Gov't power to shut down churches

[Cygnus]

They have no tolerance , not even for themselves, Saudi Arabia is a classic example, caning, beheading, female organ mutilation,slaves ect bunch of sickees

Yeah but they stopped all that because we pressured them on human rights and said we wouldn;t do business with them. The sanctions worked!





















Purr















Pill

 

[IndyDave1776]

The "Islamic government" model is as unrealistic as communism, and for the same reasons. It requires vast numbers of people who forego self interest on too many levels. Most of us will forego self interest in limited things, we'll donate to charity, serve in dangerous jobs, etc. but even then we expect some reward, be it financial, prestige, or just 'feeling good about ourselves' to motivate that. There's never been a true implementation of communism because there's always been someone in authority to tilt the system their way and a host of people not in authority to cheat and work around the system. Capitalism works, not because it's the best system, but because it's the best system that works with human nature. Similarly there has never been an Islamic government on any real scale. Perhaps you could argue certain small tribes have successfully used it, but that's the issue. It doesn't scale. It's fine for a group of literal camel herders migrating through the desert, but it's ban on bureaucracy, for example, prohibit it from working in a complex modern society with a large population. So, you end up with everything from dictatorships to democracies in Islamic countries, but there is no "Islamic government". If you look into what it actually is, it's an amazing fantasy. Essentially an egalitarian society with local judges to solve disputes among citizens, a strict adherence to the law because the law belongs to everyone, and law stemming from God. The issue has always been who gets to decide what God said, since he's been pretty quiet when we have questions. The lack of self interest that makes communism unworkable with real human nature also puts a real Islamic government out of reach. It essentially requires people who do not need governance, who share resources with all completely equitably, who humbly accept the will of God and agree on what that will is, etc. It's actually not terribly far off from the Christian idea of Heaven, everyone gets along, everyone gets to spend some quality time with God, etc. In short, it's an Ideal, not a practical option.

I'd also argue that people born in Islamic societies tend to play as nicely as anyone else with outsiders. That includes both the good and the bad that statement implies, from enslaving to allying with.

Iran does a fairly convincing job of pursuing the theocratic unified religion/government system that is called for, and it doesn't stop others from killing in the attempt of implementing it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Iran does a fairly convincing job of pursuing the theocratic unified religion/government system that is called for, and it doesn't stop others from killing in the attempt of implementing it.

Having one component does not equate to implementing the system. That's like cutting open a chest and calling it heart surgery.

 

[jamil]

Iran does a fairly convincing job of pursuing the theocratic unified religion/government system that is called for, and it doesn't stop others from killing in the attempt of implementing it.

But I think the point was, whether it achieves the purpose. Communism doesn't work because people are self-interested which defeats the purpose. BBIs is saying essentially that, at least as I read it, if the system is designed to enforce Allah's law, and corrupt people take advantage of that, well, it's not achieving it's purpose. The purpose of Communism is essentially to enforce equality of outcome. But because of human nature, some animals are more equal than others. The purpose of capitalism is essentially freedom to own according to one's ability. And Capitalism pretty much achieves that because it doesn't require humans to stop being humans to succeed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But I think the point was, whether it achieves the purpose. Communism doesn't work because people are self-interested which defeats the purpose. BBIs is saying essentially that, at least as I read it, if the system is designed to enforce Allah's law, and corrupt people take advantage of that, well, it's not achieving it's purpose. The purpose of Communism is essentially to enforce equality of outcome. But because of human nature, some animals are more equal than others. The purpose of capitalism is essentially freedom to own according to one's ability. And Capitalism pretty much achieves that because it doesn't require humans to stop being humans to succeed.

I would agree. I suppose that my perspective centers on the fact that whether either communism or Sharia work according to the brochure is not so important as the fact that they both produce what, in my reckoning, amount to abominable results when attempted, and there seems to be no end to the efforts of some people to implement them. In the end, in my reckoning, it is like being shot with a sh*tty gun that jams every couple of shots, not like the brochure says it works, but you are still dead.

