The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I would laugh if this weren't so sad.
Your claim that Morocco and Egypt are run by Islamic theocracies demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or that you think whoever will read you doesn't know better and will lap up any drivel. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
But it is still an area where church-state separation faulters.
France does not have freedom of conscience to the extent that the US does
Could you explain? "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
About "many other religions" that you claim are banned in France, could you elaborate? "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
For example, the "Church" of Scientology has been "persecuted" in France by being billed for taxes, as it made considerable profits, which is incompatible with its status as a registered non-profit association.
I believe it currently operates in France as a company (SARL).
I'm not clear on how this relates to freedom of conscience. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
eurogreen:
However, it is not recognised by the Ministry of the Interior as a religion, so it does not benefit from various special privileges granted to religions with respect to other forms of organisation.
My whole point in any case is that attributing special importance to platonic ideals of secularity, separation of church and state, or freedom of conscience, or whether some state or other is a theocracy, is not only fraught with problems when one tries to make the terms precise in relationship with real-life examples, but is also not very instructive in the end. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
A lot good it will do us over here, when the costs of the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, which caused enormous deficits, will have to be paid for by the middle class. If the right wing Republicans get their way and estend them, of course, the middle class will have to pay even more.
Migeru:
My whole point in any case is that attributing special importance to platonic ideals of secularity, separation of church and state, or freedom of conscience, or whether some state or other is a theocracy, is not only fraught with problems when one tries to make the terms precise in relationship with real-life examples, but is also not very instructive in the end.
On this we certainly agree. And it's the most important point. "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
I would disagree. In a theocracy, the concepts of law and religion are one and the same.
Thats an extremely narrow view of what a theocracy, Iran by your description does not qualify as a Theocracy (In fact no government in the world qualifies by this standard)
In modern Western societies (although the Ancient Greeks also based their socio-political order on this principle) the law is built more on the system of philosophical thought.
Well your knowledge of Greek government is sadly lacking too (In fact a majority of ancient Greek city states would qualify more as Theocracies than Iran would) The idea that Modern western government is based on systems of philosophical thought is stretching things extremely. Influenced by yes, but ascribing a secular basis is an amazing reach that should be beyond any honest consideration
The latter can change basd on social priorities at a given time. The former is immutable.
Well that statement avoids any knowledge of history The world changes, so even the most severe Theocracy is going to be faced with changing situations, making Immutability an impossibility. Theocracies also have a history of changing as social priorities change, for example, the marriage of priests in the Vatican has at times been allowed and not allowed, and has changed in accordance with social changes inside the church
So Basically on the three major points inside your statement, youre wrong on all of them, badly Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Regardless... as the issues exposed in this sub-thread merited a more detailed analysis, I took the liberty to publish a diary entitled "On Religion and the Law" which might be insightful to you. In that diary, you and Colman will have ample room (if you so choose) to explain why what I said constitutes the funniest, most utterly ridiculous set of errors you've seen in a long time. Then again, if you opt to respectfully walk away from that discussion, I will certainly understand.
Recognised religions have stronger protections under US law due to the 1st Amendment than other nonprofits.
So who recognises religions? Well, that's where it gets funny. I suppose the IRS does. Or the courts, if the religion in question disagrees with the IRS ruling...
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Ad absurdam : can I register my business as a religion? Please?
I agree with your (apparent) point that eliminating all recognition of religion by the state is the only option entirely consistent with secularity. The only real problem with this is how to handle the Catholic real estate.
