America:Btw. politico-religious separation and terror.

[Nuruddeen]

AMERICA: BETWEEN POLITICO-RELIGIOUS SEPARATION AND THE FEAR OF TERROR.

By
Jibo Nura
E-mail jibonura@yahoo.com

The concept of politics and religion are differently conceived and interpreted among various contemporary societies. This can be viewed from two angles; first, there are those who consider the terms as inseparable. Second, are those who regard politics as exercising of individuals? freedom and rights, which is distinct from belief and moral values. But morality in itself, if carefully observed, has something to do with the way people conduct their affairs-be it cultural, social, or spiritual whereby the outcomes may be negative or positive, depending on the level of restraint and conformity with the moral teachings and ethics.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan, the 40th American President, remarked at an ecumenical prayer Breakfast for 17,000 citizens in the state of Texas, that ?Those who created our country-the Founding Fathers and Mothers-understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion. I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation-and always has-and that the Church-and by that I mean all Churches, all denominations-has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation?.

The main purpose of Reagan?s remarkable speech was just to heed some note of warnings to American citizens so as not to flash back to the 1962 Supreme Court?s ruling at New York that banned the saying of compulsory prayers. The speech was also meant to draw the attention of, and remind the American people of the jungle justice being arrived at stopping the United States children from reading Bible in public schools in 1963, which in turn started breeding immorality in their home ground. And that was perhaps, the beginning of serious confrontation between the Champions of Separatist theory and religious clerics who vehemently oppose the removal of the words ?under God? and ?In God we trust? from the U.S.A?s pledge of allegiance and public documents and currencies. Since then, a lot of criminalities, assaults, violence and civil unrest are daily on the increase among the American populace, because religion is made vulnerable. Therefore, the dichotomy between these two divergent schools of thought (religious advocates and separatist theoreticians), is probably what made the country went wild on anything that has to do with religion. It made majority of U.S?s policy makers see religion and morality as opium for only those who chose to identify with the divine order-God?s men. Those policy makers are the ones who make sure that voluntary prayers, sound moral values and religion are not returned to the dictates of their national life. They do this in the name of tolerance, freedom, peace and open-mindedness. But the question is: Are they tolerant-free, fair and just society after all? In fact, the United State?s peace mission accolades and initiatives are a complete mismatch of the ideal situation on ground. For instance, when one critically observes some of her activities outside her own territory, one wonders what brought such a ?peace lover? invade innocent countries like Guatemala, Dominican Republic and Grenada. Equally disturbing were the Panama and Libya humiliating attacks in 1989. Where former President, General Manuel Noriega, was flimsily accused of blocking the U.S ships from ferrying across Panama Canal and was therefore provocatively charged with drug related offences, which led to his arrest even against the international laws. Also, Muammar Ghaddafi?s presidential palace was unilaterally raided by the U.S air force of the led Republican government of Bush, the senior, with the lousy excuse that Libya supports TERRORISM and that it was responsible for the trap bombing of U.S marines in a West German discotheque. Does that mean for bombing soldiers in a disco joint, the revenge mission should be targeted at the presidential palace of the suspected country even without proof? This was really a contravention of the common law slogan that says ?whoever wants to go to equity should go with clean hands?.

 Again, if peace maker really have the fear of God and loves the best for all, why should a violence or anarchy be his/her driving force? The ravaging of a sovereign and independent country like Iraq, even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction should have really mattered. Though, the most pathetic situation here is the way the U.S has succeeded in spoiling the long standing neighborhood among Arab nations thereby painstakingly putting a demarcation line between their solidarities on the negotiated settlement of the crises in the Middle East.

Therefore, terrorism to all intents and purpose is just a relative term. It all depends on how it is viewed. But nonetheless, it comes as a result of total derailment from the doctrines and teachings of our moral values and norms. And the truth is, provided people like Manuel Noriega will keep being in Florida prison or Saddam Hussein will remain under the U.S. custody, then it is very much doubtful if the world can witness an end to terror.

Inasmuch as America fails to understand the simple and empirical arithmetic that: politics and religion are inseparable. One compliments the other, because they are mutually related. While religion serves as a guide to our political life, our governments need to open rooms for tolerance. We need the mosques and churches, because as one time former U.S president said ?only those humble enough to admit they?re sinners can bring democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.? Also, George Washington, an ardent believer of political and religious ?wedlock? affirmed that ?Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

The crux of the matter in Washington?s explanation was to let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

Therefore, the United States of America should be ready to accept the above realities and at the same time have a rethink over the clarion call, i.e. ?A State is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you are a Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense moral obligation, and so, too will your public life. One affects the other. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we are nations under God. Then we will be nations gone under?.

