I contend that Islam and .....and ......are Not just religions.

[Bonam]

The right to freedom of religion (more explicitly, the values some religions hold) can clash with other rights in Canadian law. In that case, I believe virtually all other secular rights should triumph over religious rights.

ie: If my religion says it's okay to beat small children, and Canadian law says it's not okay, then Canadian law should trump over my religious beliefs.

Couldn't agree more.

[cybercoma]

The right to freedom of religion (more explicitly, the values some religions hold) can clash with other rights in Canadian law. In that case, I believe virtually all other secular rights should triumph over religious rights.

ie: If my religion says it's okay to beat small children, and Canadian law says it's not okay, then Canadian law should trump over my religious beliefs.

Any evidence that the courts uphold freedom of religion over other fundamental rights?

[dre]

The right to freedom of religion (more explicitly, the values some religions hold) can clash with other rights in Canadian law. In that case, I believe virtually all other secular rights should triumph over religious rights.

ie: If my religion says it's okay to beat small children, and Canadian law says it's not okay, then Canadian law should trump over my religious beliefs.

With criminal law that disctinction is easy to make. Obviously a religious edict should not make murder or assault legal.

The problem is civil law. A religion cant set up a system of rules that makes murder or assault legal but it can definately set up an alternative system of rules for things like marriage, divorce, disputes between individuals, and virtually any other sort of civil dispute. In theory participation is voluntary, but in reality somtimes its coerced and programmed.

This how things like sharia law are partially implemented in the west.

Edited October 6, 2012 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Depends what you mean by honour it.

If I just respect the freedom of thought of others is that honoring religion? Do we need special laws?

I don't know about "laws". I expect we have some laws that govern religion, but maybe they're just exceptions to existing laws.

Here's a starting point for discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Canada

Freedom of thought is one thing, but there's also freedom to discriminate. At the fundamental level - to keep out people who are not part of your faith. In any other aspect of public life, it would be considered illegal.

[Michael Hardner]

The right to freedom of religion (more explicitly, the values some religions hold) can clash with other rights in Canadian law. In that case, I believe virtually all other secular rights should triumph over religious rights.

ie: If my religion says it's okay to beat small children, and Canadian law says it's not okay, then Canadian law should trump over my religious beliefs.

MG - I think you'll find that this is already the case when it comes to certain areas - physical safety for example, maybe taxation.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is civil law. A religion cant set up a system of rules that makes murder or assault legal but it can definately set up an alternative system of rules for things like marriage, divorce, disputes between individuals, and virtually any other sort of civil dispute. In theory participation is voluntary, but in reality somtimes its coerced and programmed.

This is a slippery slope, though. To the non-religious person, it's easy to see how you can find I can see this becoming a way to eliminate religious rights in the future - declaring all adherents to be coerced and programmed, and therefore unable to make a free choice.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't agree. Firstoff, let me state that I find the article you link is beneath contempt. The author is so blinded by his/her own ideology.

The claim that Christianity/Judaism have no political dimensions is an obvious and blatant falsehood. The second obvious falsehood is the claim that Muhammad's main objective was to conquer and dominate the world. The third obvious falsehood is the claim that muslims can sacrifice morality and ethics to achieve the aforementioned end. The fourth obvious falsehood is the claim that muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break rules of ethics and fairness to achieve world domination.

And thats just the four sentences you quote! Four sentences - all of them bullshit.

Thus my contempt

My contempt aside, is there any merit to the argument that Islam is not a religion yet Christianity is - bearing in mind that Peeves contends that it is the political character of Islam which sets it apart from Christianity or Judaism and in fact most (if not all) other religions.

It seems Peeves has never heard of a christian-democratic party in European or North American democracies. Nor has he heard of Jerry Falwell and the 'moral majority'. In Canada we also have religious dominated political parties that seek political power. As was pointed out on another thread, we still have blasphemy laws on the books in this country. (IT WAS I THAT DID SO)

So I can agree that Religion has much less political influence in western countries than in the past (which is where the blasphemy laws came from), but that is only because Christianity as a political power has lost much of its grass-roots support over the last 50-60 years.

