Religion is not a Democracy

[miyay]

---

^

ni mellow na lagi ka, ta? sign of age na na

[bluedes]

Lets get to the point...

Firstly, the religious stereotyping that we seem to be practicing nowadays makes us sadly similar to history’s practitioners of the same. Overlying the fundamental and, truth be told, significant differences in the way the different religions of the world structure the world view of their adherents is a common thread of violence being perpetrated in the name of religion. Man has a way of working his will into the Word of God.

The second point is that organized religion acts as an important political entity. At this particular moment in history, this is trend appears to be global. Right-wing Christian movements, fundamentalist Islamic parties and right-wing Hindu parties are all different manifestations of the choice of religion as the primary determinant of political identity. The consequences of this polarization troubles democracy everywhere.

Fundamentally, democracy works on the basis of representation and competition. The citizenry of a nation elects representatives of their interests; the various elected interest groups compete to best represent their constituents. For example, it is natural for the steelworkers of a country to vote for a political party that favors strong labor rights. It is natural for this party to debate and represent the interests of their supporters in the offices of state. Compromise is sometimes necessary, often crucial.

nice post!

so religion is democrazy!

[tatakalz]

^follow up bro..
The problem with representation on the basis of religion or indeed any other powerful identity marker like race, ethnicity, or language is that the mechanism of compromise that underlies democracy becomes unusable. While a compromise may be reached between a labor rights interest group and a capitalist interest group on the exact minimum wage in a country, that compromise becomes much harder to reach if the competing political groups are polarized on axes of religion. It is uncommon for a person to go from being Religion A to being Religion B; in most cases, the religion you are born with is the one you die with. Consequently, the issues at stake in democratic negotiation are no longer selected interests but the entire identity of a people. There is more at stake and less flexibility, and hence the game of political compromise is played more cruelly. Democratic systems struggle to handle pressures created when religion and politics conflict so strongly. The politics of identity degenerate not to compromise, but to conflict.

Holocaust, apartheid and ethnic cleansing have already taught us the dangers of race-based politics. As we return from church, mosque, temple, or synagogue, we need stay aware of the dangers of another brand of divisive politics as well.

[Lovely Charm]

^follow up bro..
The problem with representation on the basis of religion or indeed any other powerful identity marker like race, ethnicity, or language is that the mechanism of compromise that underlies democracy becomes unusable. While a compromise may be reached between a labor rights interest group and a capitalist interest group on the exact minimum wage in a country, that compromise becomes much harder to reach if the competing political groups are polarized on axes of religion. It is uncommon for a person to go from being Religion A to being Religion B; in most cases, the religion you are born with is the one you die with. Consequently, the issues at stake in democratic negotiation are no longer selected interests but the entire identity of a people. There is more at stake and less flexibility, and hence the game of political compromise is played more cruelly. Democratic systems struggle to handle pressures created when religion and politics conflict so strongly. The politics of identity degenerate not to compromise, but to conflict.

Holocaust, apartheid and ethnic cleansing have already taught us the dangers of race-based politics. As we return from church, mosque, temple, or synagogue, we need stay aware of the dangers of another brand of divisive politics as well.

hmmm and what do you recommend sir?

[tatakalz]

im just merely defining religion and democracy maam?..

[Lovely Charm]

im just merely defining religion and democracy maam?..

Ah ok, sound definition so far, you sound like a lawyer or politician, or both, he,he,
Anyway are you in favor of the Church having to dictate the peoples vote?

[tatakalz]

Ah ok, sound definition so far, you sound like a lawyer or politician, or both, he,he,
Anyway are you in favor of the Church having to dictate the peoples vote?

i may sound like a false prophet?

well, uhm lets make another thread for that maam....

[Lovely Charm]

i may sound like a false prophet?

well, uhm lets make another thread for that maam....

Ai sorry po, i seconded your idea
ha,ha,ha i like the false prophet, still sounds glamorous

[regnauld]

Ai sorry po, i seconded your idea
ha,ha,ha i like the false prophet, still sounds glamorous

Better read THE PROPHET, by: Kahlil Gibran!

[tatakalz]

^sounds like sufism sir?