Why Not Ban Muslims: Political Religions vs. Civil Obedience

[emilynghiem]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree with part or all of the above? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this Short Link
Why Not Ban Muslims: Political Religions vs. Civil Obedience
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.

We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Other: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua with the help of some Americans more loyal to a failed political ideology than to their own country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this link
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.


We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

Ah, but for that pesky First Amendment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Other: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua with the help of some Americans more loyal to a failed political ideology than to their own country.

Translation Bootney Lee Farnsworth
You appear to blame SOCIALISM as a political religion
that doesn't work when it's forced through govt on people.

Are you okay with Christian churches, nonprofits and volunteers
practicing charity by free choice, not by force of law or govt?

That's the difference, get it:
regular religion which is based on free choice
political religion which is mandated through govt

Do you agree on the difference and why just
blaming "all Christians" or "all Socialists" isn't enough
to pinpoint what's wrong with pushing either through Govt?

 

[progressive hunter]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this link
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.


We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

Ah, but for that pesky First Amendment.

that covers religions not theocracy's that go against the laws of the USA,, which is what islam is

 

[emilynghiem]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this link
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.


We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

Ah, but for that pesky First Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
Yes, it is tricky with things like BELIEFS that "health care is a right through govt"
or "the life of the unborn should be protected by law"

Here's the challenge we have never been able to master:
How do we PROTECT the free exercise of beliefs of people who believe
in pushing their beliefs THROUGH GOVT, while equally protecting others
who DO NOT agree to those beliefs. If we block one group from pushing
beliefs through govt, shouldn't all such groups be blocked. But if they
really believe that govt has that duty, isn't blocking them PROHIBITING
their free exercise of religion? How do we do both?

You have heard and read my answer to this over and over and over.
I have repeatedly called for conflict resolution and consensus (either
agreement on policy or separation of funding and jurisdiction) for any
such conflict that touches on political beliefs. So that way whether we
establish a policy or we agree to separate, any and all groups or beliefs
are equally represented and able to be funded and exercised without
imposing on anyone else.

I've said this over and over. Whether arguing over LGBT or Christian
beliefs, gun rights or abortion rights, voting or immigration, and even
Constitutionalism as a belief vs. Socialism, Liberalism or Conservatism.

Do you have a better suggestion C_Clayton_Jones
on how to handle political beliefs instead of "bitching back and forth"
when one party blocks or imposes one belief over another?
Nobody I know seems to agree to have this done to them.

So why not require mediation and consensus on solutions
so nobody fears getting their beliefs trampled on or penalized
by somebody from another beliefs system or partisan beliefs.

(SEE other threads and posts where I support separating
taxes and policies by Party, and using the Electoral College
Districts and Party Precincts to organize Representation
by Party to redress grievances, solve conflicts and settle
restitution for abuses to pay back taxpayers for debts and damages
caused by unlawful abuse of party, media or govt to violate
equal civil rights of people through Discrimination by Creed.)

 

[Pogo]

I'm not really seeing a working definition of the term "political religion" and I don't believe such a thing exists.

Cherrypicking some incident where "Muslims" ("Christians", "Buddhists", "Jews", "Shintoists", "Hindus", "Atheists",. whatever) did this or that amounts to nothing more than the classic Composition Fallacy.

Which is not to say that such fallacy is unknown. It certainly runs rampant on this site, usually hand-in-hand with Double Standard, the other side of the same coin.

 

[emilynghiem]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this link
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.


We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

Ah, but for that pesky First Amendment.

that covers religions not theocracy's that go against the laws of the USA,, which is what islam is

Yes and no progressive hunter

If we make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists, and Jihadists,
then "Islam" is more clearly delineated instead of blaming the wrong people or groups.

The followers of Islam who truly obey instructions from the Torah Koran and Bible
would fulfill the obligation to live in peace with Jews Christians and Muslims
and respect Civil Law Authority and Govt.

Just blaming "Islam" as an illegal political religion is as broad
and overreaching as blaming all Christians or Conservatives.

We'd have to be specific as to what constitutes
a political belief or religion, a theocracy that is unlawful abuse
as opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses who believe in theocracy
but stay out of govt because they believe in their own.

There is nothing wrong with believing in God based govt and Right to Life
where people practice and fund that on their own, just not forcing
it to be established through govt and public policy if others do not agree.