Should things change and people start turning to religion and society become less secular, then Peeve's contention will be shown to have no merit.

To mollify your obvious concerns although unlikely to assuage them, let me assure you I have indeed heard of every last reference you cite and likely of more others than you.

Peeves has chosen materials that are provocative and to re enforce his position for discussion.. Peeves does not necessarily stand in agreement with all points in any article referenced.

I might add in addition that your condemnation,contempt and confrontational claims of simply being bullshit, is not proof of anything , unless of course you hold a master's degree in bullshit.

Still, bullshit aside at least you made an effort.

I maintain that some so called religions don't meet the test and are indeed as in the case of Islam given both it's history, laws, practice and doctrine more a political force than a religious order.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/06/robert-fulford-anti-semitism-without-jews-in-malaysia/

Looking at this piece, it seems that a political party with ties to Islam have become anti-Semitic

anti-Israeli simply because of politics.

Sorry, Islam among others are more political than religious.

In Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, politicians and civil servants devote a surprising amount of time to thinking about Israel, 7,612 km away. Sometimes they appear to be obsessed by it. Malaysia has never had a dispute with Israel, but the government encourages the citizens to hate Israel and also to hate Jews whether they are Israelis or not.

Few Malaysians have laid eyes on a Jew; the tiny Jewish community emigrated decades ago. Nevertheless, Malaysia has become an example of a phenomenon called “Anti-Semitism without Jews.” Last March, for instance, the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department sent out an official sermon to be read in all mosques, stating that “Muslims must understand Jews are the main enemy to Muslims as proven by their egotistical behaviour and murders performed by them.” About 60% of Malaysians are Muslim.

In Kuala Lumpur, it’s routine to blame the Jews for everything from economic failures to the bad press Malaysia gets in foreign (“Jewish-owned”) newspapers.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Peeves

[Argus]

That doesnt matter because its still up to people to decide on the scope of religion. Islam can be put in its place just like Christianity was.

Take turkey for example...

If you're willing to endure enough bloodshed anything can be put in its place.

But that doesn't change the fact Islam is more political than Christianity. All Turkey did was ignore that. Although it's on its way to going back to accepting Islam as the source of all law and government.

[Argus]

To the contrary - it makes Christianity very political. Religion is close to politics in the USA, can't you see that ?

No, it's not. The fact that the contenders for office express their abiding respect for Christianity does not make Christianity political. People might choose to politicize their beliefs and publicly presume a moral superiority due to their Christianity, but that's beside the point.

[WIP]

This is a slippery slope, though. To the non-religious person, it's easy to see how you can find I can see this becoming a way to eliminate religious rights in the future - declaring all adherents to be coerced and programmed, and therefore unable to make a free choice.

If such a policy became law in a future secular government determined to improve its people by stamping out religion, this 20 year old essay by Richard Dawkins would still likely provide the ideological underpinning to justify such an aggressive policy: Viruses Of The Mind

[Argus]

The right to freedom of religion (more explicitly, the values some religions hold) can clash with other rights in Canadian law. In that case, I believe virtually all other secular rights should triumph over religious rights.

ie: If my religion says it's okay to beat small children, and Canadian law says it's not okay, then Canadian law should trump over my religious beliefs.

Certainly true. But in Islam, you could not make such a prohibition if the Koran said it was okay to beat small children. Any laws in an Islamic state have to mirror the dictates of the Koran. Which is why it's still okay to beat your wife and kids in Muslim countries.

Wife, child beating okay says supreme court

[WIP]

If you're willing to endure enough bloodshed anything can be put in its place.

But that doesn't change the fact Islam is more political than Christianity. All Turkey did was ignore that. Although it's on its way to going back to accepting Islam as the source of all law and government.

Islam is more political at this point in time, but you don't even address the 30 year long growing partnership between rightwing evangelicals and the Republican Party in the U.S., nor do you address the fact that one religion happens to be the one representing the colonizers, while the other is predominant in the places that have been colonized and have had oil and other resources extracted - backed up by U.S. military power supporting some tinpot dictator, and with little benefit for the local population. All things being equal, I feel that a theocracy representing the richest and most powerful men in the world is far more dangerous than any theocracy rising up among the dispossessed.