Jibo Nura,
Opinion analyst,
Desert Herald Newspaper,
No.6 North road,
Abakpa. Opp. NEPA district office,
Red-cross building, G.R.A. Kaduna
State, Nigeria.
E-mail: jibonura@yahoo.com

[neozizo]

But the question is: Are they tolerant-free, fair and just society after all? In fact, the United State?s peace mission accolades and initiatives are a complete mismatch of the ideal situation on ground

A typical example of american double-standards.
I totally agree with your opinion... a nation existing without the Guidance of God cannot survive.
A very good,thought-provoking and accurate piece.

[Nuruddeen]

But the question is: Are they tolerant-free, fair and just society after all? In fact, the United State?s peace mission accolades and initiatives are a complete mismatch of the ideal situation on ground

A typical example of american double-standards.
I totally agree with your opinion... a nation existing without the Guidance of God cannot survive.
A very good,thought-provoking and accurate piece.

Thank you very much Mr. Zizo. The article is necessitated by the unfolding events of the moment. I am just trying to prove some points to the world. Later I will speak on globalisation and its attendant consequences. Thanks once again.

[mallamt]

Obviously the write up is based on the specific veiw point of the writter, however I tend to differ with respect to the point that one can not separate the state from religion/faith.  I suppose the first question one will ask is what religion does the state then adopt?  should it be the religion of the person in leadership or the religion of the majority?  think carefully about the question and consider the implications.  To promote or give the impression that no society exisited that had any credible or acceptable moral code before the advent of organised religion is completely false.

What you ask is for absolutes, that is not possible in any kind of society, because man will always be man, he wil be selfish, manipulative, etc.  No man can adjudge the spiritual level of another only God, because God sees the heart.  So on what basis do we trust people who profess to be carrying out Gods rules or judgement when we do not know their true spiritual standing and no one knows except God?

Some of your accusations on americans may be valid and so it is also when we look at countries like Sudan that allow slave trade within their territory or try to eliminate and disenfranchise non muslims.  Look at also other Arab states that oppress their citizenry and oppose them to have differing veiws from the state (they could actually be exectuted for some of their veiws).  We have states that carry out babaric activities in the name of religion, and this has been ongoing for years.  The christian crusades took place thousands were killed yet today no one can show you where the crusaders got their instructions in the bible - because it does not exist.  The bible does not condone their action yet they carried it out in the name of christianity.  Then you have the jihadist that killed thousands just because they refused to embrace islam and now we have the sucide bombers that kill and maime innocent people in the name of islam.  You would agree with me that their actions are not unanimously agreed to by muslims, that is why we have debates amongst muslims about the rightness or wrongness of these acts.

Religion and politics are separable, however our dogmatic postions does not allow us separate them.  God created the world as it is, with all the faiths and those that do not believe in anything.  He permitted everthing to be, we can hold strongly to our beliefs without the state enforcing it on everyone.  If you live in a society were abortion is allowed, that does not mean you should take your wife or girlfriend to have an abortion, if they make and sell alcohol, that does not mean you must drink.  If you are given an opportunity to say something about it you can hold to your veiws and allow it show, but do not force your veiws on others, we must remember that it is God that allowed them to be not us and not the state.  Just as He created the world He can wipe them out, infact I believe this is the strength of a true believer in the existance of God, that is it is not us that determine what God does but God Himself and before anything is He knows. Politics on the other hand is all embracing and all about governance to ensure inclusivity irrespective of race, colour, gender, etc.

I could not help but not the following from your article

And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we are nations under God. Then we will be nations gone under?.

If I may ask what or which "God"are you refering to? because the concept of God differs from faith to faith.  Let us also remember that the originators of democracy were romans (i stand to be corrected) that had several gods.  While I agree with you from the point of my own faith, I am also aware that there are others that will or do not agree with the same belief.  A non believer not agreeing with me does not make them any lesser beings because it is only through Gods mercy that we come to know Him, we could also have been just like any of the unbelievers.  Furthermore, unbelievers can also be saved and accepted into Gods kingdom it is not for me or the state to say a person must live by the rules of my faith.

Indeed I agree with you that our beliefs influence our private and public life, and that is the key our not the next person.  Therefore we can not expect the next person to accept our own beliefs.  Let us take some traditional beliefs in africa were it is accepted that when you have twins one must be sacrificed.  Say such a system continues and they are in a position of enforcing this law (remember it is the belief of majority of the society), will it then be okay to continue this practice just because their faith allows it?

[Nuruddeen]

Obviously the write up is based on the specific veiw point of the writter, however I tend to differ with respect to the point that one can not separate the state from religion/faith.  I suppose the first question one will ask is what religion does the state then adopt?  should it be the religion of the person in leadership or the religion of the majority?  think carefully about the question and consider the implications.  To promote or give the impression that no society exisited that had any credible or acceptable moral code before the advent of organised religion is completely false.

