Which one is better foundation for a legal system, the Qur`an or the Bible?

[Godwilling]

The U.S. saved yer as...

I am not sure the statement...? It is at the very least a gross assumption.

 

[Godwilling]

BruceDLimbar,

Another potential problem that I see with your system is that it's purely democratic. Given human nature, sometimes that can be like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner -- are there protections for minorities in your system from the majority?

"Purely democratic" should not be a bad thing and it should not mean imposition of the values of the majority. Canada is a democracy and it protects the rights of its minorities by its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[Photonic]

"Purely democratic" should not be a bad thing and it should not mean imposition of the values of the majority. Canada is a democracy and it protects the rights of its minorities by its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our Constitution does that too.

And Separation of Church and State was a concept put in by religious people for their own protection. They sometimes forget that though, and try to say it isn't implied by the Constitution.

If they want to get rid of it...fine. It would be to their greatest detriment.

 

[BruceDLimber]

[A]re there protections for minorities in your system from the majority?

Most assuredly!

Our administrative bodies are composed of nine individuals.

And any time there's a tie for the ninth place, if one's a minority, he or she is automatically elected! (If there'are multiple minorities or it's unclear whether this rule applies, then a by-election is held between the tying parties <as also happens when there's no minority tied>).

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Caladan]

I agree with you in every point. I just want to add that it was not just "tolerance of pluralistic thought", but rather acceptance and embrace of pluralistic thought. This ideology of Spain at the time was based on Sharia Law because the rulers were Muslims. Al-Andalus, or Spanish, interpretation of Sharia Law, the "live and let live" attitude of the Spaniards that was destroyed by the Catholic Monarchs in the 15th century, was much more civilized than most legal systems in the world today.
And this brings me back to my point: Sharia, Christian, or Rabbinic Laws are not monolithic. Each depends on the interpretation of their interpreters, and equating Sharia Law with beheadings is as narrow minded as equating Rabbinic Law with "an eye for an eye".

But can you say that this was because of Sharia law, despite Sharia law or regardless of Sharia law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the contrary, we find it ideal! It's nominations and campaigning that create a lot of the partisan problems that our system avoids!

If you find it ideal, then use it for your own affairs. But I have no interest on you imposing it on me.

And I think it's a red herring to refer to "partisan politics". There are plenty of non-partisan systems where people run and campaign. Municipal governments where I live are a good example: my town government doesn't have parties, and it doesn't have "partisan problems". Of course, sometimes elected representatives have different viewpoints on matters of policy, but that's going to happen whether you have parties or not.

And as I've already said, the idea is to vote for those with whom you're famliar, which of course adds emphasis to the idea of getting acquainted with the people in question.

But since your scheme also denies us the best way to get familiar with the people we might vote for - i.e. campaigning - I think that if that's really the idea behind what you suggest, it leaves much to be desired as a system for electing a functional government.

And for me as a voter, the most important thing for me is to know my candidates' stances on issues that are of concern to me. I know plenty of people socially or through the organizations I'm involved with who are very nice and pleasant to talk to, but whose politics I know nothing about at all. In my experience, most social interaction is completely deficient at letting me know whether a person is cut out for elected office.

When I'm choosing my representatives, the key question in my mind is "what will this person do when they're in office?" The system you describe takes away my best way to answer this question.

Once again, you vote for those you consider dedicated to the task at hand, so this really isn't a problem.

And indeed, anyone trying to "run for office" is probably just guaranteeing that he or she won't be elected specifically because of that attempt!

That makes no sense. You're describing a bizarre catch-22 situation where the people most interested in serving as elected representatives are effectively barred from office. Either that or some sort of system of "stealth campaigning": building your popularity with the aim of being elected without coming out and saying "I'm running for office!"

Of course there is: LOTS of it!

Then why are you advocating a system that would put immigrants at a decided disadvantage?

Then my point holds: don't vote for someone you aren't famliar with.

Those who arrive and get involved will indeed get noticed. And those who don't probably shouldn't be elected, anyway.

Immigrants would be at a decided disadvantage.

For example, just in terms of name recognition, I was familiar with one of my local councillors mainly because of his father, who served on council for decades. No newcomer to the community is going to have that going for him.

Look - if you say that this system works well in Baha'i congregations, fine. I can see how it might work in a small group where everyone knows everyone, and where it's reasonable to assume that all the members have the level of dedication needed to serve in some office. But as a system for governing a nation or even a town, I think it has horrible shortcomings to the point that it would create a system that would be unfair and impractical.

I also think that you're suggesting it not out of the merits of the idea, but out of some notion you have that anything Baha'i is automatically the best option.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No religion is good for a government. Not only is there the issue of forcing religious laws on people who do not adhere to that religion, you also have the issue of whose interpretation of said religion gets used as law? In such a scenario there is only one party that can be happy, and that is the party that has their own interpretation made as law.

 

[BruceDLimber]

If you find it ideal, then use it for your own affairs. But I have no interest on you imposing it on me.

