Thursday, September 21, 2006

Democratie, tolerance and limits

Last night after my World War II GURPS game (sneaking a polish submarine past both British and German sub in 1940 is easy... when you are lucky), we had a little discussion about world politics. One of the conclusion we reached was that democratie might be dying because of one of it's strong point: tolerance of difference. Or more exactly the pushing back of the limits of tolerance, sure some limits of tolerance needs to be pushed back (because of society evolution and new understanding) some probably shouldn't.

One of the group we thought about abusing this limit pushing was religious extremist. Under the suggestion that we should respect their belief, they try to impose their belief upon us. They want to have the law of their religion replace or if it can't replace society's law they want their law to be superior to society's. Under the guise of religious tolerance we slowly must accept more and more law/politics that are against what we believe about. It's not something quick we slowly add a few right, a few permission that other do not have. Then the permission becomes an obligation for the other and pretty soon after what was once something we tolerated for a minority becomes something the majority has to has.

The problem, one of my friend exposed, is that you cannot discuss/negotiate with religious extremist, they are right. No argument from you or anyone else will convince them otherwise, at best they will say you are wrong and leave you be. At worse, well Jihad, crusade, inquisition, war or slavery. It's rare but I'm gonna take a page from France on what we might want to do: our society should be completely irreligious. Everything that is public, i.e provided by the society, should not accept any religions symbols or propaganda. No veil, no cross, no knife, no angel, no star of David, at least in public institution, if you want to create a private school where you can (or have to) wear such symbol, good but you have to prove that you do teach everything a school should teach and that you are not discriminating against people.


yofed said...

I would answer "F*** yourself" To that post.... because asking people to renounce their religion in such a manner is against the principle of liberty of choice, and here, you are imposing your choice of not believing in God to others. I have to disagree on that. The whole population shouldn't have to pay for the few extremist that you don't like. Period.

asaathi said...

I'm not asking them to renounce their religion, I'm only asking them to refrain from trying to impose their religion on those of other religion or without religion. They have the liberity to belive everything they want. My post might have been asking for more then I really want. What I really want is for religion not grant additional rights to others if not one in society cannot bring a weapon to school then even if your weapon is a symbole of worship you cannot bring it to school, same if everyone as to leave their hat at the entrance well you cannot ask wear one.

Piccolo said...

On this point I agree with Yofed. Don't forget that extremist are doing their things against USA that want to impose their believes!

I don't really trust in religion, but I think that should stay in school. Why? Because even if a part of that for me is bullshit, it brings moral in our lives. And the world knows that we need a minimum of it, especially these days. And that could be a good thing to study other religion, to open our mind to others. Why not???

asaathi said...

Actually the extremist I am most worried about are Christian extremist. Also, the extremist you seem to be talking about are not just attacking the USA they are attacking the Occident, that include, Germany, England, France, Canada, Spain, Italia and basically anyone that does not follow their religion.

Second, lets not forget that religion is far from having the exclusivity on moral. In fact it must be pretty easy to find a way to teach moral without the trapping of religions. And some religions teach amoral behavior (Satanism for exemple)

Why not, well it quite simple you cannot teach all religion. You can't even teach all major religion. And some religions makes it "illegal" to learn another religion... makes it hard to teach it to them no.

Piccolo said...

In that case, why teaching politic??? I studied Hitler's Politics in high school and I'm not violent!!! But now, I can choose what is ok or not!!! And I'm not talking about teaching religions like satanism, but you can learn great lines of religions!!!

Why do we have to restrein young student to think with their head??? I think that when someone knows, he can have opinion after that. So, you can teach religion and have student have their own choice about it!

asaathi said...

Well politics are not behavior codes just ideas on how to make life for your countryman better.

My question is simple, which religion can we teach and which should we not teach? How do you decide what religion is correct to teach without saying that this religion is right over the other?

You know that from experience you can get the bottom lines of most religion by studying philosophy. Why not teach that instead of religions? It teach how to think critically, how to understand arguments and how to formulate them. It also can teach moral values based on reasoning instead of highter power handing them down.

We do not have to restrain young student to think, but we must be carefull not to allow people that would deny them this right to do so. I'm not saying censor religious text, or to discriminate agains them.

asaathi said...

I just rethaught about it while having lunch and frankly I don't mind the teaching of religion. What I mind is the giving of additional rights to accomodate religion. If no one as the right to bring a sword to school well no one as even if said sword is your religion symbol. Their is no reason for these allowance.