What you ask is for absolutes, that is not possible in any kind of society, because man will always be man, he wil be selfish, manipulative, etc.  No man can adjudge the spiritual level of another only God, because God sees the heart.  So on what basis do we trust people who profess to be carrying out Gods rules or judgement when we do not know their true spiritual standing and no one knows except God?

Some of your accusations on americans may be valid and so it is also when we look at countries like Sudan that allow slave trade within their territory or try to eliminate and disenfranchise non muslims.  Look at also other Arab states that oppress their citizenry and oppose them to have differing veiws from the state (they could actually be exectuted for some of their veiws).  We have states that carry out babaric activities in the name of religion, and this has been ongoing for years.  The christian crusades took place thousands were killed yet today no one can show you where the crusaders got their instructions in the bible - because it does not exist.  The bible does not condone their action yet they carried it out in the name of christianity.  Then you have the jihadist that killed thousands just because they refused to embrace islam and now we have the sucide bombers that kill and maime innocent people in the name of islam.  You would agree with me that their actions are not unanimously agreed to by muslims, that is why we have debates amongst muslims about the rightness or wrongness of these acts.

Religion and politics are separable, however our dogmatic postions does not allow us separate them.  God created the world as it is, with all the faiths and those that do not believe in anything.  He permitted everthing to be, we can hold strongly to our beliefs without the state enforcing it on everyone.  If you live in a society were abortion is allowed, that does not mean you should take your wife or girlfriend to have an abortion, if they make and sell alcohol, that does not mean you must drink.  If you are given an opportunity to say something about it you can hold to your veiws and allow it show, but do not force your veiws on others, we must remember that it is God that allowed them to be not us and not the state.  Just as He created the world He can wipe them out, infact I believe this is the strength of a true believer in the existance of God, that is it is not us that determine what God does but God Himself and before anything is He knows. Politics on the other hand is all embracing and all about governance to ensure inclusivity irrespective of race, colour, gender, etc.

I could not help but not the following from your article

And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we are nations under God. Then we will be nations gone under?.

If I may ask what or which "God"are you refering to? because the concept of God differs from faith to faith.  Let us also remember that the originators of democracy were romans (i stand to be corrected) that had several gods.  While I agree with you from the point of my own faith, I am also aware that there are others that will or do not agree with the same belief.  A non believer not agreeing with me does not make them any lesser beings because it is only through Gods mercy that we come to know Him, we could also have been just like any of the unbelievers.  Furthermore, unbelievers can also be saved and accepted into Gods kingdom it is not for me or the state to say a person must live by the rules of my faith.

Indeed I agree with you that our beliefs influence our private and public life, and that is the key our not the next person.  Therefore we can not expect the next person to accept our own beliefs.  Let us take some traditional beliefs in africa were it is accepted that when you have twins one must be sacrificed.  Say such a system continues and they are in a position of enforcing this law (remember it is the belief of majority of the society), will it then be okay to continue this practice just because their faith allows it?

I juss want to respond to the specifics. Even those without religion know that there is one driving force that controls their life Mallamt. So as regards to ur question on God that's left for u to think on WHO CREATED YOU? Right?

[mallamt]

I juss want to respond to the specifics. Even those without religion know that there is one driving force that controls their life Mallamt. So as regards to ur question on God that's left for u to think on WHO CREATED YOU? Right?

I can assure you that the believe in a driving force controling ones life is not universal, that is to say there are people in the world and probably they exist in every country, that just do not believe there is any kind of force that drives life theirs inclusive, so we must not be niave to think or believe that everyone has a similar disposition to ours when we say there is a driving force behind life.  With respect to the second part of your response, you and I may ascribe our creation to God but not everyone does again you can see how bais we can be should we allow the state be interwined with religion.  It is just a reciepe for disaster, what stops a muslim from being a good and devout muslim in a non muslim country that allows freedom of religion and association? or a christian from being a good and devout christian in a country that allows freedom of religion and association?  Is a devout muslim under a sharia system of governance more of a muslim or a better muslim than a devout muslim in a system that allows freedom of religion and association?

[Nuruddeen]

I juss want to respond to the specifics. Even those without religion know that there is one driving force that controls their life Mallamt. So as regards to ur question on God that's left for u to think on WHO CREATED YOU? Right?