And....

No, it's not. The fact that the contenders for office express their abiding respect for Christianity does not make Christianity political. People might choose to politicize their beliefs and publicly presume a moral superiority due to their Christianity, but that's beside the point.

You have taken it upon yourself to decide that politics can't be mixed with Christianity....whatever that's supposed to mean! But, except for the fringe Christian sects who share a millenialist interpretation of history and will not take part in any part of the political process...even voting, the bulk of Christians in the world are totally schizophrenic about their religion and what role their beliefs and principles should play in government. And, the hardline theocrats, like the New Apostolic Reformation group, can pull out just as many bible verses to justify their desires to Christianize American government, bring in rule by Mosaic Law and remove Christians from political office as the more laid back, more secular Christians who claim to park their religion at the door when they contemplate the down and dirty world of politics.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it's not. The fact that the contenders for office express their abiding respect for Christianity does not make Christianity political. People might choose to politicize their beliefs and publicly presume a moral superiority due to their Christianity, but that's beside the point.

You're leaving out the direct influence that this religion has on policies - not just in the US but world wide. This ranges from what is taught in US schools to reproductive policies of international agencies in Africa.

[Moonlight Graham]

MG - I think you'll find that this is already the case when it comes to certain areas - physical safety for example, maybe taxation.

I think it's the case for most things, luckily, but sometimes there is great public debate over an issue where religion collides with not only law but in other instances customs/conventions, rules of certain organizations (sometimes public orgs). ie:

- People with religious head-coverings taking the oath of citizenship

- men with those large head wrappings that interfere with them being able to wear RCMP/police uniforms etc. or people with head-coverings interfering with wearing hockey/baseball helmets

- Sikh students carrying religious daggers at school

These are contentious issues. In most of of the examples above it is also a case of western customs/laws designed for western people and not being suitable for other cultures/religions. ie: Traditional RCMP hats would be designed the way they are had Muslims colonized Canada instead of Christians And obviously hockey helmets are not designed with some Muslims & other religions, so it's a wonder how head safety would be dealt with in predominantly Muslim countries if hockey somehow became a popular sport. They have cricket after all...

[Moonlight Graham]

Certainly true. But in Islam, you could not make such a prohibition if the Koran said it was okay to beat small children. Any laws in an Islamic state have to mirror the dictates of the Koran. Which is why it's still okay to beat your wife and kids in Muslim countries.

Wife, child beating okay says supreme court

That's why I'm thankful there is (mostly) separation of church and state in Canada. Secularism is the only way to go because not only do people believe in different religions but, well, religions get nutty lol.

[jbg]

Islam and Scientology and perhaps others conduct themselves in tenets and doctrines that exceed the definition of religion in my opinion. If there is a major political or military component I feel that it can't be a religion.

I think it has certain features of a cult, such as the risk of serious physical harm or even death for leaving.

Religion.

Of course that is debatable, so change my mind.

http://alisina.org/blog/2011/04/08/is-islam-a-religion/

Excerpt.

"Islam is influenced by Christianity and Judaism and shares many features with these religions. However, it has a dimension that these two faiths don’t and that is its political dimension. While Jesus was clear that his kingdom is not of this world, Muhammad’s main objective was to conquer the world and dominate it. This goal is so paramount that for its achievement morality and ethics can be sacrificed. Muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break the rules of ethics and fairness in order to make Islam dominant."

The lack of a neutral moral code is fatal to its claim of being a religion. I am sure that the great majority of Muslims are decent people.

[Guest Peeves]

That's why I'm thankful there is (mostly) separation of church and state in Canada. Secularism is the only way to go because not only do people believe in different religions but, well, religions get nutty lol.

But do you accept that some do not hold to that? Some immigrants, some not.

Multiple wives, women in inferior subservient roles,males in patriarchal control, and that's occurring in some deviant Mormon families!

