Islam And Our Lack Of Free Will

[Chas]

The only way Islam would be a consideration regarding my free will is if I lived under an Islamic theocracy.

I actually live under an Islamic theocracy (Iran). They have adopted some democratic elements, there are parliamentary and presidential elections. But the representatives are overseen and limited by a Guardian Council, a group of Islamic jurists who can veto decisions made by elected representatives when they are against the Islamic principles. 

We even had a secular president for 8 years, he and the parliament tried so hard to pass bills, limiting the council and extending their own authority, of course, bills were rejected by the council and they failed.

When a government becomes totalitarian, it loses any claim to moral authority.

[Phaedrus]

When a government becomes totalitarian, it loses any claim to moral authority.

We can see that steps are being taken toward that goal in 'Murica.

I cannot understand how people can watch it just happen right in front of them. Isn't there anything we can do?

Don't say vote. We're well past that. The Electoral College has already proven that our votes are irrelevant.

[Hussein]

When a government becomes totalitarian, it loses any claim to moral authority.

Is moral authority possible at all? Does the representative of the majority have moral authority over the minorities?

[Chas]

When a government becomes totalitarian, it loses any claim to moral authority.

Is moral authority possible at all? Does the representative of the majority have moral authority over the minorities?

Society is an agreement to live together.  A government that has repeatedly and consistently acted for the benefit of the populace will thereby gain moral suasion.  It is not about imposing morality, but leading.

[Dānu]

When a government becomes totalitarian, it loses any claim to moral authority.

Is moral authority possible at all? Does the representative of the majority have moral authority over the minorities?

Society is an agreement to live together.  A government that has repeatedly and consistently acted for the benefit of the populace will thereby gain moral suasion.  It is not about imposing morality, but leading.

I must not have been paying attention when that dialog came up during the installation process.

[Chas]

Is moral authority possible at all? Does the representative of the majority have moral authority over the minorities?

Society is an agreement to live together.  A government that has repeatedly and consistently acted for the benefit of the populace will thereby gain moral suasion.  It is not about imposing morality, but leading.

I must not have been paying attention when that dialog came up during the installation process.

[Minimalist]

Put another way, is Iran a democracy or a dictatorship?"

It's a theocracy which is about the worst of all possible worlds.

[Hussein]

It is not about imposing morality, but leading.

Leadership can be a moral mechanism, albeit insufficient for governance. Legislation/regulations/standards are imposed by the government, which is not morally justified.

[SYZ]

It's certainly a nice feeling to see Islamists working to maintain the free will of people everywhere.

Gunmen have attacked a Sikh temple in Afghanistan, killing four and wounding at least 15 innocent people.

Within hours, the Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack.

ISIS aims to create an Islamic state called a caliphate across Iraq, Syria and beyond. They're attempting to
implement Sharia law, rooted in 8th-century Islam, in order to establish a society that mirrors the region's ancient
past. Islam is a religion that belongs to the dark ages, and has no place in an enlightened 21st century.

[Hussein]

Islam is a religion that belongs to the dark ages, and has no place in an enlightened 21st century.

I think the root of violnce in human nature is not a particular religion, but a strong sense of supremacy:

The supposed superior people can be an age, race (classification of human beings) species, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, language, social class, ideology, nation, or culture, or any other part of a population.

Religious fundamentalism is indeed a type of supremacism. But I think it's easy to see that other kinds of supremacism have been the main causes of violence in recent history. 

- Mass killings by communists in Soviet Russia -> idealogical fundamentalism
- Nazi Germany crimes -> ultranationalism and racism
- Genocide of indigenous people in America and Australia -> racism

[Szuchow]

It's certainly a nice feeling to see Islamists working to maintain the free will of people everywhere.

Gunmen have attacked a Sikh temple in Afghanistan, killing four and wounding at least 15 innocent people.

Within hours, the Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack.

ISIS aims to create an Islamic state called a caliphate across Iraq, Syria and beyond. They're attempting to
implement Sharia law, rooted in 8th-century Islam, in order to establish a society that mirrors the region's ancient
past. Islam is a religion that belongs to the dark ages, and has no place in an enlightened 21st century.

I think the root of violnce in human nature is not a particular religion, but a sense of supremacy:

The supposed superior people can be an age, race (classification of human beings) species, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, language, social class, ideology, nation, or culture, or any other part of a population.

Religious fundamentalism is indeed a type of supremism. But I think it's easy to see that other kinds of supremacy have been the main causes of violence in recent history. 

- Mass killings by communists in Soviet Russia -> idealogical fundamentalism
- Nazi Germany crimes -> ultranationalism and racism
- Genocide of indigenous people in America and Australia -> racism

One can argue that crimes of Soviet Russia - and other states following marxism-leninism - were caused by religious fundamentalism as well. See my post here - http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid197775

As for Germany, while nationalism and racism certainly were to blame Hitler wasn't averse about using religion as evidenced by quote below Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord . Also what methods of discriminating Jews Nazis have used church already tried them before:

- Synod of Elvira prohibited marriages between Jews and christians, nazis did the same ( Law for Protection of German Blood and German Honor, 1935)
- Synod of Clermont prohibited Jews from holding public offices, nazis did the same ( Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 1933)
- Fourth Council of Lateran ordered Jews (and Muslims) to wear special clothes, nazis did the same (decree from 1. IX. 1941)
- Synod in Wrocław ordered Jews to live in ghettos, nazis did the same (Heydrich order from 21.IX.1939)
[Examples taken from Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of European Jews, volume I, p. 7-9 of polish 2014 edition]

[SYZ]

Islam is a religion that belongs to the dark ages, and has no place in an enlightened 21st century.