I can assure you that the believe in a driving force controling ones life is not universal, that is to say there are people in the world and probably they exist in every country, that just do not believe there is any kind of force that drives life theirs inclusive, so we must not be niave to think or believe that everyone has a similar disposition to ours when we say there is a driving force behind life.  With respect to the second part of your response, you and I may ascribe our creation to God but not everyone does again you can see how bais we can be should we allow the state be interwined with religion.  It is just a reciepe for disaster, what stops a muslim from being a good and devout muslim in a non muslim country that allows freedom of religion and association? or a christian from being a good and devout christian in a country that allows freedom of religion and association?  Is a devout muslim under a sharia system of governance more of a muslim or a better muslim than a devout muslim in a system that allows freedom of religion and association?

Mallamt, I think you are somehow lost in this issue. Look, I am not saying one must have,  exercise, or identify with any religion. I am an ardent believer of te fact that "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION". This, is a Verse that is properly written and deeply entrenched in both the Bible and Koran. So am not one of those advocates who oblige people in accepting their views by either distributing pamphlets or via coarsening of activities in the name of religion. No! what we are saying here is that we need a complete overhaul in our attitude to life- be you christain, muslim, atheist, bhuddist, pagan or whatever. And to achieve that we there MUST be some respect to morality whic I have inter alia stated before I concluded in ab initio by saying that it cud be (-ve) 0r (+ve). So whichever one you chose to be, left to you but the issue remains that people must know where they come from and where they are going. So I still ask: Do you have respect for who or wat you are? If yes, do you believe in un impeded freedom even if it leads to misconducts and immoralty??? Pls. read me well before you ship in your motives. period.

[mallamt]

Nura

I will suggest you read your article again you wrote

The crux of the matter in Washington?s explanation was to let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

What one gathers from what you say here is that morality can not be maintained without religion, one can also read this to say that those without religion have no morality.  Now look at what you say here

Mallamt, I think you are somehow lost in this issue. Look, I am not saying one must have, exercise, or identify with any religion. I am an ardent believer of te fact that "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION".

 Don't you honestly see a contradiction?  What you are saying here is not the same with what you are saying in your article.  You also said

No! what we are saying here is that we need a complete overhaul in our attitude to life- be you christain, muslim, atheist, bhuddist, pagan or whatever. And to achieve that we there MUST be some respect to morality whic I have inter alia stated before I concluded in ab initio by saying that it cud be (-ve) 0r (+ve).

 Here you say we need a complete overhaul in our attitude to life and to achieve that there must be respect to morality, now remember you said in your article that religion is the source of morality so what are you truly saying?

You wrote

So I still ask: Do you have respect for who or wat you are? If yes, do you believe in un impeded freedom even if it leads to misconducts and immoralty???

I am not sure what you are getting at, but what I believe in is freedom that repects my freedom and rights.  Freedom that lets me be whom I want to be and lets my neighbour be whom they want to be without limiting or hindering my own freedom - in other words freedom that recognises the right of others to also enjoy their freedom so it come with an obligation to respect the rights of others.

Another contradiction I find is you said

Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure

Then you go on to say that

I am an ardent believer of te fact that "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION".

 Lets take it that you believe as you say that democracy can not endure for long without God.  You then say that you are an ardent believer that there is no compulsion in religion.  Does this mean that you are not a true believer in democracy (because God must be present in your democracy) or that you believe that everyone in a society must have a religion (there is compulsion of God in your democracy contrary to what you are saying)?  Because from what you are saying you can not be both.  

You try to show us that religion cannot be separated from politics or the state and tell us how chaos and calamity has broken out and is on the increase in the US because religion was vulnerable. You further tell us of the separtists who advocate for the removal of references to God in US public life and the religious advocates that want it.  You suggest that the separatist ensured that they act in the name of tolerance, freedom peace etc., and question their ideology by listing a catalogue of "atrocites" supposedly committed by the US that do not reflect their ideology.  But the point is that in your catalogue of atrocites, you did not say what type of idoelogy was in leadership and how that ideology allowed or promoted the committing of the "atrocities" and in an interesting twist you inserted

Again, if peace maker really have the fear of God and loves the best for all, why should a violence or anarchy be his/her driving force? The ravaging of a sovereign and independent country like Iraq, even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction should have really mattered. Though, the most pathetic situation here is the way the U.S has succeeded in spoiling the long standing neighborhood among Arab nations thereby painstakingly putting a demarcation line between their solidarities on the negotiated settlement of the crises in the Middle East.

[/quote]

[Nuruddeen]

Nura

I will suggest you read your article again you wrote

The crux of the matter in Washington?s explanation was to let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

What one gathers from what you say here is that morality can not be maintained without religion, one can also read this to say that those without religion have no morality.  Now look at what you say here

Mallamt, I think you are somehow lost in this issue. Look, I am not saying one must have, exercise, or identify with any religion. I am an ardent believer of te fact that "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION".