Certainly secularism is the way to go, but for some it is simply not acceptable nor practiced.

When brothers can monitor and condemn sisters and are expected to, there is a sickness in that culture.

[Argus]

Islam is more political at this point in time, but you don't even address the 30 year long growing partnership between rightwing evangelicals and the Republican Party in the U.S.

Why would I need to? You are making the mistake of presuming that because a particular segment of the community is morally influenced by Christianity, and that this segment has influence on politics, that, defacto makes Christianity political. But that's not a logically sound argument.

A segment of the community is morally influenced by environmentalism, by a care and concern for the environment. But that doesn't make environmentalism political either. There are disputes between sides who care about environmentalism and those who don't, but environmentalism stands on its own as a care and concern for the environment.

You can make the same statement for health care, for capitalism, for space exploration. Anything that people care about in any large numbers will have an influence on politics. But that doesn't make them political. Politics, after all, is basically whatever people want or don't want, care about, or don't care about, or are concerned about. That encompasses basically everything.

, nor do you address the fact that one religion happens to be the one representing the colonizers, while the other is predominant in the places that have been colonized and have had oil and other resources extracted - backed up by U.S. military power supporting some tinpot dictator,

When was the last time 'us military power' defended any 'tinpot dictator' against the freedom loving wishes of his own people?

Has the US generally even been on friendly terms with the majority of the dictators in oil states? Seems to me that until very recently the US was on friendly terms with only the gulf states. And those are not the states where most of the unrest and anti-Americanism has has been occurring either.

All things being equal, I feel that a theocracy representing the richest and most powerful men in the world is far more dangerous than any theocracy rising up among the dispossessed.

Drivel. This argument has no logic behind it.

And....

You have taken it upon yourself to decide that politics can't be mixed with Christianity

I said nothing of the sort. Politics can be mixed with anything. I said that Christianity was not a political religion in the same way Islam explicitly IS.

[Argus]

You're leaving out the direct influence that this religion has on policies - not just in the US but world wide. This ranges from what is taught in US schools to reproductive policies of international agencies in Africa.

Again, this is irrelevant to the central theme of discussion which is whether Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion. It's curious that most of those disagreeing with that point to Christianity, even though Christianity is clearly not political in the way Islam is. Christians might allow their beliefs to influence their decisions in various ways (who doesn't?) but Christianity does not contain a set of strictures for how society and government needs to be operated. That is what you all seem to be ignoring. Islam DOES contain such strictures.

A US government can produce any law it decides it wants in place without regard to what the bible might have to say about it. And even the more religious people in America, ie, the members of right-wing Christian organizations, don't call upon the government to implement strictures and punishment from the old testament. But as we know, Muslim governments are all (and I do not use that adjective thoughtlessly) FAR and away more influenced and restricted in what laws they can put in place by the requirements of the Koran. Even those who do not operate under Sharia law face fierce internal opposition if they take a position which goes against the strict dictates of the Koran.

And remember that when discussing Islam, as in discussing Christianity, we're not simply talking about the books, but the way those books are interpreted today by the bulk of adherents. So in a sense, Islam is not what's in their holy books, but in what people take from those books. And what we've seen around the Muslim world is a strongly growing tendency to turn to those books as a guide for all government actions.

[Argus]

Just came across this by Robert Sibley and given its relevance to the discussion at hand thought I would post it here.

When the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes published his masterwork, Leviathan, in 1651, Europeans were barely beginning to recover from the Wars of Religion that had devastated the continent since the early 16th century. Responding to this violence, Hobbes provided an argument for the establishment of political orders free of unwarranted religious influence, an argument that has deeply influenced the formation of western liberal democracy.

The Muslim world awaits its Great Separation

Of course, this is what many of us have been saying for some time: that the conflicts within the Muslim world arise out of an antiquated mixing of religion and politics, and that their culture, so deeply bound to their religion, hasn't been able to grow and advance in centuries. Unlike Christianity.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Peeves]

Just came across this by Robert Sibley and given its relevance to the discussion at hand thought I would post it here.

reference Deleted for reply space.

