Mach

What it did was demonstrate your claim was false, so don't jump on me for some new question!

As to being in the same league as a culture, I don't know, I thought you mentioned the relgion. If you mean culture of a country that is about 100 years behind us? Yeah, they probably are not in our league, I mean, obviously right? Give a culture like that a tool like religion, and it often turns to craziness, I certainly don't disagree.

I don't know what a relatavist argument is. I know what some people "think" it is, but it's not usually correct.

Anyway, which is it? You can't have it both ways. You claim religion is harmless, then go on to claim Islam is the bad. I think all religion is bad, so I agree. You think Islam is bad and attack it (along with others).

1. That contradicts your claim that religion is harmless
2. If you accept that religion is harmful, then we're still left with the question on how best to change a culture and government that is so tied to religion? The answer is not to attack the religion (which Bhkad likes, you may like, etc.), they must be free to practice at this stage in their development, else they will fight tooth and nail and support a horrible government as long as it helps protect their religion. I think we need to show them a better way, the people, and let them change their government, just as the U.S. did, just as most nations did after seeing the freedoms in the U.S.

When you attack their religion, you attack their liberty, and that's quite unamerican. Relativism indeed. If you support the value of liberty, then you need to support it, not say you do then don't. They should be free to have a religion that suggests killing anyone they want, but they are NOT free to do so. The religion will change over time once the culture/government changes, and the anti-liberty notions will be trimmed, devalued, and pushed aside JUST LIKE most other religions, including Christianity.

I attack religion from my vantage point in the U.S. We used religion to suit our needs of the time, we don't need it anymore. Making such drastic changes in cultures that aren't yet secular and free, is not wise IMO.

Religion doesn't do those works, people do (with the help of my tax money).

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

GarzaUK

Turkey does and they are a Muslim country.

__________________
They tried like hell. They called him an élitist, a radical, a socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, an Arab, an appeaser, a danger to the republic, a threat to small children, a friend of terrorists, an enemy of Israel, a vote thief, a non-citizen, an anti-American, and a celebrity. ~ George Packer

Reverend_Hellh0und

Where did I attack islam. I don't waste a lot of keystrokes on made up points I supposedly hold.


Religion facilitate and drive these people to good works, and how does your "tax money" help them, and if you can prove this, are you taking issue with people helping people because of thier religious belief?

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

bub

I believe that it is cyclic. Islamic countries have once been much more advanced than European christian nations, now it's the contrary.

And not so long ago (until 1960) christian people colonised the whole Africa because they wanted to "save" these "primitive pagans" by converting them.

__________________
===|:-)

bub

No he is right, I've (very briefly) studied that in a history course.

We (Europeans) have 2 main "law sources", the "roman law" and the "canonic law" which come from the Bible. Since the treaty of Milano and the treaty of Thessalonique (380) the Bible rules the "spiritual matters" (about wedding, baptism...) and the Roman Law rules the "temporal matters" (about money: successions, solds...). Today the 2 sources (+ the medieval "customs") are rationalised and merged in codes (in continental European countries) and the only "compulsory" law is that one, not the "biblical law" anymore.

In Islam, there is only one source for the law: the Koran. They knew the Roman Law too but have never been influenced by it, as for them, the only source for law is the Koran. There is thus no separation between the law and the religion, and an Immam is a lawyer as much as a priest.

Turkey is a bit different because it has been laicized by Attaturk, but if you fully apply the Koran, there is no separation between religion and law.

But it is interresting to see that until recently the Church has tried to re-gain its power. There have been "school wars" and "cemetery wars" in my country about the Catholics trying to re-gain their power, until the 60's.

Iriemon

I'm not an expert, but my understanding that Civil law (as opposed to common law used by English derived legal systems) dervises more directly from the Napoleonic code -- though the foundation for that also comes from ancient sources you identified.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

bub

(I've modified my post)

The codes (at least in continental European countries) are, I think, the rationalization and systematical compilation of three different "sources":
- the customs ("case law") from the different judges, mainly those from Paris
- the "canonical law" (which is now the first book of the Napoleonic code, about "personal status")
- the Roman law (all the articles about property)

Iriemon

I'm not sure what you mean by "In Islam". It is true that Islam has a law. So does Catholicism (cannon law).

But if you mean by "In Islam" the Islamic world, your statement is not accurate. Few Islamic countries have adopted the Sharia as their legal system, and most Islamic nations have civil codes independent of Islamic law.

bub

I mean according to the Koran. So, I think in Islamic countries that have adopted the Koran as legal system (>< the Vatican recognises that there is another source of law, the Roman law, that is the meaning of "Redde Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, et quae sunt Dei Deo")

But I don't know much about it, I didn't know that some had also civil codes, thanks!

Mach

I believe philanthropy is important. And I don't know what that has to do with religious nonsense.

I think anyone doing something FOR religious beliefs, is necessarily bad. They should be doing it because it's right, or because they want to, or because they believe based on some tangible reason, that it's good. Not just because some cult leader told them it was good.

I think philanthropy thrives in many human cultures, and it doesn't need religious nonsense to do so.

And religious institutions in the U.S. are typically tax-exempt.

-Mach