 Don't you honestly see a contradiction?  What you are saying here is not the same with what you are saying in your article.  You also said

No! what we are saying here is that we need a complete overhaul in our attitude to life- be you christain, muslim, atheist, bhuddist, pagan or whatever. And to achieve that we there MUST be some respect to morality whic I have inter alia stated before I concluded in ab initio by saying that it cud be (-ve) 0r (+ve).

 Here you say we need a complete overhaul in our attitude to life and to achieve that there must be respect to morality, now remember you said in your article that religion is the source of morality so what are you truly saying?

You wrote

So I still ask: Do you have respect for who or wat you are? If yes, do you believe in un impeded freedom even if it leads to misconducts and immoralty???

I am not sure what you are getting at, but what I believe in is freedom that repects my freedom and rights.  Freedom that lets me be whom I want to be and lets my neighbour be whom they want to be without limiting or hindering my own freedom - in other words freedom that recognises the right of others to also enjoy their freedom so it come with an obligation to respect the rights of others.

Another contradiction I find is you said

Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure

Then you go on to say that

I am an ardent believer of te fact that "THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION".

 Lets take it that you believe as you say that democracy can not endure for long without God.  You then say that you are an ardent believer that there is no compulsion in religion.  Does this mean that you are not a true believer in democracy (because God must be present in your democracy) or that you believe that everyone in a society must have a religion (there is compulsion of God in your democracy contrary to what you are saying)?  Because from what you are saying you can not be both.  

You try to show us that religion cannot be separated from politics or the state and tell us how chaos and calamity has broken out and is on the increase in the US because religion was vulnerable. You further tell us of the separtists who advocate for the removal of references to God in US public life and the religious advocates that want it.  You suggest that the separatist ensured that they act in the name of tolerance, freedom peace etc., and question their ideology by listing a catalogue of "atrocites" supposedly committed by the US that do not reflect their ideology.  But the point is that in your catalogue of atrocites, you did not say what type of idoelogy was in leadership and how that ideology allowed or promoted the committing of the "atrocities" and in an interesting twist you inserted

Again, if peace maker really have the fear of God and loves the best for all, why should a violence or anarchy be his/her driving force? The ravaging of a sovereign and independent country like Iraq, even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction should have really mattered. Though, the most pathetic situation here is the way the U.S has succeeded in spoiling the long standing neighborhood among Arab nations thereby painstakingly putting a demarcation line between their solidarities on the negotiated settlement of the crises in the Middle East.

[/quote]


Mallamt, all your unnecessary and utopian quotations noted. But the fact remains that morality is an indispensable and unavoidable tool in turning around a society. And mind you, if you are not faithful to any religion that does not mean everybody behaves or live the way you do. And when we pass comment here on board we are not obliging anybody to accept our own views or ideologies. All we do here is more or less an ENVISAGING DISCOURSE TOWARDS PRODUCING A PEACEFUL SOCIETY DEVOID OF TRANSGRESSION AND MISCONDUCT. Remember we have children whom we cannot afford to be carried awy by the spur of the moment. As such we got to protect them by whatever means possible from Religious INNUENDOS, which I am not too sure whether you are not one of them. Pls specify. Take it or leave it I have no regret whatsoever on my prevoius and present assertions. Though u force me going into the debate I have no intention of extending to this far  but I have rest my case on this. Have a nice day.

[mallamt]

Nurudeen,

why are you being very intolerant and shallow? In my line of business when a person puts any document or paper in the public domain he expects comments both positive and negative from people who have read and analysed the paper from different perspectives.  Your attitude here is like you do not want anyone to disagree with your position in your write up, and I can tell you I might be the onlyone writing but there are a number of people here who do not agree with you.

You have tried to drag my comments/points into a personal debate, but I refuse to come that low, I have raised questions about your write up and showed why I do not agree with some of your positions-yet you have been unable to defend your self and your position intelligently.  When I read you responses to my comments, and I look at your write up I find it is riddled with contradictions or else you were not really of sound mind when you wrote it.

There are only two positions I see for the article after your failure to address any of the questions I have raised (1) it is a very unintelligent write up that was not thought out properly or (2) It is a write up not aimed at a discourse or the truth rather it was aimed at pushing some other ulterior motive.

Look here at what you said

All we do here is more or less an ENVISAGING DISCOURSE TOWARDS PRODUCING A PEACEFUL SOCIETY DEVOID OF TRANSGRESSION AND MISCONDUCT.

are you sure you are including yourself in this?  Well I will let you judge for yourself

[neozizo]

Someone sent me the foregoing and i thought it relevant to this thread.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (Regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).
Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She
said, "I believe God is deeply sadden by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.
I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.
I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

[Maqari]

Damn! I can't believe I missed this one ?


