While The Accuser appreciates the sentiment of such a law, the practical applications are a little extreme.
It points to a fundamental fact of religion... that they are intolerant, as previously discussed on this blog. In fact, they have to be intolerant by their very nature, otherwise, any authority they might have would disappear. How could you believe me to have the answers to the mysteries of the universe if I said this other guy had 'em too and they were also right.
The article also mentions that he may not be able to face trial because he is mentall unfit. Of course he is unfit. He's religious. Anyone who is religious should be deemed mentally unfit for all activities: trial, public office, medicine, teaching.
However, there is a deeper issue at play here. These countries, where we have fought to bring democracy, are now creating and enforcing legal systems based on religious law. That is a scary thing. Democracies based on religious beliefs are not democracies. And no, America is not a christian country, despite what the 700 club would attempt to have you believe.
Iraq also includes religious ideology in their constitution. To me, that is a big sign of problems to come.
Technorati Tags: Religion,
Abdul Rahman, Afghanistan, Iraq,
3 comments:
The issue is leaving Islam, rather than being Christian. Under Islamic law, apostasy is considered a heinous--albeit imaginary--crime. Minority religions in Islamic theocracies are typically "tolerated" and given second-class citizen status.
Technical, I guess, and still very stupid, but we should be precise about what we're criticizing. Agreed that we should be exporting the establishment clause rather than the more vague concept of "democracy."
"Anyone who is religious should be deemed mentally unfit for all activities: trial, public office, medicine, teaching."
I am religious; would you deny me of trial, medicine? I would do my best to try to forgive you... if you did.
anonymous...
my point was one of exaggeration. and regarding trial, i do think that any prejudices whatsoever should exclude you from the jury system.
and if someone began professing belief in magical creatures before a trial, don't you think the defense would attempt to get them by reason of insanity?
regarding public office and other offices for the greater good (teaching, medicine) my issue is very simple: you can NOT serve two masters. ultimately, a religious person must choose between man and god. and choosing to bring man to god does not sufficiently bridge that paradox.
another interesting point regarding medicine: there are some examples of religious medical professionals (in this case, pharmacists) who would deny women contraceptives. not the other way around.
Leo
Post a Comment