VIce President's/ Joe Biden on Religious States

[Summy]

What did people think about the debate? What do people think about the VP Picks?

I was pro biden for president, and think he would make an excellent VP. I hate the democratic party, I hate the republican party. The republican party is rightfully demonized along with the candidates, and the democratic party is wrongfully glorified along with Obama. Having said that, I just think Obama wouldnt be as controlled as the high ups and special interests as McCain would be, but belive, I just believe he is the lesser of two evils.

Joe Biden confirmed my support when he did that Katie Couric interview when Palin couldnt name a SC decision. Remember how I feel about religious states like Iran, Israel, Pakistan etc.... Well he echoed my sentiments and I would like to hear what people like Somia (i think it was), and Waleed who were pro religious states have to say...

GO TO 4:55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMdL4sod_Co&NR=1


How do people feel about religious states....Can they work, I certainly dont think so, but others viemently disagreed, Id like to hear their opinions

 

[Saleem]

Clarify what you mean by "Can they work, I certainly don't think so"... I think a better question is are they favorable, do you support the idea of a religiously-ruled theocracy. Certainly they can work, there are multiple around the world, some have existed for hundreds of years.

 

[Summy]

Clarify what you mean by "Can they work, I certainly don't think so"... I think a better question is are they favorable, do you support the idea of a religiously-ruled theocracy. Certainly they can work, there are multiple around the world, some have existed for hundreds of years.

I don't judge the success of a state on the basis of how long they have existed. What I meant by my ambigous statement is that not only are they favourable, but are they beneficial to the land, to the people, and to the rule itself. Can religion and governence lead to a successful state, and by success, I mean the quality of life, the equal education and oppertunity to all, and can religion adapt to the forever changing social normalities?

Religious law is not beneficial to anyone. Sharia for example is practiced, but it is not the law itself I am against, because the law of a religion is not mine to judge, but the enforcement and the finality of sharia in some states is what is upsetting. The sharia practiced in iran is signifcantly different than that practiced in parts of the world. Religion itself are old notions. Each and every religion has a compoenent of the time in which it was put forth. Now if you base religious law off of religious notions (sharia moves with land, and culture, so think I am talking JUST about sharia) that are in somewhat based in time, then how can a nation be progressive?

You want to talk religious law, look at the United States, who do practice a version of religious law. Ideals of a nation that are based in judo christian ideals. From law, to language, to what is socially acceptable... its a remarkable that people dont find the US dominated by these ideals... Canada takes huge leaps and bounds with their mark against religious run states, which is regularly talked about here. Countries in europe, even their socities are based in again christian ideals, have also taken a stance against religion in politics. Canada made a huge step when they legalized gay marriage. American candidiates talk about the traditional definition of marriage... who's tradition? Some tradition is that marriage is a union between two souls... OH you mean abrahamic tradition...

Now America pratices this much less than the israel's and iran's of the world. In my opinion, the more widely spread the use of religious law in a land, the more likely that nation will be riddled with problems that face them in the 21 centuary.
---

Regarding Plain, I think everyone has grown tired of her stupid, generic comments. Just like I have grown tired of the time it takes for obama to finish a sentence. I think it was funny that Pooja said that the average american was not well educated or informed.

Is that true? IF so, Palin is running the best campaign out of the 4. If so, then heck, I would throw around as many generic comments as I could, so as pooja put it, the uneducated and not informed, would appreciate my apperence and my cander. If thats the case then pooja, I think you have to agree, shes a lot smarter than what we give her credit for.

Not only does she have charisma, the apperance, and the demanor that everyone can appreciate, she is able to tap into that base that uses that as a gage to their vote. If thats the case, she is running one hell of a campaign.

 

[Waleed]

Side note, Biden would make a better president than Obama, no doubt. He has the experience that you would expect a 'President of the United States' to have. At least, he is on the VP ticket. Palin surprisingly did really well (compared to her earlier interviews) but Obama-Biden is a much more able team.

Anyways, to respond to Summy's point. Let me clarify my current position on the separation of church & state. I wouldn't put myself on either extremes of the spectrum, rather some where in the middle. Church & state can coexist but the relationship should be maintained at a moderate level. With the vast majority of the population being members of a certain religion, I think its ok if that country's laws and systems adhere to the religion that is practiced by the majority. Even the term, 'a religious state' would be too extreme terminology, rather just say (for example) Pakistan is a democratic country where the state religion is Islam.