 

[BugI02]

Dave, I've pretty much lost faith in government of any kind. Beyond a certain (very small) scale all systems get distorted by the players to enhance their positions at the expense of everyone else, whether you're an apparatchik, a sheik or a capitalist don. I very much agree that the results of Capitalism are far less perverse but I think it's cold comfort to some of the folk who get bulldozed. The Oracle summed it up best, for me. "What do men with money and power want? More money and power." I think we agree that severely limiting the reach and scope of government would go a long way toward limiting it's use as a tool for nefarious purpose but I don't know how to fix the darkness/deficit in the heart of those that would ruthlessly use others.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dave, I've pretty much lost faith in government of any kind. Beyond a certain (very small) scale all systems get distorted by the players to enhance their positions at the expense of everyone else, whether you're an apparatchik, a sheik or a capitalist don. I very much agree that the results of Capitalism are far less perverse but I think it's cold comfort to some of the folk who get bulldozed. The Oracle summed it up best, for me. "What do men with money and power want? More money and power." I think we agree that severely limiting the reach and scope of government would go a long way toward limiting it's use as a tool for nefarious purpose but I don't know how to fix the darkness/deficit in the heart of those that would ruthlessly use others.

A reporter once asked John Rockefeller (assuming that Rockefeller had passed this point), "How much money does it take to make a person happy?" Rockefeller gave the insightful answer, "A little more than one has."

We definitely agree that limiting the scope and reach of government is the best answer as did our founders. If we would simply read the Constitution, do what it says, and more important, don't do what it doesn't say, most of our problems would disappear without any further attention.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Would INGO be bothered by this if there was an effort to do that here in the US? Or is that a reasonable action to address the terror threat?

Shutting down houses of worship is overbroad but we can end terrorism by changing Islam. We have done this before with other religions, having them denounce their beliefs, no reason we can not do it here.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Shutting down houses of worship is overbroad but we can end terrorism by changing Islam. We have done this before with other religions, having them denounce their beliefs, no reason we can not do it here.

Ah, Kirkaria rearing it's head again. You've yet to explain to me how billions of Muslims aren't terrorists if the problem is actually Islam. What religion have we had people denounce, are you still going with the Japanese emperor being divine as your basis for this?

When are you coming over to the house to make sure my wife and I go to reeducation camp?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What religion have we had people denounce

Tell me about the Book of Alma.

We had the Mormons denounce their religion and they were at war with the United States government. Now the Mormons have been mainstreamed. We just cut out the Book of Alma (and polygamy, etc.).

No reason we cannot do with with other faiths.

You've yet to explain to me how billions of Muslims aren't terrorists if the problem is actually Islam

Not all Mormons were racists but we still made them change regarding the Book of Alma (substitute polygamy, or whatever else they had to change).

are you still going with the Japanese emperor being divine as your basis for this?

We had the Japanese renounce their faith. It worked. The Japanese fall into line without any fuss and we re-channeled their religion commands into something that benefited us.

We have done it before and we can do it again.

When are you coming over to the house to make sure my wife and I go to reeducation camp?

No reason. Change what it teaches and we will have no more problems.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Shutting down houses of worship is overbroad but we can end terrorism by changing Islam. We have done this before with other religions, having them denounce their beliefs, no reason we can not do it here.

Ah, Kirkaria rearing it's head again. You've yet to explain to me how billions of Muslims aren't terrorists if the problem is actually Islam. What religion have we had people denounce, are you still going with the Japanese emperor being divine as your basis for this?

When are you coming over to the house to make sure my wife and I go to reeducation camp?

I am going to step out on a limb and address the fact that I see multiple issues here. While Kirk's turn of phrase may have been, well, less than diplomatic, I am understanding that is point is more along the lines of mainstream LDS turning away from polygamy for the purpose of peacefully coexisting with the larger society as opposed to being coerced or reeducated out of their basic system of belief, but then you still have Warren Jeffs & Co.