Nuruddeen

Call it "arrogance", call it "utopianism", or you can call it "secularism" for all I care, but the fact remains; your article is plagued with more contradiction than speaches of pro lifers who support the death penalty. Mallam was indeed very kind in his responses. in any other true intellectual debate your premisses would have been simply inadmissable and unfit for consideration.

Zizo,

Billy Graham's daughter is not exactly what I would call a neutral ice breaker for this particular thread. nuff said.


Mallam,

As usual, you made some really interesting and insightful remarks. from my personal observations, your level of tolerence and persistance in some of the thorniest topics of these forums indicate a great deal of sincerity of your intentions to better our communities. and for that I salute you bro.

However, there is a minor Chronological detail in one of your above posts that I think requires correction and or discussion, at the least. you asserted; "also remember that the originators of democracy were romans (i stand to be corrected)"

actually the first recorded and arguably the most successful and significant Democracy in the ancient times was; that of Athens. not Rome as you stated. A look at the word "democracy" itself will reveal it's rather Greek origins. the word "δημοκρατία"= Dee-muk-ra-tee-ya, was coined by the Athenians to describe their system of governance. furthermore, it was pretty much the first and last example of "Direct Democracy". A system that runs on decisions by majority rule not selected officials because of the then conventional belief that; the latter would empoverish the power of the people and morph into an oligarchy. albeit the system could be viewed to have been only half functional because  of the highly ristricted citezenship and the Macho nature of the elctorate, it still remains the best example.

in fact it was not until the 5th Century BC. after the Peloponnesian War, the division of the Greek states and Spartan's repression of Democratic Ideas, that the Roman Republic later adopted some sort of a dysfunctional semi-repesentative-democratic system that was highly rigged in favor of the popular assemblies passing laws that ultimately just serve the interest of the wealthy and "well born" from whom the elected leaders came anyways. thus, many intellectuals and historians of the subject dismiss the Roman Republic as "undemocratic".

in retrospect you your statement is ironically somewhat true in respect that; our modern day democracies tend to resemble more the Roman system than the original Greek model. but then our politicians are neither historians nor intellectuals :lol:  :lol:  :lol: .


Back to the original subject.......... 'In my opinion' for any Muslim (or anyone else) to claim that; its only through strict religious alliegence that one can forge a sense of morality, its to contradict what I found in the Qu'an to be the most fundamental nature of moral.= Its Virtue.

In Surat-ul-Rahman = " Chapter of the Merciful" after a lengthy discussion on cause and effect, actions and their consequences, a verse concluded; "wa hal jazaa'ul Ihsaani illal Ihsan?" = "and (afterall) isn't virtue a reward in itself?" it's my personal favorite in the Qur'an.  


Peace, ONE

[_Waziri_]

Salam All,

I find it reasonable to post here the detail of Reagan's speech on which Nuruddeen roughly built his analysis. While I may easily agree with Mallamt on his critique of Nuru's article I must submit to the impending truth that the speach left on itself will look most taught provoking. Happy reading.

Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas
August 23, 1984


Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much. And, Martha Weisend, thank you very much. And I could say that if the morning ended with the music we have just heard from that magnificent choir, it would indeed be a holy day for all of us.

It's wonderful to be here this morning. The past few days have been pretty busy for all of us, but I've wanted to be with you today to share some of my own thoughts.

These past few weeks it seems that we've all been hearing a lot of talk about religion and its role in politics, religion and its place in the political life of the Nation. And I think it's appropriate today, at a prayer breakfast for 17,000 citizens in the State of Texas during a great political convention, that this issue be addressed.

I don't speak as a theologian or a scholar, only as one who's lived a little more than his threescore ten -- which has been a source of annoyance to some -- [laughter] -- and as one who has been active in the political life of the Nation for roughly four decades and now who's served the past 3\1/2\ years in our highest office. I speak, I think I can say, as one who has seen much, who has loved his country, and who's seen it change in many ways.

I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation -- and always has -- and that the church -- and by that I mean all churches, all denominations -- has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.

Those who created our country -- the Founding Fathers and Mothers -- understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.

The Mayflower Compact began with the words, ``In the name of God, amen.'' The Declaration of Independence appeals to ``Nature's God'' and the ``Creator'' and ``the Supreme Judge of the world.'' Congress was given a chaplain, and the oaths of office are oaths before God.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers admitted that in the creation of our Republic he perceived the hand of the Almighty. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, warned that we must never forget the God from whom our blessings flowed.

George Washington referred to religion's profound and unsurpassed place in the heart of our nation quite directly in his Farewell Address in 1796. Seven years earlier, France had erected a government that was intended to be purely secular. This new government would be grounded on reason rather than the law of God. By 1796 the French Revolution had known the Reign of Terror.

