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

[Agnostic75]

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

Neither book should be used as a foundation. I know that that is off-topic, but it is the truth.

 

[krsnaraja]

I don`t read the Koran. & I seldom read the Bible. So the question is what is the better foundation for a legal system? Answer: No one is better. They are simultaneously one & yet different ( acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva).

 

[Nakosis]

Neither book should be used as a foundation. I know that that is off-topic, but it is the truth.

Agreed, I suppose I just don't think the Bible should be held any higher esteem then the Koran. They are both equally archaic with regards to our current legal system.

 

[BruceDLimber]

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.

No, because our system is entirely voluntary and is imposed on no one who doesn't choose to be part of it.

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.

Then it's simply up to you to ask the appropriate questions--nor did I ever suggest otherwise!

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.

On the contrary: Our system is working very well for over seven million people from over 2,100 different ethnic backgrounds!

So you protest too much, methinks.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[England my lionheart]

The problem with religious books is stagnation,laws made by Humans are a work in progress,not perfect by any means but still on the move and enable people to take responsibility instead of relying on whatever God said x amount of years ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because our system is entirely voluntary and is imposed on no one who doesn't choose to be part of it.

When it's only used by Baha'is to govern their own affairs. You were arguing that it be used to run governments for everyone... or have you forgotten?

Then it's simply up to you to ask the appropriate questions--nor did I ever suggest otherwise!

How would I do that, exactly? Even a municipal councillor here has tens of thousands of constitutents. Campaigning is unreasonable but having their phone rung off the hook isn't?

On the contrary: Our system is working very well for over seven million people from over 2,100 different ethnic backgrounds!

So you protest too much, methinks.

I don't think you understood my point: in a religious congregation, you can be reasonably sure that all the members have at least a certain level of commitment to the religion. In larger secular society, we have no such reassurance that a random neighbour (or even someone who we're well acquainted with socially) shares this sort of common commitment.

BTW - I thought proselytizing was forbidden in the Baha'i faith, no? If so, why do you insist on turning every discussion that you can here into a sales pitch for your religion?

 

[Caladan]

Most citizens of western countries are generally accepting of the laws of their countries, yet there was an international uproar when the provisional government of Libya announced that their constitution would be based on the Qur`an.

Speaking about Israel. Israeli citizens do make an uproar when religious bodies try to impose standards on what is officially a secular state.
So I think that in general you are not accurate. citizens in western countries, many of them, want a constant shift to secularism.

I suppose your title of the thread is not to be taken at face value. but a direct answer would be neither. they should both be studied in universities in which ever field they are relevant to. or for other cultural reasons, certainly not political ones.

 

[BruceDLimber]

How would I do that, exactly?

It's not my role to put words in your mouth. You're quite capable of developing your own questions, I trust.

I thought proselytizing was forbidden in the Baha'i faith, no? If so, why do you insist on turning every discussion that you can here into a sales pitch for your religion?

What? You mean just as YOU constantly promite non-religious or antireligious ideas?

Dear Kettle,

You're black!

Love, Pot

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not my role to put words in your mouth. You're quite capable of developing your own questions, I trust.

I was referring to the fact that it would be impractical if not physically impossible for a candidate running for an office that represents, say, 10,000 constitutents to answer the questions that all of them might have.

... especially when the candidate has no campaign staff or literature to help answer those questions, because of your bizarre fetish against campaigning.

What? You mean just as YOU constantly promite non-religious or antireligious ideas?

Dear Kettle,

You're black!

Love, Pot

Excuse me? You inserted yourself into a discussion of two specific religions with irrelevancy about some other religion that nobody was even concerned with. And it's a pattern you've repeated over and over again: you'll shoehorn some sales pitch for your religion (i.e. proselytizing... and I notice you glossed over my question about whether this goes against Baha'i teaching) into a thread where it's not asked for or wanted.

I think that I conduct myself a bit better than that, but if I ever have been guilty of it, I would correct myself and apologize for it if it was pointed out to me, not resort to a tu quoque argument to justify my objectionable behaviour.

 

[BruceDLimber]

The last I heard these discussions are open to all participants, and my posting was eminently on-topic in re an ideal legal/govenmental system!

The fact that YOU don't like it is quite beside the point.

So you protest too much, methinks.

Bruce

 

[Meow Mix]

As a side-note, I think the phrase "He doth protest too much" was for people who are ranting against something that they secretly engage in -- such as an extreme homophobe with secret gay tendencies "protests too much" against homosexuality.

Maybe I understood it wrong

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The last I heard these discussions are open to all participants, and my posting was eminently on-topic in re an ideal legal/govenmental system!

And I assume that you think that's what the topic was.

The fact that YOU don't like it is quite beside the point.

So you protest too much, methinks.

Bruce

And I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving. If you run out of wood for the fireplace, throw some tu quoque fallacies on the fire - it seems you have plenty to spare.

