Islam and Democracy

[a_unique_person]

Excellent point, CapelDodger!

It seems that with each and every military action against Muslims more extremists are drawn into the fray. As you mentioned it's happened throughout the middle east, and I'm almost certain that "the attention paid to a new enemy" created this monster. It's nearly impossible to demonize a culture, a religion or an ethnic group without someone getting angry enough to do violence and when those few have the ability (through money, or religious influence) to incite others, it's a problem that grows proportionally.

I have seen several cases of previously moderate Muslims drawn into extremism. A motivation cited was the invasion of Iraq. Perceptions of what that war is about seem to be different depending on where you stand.

 

[Mark]

It's all in the interpretation of the religion. You can claim that Buddhism "jives with" democracy, but there was nothing democratic at all about Tibet under the Dali Lama. At the same time, we have western countries that are very democratic, yet they have state churches.

The country of Tibet does not speak for Buddhism any more than the state of Nevada speaks for Christianity. There is nothing in the teachings of Buddhism or Taoism that forbids or even discourages democracy...not so "The Big 3."

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It's all in the interpretation of the religion. You can claim that Buddhism "jives with" democracy, but there was nothing democratic at all about Tibet under the Dali Lama. At the same time, we have western countries that are very democratic, yet they have state churches.

I think that's because there is a difference between religion being the very basis of the government and religion merely being part of people's lives. IF your government is based around religious rules then it cannot be democratic since no religion (that I know of, anyway) lets the people set their own rules, by its nature religion declares rules that come from some outside source, i.e a diety.

So therefore, even Buddhism cannot form a democratic government when the government is a 'Buddhist government', since law is then derived from Buddhist principles,not the will of the people.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The country of Tibet does not speak for Buddhism any more than the state of Nevada speaks for Christianity. There is nothing in the teachings of Buddhism or Taoism that forbids or even discourages democracy...not so "The Big 3."

But the former Tibetan government is a prime example of a Buddhist Government. It doesn't speak for all Buddhists, certainly, but it is a government whose laws were derived from Buddhism.

 

[CapelDodger]

Buddhism and Taosim do.

They basically ignore the subject.

The Big Fourth - Hinduism - doesn't, in the extreme represented by the BJP. Not nice people at all.

 

[punchdrunk]

Assume, for the sake of argument, that this statement is correct? What then? Or, to paraphrase Jim Malone from The Untouchables, what are you prepared to do about it?

No documented WMD, imminent threat not plausible, but a whole smorgasbord of terrorism. Does the War on Terror^TM justify a Palestinian invasion? No, because I don't think it would work; no matter how bad you consider the insurgency in Iraq, the militant Palestinians have turned civil guerrilla war into a finely-tuned science. What government would we install there anyway?

As odious as it sounds, I can think of nothing else but the waiting game, and hope that some level of prosperity and technology brings them out of the Middle Ages mentality.

 

[TheChadd]

Organised Religion and Democracy are not compatable, people under the influence of religion will never be truely free to make their own decisions.

 

[Mark]

But the former Tibetan government is a prime example of a Buddhist Government. It doesn't speak for all Buddhists, certainly, but it is a government whose laws were derived from Buddhism.

No, it is an example of a Tibetan Buddhist government. Again, there is NOTHING in the teachings of Buddhism or Taoism that discourages democracy. It would be like interpreting the Bible based on the law in the U.S. A completely bass akward way of looking at it.

The U.S. has laws against insider trading, therefore the Bible does as well? No.

Earlier in this thread I quoted the Q'uran...not someone's government.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

No, it is an example of a Tibetan Buddhist government. Again, there is NOTHING in the teachings of Buddhism or Taoism that discourages democracy. It would be like interpreting the Bible based on the law in the U.S. A completely bass akward way of looking at it.

The U.S. has laws against insider trading, therefore the Bible does as well? No.

Earlier in this thread I quoted the Q'uran...not someone's government.

