Hi ahosyney,
Thank you for being reasonable and for understanding that my point is not to insult a religion although I believe in none.
In case you think that my first statement is wrong, for starters kindly please check the circumstances under which Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdamn; then kindly please let me know what you think of the Nigerian women and girls that still end up stoned to death by Muslims; and finally kindly please let me know if you agree with the reaction of the Muslims against Denmark everywhere after the incident of Feb. 2006 regarding the drawing cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten.
I repeat: I have nothing against the spirituality of the individuals. A citizen has the right to follow the religion of his choice and to do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn't harass the other citizens with his actions.
I am aware that the Muslims are contributing in every scientific field and I have nothing against each of them individuals. I simply said that the religionists Jewish/ Christians/ Muslims have replaced the politics with their religions, and such an attitude in my opinion is erroneous and dangerous.
I agree that today there is not a pure Islamic country, and I am sure that you understand too that there is not a pure Christian country: centuries ago both religions were vastly twisted and became the perfect tools for social manipulation. But the situation in Muslim countries is even worse, not only because the fanatics amongst them which they prefer to kill each other instead of establishing a descent dialogue, but also because of the theocratic governments that they mostly rule those countries. This is the reason why I claim that the Muslims are living in the past. When all the Muslim citizens take a grip and change this situation, then they may get a chance to establish a democratic environment (of course they are free to prefer a theocratic system and keep on the way they do the last 10 centuries).
Regarding your question “Is there a problem to build political views depending on a specific religion? What is it exactly?”, I reply:
I make clear that I am talking about the politics of a country as a whole and not for the right of the individual citizen to live following a particular religion. Unfortunately the religionists try constantly to force the politicians to promote their “faith” instead of letting the civil law offer the same chances to each religion (and also the same chances to the citizens which they don’t follow a religion). On the other hand, isn’t true that the greater disasters are caused, and in the past were caused, by leaders which they insist that they act in the name of the “God”?
Originally posted by black beetleOf course, Genghis Khan and Josef Stalin both acted in the name of God.
On the other hand, isn’t true that the greater disasters are caused, and in the past were caused, by leaders which they insist that they act in the name of the “God”?
With all due respect, you just don't seem very bright. But just for the chuckles -- what's your solution to the problems you perceive?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou don't seem to know Soviet history very well. Stalin used traditional expressions, such as "God help you" in his private conversations, but did not say the State acted in the name of God. Stalin always said his actions were in the name of the State.
Of course, Genghis Khan and Josef Stalin both acted in the name of God.
With all due respect, you just don't seem very bright. But just for the chuckles -- what's your solution to the problems you perceive?
Stalin was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest.
He, like Ivan Grozny before him, realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source.
In Stalin’s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didn’t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, god’s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
Atheism in Stalin’s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. It’s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. That is why Stalin installed Lenin's corpse (or a waxwork) in Red Square -- to show that the State had the technological power to overcome the corruption of death. That was essential, for the Russian church used the same example, holiness overcoming the corruption of death, with respect to St. Sergius, whose remains are still in a solid silver sarcophagus given by Ivan Grozny. You can visit St. Sergius in Zagorsk.
It is worth examining the question today as to why the Russians have not removed Lenin's corpse from Red Square.
Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state.
Joseph Stalin did not act in the name of God -- he acted in the name of the communist state.
Originally posted by black beetleI do admire your first two or three paragraphs, but then it gets messy.
Hi ahosyney,
Thank you for being reasonable and for understanding that my point is not to insult a religion although I believe in none.
In case you think that my first statement is wrong, for starters kindly please check the circumstances under which Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdamn; then kindly please let me know what you think of the Nigeri ...[text shortened]... d in the past were caused, by leaders which they insist that they act in the name of the “God”?
Yes, it is true that the Ottoman empire (a Muslim empire) killed and enslaved several people in Africa to advance their empire. However, this was not done in the name of their religion. Islam is inherently not a bad system, in fact, it is better than Christianity as a system, if you've read the Qur'an. Also, was the pagan-then-Christian Roman empire any different? How about the American empire?
I am not Muslim; like you, I am atheist, but I see the realism that Islam is a better system than Christianity or even Judaism.
I also realize I'm speaking out of place. Forgive me, I do that a lot. 🙂
Originally posted by scherzoHi scherzo;
I do admire your first two or three paragraphs, but then it gets messy.
Yes, it is true that the Ottoman empire (a Muslim empire) killed and enslaved several people in Africa to advance their empire. However, this was not done in the name of their religion. Islam is inherently not a bad system, in fact, it is better than Christianity as a system, if you'v ...[text shortened]... or even Judaism.
I also realize I'm speaking out of place. Forgive me, I do that a lot. 🙂
I think that you don't speak out of place! However my opinion isn’t messy, my friend -unfortunately it’s the truth.
I am aware that life does not end in NY, Madrid and London. I am aware that today there is a war inside Islam regarding Islam. I am aware that today the citizens of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq etc. are suffering due to terrorism actions at least as much as the citizens of the West. The religionist Muslims is a phenomenon that urges everybody to decline from an one way interpretation of Islam.
I am aware that the so called “War against the axle of Evil” declared by the administration of president Bush Jr is just a naïve and dangerous decision; everybody knows that the war against Iraq is unjust. After 9/11 and Bin Laden’s “act of punishment of the infidel Americans”, Bush Jr acted “in the name of Lord” and drove at least the 55% of his fellow Americans crazy -crazy because this dangerous stupidity is obvious. Islam and Christianism in this very world of ours are two giants in an eternal war, and this powergame is against the Muslims and against the Christians as well. In your opinion, who wants this war to keep up forever and ever?
We ‘d better stop using the “Religion” as an alibi for our actions. In US of A, if you make a notion to a decent citizen about Bush Jr, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson he will then nod with despair; if you make a notion to a decent Muslim about Bin Laden, Taleban and imams like Abdul Makin, he will nod with despair.
It ‘s better to keep the “Religion” in the churches and in the mosques instead of using it as an excuse for our actions. And my opinion is that Muslims have yet a very long way to achieve a constitutional separation of the state and the church;
Originally posted by black beetleBut the final question: Is Islam more violent than Christianity?
Hi scherzo;
I think that you don't speak out of place! However my opinion isn’t messy, my friend -unfortunately it’s the truth.
I am aware that life does not end in NY, Madrid and London. I am aware that today there is a war inside Islam regarding Islam. I am aware that today the citizens of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq ...[text shortened]... ms have yet a very long way to achieve a constitutional separation of the state and the church;
Answer: No.