However, I dispute your larger point that the debate is not very instructive. A real-life example : I take strong issue to the fact that I can not marry a citizen of (for example) Israel or Morocco without converting to the religion into which my potential bride was born (and perhaps not even then). This is an intolerable infringement of human rights, and a consequence of those governments delegating the institution of marriage to religious authorities. I'm sure you'll agree that the citizens of both countries would be objectively better off if this delegation ceased, i.e. if marriage were secularized. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Some documents written by Hubbard himself suggest he regarded Scientology as a business, not a religion. In one letter dated April 10, 1953, he says that calling Scientology a religion solves "a problem of practical business [...] A religion charter could be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick."[111] In a 1962 policy letter, he said that Scientology "is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."[111] However, in his work, Hubbard emphasizes the importance of spirit and mind over the physical body. He says, "... The body can be best studied in such books as Gray's Anatomy and other anatomical texts. This is the province of the medical doctor and, usually, the old-time psychiatrist or psychologist who were involved in the main in body worship."[112]
Scientology is banned.
Scientology isn't a religion. It's a Ponzi scam with an expanded vocabulary and a vicious authoritarian streak.
Of course, the same could be said of some parts of the Roman Catholic Church, but Scientology is generally considered to go farther in the mind-rape department (and is a lot more consistent about it).
And your point is? That the US is a theocracy even before Palin becomes President? By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
I believe the Queen of England is so by the Grace of God... By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
And so what does any of this have to do with Islamic terrorism, and groups that sponsor it? Iran likely sponsors and financially supports Hamas and Hezbollah, but that is support of terrorism only if you believe the US State Department, since bought and paid for by Israel.
Just who is keeping who under military occupation and stealing whose lands? Ever hear of state terrorism?
Iran likely sponsors and financially supports Hamas and Hezbollah
Hezbollah, almost certainly. Hamas, OTOH, I find harder to believe, seeing as they have historical ties with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, neither of which has ever been a bosom buddy with Iran.
Now, for Morocco and Egypt.
Morocco: The ruler of this country - Mohammed IV is a proclaimed descendant of the infallible Prophet Mahomet; he retains the ultimate authority to dissolve the legislature, to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. This is NOT anecdotal and is significantly more "theocratic" by nature than governing "By the Grace of God" (and BTW - "govern" the Queen of England does not). Furthermore, Morocco's penal code is rooted in Sharia which is openly promulgated by the Government. Given this, one can effectively argue that Morocco is a form of theocracy.
Egypt: The original text of Article 2 of the 1971 Egyptian Constitution read: 'Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are a principal source of legislation.' On May 22, 1980, the text of Article 2 was changed to read, 'Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are THE principal source of legislation.' The result of this amendment effectively transformed Egypt into a 'constitutional theocracy,' in which no legislation could contravene Islamic legal principles. The widespread existence of official, government-established Sharia courts in Egypt (as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Sudan, Yemen) provide further evidence of the theocratic nature of Egyptian government. That this fact mortally offends some Egyptians changes not the fact that there are similarities between the Egyptian and the Saudi Arabian social orders.
The law being a direct expression of political orientation, one can say that the political system in these two countries subjects its citizens to God's Word Will and Law. That's not theocratic?
The current ruler of Morocco is Mohammed VI, not Mohammed IV. E.g. Mohammed VI of Morocco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mohammed VI is generally opposed by Islamist conservatives, and some of his reforms have angered fundamentalists. He also created a new family code, or Mudawana, which granted women more power.[3]
Quite the firebrand theocrat.
As for Egypt - how many allegedly Sharia stonings have there been there recently?
Of course to the nuttier fringes of the neo-con West all Arabic countries are the same by definition, so it's unrealistic to expect to any nuance, experience or local insight.
So far you're doing an excellent job of living down to that assessment.
Did you know that Canada is a theocracy too?
ICL - Canada - Constitution Act 1982
Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
So are Germany, Ireland, Australia, and the Bahamas - among others.
Yet your persistent historical and substantive errors seem to make you totally unqualified to discuss anything in this area. Why don't you give it up?
Lych: gives Wikipedia's definition of what a theocratic state is - one that is governed by immediate divine guidance... whose officials are regarded as divinely guided... which enacts theonomic laws. It can be argued that this is the case in Egypt given that its constitution stipulates that Sharia (read: infallible, theonomic law) is THE principal source of the country's legislation, and that its executive branch applies this divine legislation through state sponsored Sharia courts.
