A good change? a bad change? or other?
I do not live in Pakistan nor does it affect me how they govern themselves. I ask you all how you view the combination of Church and State in Government. I firmly believe in a secular and pluralistic style of government that is not hardline in any religion.
In my opinion when a government is run by strict religious conservatives of any religion freedoms are lost. I believe people should be able to decide for themselves how they wish to dress, how they conduct their lives, how they choose to become educated, how they choose to worship or not to for that matter. I do not believe a government should dictate to the masses how a male looks at a female or how a female looks at a male. I do not think it is the business of the government to impose on people a religion. These are just my opinions.
What are your thoughts?
Link over this matter
Fellowship
In my opinion when a government is run by strict religious conservatives of any religion freedoms are lost. I believe people should be able to decide for themselves how they wish to dress, how they conduct their lives, how they choose to become educated, how they choose to worship or not to for that matter. I do not believe a government should dictate to the masses how a male looks at a female or how a female looks at a male. I do not think it is the business of the government to impose on people a religion. These are just my opinions.
What are your thoughts?
Link over this matter
Fellowship
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I do not live in Pakistan nor does it affect me how they govern themselves. I ask you all how you view the combination of Church and State in Government. I firmly believe in a secular and pluralistic style of government that is not hardline in any religion.
In my opinion when a government is run by strict religious conservatives of any religion freedoms are lost. I believe people should be able to decide for themselves how they wish to dress, how they conduct their lives, how they choose to become educated, how they choose to worship or not to for that matter. I do not believe a government should dictate to the masses how a male looks at a female or how a female looks at a male. I do not think it is the business of the government to impose on people a religion. These are just my opinions.
What are your thoughts?
Link over this matter
Fellowship
Most of the people in Pakistan are moslems.
I think EVERY state and religion should be separate. And that applies also to any Christian state, and any state of US.
If Pakistani's were strict christians and not strict moslems, would you have made that post by the way?
So ... it's bad.
Originally posted by Giaguara
If Pakistani's were strict christians and not strict moslems, would you have made that post by the way?
Yes I would have. I do not admire any government that dictates to the people an official religion for the land. I believe people should have freedoms to choose on their own how they wish to conduct their lives and freedoms to choose what if anything they wish to believe as it concerns religion.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I believe people should have freedoms to choose on their own how they wish to conduct their lives and freedoms to choose what if anything they wish to believe as it concerns religion.
Who are you and what have you done with our friend Fellowship??
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Yes I would have. I do not admire any government that dictates to the people an official religion for the land. I believe people should have freedoms to choose on their own how they wish to conduct their lives and freedoms to choose what if anything they wish to believe as it concerns religion.
Fellowship
i agree. (but i don't think pakistan forces anyone to be moslem).
Originally posted by 709
Who are you and what have you done with our friend Fellowship??
? I have always held this view.
Real maturity is to allow people their respective freedoms of choice.
I will always hold to this principle.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Scott
From a technical point of view one simple problem with islamic law (in this case) is that the law is not decided upon by the people it's enforced on. So the people feel out of control and have no recourse under the law to modify it. Trying to apply laws that have outdated wording on modern day society is impossible. So you wind up with wacky subjective interpretations, eg Burkas.
Excuse me?
I doubt that Pakistanis feel "out of control". The "law is not decided upon by the people it's enforced on"? I thought you was not an advocate or a lawyer.
US citizens must feel "on control". All those are actual laws btw.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
? I have always held this view.
Real maturity is to allow people their respective freedoms of choice.
I will always hold to this principle.
OK.
Life is grand. Good night all.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Yes I would have. I do not admire any government that dictates to the people an official religion for the land. I believe people should have freedoms to choose on their own how they wish to conduct their lives and freedoms to choose what if anything they wish to believe as it concerns religion.
Fellowship
So you are in favor of restoring the original pledge and getting in god we trust off our money, right?
Originally posted by BR
So you are in favor of restoring the original pledge and getting in god we trust off our money, right?
Actually it would not bother me at all BR.
Not at all.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Actually it would not bother me at all BR.
Not at all.
Fellowship
That's not the question. The question was are you in favor of doing it, not whether it would bother you.
Originally posted by BR
That's not the question. The question was are you in favor of doing it, not whether it would bother you.
Sure I am in favor of changing what you mentioned to a neutral basis.
I am all for it.
Fellowship
Christian religion was the same in the past, but she has leaved this aspect, (at least most of the christians religions), to be concerned only by the spiritual aspect of things.
Originally posted by ena
Since the source of Law is essentially religious in nature, I don't understand how any one party can call itself "neutral"---and all others "religious."
All I am suggesting with this thread is that society should be pluralistic and government secular and pluralistic.
It matters not the party.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The problem with the muslim religion is that she is involved both in the metaphysic spiritual life, but also in real life. Many parts of the islam deals directly with real life.
Christian religion was the same in the past, but she has leaved this aspect, (at least most of the christians religions), to be concerned only by the spiritual aspect of things.
Greetings Powerdoc, I would only contribute to what you said by saying it is how leadership and government leads and rules. Hitler and the Nazis had an idea of how to lead and rule but it was not pluralistic. It was rather a more narrow philosophy of control and influence. Any religion on its own is neither good nor bad per say. It is when a government chooses a form of leadership and rule that sides against and guards against a pluralistic society that I view as dangerous and immoral.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
All I am suggesting with this thread is that society should be pluralistic and government secular and pluralistic.
It matters not the party.
Fellowship
But government can only hold one view, or make one law on each position. Abortion can only be legal or illegal, verbally threatening the President can only be either acceptable or unacceptable. At a state level, marriage can either be between one man and one woman or by free association. Homosexuality is either a right or it is not. In Canada, when Christians or Muslims preach against homosexuality, they are subject to prosecution---I don't know if that law is enforced extensively, but I know it is enforced.
Government is the embodiment of an ideology, and different ideologies' antithesis won't endure, one will defeat the other. You can't separate the government from the people's religious beliefs except, in making it law that "No religion shall be established." Pluralists have gotten around that law by asserting that since they are not specifically monotheistic, or polytheistic they are not "religious", and then further assert they deserve the driving force of the culture, and hence the laws.
At the end of the day someone's ideology holds the high ground, and the culture. At that point the law base shifts and you no longer have a truly pluralistic government.
Much in the same way you are treated as a second-class citizen in these forums, solely on the basis of your Faith. It is an accurate analogy that the very people who cry pluralism, respect for all beliefs, and free thought on these threads treat you with a complete lack of respect. Pluralists don't want equal rights, they want control, the control to silence their opposition.
Originally posted by ena
Much in the same way you are treated as a second-class citizen in these forums, solely on the basis of your Faith. It is an accurate analogy that the very people who cry pluralism, respect for all beliefs, and free thought on these threads treat you with a complete lack of respect. Pluralists don't want equal rights, they want control, the control to silence their opposition.
Strong convictions leads to strongs antagonism in discussions forums, but for my part i never considered Fship or any othes members of second class citizens especially on the sole basis of their faith.
You seems to cry Wolf here.