As a side-note, I think the phrase "He doth protest too much" was for people who are ranting against something that they secretly engage in -- such as an extreme homophobe with secret gay tendencies "protests too much" against homosexuality.

Maybe I understood it wrong

From what I gather, it seems he thinks that I'm an atheist evangelist the same way that he's a Baha'i evangelist, so he thinks that it's hypocritical for me to call him on his evangelism.

I don't think he's correct, and I don't see how it's really a response to my question to him about what his religion teaches about the sort of proselytizing he's engaging in.

Of course, I don't really expect to get a response to my question, because I know full well that the Baha'i faith is opposed to proselytizing.

 

[Godwilling]

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?

I think that the US may not have been too different from what it is regardless of the religious beliefs of their original colonizers. The religious beliefs of the settlers were often extreme and violent, but petroleum, gold, timber, water, and fertile land gave them enough comforts to soften their views and become more tolerant.

The most extreme views appear to develop and prosper in the most extreme environments. The most extremist Muslim views appear to coincide with the harshest environments. The deserts of the Arabian Peninsula and of Afghanistan appear to support this thought.

Harsh environments such as famine and war appear to brew extreme views and behaviour. When the US was inhospitable, it appeared to be intolerant, and became more tolerant as it became more hospitable.

The more extreme religious views in the US also appear to occur within the harshest climatological conditions and the most poverty within the US at present.

 

[Agnostic75]

We have a Christian rule in the US predominately through popular vote.

What is "Christian rule?" Although President Obama is a Christian, he has stated that the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

The separation of church and state clause in the U.S. Constitution does not allow any church to run the state. Such being the case, there is not any need to compare one religion with another. The less the U.S. government has to do with religion, the better. Neither Christianity nor Islam can solve the most important problems that humans have, such as global warming, pollution, wars, and economic problems. If a God exists, and wanted to make his identity, and agenda, clearly known, he could easily achieve that tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in the world.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is "Christian rule?" Although President Obama is a Christian, he has stated that the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

The separation of church and state clause in the U.S. Constitution does not allow any church to run the state. Such being the case, there is not any need to compare one religion with another. The less the U.S. government has to do with religion, the better. Neither Christianity nor Islam can solve the most important problems that humans have, such as global warming, pollution, wars, and economic problems. If a God exists, and wanted to make his identity, and agenda, clearly known, he could easily achieve that tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in the world.

Though I agree with you, I wanted to point out that sadly, religious lobbying has increased five-fold since the 1970's in the US.

Considering the state of politics in the US (the ridiculous clowns that we seriously consider for the highest office, the prevalence of religion in both major parties, "faith-based" initiatives, legislating religious morality (e.g. prop 8), wasting time during a recession to "re-affirm" an unconstitutional national motto ("In God We Trust"), and the deep partisan divide -- I can't decide whether I should just stop caring since I'm moving to Canada or if I should be crushingly disappointed that so far America has utterly failed to be what I envisioned its dream to be.

Edit -- "utterly failed" may be a bit harsh, but there's simply no reason for it to have failed as much as it has and (as far as I can tell) will continue to.

 

[Godwilling]

If the question in the thread title, "Which one is better foundation for a legal system, the Qur'an or the Bible?", makes sense at all, then it implies that there's some standard of good or bad external to both the Qur'an and the Bible that we can use to measure which one's better.

If this is the case, then why not use that standard as the basis for our legal system instead of the Qur'an or the Bible?

That is an excellent point!

 

[Godwilling]

I personally would much rather both monarchs and dictators be a thing of the past. Not that all monarchs have been terrible. But what's the point any longer?

In Sweden and Denmark, those monarchs are mere museum pieces. They're only figureheads ( This may be why their people are so satisfied ).

I think you are correct.

 

[Godwilling]

I think I would be equally terrified to live under either; and would certainly try to get out of there and take all my loved ones.

I think I would follow suit.

 

[Godwilling]

Though I agree with you, I wanted to point out that sadly, religious lobbying has increased five-fold since the 1970's in the US.

Considering the state of politics in the US (the ridiculous clowns that we seriously consider for the highest office, the prevalence of religion in both major parties, "faith-based" initiatives, legislating religious morality (e.g. prop 8), wasting time during a recession to "re-affirm" an unconstitutional national motto ("In God We Trust"), and the deep partisan divide -- I can't decide whether I should just stop caring since I'm moving to Canada or if I should be crushingly disappointed that so far America has utterly failed to be what I envisioned its dream to be.

Edit -- "utterly failed" may be a bit harsh, but there's simply no reason for it to have failed as much as it has and (as far as I can tell) will continue to.

I think I agree with you because some presidential candidates have recognized in "private" conversations that they would have no chance of being elected if they do not make themselves visible attending church and carrying a bible on hand.