ThatBritGuy responds by saying: "Egypt can't be a theocracy coz there haven't been any Sahria stonings lately"... and goes on to say that "if this is your definition [it's Wikipedia's, not mine] of what a theocratic state is then Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia and the Bahamas - among others - are also theocratic states"
If ThatBritGuy so firmly believes what he wrote, I suggest he amend Wikipedia to reflect his beliefs, either: a) by adding something like "theocracies are governed by immediate divine guidance... practicing Sharia stoning" or b) by leaving the definition as is and adding something like "according to this definition, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia and the Bahamas - among others - are theocratic states" or c) by enlightening us all with his very own, completely different definition.
For the record - I never said that Saudi Arabia and Egypt (or all Arabic countries for that matter) were the same. What I said was that there were similarities between some of these countries. That, surprisingly, seems to be an indiscernible nuance to some around here who, instead of trying to understand the broader picture of what is being discussed, take the time and energy to point out a typo (IV instead of VI) thinking that it will somehow give more weight to their arguments. Also, I am not what you would refer to as a Neo-Con... nor am I Sarah Palin's admirer. That's such a grossly simplistic way of interpreting our (much more complex) socio-political landscape.
he retains the ultimate authority to dissolve the legislature, to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet.
So he is a monarch with real powers. As commonly the case with monarchs, the position is inherited.
Lynch:
For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.
I.e. if Morocco was a theocracy, their ruler would be appointed (in a real, not just formal way) by the church.
If theocracy is defined as a) a monarch with real powers (absolute or limited by constitution) who b) claims authority by divine will (grace of god, descendant of prophet/god) and c) enacts laws that lends support from religious texts, then most of the world prior to the 20th century would be defined as theocracies. I find such a definition less useful. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Theocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".
That's what we've been saying haven't we?
Also:
For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government
By this definition, the Vatican comes up on top.
I fail to understand why so many of you go out of your way to defend (or at least ignore) Islam's excesses while at the same time being so quick to denigrate Christianity and the Jews. Instead of criticizing Wahhabist bigotry on ET, we get "Yellow Crescents Armband Alerts". While it's certainly commendable to denounce racism, it's outright dangerous to denounce it in a unilateral manner because doing so will just exacerbate racism on both sides.
you go out of your way to defend (or at least ignore) Islam's excesses while at the same time being so quick to denigrate Christianity and the Jews.
Perfect strawman. So, saying that Egypt is not a theocracy means defending Islam's excesses (whatever that means)? We simply don't accept your narrative equating Islam and terrorism, period.
And could you please tell us when we denigrated the Jews? Or Christianity?
FYI, I have lived more than ten years in Arab countries, including Morocco and Saudi Arabia, so I am well aware of the oppression and crimes that are committed in the name of Islam... "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
So does the President of the French Republic... "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
Les titres de chanoine du président de la République française
Le président de la République française est ainsi, en tant que chef de l'État et successeur des rois de France : premier chanoine de l'Archibasilique de Saint-Jean-du-Latran proto-chanoine de la cathédrale d'Embrun (proto-chanoine : c'est le titre du premier des chanoines, qui a préséance sur tous les autres chanoines) proto-chanoine de Notre-Dame de Cléry chanoine honoraire de la cathédrale de Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Martin de Tours chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Martin d'Angers chanoine honoraire de l'église de Saint-Martin de Chalons
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 14 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 19 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 16 comments
by gmoke - Feb 14 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 19 14 comments
by Oui - Mar 1
by gmoke - Mar 1
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 2823 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2314 comments
by Oui - Feb 2219 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2016 comments
by Oui - Feb 2021 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1914 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 1782 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments
by Oui - Feb 145 comments
by Oui - Feb 1245 comments