1:00 The pandemic is a stress test for all nations.
1:30 The pandemic will hurry democracy to its grave.
2:00 Humanity needs a rule book for individuals and government and the Koran is the best available guide.
3:00 Indulgence in the Seven Deadly Sins of Pride, Anger, Envy, Greed, Lust, Sloth and Gluttony prevents us from acknowledging mistakes and correcting them.
4:00 Believing in God would give us the virtue of humility and make us respond more quickly to the message that is the writing on the wall - that we had better change our ways, the way that we are governed, and discuss this as soon as possible because what should be done is what must be done, and what must be done must be done as soon as possible for the avoidance of further suffering. In fact, it would be evil to deliberately avoid discussing these urgent issues.
4:30 All political problems are moral problems. All moral problems are the failure to follow moral principles. We have no moral principles when we don't have a religion at least effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality. If our religion has failed, we must find a replacement as soon as possible. If we are not sure if our religion has failed, we should at least be prepared to discuss this.
I don't necessarily disagree, but belief doesn't just spring up out of nowhere. Why you'd recommend the Koran puzzles me a bit, though.
ReplyDeleteFor the West, at least, the old myths don't have any life in them. For the most part even the ones who say they're religious really "believe" in scientific materialism of some sort.
It would take a lot to revivify the old God. We may need a new myth
Would you define scientific materialism for me, please, and explain what that has to do with solving political problems which are essentially moral problems?
ReplyDeleteIt is very important that you understand my position and that I am agnostic. No leap of faith is required to arrive at my position - none at all.
It was Seneca who said that "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
I do not believe that God exists. I already *know* that the *concept of God* exists and that many people want to believe that He actually does.
Whether we believe that God actually exists is actually a purely political and moral choice.
In our age of moral relativism, we can find almost any ideology now to justify our lifestyle choice.
It would be the easiest thing in the world to do to persuade to believe in the Abrahamic God again. I could do it if only the media were prepared to facilitate this. And whether they do or don't would be a political decision for them.
Please define what you mean by a moral problem. Hypocrisy will always exist. Virtue-signalling is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
Any change of moral system (and this includes any secular political ideology) would fundamentally change the status quo. I admit to proposing both a change in the laws as well as the political system that would be implementing this change. What I propose is the antithesis of liberal democracy since what I am proposing is a one party theocracy.
The good news is that it only takes a handful of genuine debates between honourable and influential people to begin this project.
It's sounding like you want to impose a religion top-down by fiat. Even if that could be done, it doesn't solve the moral problem--you just end up with a lot of hypocrites cynically parroting words they don't really believe.
ReplyDeleteReligions have to grow organically. Which from the point of view of rational control makes them unsuitable policy instruments. And more often than not the first sprouting of a religion seriously disturbs the social order.
The good news there is that it only takes a handful of genuine believers to make a religion an unstoppable force.
Or if you want to bring back God, the way to start is by showing people it's what they already want
Please define what you mean by a moral problem. Hypocrisy will always exist. Virtue-signalling is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
ReplyDeleteAny change of moral system (and this includes any secular political ideology) would fundamentally change the status quo. I admit to proposing both a change in the laws as well as the political system that would be implementing this change. What I propose is the antithesis of liberal democracy since what I am proposing is a one party theocracy.
The good news is that it only takes a handful of genuine debates between honourable and influential people to begin this project.
It is the easiest thing to demonstrate that what I propose is what people already want. The statue-toppling by Black Lives Matter was carried out on the assumption that there are eternal and universal values which the historical figures the statues represented had offended against. Eternal and universal laws have already been made for Jews in the Torah and gentiles in the Koran by the Abrahamic God. There are only two revealed religions and both of them come from the same Abrahamic God.