And Washington voiced reservations about the idea that there could be a wise policy without a firm moral and religious foundation. He said, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man (call himself a patriot) who (would) labour to subvert these . . . finest [firmest]\1\ (FOOTNOTE) props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician . . . (and) the pious man ought to respect and to cherish (religion and morality).'' And he added, ``. . . let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.''

(FOOTNOTE) \1\White House correction.

I believe that George Washington knew the City of Man cannot survive without the City of God, that the Visible City will perish without the Invisible City.

Religion played not only a strong role in our national life; it played a positive role. The abolitionist movement was at heart a moral and religious movement; so was the modern civil rights struggle. And throughout this time, the state was tolerant of religious belief, expression, and practice. Society, too, was tolerant.

But in the 1960's this began to change. We began to make great steps toward secularizing our nation and removing religion from its honored place.

In 1962 the Supreme Court in the New York prayer case banned the compulsory saying of prayers. In 1963 the Court banned the reading of the Bible in our public schools. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed voluntary prayer. We even had to pass a law -- we passed a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to schoolrooms after classes that a young Marxist society, for example, would already enjoy with no opposition.

The 1962 decision opened the way to a flood of similar suits. Once religion had been made vulnerable, a series of assaults were made in one court after another, on one issue after another. Cases were started to argue against tax-exempt status for churches. Suits were brought to abolish the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and to remove ``In God We Trust'' from public documents and from our currency.

Today there are those who are fighting to make sure voluntary prayer is not returned to the classrooms. And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? [Applause] They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.

If all the children of our country studied together all of the many religions in our country, wouldn't they learn greater tolerance of each other's beliefs? If children prayed together, would they not understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be tolerant at all.

When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his church would not dictate his Presidency any more than he would speak for his church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion -- and by that I mean the role of all churches -- was secure. Abortion was not a political issue. Prayer was not a political issue. The right of church schools to operate was not a political issue. And it was broadly acknowledged that religious leaders had a right and a duty to speak out on the issues of the day. They held a place of respect, and a politician who spoke to or of them with a lack of respect would not long survive in the political arena.

It was acknowledged then that religion held a special place, occupied a special territory in the hearts of the citizenry. The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state.

There are, these days, many questions on which religious leaders are obliged to offer their moral and theological guidance, and such guidance is a good and necessary thing. To know how a church and its members feel on a public issue expands the parameters of debate. It does not narrow the debate; it expands it.

The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.

A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life. One affects the other. The churches of America do not exist by the grace of the state; the churches of America are not mere citizens of the state. The churches of America exist apart; they have their own vantage point, their own authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes its own claims.

We poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.

I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.

Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

If I could just make a personal statement of my own -- in these 3\1/2\ years I have understood and known better than ever before the words of Lincoln, when he said that he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all.

I thank you, thank you for inviting us here today. Thank you for your kindness and your patience. May God keep you, and may we, all of us, keep God.

Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 9:26 a.m. at Reunion Arena. He was introduced by Martha Weisend, cochair of the Texas Reagan-Bush campaign.

[neozizo]

Zizo,

Billy Graham's daughter is not exactly what I would call a neutral ice breaker for this particular thread. nuff said..

It wasn?t meant to be neutral.
Nuff really said now.

 

The concept of politics and religion are differently conceived and interpreted among various contemporary societies. This can be viewed from two angles; first, there are those who consider the terms as inseparable.
Second, are those who regard politics as exercising of individuals? freedom and rights, which is distinct from belief and moral values.

The main issue is wether u belong to the first or the second group.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan, the 40th American President, remarked at an ecumenical prayer Breakfast for 17,000 citizens in the state of Texas, that ?Those who created our country-the Founding Fathers and Mothers-understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion. I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation-and always has-and that the Church-and by that I mean all Churches, all denominations-has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation?.

Regan  (who is of the Christian faith) belongs to the first group and is calling upon his fellow countrymen to remember that their founding fathers are also of the first group as opposed to what is the prevalent trend today in American socio-political life.

Iid like to comment on the argument of whether or not religion  be separated from politics.  

As  Nura puts it some people regard politics ?as exercising of individuals? freedom and rights? and is exclusive of their beliefs and moral values. It is these set of people who argue that religion should not play any role in the planning and running of the affairs of state (legislation and politics). Such people are of the opinion that everyone  has the right to do whatever they please, and should be given unrestricted freedom to exercises such rights regardless of any moral consequences whatsoever.
In keeping with the spirit of tolerance, freedom, peace and open-mindedness we have to allow them the right to have and exercise such views. It is when they tend to hoist such views on other people who are of a contrary point of view that we consider them to be violating the freedoms and rights of others.