I know lots of Christians who believe God should be the center of Govt
but they also respect the Constitution and limits on govt so they stay in
keeping with laws where govt can neither establish nor prohibit religious beliefs.

So isn't the issue whether people ABUSE religious or political authority or organizations
to violate Constitutional rights, protections and process?

The benefit of holding organizations responsible for such abuses
is that it isn't limited to just religions, but we can apply the same
ethical standards to ALL Corporations to stop abuses, whether
these are business or nonprofit, religious or educational,
governmental or nongovernmental.

Isn't the common issue "abuse of collective authority or resources"
to oppress or deny equal rights to an individual.

Whether it's political, religious or secular?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not really seeing a working definition of the term "political religion" and I don't believe such a thing exists.

Cherrypicking some incident where "Muslims" ("Christians", "Buddhists", "Jews", "Shintoists", "Hindus", "Atheists",. whatever) did this or that amounts to nothing more than the classic Composition Fallacy.

Which is not to say that such fallacy is unknown. It certainly runs rampant on this site, usually hand-in-hand with Double Standard, the other side of the same coin.

Dear Pogo
How about "Political Belief" being a belief about government role, duty or requirement?

So right to life as a "inherent right or duty of govt" and not a choice.
Gun Rights as inalienable.
Right to health care as a human right that is not a choice for debate.

Then "Political Religion" is a COLLECTIVE group, movement, membership or organization
based on enforcing that right or belief.

So the NRA could be a Political Religion, and it depends on whether
members believe in respecting equal beliefs of others or not. Some do and some do not.

LGBT organizations can be a political religion if they do not believe in
respecting equal choice of others to believe otherwise, but
consider that unlawful and/or should be banned or punished by law.

Should we call for a National Convention to define
what is a Political Belief or Religion, what is lawful exercise
and defense, and what crosses the line into unlawful abuses
of collective lobbying or legislation so it doesn't violate the rights of others.

Pogo what is also most challenging, because of our different
political beliefs especially about the role of Govt, we may not
agree on a definition but may need several options. So we may
have to branch out to accommodate people who don't see or
believe the same way about where the problem is. That's part
of equal inclusion and not discriminating by creed, so that
every person of every party or belief is equally represented and protected by law.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not really seeing a working definition of the term "political religion" and I don't believe such a thing exists.

Cherrypicking some incident where "Muslims" ("Christians", "Buddhists", "Jews", "Shintoists", "Hindus", "Atheists",. whatever) did this or that amounts to nothing more than the classic Composition Fallacy.

Which is not to say that such fallacy is unknown. It certainly runs rampant on this site, usually hand-in-hand with Double Standard, the other side of the same coin.

Dear Pogo
How about "Political Belief" being a belief about government role, duty or requirement?

So right to life as a "inherent right or duty of govt" and not a choice.
Gun Rights as inalienable.
Right to health care as a human right that is not a choice for debate.

Then "Political Religion" is a COLLECTIVE group, movement, membership or organization
based on enforcing that right or belief.

So the NRA could be a Political Religion, and it depends on whether
members believe in respecting equal beliefs of others or not. Some do and some do not.

LGBT organizations can be a political religion if they do not believe in
respecting equal choice of others to believe otherwise, but
consider that unlawful and/or should be banned or punished by law.

Should we call for a National Convention to define
what is a Political Belief or Religion, what is lawful exercise
and defense, and what crosses the line into unlawful abuses
of collective lobbying or legislation so it doesn't violate the rights of others.

Pogo what is also most challenging, because of our different
political beliefs especially about the role of Govt, we may not
agree on a definition but may need several options. So we may
have to branch out to accommodate people who don't see or
believe the same way about where the problem is. That's part
of equal inclusion and not discriminating by creed, so that
every person of every party or belief is equally represented and protected by law.

I think you're playing very loosely with the term "religion" and making it into something it's not. The metaphor doesn't work.

If you mean a condition where some kind of politics is practiced like a religion, say that. But I'm not sure that is what you mean here. Far as I can tell your thrust has nothing to do with religion, yet they're listed up there in the poll along with political sides, which are two different things.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not really seeing a working definition of the term "political religion" and I don't believe such a thing exists.

Cherrypicking some incident where "Muslims" ("Christians", "Buddhists", "Jews", "Shintoists", "Hindus", "Atheists",. whatever) did this or that amounts to nothing more than the classic Composition Fallacy.

