are the voters. They hire the builders (elected representatives) who use the toolbox to build a government within the "building code" you mentioned. Houses need maintenance and upgrades from time to time, and the code is either interpreted or changed to accommodate them.

Take the right of free speech from the 1st Amendment as an example. The Framers could not have imagined the Internet, but they knew that people would always have opinions, and would find ways to express them. The recent denial of service attacks on Twitter and other sites are, constitutionally, a violation of the right to free speech. The genius of the Constitution is that it sticks to basic principles and lets future generations settle the details within the framework. Over time, those future generations will have changing opinions, and the Constitution allows for the will of the people to guide the nation.

The Framers knew that their descendants would face new issues, and I believe that they hoped for a society that would manage change in a peaceful and orderly manner. I think that was their true intent; having come through a bloody revolution, they wanted to make bloody revolutions obsolete.

dscott8 wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote:<internal quotes snipped, see above>


But about the Constitution: framers and framework...

Is the constitution an architectural blueprint that shall not be changed without approval, or is it more a building code: 3 main rooms plus as many smaller ones as wish to join, but what size, shape color etc left totally up to the buyer?

It's more than that. To stay with your builder's analogy, I believe it is a toolbox for building a workable republic. The Framers were educated and thoughtful men, products of the Enlightenment. They knew that times change, and that America would have to adapt to the changes. They also knew that agents of change can sometimes go to extremes. What they gave us was a basic set of rules (rights, duties and limits), a system of checks and balances, and a controlled process for change.

The "buyers" in your analogy are the voters. They hire the builders (elected representatives) who use the toolbox to build a government within the "building code" you mentioned. Houses need maintenance and upgrades from time to time, and the code is either interpreted or changed to accommodate them.

Take the right of free speech from the 1st Amendment as an example. The Framers could not have imagined the Internet, but they knew that people would always have opinions, and would find ways to express them. The recent denial of service attacks on Twitter and other sites are, constitutionally, a violation of the right to free speech. The genius of the Constitution is that it sticks to basic principles and lets future generations settle the details within the framework. Over time, those future generations will have changing opinions, and the Constitution allows for the will of the people to guide the nation.

The Framers knew that their descendants would face new issues, and I believe that they hoped for a society that would manage change in a peaceful and orderly manner. I think that was their true intent; having come through a bloody revolution, they wanted to make bloody revolutions obsolete.

There are those today who are ignoring the controls for change, and mandating the changes they happen to prefer.

At present, we seem to have too many who want a bloody revolution. In their own favor, of course

DDHv wrote:There are those today who are ignoring the controls for change, and mandating the changes they happen to prefer.

At present, we seem to have too many who want a bloody revolution. In their own favor, of course

No argument there. We have replaced civil, reasoned discussion with bludgeoning by lawsuits, echo-chamber politics, spin doctoring, and social media pile-ons full of vicious and unfounded memes.

I blame marketing. Techniques developed in the business world to bamboozle consumers have been adopted by politics. We're no longer given a choice between candidates committed to well thought out policies. Instead, we have to choose between the packaged images of special-interest puppets. They use emotional issues and commercially developed publicity tactics to fire up a populace that's been trained not to think too deeply, but when the elections are over, they all get together in back rooms and cut deals for the mega-donors who hedge their bets by contributing money to both parties.

I also agree dscott8.
We too are susceptible to the same manipulation. I'd like to think that Australians are a little less overall than Americans, in that we are a skeptical and cynical lot, who pride ourselves in having bull shit detectors.
When senior in management I joined in a movement where we had lists of forbidden buzz phrases or words, that couldn't be used in meetings. You couldn't downsize a workforce, you had to say sack people, others were - moving forward - giving carriage to - incentivising - and lots more.
Our current PM is a successful businessman who's popularity polls have plummeted to 29% because he tries to use this phraseology when addressing the public.

dscott8 wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote:<internal quotes snipped, see above>


But about the Constitution: framers and framework...

Is the constitution an architectural blueprint that shall not be changed without approval, or is it more a building code: 3 main rooms plus as many smaller ones as wish to join, but what size, shape color etc left totally up to the buyer?

It's more than that. To stay with your builder's analogy, I believe it is a toolbox for building a workable republic. The Framers were educated and thoughtful men, products of the Enlightenment. They knew that times change, and that America would have to adapt to the changes. They also knew that agents of change can sometimes go to extremes. What they gave us was a basic set of rules (rights, duties and limits), a system of checks and balances, and a controlled process for change.

The "buyers" in your analogy are the voters. They hire the builders (elected representatives) who use the toolbox to build a government within the "building code" you mentioned. Houses need maintenance and upgrades from time to time, and the code is either interpreted or changed to accommodate them.

Take the right of free speech from the 1st Amendment as an example. The Framers could not have imagined the Internet, but they knew that people would always have opinions, and would find ways to express them. The recent denial of service attacks on Twitter and other sites are, constitutionally, a violation of the right to free speech. The genius of the Constitution is that it sticks to basic principles and lets future generations settle the details within the framework. Over time, those future generations will have changing opinions, and the Constitution allows for the will of the people to guide the nation.

The Framers knew that their descendants would face new issues, and I believe that they hoped for a society that would manage change in a peaceful and orderly manner. I think that was their true intent; having come through a bloody revolution, they wanted to make bloody revolutions obsolete.

So... I take it you are NOT one of the "hew-to-the-original-text" interpretation supporters. Actually I do not disagree with your analysis. I would only point out that "The Framers" in general, and Jefferson in particular, did not want a listing of rights. They felt a complete listing of all the rights they enjoyed as [former] British Subjects, and took with them to the New World, would be too lengthy and be sure to miss some important ones. They imagined some Strict constitutionalist like Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia would toss out a (let us say) right to privacy because there is no such right specifically listyed. Please don't make me look up that citation!

WeirdlyWired wrote:
<previous quotes snipped, see above>

So... I take it you are NOT one of the "hew-to-the-original-text" interpretation supporters. Actually I do not disagree with your analysis. I would only point out that "The Framers" in general, and Jefferson in particular, did not want a listing of rights. They felt a complete listing of all the rights they enjoyed as [former] British Subjects, and took with them to the New World, would be too lengthy and be sure to miss some important ones. They imagined some Strict constitutionalist like Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia would toss out a (let us say) right to privacy because there is no such right specifically listyed. Please don't make me look up that citation!

You take it correctly. And I will mention that the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution. It was added during the year-long ratification process to get approval from states that wanted written protection from the federal government overriding rights already guaranteed in various states. Look into The Massachusetts Compromise.

State vs Federal jurisdiction is still a contentious subject, but the Bill of Rights obligated the Federal government to guarantee those basic rights. The 14th Amendment codified the Federal government's jurisdiction, even over State laws, in citizen's rights cases, and established the principle that a state law may not violate the Constitution (as Amended).

This is why decisions like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are valid. In both cases, the Supreme Court found that laws in some states infringed citizen's rights. It also was the basis for reversing the infamous Dred Scott decision, one of the worst ever made. This, to me, is part of the Founder's intent, that we can and should fix our mistakes and, as our understanding and ethics progress, move further toward a fair and just society. We may never be perfect, but we can always keep making progress.

Changes and adjustments may be necessary, but far too many on both sides are trying to blow up the foundation.

But if we just blow up this one part of it we don't like...

------------
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here -- this is the War Room!