Freedom and Liberty for the individual need to be at the core of any acceptable form of governance - the Quran does not espouse freedom or liberty for the individual.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment is based on quran.com/2/256
ReplyDeleteThe founders were all literate men and prepared the foundation documents based on a wide variety of readings, including the Qu’ran. That does not mean that they embraced all the tenets of the script. Liberty and freedom of the individual is at the core of the US Constitutions and Bill of Rights. This is not compatible with following the rules of living laid out in the Qu’ran (based on my understanding - and I am not a Qu’ranic scholar) The following is my take:
ReplyDeleteIn short the U.S. Constitution provides its citizens the liberty and rights to be good or bad, to be redeemed, along with laws and punishments to maintain order if the civil codes are broken, with death punishments rarely meted out. The U.S. Constitution clearly separates religion from the state, to avoid any state mandated religion and provides freedom of religious choice, or no religion.
The Qu’ran assumes and provides strict rules for citizens to follow to mandate their “goodness” with strict punishments, including frequent use of death as a punishment and other harsh measures, if the rules are not followed, not allowing any freedom or liberty of choice. The Qu’ran mandates that the state be the religion, and allows no freedom of, or from religion.
Liberty is what we have after all the necessary laws are in place. If we accept the narrative of the Abrahamic God, we would have to accept that God first revealed the Torah to Jews and completed His revelation to mankind after revealing the Koran to gentiles. Christianity is but a mere interregnum of aberration and error even though it led to the rise and fall of three Christian global empires. Presumably when they fall, Islam will move into the moral vacuum that is the Christo-Liberalism that has provoked the Culture War currently raging across America between Nationalists and Liberals that will probably end in a second American Civil War. Your insistence on liberty suggests that you are still in thrall to the ideas of the French Revolution and its slogans of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The French are now on their Fifth Republic, which means it is the fifth time they have changed their constitution. The Koran is relatively inerrant in comparison.
ReplyDeleteThe Old Testament has 36 capital offences which the Koran hardly mentions the death penalty and only says that the death penalty is supported only if the interests of justice require it. We should be careful to distinguish what the Koran actually says and not confuse it with what Muslims actually do when they misinterpret and distort their religion. After all, it is not unknown for Americans to also flout and distort their constitution.
Not going to debate the various intricacies of the Qu’ran or the Bible, nor point by point refute or comment on your comments. As said previously that is not my field or expertise.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have no interest in any embracement of Islam. My sole interest is having as much individual freedom and liberty as possible, which is now found in the United States. If the fomenters of Socialism or Islam take over, I would leave with my loved ones, and/or if prevented, fight to death to preserve liberty and freedom for all, as the alternative is the same as death.
Secular Koranism is a legal system - not a belief system and therefore not a religion - guaranteeing freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256 which is what the First Amendment is based on anyway. I am myself agnostic. At most Secular Koranism is a new school of sharia interpreted by me, a former liberal and former feminist. It is designed to accommodate atheists to polytheists while guaranteeing freedom of belief and protecting the patriarchy. The West is now a matriarchy and to discover that your society is a matriarchy is like discovering your society has cancer. I hope you will enjoy doing this ten question survey on Secular Koranism at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/96RQWJV
ReplyDeleteIn the U.S.A, you are free to believe whatever you would like - that is your prerogative.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I have the right to believe in individual Freedom and Liberty and would fight to preserve it for both you and me.
Thank you for being civil.
It is simply a fact that there is no compulsion in belief as quran.com/2/256 states though it is of course possible to compel people to say things they do not believe or stop them from saying what they do believe. Human dignity and reason requires that individuals be allowed to express themselves if what they say does not harm individuals eg libel or the state eg subversion and incitement to crime and rebellion. Emperors of China would protect the free speech of their government advisers and made a point of not shooting messengers bearing bad news until they broke their own rules and had to deal with the consequences of having unpalatable truths hidden from them. The American Republic was a rejection of absolute monarchy and an important reminder that no one's extended family is a big enough pool of political talent from which to recruit the next national leader. China is both a republic and one-party state designed to concentrate the pool of national political talent into one party only and to nurture any political talent that it might find, instead of wasting it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for being civil too! It is delightful to be able to say that we will fight each other to the death, politely!