Separation of Church n' State

[grillo]

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

How about the separation of everyone from State. But to do this you need to be prepared to actually acknowledge what that means and it also means being prepared to engage with real ideas and do real work rather than the self-justifying back-slapping intellectual exercises that is the contemporary American faux-Libertarian movement.

That would be the ultimate goal, but clearly many people LOVE LOVE LOVE the state and its interference in all aspects of life.I'm only asking 'can I opt out?" I already know I cannot. I do, however, try to live as freely as possible in my personal life, and that means rejecting people who, having heard the arguments (non-aggression principle) still believe force should be used against me to do what they want (public schooling, war, whatever). So, yeah, I know you have to be ready to cut a lot of ties in order to live by your principles.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

How about the separation of everyone from State. But to do this you need to be prepared to actually acknowledge what that means and it also means being prepared to engage with real ideas and do real work rather than the self-justifying back-slapping intellectual exercises that is the contemporary American faux-Libertarian movement.

That would be the ultimate goal, but clearly many people LOVE LOVE LOVE the state and its interference in all aspects of life.I'm only asking 'can I opt out?" I already know I cannot. I do, however, try to live as freely as possible in my personal life, and that means rejecting people who, having heard the arguments (non-aggression principle) still believe force should be used against me to do what they want (public schooling, war, whatever). So, yeah, I know you have to be ready to cut a lot of ties in order to live by your principles.

What are "my" principles?

[guitarfool2002]

Understood, but when you have any political entity seeking power through government whose entire foundation is based on a specific religion with specific laws and divine figures to worship and follow, and whose groups specifically name themselves using that religion, there should be even more scrutiny of their interests and goals because it is in direct conflict with the idea of avoiding a state-sponsored religion.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Understood, but when you have any political entity seeking power through government whose entire foundation is based on a specific religion with specific laws and divine figures to worship and follow, and whose groups specifically name themselves using that religion, there should be even more scrutiny of their interests and goals because it is in direct conflict with the idea of avoiding a state-sponsored religion.

Yes, though, that is our idea right now and just because it is our idea does not mean that it necessarily needs to be applied everywhere. Personally, I think it would be best, but that means nothing. If it is their idea democratically, then we should support it. But if it is democratically opposed then we really have no right "scrutinizing" it.

[guitarfool2002]

Again, from an earlier post, how would the notion of a "Catholic Brotherhood" political movement seeking government power be received? On principle alone, I'd be as against it as I am the Muslim Brotherhood seeking power or influence, because it is based on one specific religion with an implication that this one religion is the only one that should be accepted and practiced.

There needs to be that separation, there needs to be that inherent foundation built around choice and the freedom to practice or not practice at will, and surely not to be governed under a specific set of religious rules from a specific mandated state religion.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Furthermore, recall that the targets of persecution in Egypt for years were the Muslim Brotherhood to the extent that it was illegal to form a party using the name. There is a strange standard which is far more critical of possible acts of repression than actual acts of repression that really did happen which appears to come from the sentiment (I'm not saying yours but perhaps a more general one) that the Muslim Brotherhood is innately wrong. Therefore when they are repressed and illegal imprisoned, it merits no response. However, when they are in power, we must be vigilant in ensuring that they are not guilty of the same behaviour that was largely supported when it targeted them.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Again, from an earlier post, how would the notion of a "Catholic Brotherhood" political movement seeking government power be received? On principle alone, I'd be as against it as I am the Muslim Brotherhood seeking power or influence, because it is based on one specific religion with an implication that this one religion is the only one that should be accepted and practiced.

But that's not what the Muslim Brotherhood implies neither in theory nor in practice. If there was a Catholic Brotherhood that was largely tolerant of other religions in the same way, then I'd feel the same way about it. I agree with you, there should be no official state religion or state-sanctioned culture as there essentially is in Israel. Nevertheless, I do not feel that I have any right to impose my preferences on other people, no matter how correct I think I am.

[guitarfool2002]

Understood, but when you have any political entity seeking power through government whose entire foundation is based on a specific religion with specific laws and divine figures to worship and follow, and whose groups specifically name themselves using that religion, there should be even more scrutiny of their interests and goals because it is in direct conflict with the idea of avoiding a state-sponsored religion.

Yes, though, that is our idea right now and just because it is our idea does not mean that it necessarily needs to be applied everywhere. Personally, I think it would be best, but that means nothing. If it is their idea democratically, then we should support it. But if it is democratically opposed then we really have no right "scrutinizing" it.