Of course, this is what many of us have been saying for some time: that the conflicts within the Muslim world arise out of an antiquated mixing of religion and politics, and that their culture, so deeply bound to their religion, hasn't been able to grow and advance in centuries. Unlike Christianity.

Good article. Thanks.

This got my attention..."The Islamists can get away with promoting violence by means of faux religious outrage because of the totalitarian nature of Islam.

I do not use the word “totalitarian” to be unnecessarily provocative. I mean that Islam is a totalitarian religion in the sense that it attempts to encompass the totality of human life, whether cultural, political, social or religious. In the words of one prominent Islamic scholar, Jaafar Sheikh Idris: “Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. … For Muslims, the word ‘religion’ does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living.”

Given this definition, it is understandable why those who question or mock Islam are deemed enemies of Islam. Someone who insists all of life’s activities must be religiously grounded cannot help but incline toward extremism when something “offends” his or her faith. Questions create doubt, which undermines the coherence of that person’s existence. The only way to eliminate that doubt is to eliminate its source, all in the name of God, of course. And therein resides the great potential for violence. As political theorist Michael Allen Gillespie remarks: “When men come to think of themselves as enacting God’s will, or indeed be gods themselves, the political consequences are inevitably horrifying.”"

(Emphasis mine.)

[dre]

This is a slippery slope, though. To the non-religious person, it's easy to see how you can find I can see this becoming a way to eliminate religious rights in the future - declaring all adherents to be coerced and programmed, and therefore unable to make a free choice.

Its not a slippery slope at all, its just a non starter. You could not stop this from happening without infringing on their rights. All you could do is aggresively educate people.

[jbg]

And remember that when discussing Islam, as in discussing Christianity, we're not simply talking about the books, but the way those books are interpreted today by the bulk of adherents. So in a sense, Islam is not what's in their holy books, but in what people take from those books. And what we've seen around the Muslim world is a strongly growing tendency to turn to those books as a guide for all government actions.

Overall this is an excellent post. Especially this last paragraph.

The Old Testament (the only part I use) is full of alarming suggestions about severe punishments and consequences for various actions. Of course, those have been "read out" of most modern Jewish and Christian societies. No so much in the case of Islam and the Koran.

[Michael Hardner]

Again, this is irrelevant to the central theme of discussion which is whether Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion. ... Christianity does not contain a set of strictures for how society and government needs to be operated. That is what you all seem to be ignoring. Islam DOES contain such strictures.

Doesn't the bible include instructions on alms giving ? On lending money ? The point is - holy books are interpreted and adopted into the culture of a religion but you can't hold up the holy book as proof of anything on its own.

A US government can produce any law it decides it wants in place without regard to what the bible might have to say about it. And even the more religious people in America, ie, the members of right-wing Christian organizations, don't call upon the government to implement strictures and punishment from the old testament. But as we know, Muslim governments are all (and I do not use that adjective thoughtlessly) FAR and away more influenced and restricted in what laws they can put in place by the requirements of the Koran.

Are you saying that adherents from Muslim countries call for punishment from their holy books while Christians do not ? I don't think that's new.

And remember that when discussing Islam, as in discussing Christianity, we're not simply talking about the books, but the way those books are interpreted today by the bulk of adherents.

So in a sense, Islam is not what's in their holy books, but in what people take from those books. And what we've seen around the Muslim world is a strongly growing tendency to turn to those books as a guide for all government actions.

So, it's not what's in the books - it's the culture then ? So as the culture is diluted into western culture, there shouldn't be a problem then - right ? That's what happens to religious cultures in an environment of utter freedom it seems.

[Michael Hardner]

Its not a slippery slope at all, its just a non starter. You could not stop this from happening without infringing on their rights. All you could do is aggresively educate people.

This is about removing their rights. I don't doubt that I will at least see an attempt to do this in my lifetime, i.e. removal of freedom of religion as a constitutional right and an amendment to reclassify such rights as freedom of thought, expression, and freedom of association.