A red herring: we're not imposing anything on anybody.

And I think it's a red herring to refer to "partisan politics". There are plenty of non-partisan systems where people run and campaign.

Precisely why Baha'is can, for example, be judges and serve on school boards. These positins are, as you note, non-partisan.

But since your scheme also denies us the best way to get familiar with the people we might vote for - i.e. campaigning.

Not so: campaigning is often cynical posing and trying to tell people what they want to hear rather than providing a truly honest picture. And it's for this reason that avoidance of campaigning isn't at all "catch-22."

When I'm choosing my representatives, the key question in my mind is "what will this person do when they're in office?" The system you describe takes away my best way to answer this question.

I disagree because it tends to give a better overall impression of the individual's personality.

Nor are immigrants at a disadvantage, and the diversity of our elected bodies has made eminently clear.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A red herring: we're not imposing anything on anybody.

That's what you're suggesting, though: if that's the sort of governmental system we had (which is what you've been arguing should be the case, isn't it?), then those who disagree with it would have it imposed on them.

Or are you now suggesting some sort of hybrid system where candidates don't campaign in your direction, but can campaign in mine?

Not so: campaigning is often cynical posing and trying to tell people what they want to hear rather than providing a truly honest picture. And it's for this reason that avoidance of campaigning isn't at all "catch-22."

A flawed picture is better than no picture at all.

I can know someone socially my whole life and consider them personally trustworthy without ever discussing, say, their positions on land use planning with them, but this is precisely the sort of thing I would want to know about my muncipal councillor. Social situations simply don't give us enough insight into a person to know whether they'd be good at being an elected representative leading a government.

I disagree because it tends to give a better overall impression of the individual's personality.

Personality is only half the story. While it's all fine and good to know that a person will abide by their convictions, if you don't know where those convictions will lead them, you're missing vital information that you need to decide whether to vote for them or not.

There are plenty of people who I would be happy to have a beer with and who I would even trust with my life who I would never, ever vote for. And it's not because I don't think they're good people; it's just that while we both want a better society, we have very different ideas about how to make that happen.

Nor are immigrants at a disadvantage, and the diversity of our elected bodies has made eminently clear.

Again: I think this is one issue where what can work at a very small scale in a single cohesive religious community doesn't translate well to the large scale with a pluralistic society.

 

[Agnostic75]

Islam and the freedom of religion do not seem to be compatible in predominantly Muslim countries.

 

[Nakosis]

Islam and the freedom of religion do not seem to be compatible in predominantly Muslim countries.

I wonder if it would be any different in the US if not for our interpretation of the Constitution. Yet a Muslim has more chance of becoming President in the US then an Atheist.

With the Koran you have freedom of religion as long as you submit to Muslim rule. We have a Christian rule in the US predominately through popular vote. Imagine if Islamic settlers had colonized America first. Would things be that different?

 

[Agnostic75]

I wonder if it would be any different in the US if not for our
interpretation of the Constitution. Yet a Muslim has more chance of becoming President in the US then an Atheist.

Only slightly according to at least one poll, and that is merely as example of the majority of Americans voting against an atheist, not necessary for a Muslim, in other words, the lesser of two undersirable choices.

With the Koran you have freedom of religion as long as you submit to Muslim rule. We have a Christian rule in the US predominately through popular vote. Imagine if Islamic settlers had colonized America first. Would things be that different?

In the U.S., people have the freedom to own, print, and distribute the Koran, and to openly promote Islam. Many predominantly Muslim countries do not allow people to own, print, and distribute the Bible, and openly promote Christianity.

As far as I know, there are at least to Muslim U.S. Congressmen. How many predominantly Muslim countries have similar opportunities for Christian politicians?

Generally, homosexuals are far worse off in predominantly Muslim countries than they are in predominantly Christian countries. In Islamic republics, homosexuals are imprisoned or put to death. Even in liberal predominatly Muslim countries, homosexuals are generally persecuted much more than they are in predominantly Christian countries.

 

[Agnostic75]

I wonder if it would be any different in the US if not for our interpretation of the Constitution. Yet a Muslim has more chance of becoming President in the US then an Atheist.

With the Koran you have freedom of religion as long as you submit to Muslim rule. We have a Christian rule in the US predominately through popular vote. Imagine if Islamic settlers had colonized America first. Would things be that different?

Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Islam is the official religion. Although no law requires citizens or passport holders to be Muslim, almost all citizens are Muslims. Non-islamic proselytism is illegal, and conversion by Muslims to another religion (apostasy) carries the death penalty, although as of 2010 there had been no confirmed reports of executions for apostasy in recent years.

Religious freedom is virtually non-existent. The Government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice. As a matter of policy, the Government guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious practice; however, this right is not always respected in practice and is not defined in law.Moreover, the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited. The Saudi Mutaween.......(i.e., the religious police) enforces the prohibition on the public practice of non-Muslim religions. Sharia Law applies to all people inside Saudi Arabia, regardless of religion.