I don't think you get what I am saying. There may very well be nothing in the teachings of Buddhism that discourages democracy. That's not the point. I am saying that if religious teachings are the basis for your laws (as opposed to the will of the people) then by definition you do not have a democratic government. And you can do that with Buddhism as easily as any other religion. Simply put if the source of your laws is anything BUT the will of the people, you do not have a democratic government. Religious is simply the most common 'other source'

Let me take it out of the rather emotional realm of religion to illustrate my point. I'll use Star Trek. Star Trek presents a nice, utopian government that is very compatible with democratic ideals. However, if I were to lead a group of Radical Trekkies to power and decide that all laws are now based on whether they are compatible with the ideals of Star Trek, but these laws would be made by my hand picked 'Federation Council' and you don't get a vote or have any way to influence the decisions thus made, then I have created a very non-democratic form of government, regardless of the fact that the source material has nothing incompatible with democracy. See what I mean?

 

[Mark]

I don't think you get what I am saying. There may very well be nothing in the teachings of Buddhism that discourages democracy. That's not the point. I am saying that if religious teachings are the basis for your laws (as opposed to the will of the people) then by definition you do not have a democratic government. And you can do that with Buddhism as easily as any other religion. Simply put if the source of your laws is anything BUT the will of the people, you do not have a democratic government. Religious is simply the most common 'other source'

Let me take it out of the rather emotional realm of religion to illustrate my point. I'll use Star Trek. Star Trek presents a nice, utopian government that is very compatible with democratic ideals. However, if I were to lead a group of Radical Trekkies to power and decide that all laws are now based on whether they are compatible with the ideals of Star Trek, but these laws would be made by my hand picked 'Federation Council' and you don't get a vote or have any way to influence the decisions thus made, then I have created a very non-democratic form of government, regardless of the fact that the source material has nothing incompatible with democracy. See what I mean?

And I am saying that if Tibet were really a dictatorship before China invaded, then they went against the teachings of Buddha.

 

[CapelDodger]

As odious as it sounds, I can think of nothing else but the waiting game, and hope that some level of prosperity and technology brings them out of the Middle Ages mentality.

I think the "Middle Ages" image is an exaggeration. The Taliban are the extreme of the extreme (that's the Pashtun influence, goat-boning ragheads of long-standing). Iran and Iraq were developed, sophisticated societies before the Iranian Revolution and the First Gulf War. Iran had a functioning democracy even under what was effectively foreign occupation. The Iraqi Parliament's contest with the (British-imposed) monarchy in 1941 led to it's demise by an Anglo-Israeli invasion (yup, the Hagganah were there. Way to win friends, guys). So there is some democratic history to build on.

IMO, the mullahs of Iran will be out of real power within ten years, probably within five. Their current sock-puppet shows how desperate they are. They've had 20 years to demonstrate their ineptitude. Get ready for a democratic, nuclear-armed Iran.

The best antidote to desiring a religious state is living in one.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

And I am saying that if Tibet were really a dictatorship before China invaded, then they went against the teachings of Buddha.

Well, now you risk getting into 'True Scotsman' arguments. It is my understanding that the people of Tibet obeyed the Dalai Lama because of the religious authority he weilded, not because they elected him. those also chose to call themselves Buddhists, and I have no doubt that they felt themselves to truly be Buddhist. That particular interpretation of matters may not jibe with your understanding of Buddhism, but then again I also doubt that Buddhism is completely homogenous either, I can't think of a single large religion that is. That doesn't make Tibetans non-BUddhist, though.

 

[Mark]

Well, now you risk getting into 'True Scotsman' arguments. It is my understanding that the people of Tibet obeyed the Dalai Lama because of the religious authority he weilded, not because they elected him. those also chose to call themselves Buddhists, and I have no doubt that they felt themselves to truly be Buddhist. That particular interpretation of matters may not jibe with your understanding of Buddhism, but then again I also doubt that Buddhism is completely homogenous either, I can't think of a single large religion that is. That doesn't make Tibetans non-BUddhist, though.