Once again, from an outsider's perspective on much of anything, I am left with the book and the commands and example of the founder as my foundation for understanding. The unfortunate consequence of this is that it does not account for the fact that religion is a lot like Linux so far as it is an open-source phenomenon for the most part and with most elements of any given religion, if you ask 10 practitioners about a certain point of doctrine, you may well get 11 different answers, mostly hinging on how seriously a given person takes his faith, how literally he interprets his book, and how much importance he places on emulating the founder of his religion. If you have any doubt about this, try instigating a conversation on faith in practice between, say, a UCC member and a fundamental Baptist.

The problem, I suppose, is how to form a general conclusion about a collection of participants who are not necessarily standard, uniform, or monolithic, especially when some of them take views that are definitely detrimental to the health and well-being of most everyone else.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

One destroys terrorism by destroying their worldview, their reason for fighting. Undermining violent jihad (deflecting inward, just cutting it out, whatever) is the way to end the war on terror and live in peace. We do not defeat them. We defeat their book. Just as we defeated Marx's book.

 

[IndyDave1776]

One destroys terrorism by destroying their worldview, their reason for fighting. Undermining violent jihad (deflecting inward, just cutting it out, whatever) is the way to end the war on terror and live in peace. We do not defeat them. We defeat their book. Just as we defeated Marx's book.

We did? Apparently the Kenyan and much of Congress didn't get the memo.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We did? Apparently the Kenyan and much of Congress didn't get the memo.

The Kenyan? Obama's father?

 

[printcraft]

Soooo........ getting back to the OP.............

Hypo: If in a neighborhood of 1000 homes, one of those is a drug den, we can't close the drug den and leave the other unrelated alone?

(use your own analogy)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Hypo: If in a neighborhood of 1000 homes, one of those is a drug den, we can't close the drug den and leave the other unrelated alone?

You are assuming drugs are illegal.

Here the "drug" is legal and beyond what the government can do. What is illegal is what some drug users do after taking the drugs.

The solution is to render the drugs harmless. Simply alter their composition and the drug cannot hurt anyone.

We just need a Woodruff Manifesto 2.0 and we shall have no problems.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Meh...let people of all religions believe whatever they want--whether it's in the pentance of the pot-luck supper or in holy jihad or something in between. What WE can do is stop coddling, explaining away, and rationalizing islamists' desire to kill whom they believe are infidels, their desire to replace our constitutional form of government with sharia (among other things). Let them hate us, hate our depravity, our gods, (but they love our welfare systems ). But when they start stepping out of line, we should do the same thing we ought to be doing with everyone else--prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law (when required). Let them reform themselves or let them meet the justice system.

 

[BugI02]

.............

We had the Japanese renounce their faith. It worked. The Japanese fall into line without any fuss and we re-channeled their religion commands into something that benefited us.

...............

Kirk, do you seriously think something like this would work with us and Christianity (ignoring for the moment the vast difference in the precepts of the two faiths, just thinking of it as a deeply held belief woven into the fabric of our society). Should you acknowledge this, why would you think it would work on any other people in a similar situation.

 

[printcraft]

You are assuming drugs are illegal.

Here the "drug" is legal and beyond what the government can do. What is illegal is what some drug users do after taking the drugs.

The solution is to render the drugs harmless. Simply alter their composition and the drug cannot hurt anyone.

We just need a Woodruff Manifesto 2.0 and we shall have no problems.

OK......

Cancer, we can remove the cancer without killing the host.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, do you seriously think something like this would work with us and Christianity

Who is us? Christianity has reformed (not just the Mormons). No reason other religions cannot.

just thinking of it as a deeply held belief woven into the fabric of our society)

Do you know what sati is?

It was deeply woven into the fabric of Hindu society and my people forced them to stop.

No reason not to do the same with jihad.