The roots of Pakistan's misfortune as a country with a history of turmoil doesn't lie in the fact that more than 90% of Pakistanis are Muslim, rather in its poor political infrastructure. Corruption is rampant, politicians are powerful land owners and the army refuses to let the democratic process work; just to name a few reasons. We had the misfortune of pumping millions of $$$ in to our military rather than our education or development. Blaming religion for Pakistan's poor performance is an extremely misinformed claim. Out of the 342 available seats in the national assembly, pre-2002 (pre-Musharraf) the "religious parties" used to get barely 10 seats. Now, after the change of political climate, all the religious parties banded together, made an alliance (MMA) and were able to secure around 50 seats, still a far cry from Pakistan's stronger political parties which don't have a religious platform. America's propoganda that Pakistan is falling in to the hands of the religious parties is pure hype, the same type of propoganda that got us in to the Iraq war. No doubt, Pakistan is undergoing some very trying times but fault lies in poor execution of democratic process, not the fact that Pakistan's is an Islamic state.

Although I disagree with a lot of Iran's claims and their diplomatic stance on a multitude of issues, but Iran otherwise is a very prosperous nation. Despite being surrounded by an iron curtain (i.e. given the North Korea treatment), they have managed to rise up and become a powerful world player on its own. Again, not to endorse Iran's extreme religious idealogies but from a purely factual stand point, Iran is NOT a "failed state".

Even though I disagree with the Israel's brutal occupation and persecution of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, Israel has the right to exist as a country with Judaism being the state religion. This allows the Jewish people to practice their faith to the fullest with no restrictions. Israel's fragile security and poor relations with its neighbors is not because Israel is a 'Jewish state', rather one has to look at Israel's history and the manner in which the country was born. The line is drawn when in the name of 'freely practicing your religion', those outside your religion are oppressed are kept from practicing their religion. Whether it is Pakistan, Israel, Iran ... that is simply wrong and goes against basic human rights that every person is entitled too.

Overall, Summy I agree with you a little bit on this matter. Church and state should be allowed to share a complimentary relationship, as long as basic human rights and the rights of minorities are upheld. This applies to everything from law & order to foriegn policy.

 

[Summy]

I guess we kinda see eye to eye here Waleed, but I just thought I would comment on your thoughts. Firstly, I don't think anyone with any logic could "blame religion" for the downfalls of any religious state. It is not religion that may be the downfall, it is the religious law, that extends religious philosophy to everyday rule. Now, we can talk about the US or Israel, but since Waleed talked about Pakistan, and Iran, we will stay with Sharia law.

There are three types of sharia followers and enforcers in the world today, you have the secularists, the traditionalists, and the reforms of sharia law. What is being enforced today in places like parts of iran, saudi etc.. is a strict interpretation, and traditionalist view on sharia law. Traditional sharia law is something that shouldnt be practiced in today's world. Nothing against islam, nothing against the law itself, it is just that the times we live in today, traditionalist sharia law shouldnt be practiced. For example, in traditional sharia law, slavery is acceptable. Slavery until the 19th centuary was something allowed in islamic civilizations and people were allowed to trade, sell and buy slaves on certain conditions. Obviously traditionalists in Saudi like the Wahhabis still pratice this to an extent.

Also traditional sharia law and women's rights is highly problematic. Women if raped must have witnesses and must prove the rape happened, or else they will be charged with fornication and adultery. Women must marry muslim men, whereas men can marry within certain other religions according to some sharia interpretations. The age of sexual consent in traditional sharia law is very young, in some cases lower than 10.

Now, could these laws be seen as normative during their conception, sure and this is why we shouldnt judge. But, the fact that there are nations who strictly interpret the sharia law the way it was manifested, is extremely problematic.


Nobody is saying that religion shouldnt be in the public square, or shouldnt have a role in a nation's identity. It is when religion, ALL RELIGIONS, who are based in old notions decide to start governing a body of people who's norms are distinctly different from old religious notions, is when things become problematic. 97% of Pakistan is muslim. Thats a huge percentage of the population, but if sharia law accounts for the education of the masses in muslim theology, then what about the other 3%. Pakistan being the 6th largest population, 3% made mostly of hindus, that becomes highly problematic.


All religious states in the world today are in trouble, and Waleed, this is not to say religion itself is the problem. Religous rule, not matter what, is something that leads socities into problems. Like Biden said, and like I have said, religion mixed with politics can make the two unidentifiable. A political need for automony, can be led into a religious war. Bin Laden had problems with the US foreign policy, and now we are midst of a holy war according to him. When two are not separated you can a conflict of interests. The nation rules on the basis of religion, and the same occurences that happen in renissance europe, to the days before a shift in religious rule was seen, religious wars, fighting and war itself will always be a real possibility. You have the separate the two, which doesnt mean stripping a religious majority nation of their religious identity.