Which is not to say that such fallacy is unknown. It certainly runs rampant on this site, usually hand-in-hand with Double Standard, the other side of the same coin.

Dear Pogo
How about "Political Belief" being a belief about government role, duty or requirement?

So right to life as a "inherent right or duty of govt" and not a choice.
Gun Rights as inalienable.
Right to health care as a human right that is not a choice for debate.

Then "Political Religion" is a COLLECTIVE group, movement, membership or organization
based on enforcing that right or belief.

So the NRA could be a Political Religion, and it depends on whether
members believe in respecting equal beliefs of others or not. Some do and some do not.

LGBT organizations can be a political religion if they do not believe in
respecting equal choice of others to believe otherwise, but
consider that unlawful and/or should be banned or punished by law.

Should we call for a National Convention to define
what is a Political Belief or Religion, what is lawful exercise
and defense, and what crosses the line into unlawful abuses
of collective lobbying or legislation so it doesn't violate the rights of others.

Pogo what is also most challenging, because of our different
political beliefs especially about the role of Govt, we may not
agree on a definition but may need several options. So we may
have to branch out to accommodate people who don't see or
believe the same way about where the problem is. That's part
of equal inclusion and not discriminating by creed, so that
every person of every party or belief is equally represented and protected by law.

I think you're playing very loosely with the term "religion" and making it into something it's not. The metaphor doesn't work.

If you mean a condition where some kind of politics is practiced like a religion, say that. But I'm not sure that is what you mean here. Far as I can tell your thrust has nothing to do with religion, yet they're listed up there in the poll along with political sides, which are two different things.

Okay Pogo so help out here.
How would you define Belief and Religion
so it makes a distinction between personal free choice and exercise of religion,
a group or organization that is practicing this lawfully,
vs. an individual or group that is abusing collective influence
or resources to "conspire to violate civil rights of others"

What makes a group a dangerous "cult"
vs. one that is harmless. Is it okay to have
a group that teaches and believes the earth is flat?
When does that become abusive?

I agree this is a challenge.

That's why I'm proposing in general to set up
Representation by Party per Precinct and District.
And just set up a process for intake and mediation
of Complaints of abuse of an individual by any other
person or group. So that catches any and all forms of abuse
and allows people to get help to solve the conflict WITHOUT
criminalizing it under civil or criminal laws. So people
can define their own level of abuse and seek to have it resolved.

We don't have to all agree on the standards.
But why not set up a process to respect and redress
whatever grievances people have according to their beliefs.

 

[Pogo]

Emily I love ya to death but the more words you post the less clear your point is.

Let's start at the top. Title says "why not ban Muslims". What does that mean? Is there some question about why we don't ban a religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not really seeing a working definition of the term "political religion" and I don't believe such a thing exists.

Cherrypicking some incident where "Muslims" ("Christians", "Buddhists", "Jews", "Shintoists", "Hindus", "Atheists",. whatever) did this or that amounts to nothing more than the classic Composition Fallacy.

Which is not to say that such fallacy is unknown. It certainly runs rampant on this site, usually hand-in-hand with Double Standard, the other side of the same coin.

Dear Pogo
How about "Political Belief" being a belief about government role, duty or requirement?

So right to life as a "inherent right or duty of govt" and not a choice.
Gun Rights as inalienable.
Right to health care as a human right that is not a choice for debate.

Then "Political Religion" is a COLLECTIVE group, movement, membership or organization
based on enforcing that right or belief.

So the NRA could be a Political Religion, and it depends on whether
members believe in respecting equal beliefs of others or not. Some do and some do not.

LGBT organizations can be a political religion if they do not believe in
respecting equal choice of others to believe otherwise, but
consider that unlawful and/or should be banned or punished by law.

Should we call for a National Convention to define
what is a Political Belief or Religion, what is lawful exercise
and defense, and what crosses the line into unlawful abuses
of collective lobbying or legislation so it doesn't violate the rights of others.

Pogo what is also most challenging, because of our different
political beliefs especially about the role of Govt, we may not
agree on a definition but may need several options. So we may
have to branch out to accommodate people who don't see or
believe the same way about where the problem is. That's part
of equal inclusion and not discriminating by creed, so that
every person of every party or belief is equally represented and protected by law.

I think you're playing very loosely with the term "religion" and making it into something it's not. The metaphor doesn't work.