Furthermore, recall that the targets of persecution in Egypt for years were the Muslim Brotherhood to the extent that it was illegal to form a party using the name. There is a strange standard which is far more critical of possible acts of repression than actual acts of repression that really did happen which appears to come from the sentiment (I'm not saying yours but perhaps a more general one) that the Muslim Brotherhood is innately wrong. Therefore when they are repressed and illegal imprisoned, it merits no response. However, when they are in power, we must be vigilant in ensuring that they are not guilty of the same behaviour that was largely supported when it targeted them.

And isn't there an inkling that some of the impetus behind the uprising was a feeling that the Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government came into the political arena promising reforms and whatnot, yes - based on Islamic principles, only to enact and enforce a more strict version of Sharia law on those people who expected reforms and a more free interpretation of the laws?

Some of the analysis suggests the people thought they were going to get a more open or free government in the spirit of the "Arab Spring" label, only to find the reformers they elected reverted back to the more strict and less tolerant tenets of Islam and Sharia law when it actually came time to govern and rule the country.

Thus, they felt cheated and/or duped and took action. Whatever we in the US feel, there is at least something to consider in the way the Muslim Brotherhood can campaign and advertise any way they want to sell themselves for popular elections, but when push actually came to shove they were more in line with the stricter Islamic governments and started to rule as such rather than what they told the voters to get elected.

Sounds familiar.  

In all seriousness, though, it comes down to the overt and singular religious factor for me in my opposition to groups like Muslim Brotherhood.

[guitarfool2002]

But I ask, where is the tolerance for other religions or religious beliefs if not the right to choose not to believe in the tenets of Islam? If we're being specific to the religion of the Muslim Brotherhood alone, the religion they are founded on demands absolute devotion to Muhammed and his teachings, and of course the concept of monotheism is not exclusive to Islam alone, but it is the issue at hand when discussing the Muslim Brotherhood's political aspirations and activities.

[Heysaboda]

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

How about the separation of everyone from State. But to do this you need to be prepared to actually acknowledge what that means and it also means being prepared to engage with real ideas and do real work rather than the self-justifying back-slapping intellectual exercises that is the contemporary American faux-Libertarian movement.

That would be the ultimate goal, but clearly many people LOVE LOVE LOVE the state and its interference in all aspects of life.I'm only asking 'can I opt out?" I already know I cannot. I do, however, try to live as freely as possible in my personal life, and that means rejecting people who, having heard the arguments (non-aggression principle) still believe force should be used against me to do what they want (public schooling, war, whatever). So, yeah, I know you have to be ready to cut a lot of ties in order to live by your principles.

Grillo, Maybe it’s not that people want to love the state, just that no one’s figured out a better way to fund roads, bridges, airports, police, firemen, and yes military.  Are you saying you want to opt out of roads?  LOL

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And isn't there an inkling that some of the impetus behind the uprising was a feeling that the Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government came into the political arena promising reforms and whatnot, yes - based on Islamic principles, only to enact and enforce a more strict version of Sharia law on those people who expected reforms and a more free interpretation of the laws?

Yes, absolutely, which suggests that the people who were protesting Morsi would be undoubtedly horrified by the coup that has followed which has led to a re-instatement of the far worse totalitarian regime that was ousted several years ago.

Some of the analysis suggests the people thought they were going to get a more open or free government in the spirit of the "Arab Spring" label, only to find the reformers they elected reverted back to the more strict and less tolerant tenets of Islam and Sharia law when it actually came time to govern and rule the country.

There was certainly nothing under Morsi which suggested the same kind of atrocities and gross human rights violations that occurred under the US-supported Mubarak. The fact is that whether or not the people like Morsi, there was no indication that the government was going to operate without elections, as was the case with Mubarak, who ruled authoritatively, jailing tens of thousands of dissidents, illegally constructing detention centres, rejecting institutions on the basis of ideology, for nearly three decades as a result of critical US support. Democracy doesn't come easy, especially not after thirty years of a totalitarian dictatorship. The facts are that Morsi was influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and also that he was presiding over a more democratic state that what had existed in Egypt before. Perhaps what this problematically suggests is that even with all the problems of the Muslim Brotherhood, which I acknowledge, they are far better able to achieve a democratic state rather than a US-client who are, by and large, totalitarian in nature. Obviously the road to a more civil society would be a long one and I say would be because the chances of that have become reduced in the last few weeks given the destruction of the achievements of the last few years, including a suspension of the constitution and a return to the victimization of the former dissident parties with perhaps some added depravity this time around.

