tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4761545204332105418.post6620081368429415833..comments2024-01-11T06:41:17.831-08:00Comments on Perfection Under A Red Umbrella: Moolah for Mullahs, The Shovel Ready Mosque InitiativeMelody, All American Girlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06041758013141311447noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4761545204332105418.post-85335715015916934102010-08-28T14:40:42.659-07:002010-08-28T14:40:42.659-07:00Hey Mel!
CHill, I post on HE as Fred Wells.Hey Mel!<br /><br />CHill, I post on HE as Fred Wells.Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06606086747764151939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4761545204332105418.post-50962866603503357462010-08-27T23:06:12.489-07:002010-08-27T23:06:12.489-07:00One of the problems with a state religion, such as...One of the problems with a state religion, such as Islam, is that the rest of the world is forced to deal with both a political entity (a state) and religious entity. When dealing with a Muslim country, where are the lines between a state/government action or position and a religious action or position? <br /><br />If the Lutheran faith was the official state religion of the United States, how would other countries know whether some particular policy was being pursued by us for political or religious reasons? <br /><br />The United States is hardly perfect, but one of the many things it did get right was that there would be no state sanctioned religion, creating a tradition that recognizes and respects the seperation of church and state. <br /><br />As people are seeing, the inability to distinguish a political state from religious beliefs is ultimately very dangerous. Consider that at all times there are three major forces or powers acting on all human communities, from the smallest and most primitive tribal communities to large, cosmopolitan countries: the power of money (wealth), the power of government (the power of literal force to coerce other people--i.e., the people with the guns) and the power of moral authority, typically represented by a religion. <br /><br />As everyone knows, many of the people who came to the New World were fleeing religious persecution. The founders were very aware of the potential for serious mischief when the people with the moral authority were also the people with the guns, so they made a point of enshrining religious freedom in the Constitution. (Too bad they didn't create the same seperation between the economy and the state--letting the people who command great wealth be the people with the guns is just as bad.)<br /><br />A few months ago, when one of the national debates was whether terrorists should be tried as criminals or enemy combatants, I was surprised this aspect of Islam as a state religion never came up. My thinking is that, of course, they should be tried as enemy combatants--the guy who murders someone while robbing a 7-11 isn't killing to make a political statement, whereas the whole point of killing for a terrorist is to make a political statement, and that to me seems like a pretty good definition of war, or "enemy combat." Of course, the problem arises precisely because these terrorists are not wearing the uniforms of some recognized country, and are not in the employ of a government per se, but are acting out of a religious fervor that originated with a state sanctioned religion, and in their eyes, acts of terrorism seem to be both a religious and patriotic duty. <br /><br />Again, where do we draw the lines? Do the politics inform the religion, or does the religion inform the politics? Do we jettison a two-hundred+ year tradition of religious tolerance? And if not, do we risk our national security? For me, I think the answer is that we begin to clearly define what we recognize a a legitimate religion, and legitimate religious practices; namely that we don't recognize any religion that violates basic human rights--after all, that's what this country was founded for--we certainly wouldn't recognize a "religion" that practiced ritual human sacrifice as a legitmate religion, even though such "religions" once existed. So, why should we not judge contemporary religions by the same standards of basic human rights? Sometimes it seems to me that some people use religion like some kind of 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. I don't think that religious tolerance means I have to tolerate behavior that violates basic human rights, decency, and dignity. <br /><br />Such big questions.<br /><br />Melody, I didn't mean to write so much--I hope you don't mind my pondering all this here. CHillCK Stuckeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709396186658310992noreply@blogger.com