
Originally Posted by
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.
murag wa nko ka-apas sa discussion dah..
anywayz,
this is percisely why religion is not a democracy.. because
the competing political groups are polarized on axes of religion. How can democracy exist in Religion if you're not even allowed to question God? or discuss the good points and bad points (with an open-mind), because there are no bad points of their own respective Gods..
another nice post bro! +points!