I think the root of violence in human nature is not a particular religion, but a strong sense of supremacy...

Why then is it that no wars have ever been started in the name of, or the cause of atheism?  
Why are there still wars raging today driven purely in the name of religion?  

Look at the Sunni and Shia divide, whose mutual aggression goes back around 1300 years.  And
they're still killing each other FFS.

[Chas]

It is not about imposing morality, but leading.

Leadership can be a moral mechanism, albeit insufficient for governance. Legislation/regulations/standards are imposed by the government, which is not morally justified.

It is justified if it is a democratically elected one.  I think you don't understand the concept of democracy. 

[Chas]

Islam is a religion that belongs to the dark ages, and has no place in an enlightened 21st century.

I think the root of violnce in human nature is not a particular religion, but a strong sense of supremacy:

The supposed superior people can be an age, race (classification of human beings) species, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, language, social class, ideology, nation, or culture, or any other part of a population.

Religious fundamentalism is indeed a type of supremacism. But I think it's easy to see that other kinds of supremacism have been the main causes of violence in recent history. 

- Mass killings by communists in Soviet Russia -> idealogical fundamentalism
- Nazi Germany crimes -> ultranationalism and racism
- Genocide of indigenous people in America and Australia -> racism

That in no way lets religion off the hook. 

[Hussein]

It is justified if it is a democratically elected one.  I think you don't understand the concept of democracy. 

Likewise, I'm surprised that you are not realizing the preference of the majority is not a moral justification for the imposition of popular standards on minorities.

[Hussein]

Why then is it that no wars have ever been started in the name of, or the cause of atheism?  

I pointed out that crimes against humanity in recent history have been mainly driven by racism and ultranationalism. Szuchow brought up interesting facts about religion being a factor in Hitler's idealogy for example, but still, I think it's safe to assume the Nazi movement as a whole was mainly driven by racism and ultranationalism. 

Isn't it enough evidence to demonstrate religion is not the root cause of violence?

And atheism is not an organized thought, idealogy or religion, it's simply an answer to the question of God's existence and I think your comparison is inaccurate. It's like saying why there haven't been any wars in the name of theism? Which is, of course, absurd. 

Why are there still wars raging today driven purely in the name of religion?  

Look at the Sunni and Shia divide, whose mutual aggression goes back around 1300 years.  And
they're still killing each other FFS.

I think your understanding of the current geopolitical situation in the middle east region is over-simplistic. In short, I don't think religion is the main driver of violence in the middle east except for a few Wahhabist extremist groups who are despised by all Muslims. It must be understood as a power struggle in a global context and a playground for the clash of world powers. To support my claim I just point out to several facts:

• US has between 60,000 and 70,000 troops in the Middle East, and they are not wanted: 1 & 2.
  
• The US has funded Islamic extremist groups as Clinton admits in this video.
  
• Clinton acknowledged in a leaked email that US main ally in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, was funding ISIS. Which explains why they had and continue to have state of the art weaponry. 
  
• A conclusive Guardian article about the destructive role of the US and other western powers in the middle east and their support of Islamic extremism, citing declassified information. The writer begins with:
  

  The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place

[Chas]

It is justified if it is a democratically elected one.  I think you don't understand the concept of democracy. 

Likewise, I'm surprised that you are not realizing the preference of the majority is not a moral justification for the imposition of popular standards on minorities.

I don't claim it is moral justification. Ethical, yes.  Living in a society requires compromise.  
Don't like the compromises?  Change it - that is one of the strengths of democracy.

And if you can't change it and can't bear it, leave.

[Hussein]

I don't claim it is moral justification. Ethical, yes. 

No, we were clearly talking about morality, not ethics:

Legislation/regulations/standards are imposed by the government, which is not morally justified.

It is justified if it is a democratically elected one

Don't like the compromises?  Change it - that is one of the strengths of democracy.

And if you can't change it and can't bear it, leave.

The same can be said about a dictatorship. Either change it or leave it.

And if by changing it, you mean democracy is flexible without the use of violence, no, I don't think that's possible. The principles of democracy itself cannot be defeated without the use of violence in a democratic society.

[Chas]

I don't claim it is moral justification. Ethical, yes. 

No, we were clearly talking about morality, not ethics:

Legislation/regulations/standards are imposed by the government, which is not morally justified.

It is justified if it is a democratically elected one

I didn't claim it was morally justified.  If you want to only talk about morality, fine, but I will not restrict myself.

Don't like the compromises?  Change it - that is one of the strengths of democracy.