This is why I don't particularly understand this characterization on the Muslim Brotherhood. Sure, they're problematic but in Egypt their role has been primarily the victim of totalitarianism not perpetrators of it. That they should be the ones we concentrate our critiques on when they have been historically victimized by being thrown in jail illegally as dissidents, being prohibited by law from running in elections, been removed from democratically achieved power by a coup, and have been once again overwhelmingly the victims of military and state violence. It is a real achievement in propaganda that we should use this moment to focus our critique on this group.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But I ask, where is the tolerance for other religions or religious beliefs if not the right to choose not to believe in the tenets of Islam?

People DO have that right.

If we're being specific to the religion of the Muslim Brotherhood alone, the religion they are founded on demands absolute devotion to Muhammed and his teachings, and of course the concept of monotheism is not exclusive to Islam alone, but it is the issue at hand when discussing the Muslim Brotherhood's political aspirations and activities.

No, it isn't because Egypt was ruled by figure largely influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and was tolerant of many other religious views. So, again, that statement is simply untrue both in theory and in practice.

[guitarfool2002]

Check some of the details around Morsi assuming power after the elections. First, he issued an edict stating that anything he ruled or decreed would be free from judicial review...even temporarily, that is suspending the system of checks and balances key to any democratic government. Beyond that, there were entire bodies of the Egyptian legislature, yet another check-and-balance apparatus, disbanded or simply rendered impotent against the rule of Morsi's "executive branch". Third, Morsi campaigned on inclusiveness and tolerance of other religions and religious interests within Egypt, including Egyptian Christian groups and various "wings" of the Islamic political spectrum in Egypt. Yet he included none of them, and basically ignored their input and even their calls to have input at all into the new constitution. This directly contradicted what he said he and the Brotherhood would do to help right the wrongs of previous leadership.

Plus, there were reports coming from Egypt that pro-Brotherhood and pro-Morsi interests were in the name of the new Morsi government actively seeking out and punishing critics of Morsi and his new government, including beatings, arrests, imprisonments, and basically it felt to may Egyptians like a replay of the same events that led them to oust the previous leadership regime.

In some cases, Morsi's actions and conduct when in office felt to some like he was creating a dictatorship and establishing a totalitarian government where his words and edicts were subject to no judicial reviews or challenges, his more vocal opponents were being arrested and beaten, and his actions dismantled and disabled entire legislative branches of the government which the people had also elected to serve.

So, again, let's not feel too sorry for a guy and his regime when we look into how he was conducting his affairs and how it stood to affect the people who had voted for him as a reformer and agent of change, or simply to right the wrongs of his predecessors.

[guitarfool2002]

Or to sum up, the Egyptian political group who were victims of totalitarianism (Muslim Brotherhood) under previous regimes began governing like those same totalitarian regimes they replaced.

[guitarfool2002]

But I ask, where is the tolerance for other religions or religious beliefs if not the right to choose not to believe in the tenets of Islam?

People DO have that right.

If we're being specific to the religion of the Muslim Brotherhood alone, the religion they are founded on demands absolute devotion to Muhammed and his teachings, and of course the concept of monotheism is not exclusive to Islam alone, but it is the issue at hand when discussing the Muslim Brotherhood's political aspirations and activities.

No, it isn't because Egypt was ruled by figure largely influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and was tolerant of many other religious views. So, again, that statement is simply untrue both in theory and in practice.

Is a follower of Islam allowed under Sharia law to publicly criticize or challenge Islam? If they do in these cases they're at best labeled an "infidel", at worst and when taken to the extreme they have a "Fatwa" issued against them which is basically a death warrant issued by an Islamic religious leader. These who have received a Fatwa against them calling for their death or having a bounty placed on their head for criticizing or insulting Islam have included everyone from Muslim women journalists and activists campaigning for womens' rights under Islam, an Iranian rap artist, a European cartoonist, and most famously author Salman Rushdie.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Or to sum up, the Egyptian political group who were victims of totalitarianism (Muslim Brotherhood) under previous regimes began governing like those same totalitarian regimes they replaced.