If you mean a condition where some kind of politics is practiced like a religion, say that. But I'm not sure that is what you mean here. Far as I can tell your thrust has nothing to do with religion, yet they're listed up there in the poll along with political sides, which are two different things.

BTW Pogo part of the reason I encourage the more open interpretation
of Religion and Creed to mean "beliefs" is that this includes more people.

If we only allow the law to protect people who identify with an ORGANIZED religion,
then not all people are equally protected under the same laws.

Someone like me who believes in isocracy is not equally protected
as someone who has groups behind them defending Christian or Atheist beliefs from violations
and has money to sue to stop abuses.

By interpreting religious exercise and beliefs to cover any and all personal beliefs,
this would include people equally and require addressing the actual ABUSES instead
of depending on labeling groups.

Back to the issue, how do we define what constitutes abuse.
At what point does pushing a proposed reform through govt
become a violation of equal rights of others who believe otherwise?

What is the difference between a vote on a "secular" point such as whether
to approve 10 million on funding street repairs vs. an "issue of political beliefs"
such as whether to remove Confederate statues as discrimination. How do we define the
difference between what is "fair game" to decide by majority rule and what is not
govt authority to decide which belongs to the people.

Again, because we may not all agree, that's another reason I'm saying we should
set up conflict resolution and mediation by consensus, so we can figure out
either solutions that all sides agree solve the problem or we agree to separate jurisdiction
so both sides protect their beliefs. But stop this business of imposing a majority rule
or judicial ruling that affected citizens don't consent to because of their beliefs.
If we cannot define what is a belief or not, why not just require that all grievances
and complaints of abuse be addressed to the satisfaction of all parties by consensus.
So it covers any and all cases, whether we agree or not, we still agree on the solution
even if we blame the problem on different things.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily I love ya to death but the more words you post the less clear your point is.

Let's start at the top. Title says "why not ban Muslims". What does that mean? Is there some question about why we don't ban a religion?

Yes, Pogo the issues that people are debating and disagreeing online are:
* is the solution to ban all Muslims and all Islam because ALL of that belief system is unlawful
* are Christians equally a problem that should be banned
or ALL RELIGIONS (Are Christians worse than Muslims or equally abusive or is all religion the problem)
* should we allow the free exercise and choice of all religions and not blame any for their specific content
* or should we address Religious and Political abuse and PINPOINT
what is the unlawful factor which should be policed by law and how do we define that universally
(so it isn't just targeting or "banning Muslims and/or Christians" but ANY abuse of religion)

 

[Pogo]

I scrolled down in this post to a passage I could follow:

What is the difference between a vote on a "secular" point such as whether to approve 10 million on funding street repairs vs. an "issue of political beliefs" such as whether to remove Confederate statues as discrimination. How do we define the difference between what is "fair game" to decide by majority rule and what is not govt authority to decide which belongs to the people.

BOTH of those issues are "secular". Neither one refers to a religion. Other than being two different topics there's no difference between them so I cannot see what distinction you're making one from the other.

 

[Pogo]

Emily I love ya to death but the more words you post the less clear your point is.

Let's start at the top. Title says "why not ban Muslims". What does that mean? Is there some question about why we don't ban a religion?

Yes, Pogo the issues that people are debating and disagreeing online are:
* is the solution to ban all Muslims and all Islam because ALL of that belief system is unlawful
* are Christians equally a problem that should be banned
or ALL RELIGIONS (Are Christians worse than Muslims or equally abusive or is all religion the problem)
* should we allow the free exercise and choice of all religions and not blame any for their specific content
* or should we address Religious and Political abuse and PINPOINT
what is the unlawful factor which should be policed by law and how do we define that universally
(so it isn't just targeting or "banning Muslims and/or Christians" but ANY abuse of religion)

The short answer: government can not and should not ban any religion, nor is it the place of government to police that religion's "abuses". When Eric Rudolph bombs a gay bar because he thinks his religion wants it, the government has no authority to discipline a religion that's only being used as a shield anyway. The government's role is to prosecute him for the bombing. Whatever he ascribes it to is, as far as the government is concerned, irrelevant.

 

[emilynghiem]

I scrolled down in this post to a passage I could follow:

What is the difference between a vote on a "secular" point such as whether to approve 10 million on funding street repairs vs. an "issue of political beliefs" such as whether to remove Confederate statues as discrimination. How do we define the difference between what is "fair game" to decide by majority rule and what is not govt authority to decide which belongs to the people.