OK...so you feel it is good to interpret Christianity based on England, the United States, France, Italy, Ireland, Scotland...well, you get the point. If you want to study Christianity, you don't go to governments, you go to the source; otherwise, you are going to get a myriad of interpretations, many mutually exclusive.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

OK...so you feel it is good to interpret Christianity based on England, the United States, France, Italy, Ireland, Scotland...well, you get the point. If you want to study Christianity, you don't go to governments, you go to the source; otherwise, you are going to get a myriad of interpretations, many mutually exclusive.

I am not making a judgement about Buddhism in any way shape or form, based on Tibet or otherwise. I am not saying that the form that Tibet's former governmnet says anything about Buddhism. We could be speaking of any religion here, and my point would still apply. I am saying that the fact that the the the ruler of Tibet derived his authority from his status in the BUddhist religion, as opposed to being elected, made Tibet non-Democratic.

It's almost a tautaology. If the rulership of a country is not elected in some way, then the country is not a democracy, by definition.

 

[CapelDodger]

And I am saying that if Tibet were really a dictatorship before China invaded, then they went against the teachings of Buddha.

Dictatorship can simply mean a hierarchical society, and Buddhism has nothing against that per se. It is an aspect of the material world. Hierarchical societies are often accepted by their populations. This is perhaps better demonstrated in the East than the West. With hierarchy there is order, and in a densely-populated complex economy - something the East has experienced vastly more than the West - order is survival. Without order, chaos. Cities don't get supplied, workers don't get paid, crops are ravaged by brigands, none of it's good. So the Emperor's rich, so there's only one of him. When there's drought in a province, he knows and ships in food. That's his place. Know your own place. There's a comfort in doing that.

Buddhism really disses ambition, and democracy implies having a say in how things are, presumably with the ambition that they'll be more to your liking. You can do that, or try to take the throne if that's more your bag, but you're not hurting anyone except yourself.

 

[Elind]

Buddhism and Taosim do.

Do they really? I'm not an expert, but it does seem to me that they all have what many would call "superstitions" regarding the supernatural. That will always find conflict somewhere with secularism (democracy, if you will).

 

[Elind]

I am saying that if religious teachings are the basis for your laws (as opposed to the will of the people) then by definition you do not have a democratic government. And you can do that with Buddhism as easily as any other religion. Simply put if the source of your laws is anything BUT the will of the people, you do not have a democratic government. Religious is simply the most common 'other source'

That's what I should have said.

 

[Mark]

It's almost a tautaology. If the rulership of a country is not elected in some way, then the country is not a democracy, by definition.

So we agree...a non elected government is not a democracy and as such it is not necessarily a reflection of a given religion. Although in some cases it may be.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am saying that if religious teachings are the basis for your laws (as opposed to the will of the people) then by definition you do not have a democratic government. And you can do that with Buddhism as easily as any other religion. Simply put if the source of your laws is anything BUT the will of the people, you do not have a democratic government. Religious is simply the most common 'other source'

Another common oversight authority is the Army, which claims to defend the national interest against the frivolities of party politics and "the mob". Religion and nationalism have a lot in common.

You're exactly right that the democratic organ of state can have no superior authority and can have no limitations, no Ten Commandments straightjacket. If the will of the people is that parents should earn the honour of their offspring, rather than it be an entitlement, so be it. If Christians don't like it, well, there's anecdotal evidence that voting works better than prayer.

 

[Elind]

Another common oversight authority is the Army, which claims to defend the national interest against the frivolities of party politics and "the mob". Religion and nationalism have a lot in common.

The end results may be similar, but there is still a vast difference between ruling according to some soldiers' nationalistic will versus a god's will. In theory one can debate the former, never the latter.