Forgive me, but that's an obscenity and truly offensive to those who experienced first hand what was perhaps the worst dictatorship in the region for three decades. To draw such a comparison is remarkably misleading. First of all, your first point that Morsi "issued an edict stating that anything he ruled or decreed would be free from judicial review" as you know was a policy that was annulled after a month. And yes, it was certainly a problematic but it was telling that it was annulled - a sign of just how much had changed since the Mubarak days. As far as your points regarding the disbanding of "entire bodies of the Egyptian legislature," I am afraid I am unaware of that. I do know that Morsi actually reinstated the legislators that had been dissolved by the military. Incidentally, the coup has worked to dissolve the legislature. The point about inclusiveness is well taken but your argument that he was entirely intolerant of other religions is not entirely accurate as he did have two Christian advisors.

lus, there were reports coming from Egypt that pro-Brotherhood and pro-Morsi interests were in the name of the new Morsi government actively seeking out and punishing critics of Morsi and his new government, including beatings, arrests, imprisonments, and basically it felt to may Egyptians like a replay of the same events that led them to oust the previous leadership regime.

Yeah, personally I would like to evaluate those reports though I am certainly skeptical that they rise to the level of atrocities seen under Mubarak.

So, again, let's not feel too sorry for a guy and his regime when we look into how he was conducting his affairs and how it stood to affect the people who had voted for him as a reformer and agent of change, or simply to right the wrongs of his predecessors.

I mostly feel sorry for the Egyptian people who have seen their democratically elected ousted by a military coup and not their vote - a military coup largely carried out by the far worse regime that they topped a few years ago.

[grillo]

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

How about the separation of everyone from State. But to do this you need to be prepared to actually acknowledge what that means and it also means being prepared to engage with real ideas and do real work rather than the self-justifying back-slapping intellectual exercises that is the contemporary American faux-Libertarian movement.

That would be the ultimate goal, but clearly many people LOVE LOVE LOVE the state and its interference in all aspects of life.I'm only asking 'can I opt out?" I already know I cannot. I do, however, try to live as freely as possible in my personal life, and that means rejecting people who, having heard the arguments (non-aggression principle) still believe force should be used against me to do what they want (public schooling, war, whatever). So, yeah, I know you have to be ready to cut a lot of ties in order to live by your principles.

Grillo, Maybe it’s not that people want to love the state, just that no one’s figured out a better way to fund roads, bridges, airports, police, firemen, and yes military.  Are you saying you want to opt out of roads?  LOL

Ahh yes, the roads. Only the government can build, maintain, or develop technologies that allow folks to get around, right? There are literally entire books written about that fallacy, so you'll forgive me if I don't try to tackle that with one post.
However, as I've argued many times before, it really doesn't matter who builds the roads or who funds what.  It seems far more important to recognize that there is an organization at the center of society that's only way of getting things done is by using force, or the threat of force, and which forbids individuals from engaging in the very practices that it monopolizes.
       When the state is recognized as the violent, sociopathic institution it is it becomes easy to see that almost any other way of getting needs met would be better.
Consider that a quarter billion people were killed in the 20th century alone BY THEIR GOVERNMENTS, and that does not include war. Surely those murdered could have come up with a better solution. It seems obvious that the only kind of just relationship is a voluntary one, where everyone's needs can be met without force or coercion.
Anyway,
If you are actually interested in other folks' thoughts on these topics, I'd be happy to provide you with some resources.

[guitarfool2002]

The reports are out there, whether you accept them or not, that many of the Egyptians who became disillusioned with the Morsi government after voting him into power felt his government was reverting back to the same type of totalitarian rule that drove the previous government out of power. If that is an obscenity, the issue is with those Egyptians who felt that way, not those reporting it as such.

I'd suggest again that if the Egyptian public who voted for Morsi had received the kind of reformist, democratic, and inclusive government through his actions that Morsi promised them with his campaign rhetoric, the current events would not be as they are today. And some credit must be given too that they acted now, within a short period of time, rather than being duped and living under another potential dictatorship for three decades to come.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Is a follower of Islam allowed under Sharia law to publicly criticize or challenge Islam?

It depends on the interpretation of Sharia law. I would imagine in the more secular regions where it is practiced, or the areas where it is only applied minimally, it is allowed.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'd suggest again that if the Egyptian public who voted for Morsi had received the kind of reformist, democratic, and inclusive government through his actions that Morsi promised them with his campaign rhetoric, the current events would not be as they are today.

I agree though I do also believe that the flames were fanned by the totalitarian elements that had desired to get back into power.

And some credit must be given too that they acted now, within a short period of time, rather than being duped and living under another potential dictatorship for three decades to come.