BOTH of those issues are "secular". Neither one refers to a religion. Other than being two different topics there's no difference between them so I cannot see what distinction you're making one from the other.

Okay Pogo so what you are saying is since
we can't rely on anyone agreeing what is political belief or not,
then ANY conflict over policy that is disputed should be protected
by the same OPTION of seeking mediation and/or separation of funding.

You don't see it necessary, helpful or practical to try to address
political beliefs or religions as the reason people don't agree to majority
rule on those areas of policy.

I am arguing the reason it makes a difference if people AGREE to a
majority rule decision or a court ruling is whether their BELIEFS are
violated. So I am arguing it becomes a First Amendment or Civil
Rights issue of creed.

However, I have also found similar to your argument, and propose
in general that ALL such disputes over policy, and ANY complaint of
abuse that violates CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED IN GENERAL
should invoke the right to petition to redress grievances UNTIL RESOLVED.

Most people interpret right to petition as not guaranteeing satisfactory resolution.

I believe the natural laws are that people will Continue to protest and petition
UNTIL their grievances and complaints of abuse are resolved by CONSENT.

If you don't agree with trying to specify Political beliefs as protected from each other,
would you agree with the principle of Consent of the Governed as the defining standard?
Behind "Equal justice and protection of the laws" that this depends on
representing the consent of the persons affected by govt policy?

 

[basquebromance]

The best way to prevent terrorism is to bring thousands and thousands of foreign Muslims into the United States while we bomb the shit out of their friends, relatives, hometowns, co-religionists abroad. HOOAH. OVER AND OUT.

/sarcasm

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily I love ya to death but the more words you post the less clear your point is.

Let's start at the top. Title says "why not ban Muslims". What does that mean? Is there some question about why we don't ban a religion?

Yes, Pogo the issues that people are debating and disagreeing online are:
* is the solution to ban all Muslims and all Islam because ALL of that belief system is unlawful
* are Christians equally a problem that should be banned
or ALL RELIGIONS (Are Christians worse than Muslims or equally abusive or is all religion the problem)
* should we allow the free exercise and choice of all religions and not blame any for their specific content
* or should we address Religious and Political abuse and PINPOINT
what is the unlawful factor which should be policed by law and how do we define that universally
(so it isn't just targeting or "banning Muslims and/or Christians" but ANY abuse of religion)

The short answer: government can not and should not ban any religion, nor is it the place of government to police that religion's "abuses". When Eric Rudolph bombs a gay bar because he thinks his religion wants it, the government has no authority to discipline a religion that's only being used as a shield anyway. The government's role is to prosecute him for the bombing. Whatever he ascribes it to is, as far as the government is concerned, irrelevant.

Okay Pogo
1. So what about clashes between religious beliefs about abortion,
about LGBT identity orientation and marriage.

A. Are you saying Govt cannot ban people who religiously believe in
excluding gay marriage from their practices?
B. Are you saying UNTIL and UNLESS "LGBT beliefs" are recognized
as an "establish religion such as Christianity" then these should not be
protected, but it's okay to protect Christian beliefs because those
are an "established recognized" religious identity or affiliation?

2. If we are going to follow your argument that we cannot define
"Political Beliefs" or "Political Religions" to delineate what is abusive/unlawful
and what is included in protections of the laws,
Can't we ALSO argue the same about "not being able to define RELIGION"

After all, Pogo, if we are using Govt and laws to "define" what counts as
a "religion or religious belief or free exercise of religion"
isn't that IN ITSELF contradicting itself where Govt is being used
to "regulate religion"

How can we even DEFINE what is "religious freedom" and what does or
does not count as religious free exercise without Govt "establishing"
regulations on religion?

 

[Pogo]

Okay Pogo so what you are saying is since
we can't rely on anyone agreeing what is political belief or not,
then ANY conflict over policy that is disputed should be protected
by the same OPTION of seeking mediation and/or separation of funding.

You don't see it necessary, helpful or practical to try to address
political beliefs or religions as the reason people don't agree to majority
rule on those areas of policy.

NO, I'm not saying anything like that, not even close. I simply said that both statue removal and street repairs are issues that have zero to do with 'religion'.

I don't see the point in continuing here. Clearly neither of us has any idea what the other is saying.