Freedom of religion in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 23 September 2009, the United States House of Representatives introduced a "House Resolution 764" which calls on Pakistan to restore religious freedom in the country where Hindus, Christians, Ahmadiyyas and Bahai's (the religions mentioned by name) are subjugated. The resolution was introduced by Representative Christopher L. Smith.As of August 2010, the resolution awaits a House Vote.

Freedom of religion in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In September 2005 a court sentenced three women from the Christian Church of Camp David to 3 years imprisonment under the Child Protection Law for allegedly attempting to convert Muslim children to Christianity. The women claimed that family members gave permission for their children to attend Christian youth programs. The Supreme Court rejected the women's appeal in 2006. They served two years of their sentences and were released on parole on June 11, 2007.

There is no need to discuss religious free in Iran, and Syria.

 

[Nakosis]

Only slightly according to at least one poll, and that is merely as example of the majority of Americans voting against an atheist, not necessary for a Muslim, in other words, the lesser of two undersirable choices.

Yes, understood, but I think it shows how not trusted the secular are.

In the U.S., people have the freedom to own, print, and distribute the Koran, and to openly promote Islam. Many predominantly Muslim countries do not allow people to own, print, and distribute the Bible, and openly promote Christianity.

As far as I know, there are at least to Muslim U.S. Congressmen. How many predominantly Muslim countries have similar opportunities for Christian politicians?

Generally, homosexuals are far worse off in predominantly Muslim countries than they are in predominantly Christian countries. In Islamic republics, homosexuals are imprisoned or put to death. Even in liberal predominatly Muslim countries, homosexuals are generally persecuted much more than they are in predominantly Christian countries.

Yes but America isolated itself from the rest of the world and developed it's own ideology. The colonist left Europe because of religious oppression. It brought about a tolerance for different beliefs. Christianity was no more tolerant then Muslim belief. Christianity evolved in the New World. Muslim belief would likely have evolved as well. Muslims in the US seem generally more tolerant of other beliefs. I think it more a matter of circumstances then the actual religion involved.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes but America isolated itself from the rest of the world and developed it's own ideology. The colonist left Europe because of religious oppression. It brought about a tolerance for different beliefs. Christianity was no more tolerant than Muslim belief. Christianity evolved in the New World. Muslim belief would likely have evolved as well. Muslims in the US seem generally more tolerant of other beliefs. I think it more a matter of circumstances then the actual religion involved.

I do not have any idea what you are talking about since I provided conclusive proof that Muslims have a lot more religious freedoms in the U.S. than Christians do even in some moderate Muslims countries, not to mention homosexuals. It is as if you did not even read my posts, or did read them and immeidately dismissed them. Muslims are generally far more intolerante of other religions than American Christians are.

 

[Agnostic75]

I wonder if it would be any different in the US if not for our
interpretation of the Constitution. Yet a Muslim has more chance of becoming President in the US then an Atheist.

Only slightly according to at least one poll, and that is merely as example of the majority of Americans voting against an atheist, not necessary for a Muslim, in other words, the lesser of two undersirable choices.

Yes, understood, but I think it shows how not trusted the secular are.

Yes, but this thread is about comparing the Qur'an and the Bible, not theists and atheists. Generally, followers of the Bible are much more tolerant of other religions than followers of the Qur'an are, not to mention homsoexuals, who are imprisoned or put to death in Islamic republics, and are persecuted even in liberal Muslim countries.

 

[Photonic]

Yes, understood, but I think it shows how not trusted the secular are.



Yes but America isolated itself from the rest of the world and developed it's own ideology. The colonist left Europe because of religious oppression. It brought about a tolerance for different beliefs. Christianity was no more tolerant then Muslim belief. Christianity evolved in the New World. Muslim belief would likely have evolved as well. Muslims in the US seem generally more tolerant of other beliefs. I think it more a matter of circumstances then the actual religion involved.

It's a matter of the secular nature of US Law that prevents religious groups from slitting each others throats. Besides that it is off topic.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not have any idea what you are talking about since I provided conclusive proof that Muslims have a lot more religious freedoms in the U.S. than Christians do even in some moderate Muslims countries, not to mention homosexuals. It is as if you did not even read my posts, or did read them and immeidately dismissed them. Muslims are generally far more intolerante of other religions than American Christians are.

Is that because of the Bible? I don't think so. I think any religious group place in the same set of circumstances as the American colonist would have likely led to similar views on tolerance.

So it's an unfair comparison bringing US tolerance into the picture.

 

[Nakosis]

It's a matter of the secular nature of US Law that prevents religious groups from slitting each others throats. Besides that it is off topic.

Exactly, it's a non-religious development. So religious tolerance shouldn't be used to compare which book would make the better foundation.

 

[Agnostic75]

Exactly, it's a non-religious development. So religious tolerance shouldn't be used to compare which book would make the better foundation.

What should be used to compare which book would make the better foundation?

Isn't it reasonable to say that the Koran is the main reason why the majority of Muslims strongly oppose homosexuality?