America currently controlled by its neo-imperialist leaders is trampling on the fundamental rights and freedoms of nations around the world by trying to impose on them America?s secularist ideologies in the guise of promoting democracy, prosperity and ?freedom from oppression (as if these cannot be attained in  non-secular systems, some secular states have indeed failed in achieving these objectives)

It is well-known that the Islamic point of view is that religion cannot be separated from politics and vice-versa and any Muslim who holds an otherwise view would be contradicting his faith in Islam. There should be no conflict of views on this point

The genuine point of conflict, for me should be, as mallamt rightly pointed out in deciding what religion to be adopted as the guide in today?s multi-religious set-ups. But I would tend to disagree with him when he said: ?To promote or give the impression that no society existed that had any credible or acceptable moral code before the advent of organized religion is completely false.?
History has shown us that right from the advent of the first human on earth (prophet Adam (AS)),man has been always been given Divine guidance, in fact it is when later generations deviate from these moral codes to immorality that cycles of prophets bring order to societies through what you term ?organized religion?. You see religion is as old as man himself

What you ask is for absolutes, that is not possible in any kind of society, because man will always be man, he will be selfish, manipulative, etc. No man can adjudge the spiritual level of another only God, because God sees the heart. So on what basis do we trust people who profess to be carrying out Gods Rules or Judgments when we do not know their true spiritual standing and no one knows except God?

You are right about the nature of man and the Capabilities of God but are you implying that we cast doubts on the claims on messengers and prophets who were genuinely sent from God to instruct man as to what moral codes to adopt in order for him(man) to achieve proper and harmonious functioning of his life?
Malamt,I also concede to your point that people have in the past (and would probably continue  till the end of time)to carryout some evil acts in the name of religion but I believe these acts should be seen as lessons from which we can draw from in order to prevent future reoccurrences rather than  consider them as legitimate point of argument for the propagation and promotion of secularism.

Religion and politics are separable, however our dogmatic positions do not allow us separate them. God created the world as it is, with all the faiths and those that do not believe in anything. He permitted everything to be, we can hold strongly to our beliefs without the state enforcing it on everyone. If you live in a society were abortion is allowed, that does not mean you should take your wife or girlfriend to have an abortion, if they make and sell alcohol, that does not mean you must drink. If you are given an opportunity to say something about it you can hold to your views and allow it show, but do not force your views on others, we must remember that it is God that allowed them to be not us and not the state. Just as He created the world He can wipe them out, in fact I believe this is the strength of a true believer in the existence of God, that is it is not us that determine what God does but God Himself and before anything is He knows. Politics on the other hand is all embracing and all about governance to ensure inclusivity irrespective of race, color, gender, etc.

This applicable when laws do not force you to carry out an act considered prohibited in your religion, but what if you are forced to do something that contradicts your faith or are prevent from a lawful act or action? An example is the controversial ?Child?s Right Act? or the banning of headscarves in universities and public buildings in Turkey.(the irony of the Turkish situation is that in its effort to promote freedom and secularism, the Turkish government has banned all symbols of religion in its public life. Aren?t the rights and freedoms of people who want to identify with their religions violated?).

Remember that in some religions it is not a question of convenience to what the state allows you to do or not to do but it is considered a Prerogative of the Creator to make legislations. In fact in Islam this is a fundamental aspect of attributes of God. Can we then not rightly consider that the rights and freedoms of Muslims in secular states are being violated?

A moderate view to me is that those calling on secularism should restrict the acceptance and practice of their views to themselves and should Not strive to make it the universally accepted and practiced ideology.

The question of morality without religion I would say is conditional.
It would have to depend on the particular individual or society. Different people hold different set of codes beliefs so that what is considered immoral at a particular place or time is not in another.
What religion does is to set or define a set of  uniform moral codes and beliefs for all places and times.
Because of the constancy of change in man?s affairs, the right set of morals today  in a particular secular state are in danger of becoming undesirable tomorrow in the same state or in a different one, this always lead to confusions conflicts and of course the inevitable claims of violation of rights and freedoms.

 In conclusion id like to point out that no mater haw technologically advanced, intellectually enlightened or psychologically developed a society; it is ALWAYS in need of a strictly enforced
Set of moral values to exist and thrive in harmony without chaos and conflict.
Such codes would always seem to violate certain aspects of individual?s freedoms and rights.

Back to the original subject.......... 'In my opinion' for any Muslim (or anyone else) to claim that; its only through strict religious alliegence that one can forge a sense of morality, its to contradict what I found in the Qu'an to be the most fundamental nature of moral.= Its Virtue.

Not every one is blessed with virtue.
Some have it.
Some need help to achieve it.
Some will never attain it.
It is therefore inevitable for individuals to be guided at all times to the path of virtue. Moreover, even virtuous individual tend to stray once in a while, after all they are also human, thus the need for enforcing moral codes and values in every self-respecting society