They didn't act - the military as informed by former members of the totalitarian regime acted. The people protested but there is no indication that they wanted what is going on now and given that the new regime has essentially worked to turn with extreme violence against the population, I can't imagine this is what they were protesting for. Furthermore, you could argue that Morsi was presiding over a "potential dictatorship" in the same way that you could apply the same argument to anyone and, in fact, is the same rhetorical move is used constantly to garner support for the toppling of democracies.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Consider that a quarter billion people were killed in the 20th century alone BY THEIR GOVERNMENTS, and that does not include war.

Consider that over 20 million children's lives in Africa alone have been saved over the last 5 years due to international foreign aid. Governments can do bad things and they can do good things. Neither are particularly good arguments for keeping or getting rid of governments.

[guitarfool2002]

Is a follower of Islam allowed under Sharia law to publicly criticize or challenge Islam?

It depends on the interpretation of Sharia law. I would imagine in the more secular regions where it is practiced, or the areas where it is only applied minimally, it is allowed.

Is there any interpretation of Sharia law, no matter how liberal or conservative the interpretation may be, which allows a practicing Muslim to publicly criticize or challenge Islam? Or is there an Imam, or other leader of a mosque or Islamic community who is an openly vocal critic of the elements of the religion itself?

[guitarfool2002]

I'd suggest again that if the Egyptian public who voted for Morsi had received the kind of reformist, democratic, and inclusive government through his actions that Morsi promised them with his campaign rhetoric, the current events would not be as they are today.

I agree though I do also believe that the flames were fanned by the totalitarian elements that had desired to get back into power.

And some credit must be given too that they acted now, within a short period of time, rather than being duped and living under another potential dictatorship for three decades to come.

They didn't act - the military as informed by former members of the totalitarian regime acted. The people protested but there is no indication that they wanted what is going on now and given that the new regime has essentially worked to turn with extreme violence against the population, I can't imagine this is what they were protesting for. Furthermore, you could argue that Morsi was presiding over a "potential dictatorship" in the same way that you could apply the same argument to anyone and, in fact, is the same rhetorical move is used constantly to garner support for the toppling of democracies.

It's a perfect storm concept playing out where there are indeed two government interests, both the Morsi and Mubarek supporters, with various military elements loyal to and opposed to one or the other, and in the streets there are also groups of disillusioned and angry people who seem to have been caught up yet again in a power struggle between the current and former leadership where it seems they wanted to see neither of these elements running their affairs.

Some of the other elements fueling the general anger among the people, removed from the military power-grabs, include frustration at things like random electricity black-outs during a hot summer, and various other day-to-day complaints which are similar to those in other countries, yet all of these issues combined with that feeling of being duped into electing a fresh government and getting a new start have created a literal firestorm.

There were public protests in the streets against the Morsi government specific to these blackouts, because while they were somewhat expected in recent years, they became more frequent and lasted longer than in previous years, on top of Morsi campaigning that he would address the problem as a top priority in his government "within 100 days" of his election.

So there were citizens already in the streets angry and protesting the Morsi government, at least as early as May of this year, over this one quality-of-life issue which affected them and where promises of reform were unanswered. And the frustrations just snowballed from there.

At this point, it's hard to see a workable solution emerging any time soon in Egypt.

[grillo]

Consider that a quarter billion people were killed in the 20th century alone BY THEIR GOVERNMENTS, and that does not include war.

Consider that over 20 million children's lives in Africa alone have been saved over the last 5 years due to international foreign aid. Governments can do bad things and they can do good things. Neither are particularly good arguments for keeping or getting rid of governments.

FAIL!
Are you saying nobody would help anyone else if the government didn't make them?!
Since the government can only use force to do anything (including 'good' things) it IS ALWAYS BAD.
Remember, the government is made of people. Obvious, but important. By your logic, only these amazing people in government have any desire to help anyone and, shucks, nobody will voluntarily give them their money, so they are just gonna have to take your money and do something good for you, because you (who is also a person) are incapable of choosing how best to use your limited resources. What a joke!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Is there any interpretation of Sharia law, no matter how liberal or conservative the interpretation may be, which allows a practicing Muslim to publicly criticize or challenge Islam? Or is there an Imam, or other leader of a mosque or Islamic community who is an openly vocal critic of the elements of the religion itself?

Good question. Possibly not but I'm not sure. The point though, is that it is possible. Remember that sharia can be significantly limited and used only to apply in very particular cases. But we don't really need to argue on this point because my hunch is that we are mostly agreement here. Personally, I don't believe that any kind of Sharia law is a decent way to organize a civilized society.