On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:17:28 -0800 (PST), louise mchenry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Janine: > The problem I see is that various religions have different views on how > things should be handled. all religions except the Bahai faith have priests > and different schools of thought. Gilberto: I know that Bahais say things like this but I don't think that's true. Even in my conversations here, there are certainly Bahais with different understandings of various issues, different "schools of thought". And there are many religions which don't have priests. (Islam for instance. The Quakers would be another) > Authority, ultimate authority, is given to > one person (like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Khomeini). There are many Protestant churches which run rather democratically as well. > > the world is becoming more and more one entity. More and more we see that > what happens in one country affects other countries. For example, political > refugees have been flooding western countries Actually I've read that the worldwide, the country which takes in the most refugees is Iran. the last 20 years to the point > that western countries feel they cannot take on more immigrants and > something should be done in the countries of origin so that people do not > feel endangered. Political refugees are usually people who have no chance of > making a normal living in their own countries, whose livelihood is > threatened or whose life is at stake. > > This relates directly to how a country views what is humane and what not, > what should be punished and what not, what is eligible for open speech and > what not. If a country sees a particular action, like voicing one's opinion > about a government, as punishable with death, then it will most likely > produce political refugees. Wait, hold on a sec. You are mixing all sorts of things together. Political repression isn't justifiable Islamically. And I'm certainly not defending it. I think leaders should definitely be made to be accountable for what they do and their behavior should be open to public debate. There are many non-Muslim countries where the leaders don't like being criticized and they repress their own citizens. Christian, Muslim, and secular. This isn't a religious issue. > And who is the main authority on behalf of the religion in say a > religion as Islam? There are no priests in Islam. > For example, in many Islamic countries we see that women are extremely > restricted in what they can do and what role in public they can play. And in some Islamic countries we see that women got certain rights or have reached certain milestones faster than many Western countries. Societies change. Bahais seem to simply assume that Muslim societies are frozen and things won't improve in the Muslim world but they actually have in certain respects. > So how can in this scenario religion > remind people of certain principles, when people simply do not want to > listen to the principles? It's never that simple. If you want to talk about women, there actually are progressive Islamic movements, there are "feminist" Muslims, there are scholars, both men and women, who are reading the Quran and hadith with new eyes more sensitive to the needs and concerns of women in society. So changes are actually occuring. In the West, in some countries, most of the converts to Islam are actually women. Who can enforce these principles, when all the > religious leaders, who are appointed for life, and not elected by the people > themselves, are against them? What are you talking about? There are no priests, let alone "priests for life" in Islam. I think you just have a really bizzare idea of authority in Islam. > > And the same applies in Christianity, of which I know catholicism best, > since I grew up a Catholic. Although in Islam it seems to be worse, because > in Catholicism you have the Pope, whereas in Islam there is no central point > where people can refer to, as far as I know (maybe I am totally wrong here, > I do not know that much about Islam, except a bit of the Qur'an). I have the impression you are bouncing back and forth in some inconsistent way. Because first you seemed to be saying that having priests and having a certain kind of authority structure was a bad thing. But now you say having a Pope is a good thing. It just gives the impression that you are simply biased against Islam, want to delegitimize it, whether or not any facts or logic support your claims. > But the Pope's authority is not accepted by Protestants, and the head of the > Anglican church is not an authority Methodists recognise. So who are going > to be spokespeople for Christianity? Why does there need to be a spokesperson for Christianity? > > The principles on certain things differ also from religion to religion. > There is a consensus in religions, like the golden rule. But in other things > one can extract a different idea from religion to religion. > For example, a state inspired by Hindu teachings can put up punishments for > those who kill cows, regardless of whether these are Hindus, and a Muslim > state can put up punishments for those who eat pork, regardless of whether > these are Muslim. The Hindu case is different, but in Islam the ideal (during the time of the prophet in Medina) was to actually let Jews and Christians and others follow their own laws. So if they wanted to eat pork or drink alcohol even, they would be allowed to do so. Some essentials would be governed by uniform laws, but in other areas, religious minorities would have a certain amount of autonomy. (In an earlier response I gave to Susan about how the Islamic state is obligated to protect its non-Muslim citizens, there was a refererence to a paper: http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/History/jizya-islam.htm and recall that "dhimmis" or "the people of dhimma" are the non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state: [begin quote] Al-Tahawi accounts for Muslims' consensus on the freedom of the people of dhimma to eat pork and drink wine or the like which is permitted by their religion. He says: "They unanimously agreed that the Imam, ruler, may not prevent the people of dhimma from drinking wine, eating pork or residing in the houses which they took by consent where such people are in a non-Islamic country (in countries where they form a majority)"[28] [end quote] Peace Gilberto __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