And if you can't change it and can't bear it, leave.

The same can be said about a dictatorship. Either change it or leave it.

No, it most certainly can not be.   

Change is basic to democracy and anathema to dictatorship.  Your statement is absurd.

And if by changing it, you mean democracy is flexible without the use of violence, no, I don't think that's possible. 

Democratic societies undergo peaceful change all the time. 

The principles of democracy itself cannot be defeated without the use of violence in a democratic society.

What does that even mean?

[Hussein]

Change is basic to democracy and anathema to dictatorship.  Your statement is idiotic.

I understand 'change' in a wider context that includes the concept of revolution. I do not constrain myself to the meaning that you are intending. So dictatorships can obviously be changed if people are united enough.

What does that even mean?

It means you cannot peacefully change a democracy to a different form of government.

[Chas]

Change is basic to democracy and anathema to dictatorship.  Your statement is idiotic.

I understand 'change' in a wider context that includes the concept of revolution. I do not constrain myself to the meaning that you are intending. So dictatorships can obviously be changed if people are united enough.

What does that even mean?

It means you cannot peacefully change a democracy to a different form of government.

Once you move to revolution, we are no longer comparing change in regards to governments.

All revolutions are the same.

Thanks for kicking over the table and scattering the playing pieces. 

[Hussein]

Thanks for kicking over the table and scattering the playing pieces. 

My concern is not about the capacity of the system to internally and incrementally change, as change is not inherently valuable, in my opinion.

My main argument is about the immorality of democracy. It appeared to me you do not advocate the moral case and you moved to the ethical case.

If you have any arguments about the morality of democracy I would be interested to hear, otherwise, the ethical case is not strong enough, as a popular dictatorship is also ethical. In fact, I'm living in a popular dictatorship with some elements of democracy.

[SYZ]

Look at the Sunni and Shia divide, whose mutual aggression goes back around 1300 years.  And
they're still killing each other...

I think your understanding of the current geopolitical situation in the middle east region is over-simplistic...

You're forgetting that around 4,000 people died in Shia-Sunni sectarian fighting in Pakistan in 2007.  And
in Indonesia, the increasing persecution of the Shias by the dominant Sunnis. Also, Malaysia has banned the
preaching of Shia Islam, with a "particular ferocity" and warns against Shiism with its, "evil and blasphemous
beliefs".

—Islam sure is a religion of peace ain't it LOL.

[Hussein]

You're forgetting that around 4,000 people died in Shia-Sunni sectarian fighting in Pakistan in 2007.  

It appears to me that you are not interested in understanding what I want to communicate and are too attached to your simplistic narrative of holy wars in the middle east. In the video that I linked (here is the link again), Clinton clearly admitted that the US was responsible for the formation of extremist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan to counter Soviet Russia:

… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

Islamic extremists are puppets in a larger power struggle, they are not the root of violence, as they are considered an abomination and are not supported by the larger Muslim community. They can't do anything without the consistent support of world powers.

So what happened in Pakistan and Afghanistan and continues to happen, is a large investment of western powers on a population to radicalize them, in Clinton's words, "to import Wahabi brand of Islam" throughout the region, then use the radical population to further their objectives. Although the extremists sometimes bite back at the west and need some punishment. In Clinton's words, "The people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago" (referring to al-Qaeda).

ISIS and the Syrian war is the same story. You can read the Guardian article that I linked to understand the situation there.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Look at the Sunni and Shia divide, whose mutual aggression goes back around 1300 years.  And
they're still killing each other...

I think your understanding of the current geopolitical situation in the middle east region is over-simplistic...

You're forgetting that around 4,000 people died in Shia-Sunni sectarian fighting in Pakistan in 2007.  And
in Indonesia, the increasing persecution of the Shias by the dominant Sunnis. Also, Malaysia has banned the
preaching of Shia Islam, with a "particular ferocity" and warns against Shiism with its, "evil and blasphemous
beliefs".

—Islam sure is a religion of peace ain't it LOL.

Maybe we can get them all to actually read the Quran?

No Compulsion In Religon

Verses from the Quran

--------
Sura - The Cow

002.256
Y: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out
clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah
hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks.
And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

P: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is
henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false
deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold
which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

S: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has
become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever
disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has
laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and
Allah is Hearing, Knowing.


------
Sura - The Cave

018.029
Y: Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let
him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire
whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem
them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted
brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How
uncomfortable a couch to recline on!

P: Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever
will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We
have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they
ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead
which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the
resting-place!

S: And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe,
and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the
iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about;
and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass
which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.
-----

AL-KAFIROON (THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS)
 Total Verses: 6 Revealed At: MAKKA

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

109.001
Y: Say: O ye that reject Faith!
P: Say: O disbelievers!
S: Say: O unbelievers!
109.002
Y: I worship not that which ye worship,
P: I worship not that which ye worship;
S: I do not serve that which you serve,
109.003
Y: Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
P: Nor worship ye that which I worship.
S: Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
109.004
Y: And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
P: And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
S: Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
109.005
Y: Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
P: Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
S: Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
109.006
Y: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
P: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
S: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
-------