stankler
10-20-2004, 08:42 PM
Since I haven't seen alot of that around here (and I can't sleep).
In France, seculiar country, they expelled two young girls who refused to remove the hijab at school, this being a religious sign, and many religious groups protested.
In certain places in the world, some islamist groups want to put in place a religious tribunal following the Shar'ia (spelling?) to judge and punish criminals along their rules. Even though these groups would be the first to react if we tried to apply our western country laws there.
Inhabitants of the richest country are, for a good part, going to vote to decide of the most powerful man on earth, following their religious allegiances.
For the two first statements, I ask, how come can we even think about letting a defined group of people be ruled differently in a country where egality is proned; how come can we even think of religion overruling one's country law, a law established since the Revolution, for France.
As for the other statement, how come a country fighting against religious fundamentalism can base its electoral campain upon as much fundamentalist (in some cases) tendencies?
Don't you think religion and politics should be two totally separated entities? Sure, moral should lead politic (and not the contrary), but has moral to be necessarily found in religion? Why can't people edify their own moral by themselves, why do they need a believer? Lazyness, stability, security, some comfourting ever-lasting answer to everything? "Religion is the mass' opium." I don't agree with it. It is beliefs that are so. Thoughts, though, can, in the end, make up a good sense of ethic in one's mind, but not with the fundamentalism or the anchored trust of absolute truth proposed in religions.
But that need of security is one of the most primitive and gregarious instincts of mankind, so why bother contradicting it? By the time we can continue watch TV, buy crap, compare our patheticity degrees and feel good as long as there's someone worst, talk of make-up, cars, magazines and "rate the title of the user above us".
"Comfortably numb", they said.
Edit: typo
In France, seculiar country, they expelled two young girls who refused to remove the hijab at school, this being a religious sign, and many religious groups protested.
In certain places in the world, some islamist groups want to put in place a religious tribunal following the Shar'ia (spelling?) to judge and punish criminals along their rules. Even though these groups would be the first to react if we tried to apply our western country laws there.
Inhabitants of the richest country are, for a good part, going to vote to decide of the most powerful man on earth, following their religious allegiances.
For the two first statements, I ask, how come can we even think about letting a defined group of people be ruled differently in a country where egality is proned; how come can we even think of religion overruling one's country law, a law established since the Revolution, for France.
As for the other statement, how come a country fighting against religious fundamentalism can base its electoral campain upon as much fundamentalist (in some cases) tendencies?
Don't you think religion and politics should be two totally separated entities? Sure, moral should lead politic (and not the contrary), but has moral to be necessarily found in religion? Why can't people edify their own moral by themselves, why do they need a believer? Lazyness, stability, security, some comfourting ever-lasting answer to everything? "Religion is the mass' opium." I don't agree with it. It is beliefs that are so. Thoughts, though, can, in the end, make up a good sense of ethic in one's mind, but not with the fundamentalism or the anchored trust of absolute truth proposed in religions.
But that need of security is one of the most primitive and gregarious instincts of mankind, so why bother contradicting it? By the time we can continue watch TV, buy crap, compare our patheticity degrees and feel good as long as there's someone worst, talk of make-up, cars, magazines and "rate the title of the user above us".
"Comfortably numb", they said.
Edit: typo