Theocracies and other disasters
Timothy Casey
theocratic government as if it were the future of world government. This I
find particularly disturbing when it comes from Baha'is because there is no
theocratic system that can be _held_accountable_ for the maintenence of
peace and the uppholding of human rights. Every theocratic system of the
past has been a failure if only because of the "divine irresponsibility"
that accompanies the demand for blind faith. I cite the various Christian
and Islamic theocracies and their well known atrocities as examples here.
Neither are theocracies known for being able to use criticism leveled
against them constructively. This is a sure sign of mental illness in
individuals and is so much more an alarming feature to see in any form of
government. Look around the world and take note of how all forms of
despotism and tyranny are characterised by their inability to take criticism
in any way form or manner. I challenge anyone to name a single tyranny that
can and does utilise criticism against itself constructively! Likewise, I
challenge anyone to name even a single government that cannot take criticism
and is not some form of tyranny...?
From a first principles perspective, consider the purpose of society.
Society is no more that a support network to allow _all_ individuals the
equal and just opportunity to pursue what they percieve as important. It is
the equality aspect that limits this freedom to those pursuits that do not
interfere with equivalent pursuits conducted by others. Statements in the
Ninth Ishraq, The Covenant, Matthew 7:12, Talmud, Shabbat 31a, concerning
the purpose of religion lend support to this concept. If one takes such
values seriously, one considers the protection of Human Rights - not just of
the administrators or the believers, but of all the people - to be the
entire foundation for society. One of those basic human rights is for
everyone to have an equal say in how their society is governed _regardless_
of
individual belief or association.
All of these things raise an important question for those who consider
the concept of a Baha'i Theocracy to be a truly Baha'i Idea: Given a
democratic theocracy based on current Baha'i Administration: How does this
protect such rights of individuals who choose neither to confirm in nor to
embrace the Baha'i Faith as their religion without admitting voting rights
to non-believers as well?
The fact that this question remains unanswered is why I seriously doubt
that
there will ever be a just and therefore possibly _Baha'i_ theocracy. I think
that there will always need to be some form of secular government to allow
those individuals who stand apart from us to give equal expression to their
beliefs and aspirations. I think that if we continue to embrace the failed
systems of the past, then we will continue to reap the disasters that those
systems have inflicted upon the world throughout history.
Perhaps if we were all to take a moment to remember in prayer, those
who have suffered and died because of "religious" enmity, before we opened
our mouths to speak about religion, there might be more wisdom in what we
say.
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
ca...@smart.net.au
Smaneck
>past has been a failure if only because of the "divine irresponsibility"
>that accompanies the demand for blind faith. I cite the various Christian
>and Islamic theocracies and their well known atrocities as examples here.
Dear Timothy,
It is rather fashionable to blame religions for atrocities, and certainly there
have been a number of them done in the name of God in history. What often gets
forgotten is that much worse atrocities were committed by states that largely
rejected religion. Look at Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Cambodia, etc.
Much more killing has been done in the name of ideologies which have come to
replace religion such as Nationalism and Communism.
Historically, what a religion beliefs has a lot to do with the amount of
tolerance within its system. Christendom has one of the worst histories in this
regard, while Islam, despite our stereotypes has one of the better ones. When a
religion such as the Baha'i Faith, explicitly forbids holy war, the destruction
of books, and the shunning of other religious communities and instead urges its
followers to consort with the followers of all religion with joy and
spirituality, I think that is going to make a big difference.
>One of those basic human rights is for
>everyone to have an equal say in how their society is governed _regardless_
>of
>individual belief or association.
Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu'l-Baha both asserted unequivocally that non-Baha'is
will have full civil rights within a Baha'i polity. But to my knowledge it has
never been stipulated precisely what such rights consist of, and I agree that
we need to do so, sooner rather than later.
> Neither are theocracies known for being able to use criticism leveled
>against them constructively.
Actually, the Islamic world did a pretty good job comparatively speaking in
history. For Baha'is constructive criticism takes the form of consultation. But
we have yet to use those modes effectively. We usually end up falling back to
adveserial modes.
>Society is no more that a support network to allow _all_ individuals the
>equal and just opportunity to pursue what they percieve as important. It is
>the equality aspect that limits this freedom to those pursuits that do not
>interfere with equivalent pursuits conducted by others.
That is typical Western notion of the state which grows out of the
Enlightenment. But it is not the concept of the State which most societies have
held throughout history, nor is one our Writings describe. It seems to me that
in the Baha'i concept of the State it exists for the general welfare of
society, not simply for the protection of life, liberty and property.
And any concept of the general welfare rests upon a concept of the "good" and
it is the job of religion to define the "good."
Statements in the
>Ninth Ishraq, The Covenant, Matthew 7:12, Talmud, Shabbat 31a, concerning
>the purpose of religion lend support to this concept
How so?
>I think
>that there will always need to be some form of secular government to allow
>those individuals who stand apart from us to give equal expression to their
>beliefs and aspirations.
Well, I don't think Baha'i Institutions well necessarily be identical with the
state, if that's what you mean. But legislation appears to be a sacred actiivty
not a secular one. As the Will and Testament says, "The House of Justice makes
the laws and the government enforces them."
In some sense Baha'is do not believe in theocracy, for that usually denotes
governance by a priesthood or clergy, and we have none. What we do recognize is
that spiritual principles must pervade our entire lives, including the
political sphere.
warmest, Susan
Bill Wood
wrote:
> The fact that this question remains unanswered is why I seriously doubt
>that
>there will ever be a just and therefore possibly _Baha'i_ theocracy. I think
>that there will always need to be some form of secular government to allow
>those individuals who stand apart from us to give equal expression to their
>beliefs and aspirations. I think that if we continue to embrace the failed
>systems of the past, then we will continue to reap the disasters that those
>systems have inflicted upon the world throughout history.
>
Timothy, I think you are right that the government of the future won't
be a Theocracy. The Guardian said:
"The Baha'i Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast
Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and
practice, not only unique in the entire history of political
institutions, but can find no parallel in the annals of any of the
world's recognized religious systems. No form of democratic
government; no system of autocracy or of dictatorship, whether
monarchical or republican; no intermediary scheme of a purely
aristocratic order; nor even any of the recognized types of theocracy,
whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian
ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam
- none of these can be identified or be said to conform with the
Administrative Order which the master-hand of its perfect Architect
has fashioned.
This new-born Administrative Order incorporates within its
structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three
recognized forms of secular government, without being in any sense a
mere replica of any one of them, and without introducing within its
machinery any of the objectionable features which they inherently
possess. It blends and harmonizes, as no government fashioned by
mortal hands has as yet accomplished, the salutary truths which each
of these systems undoubtedly contains without vitiating the integrity
of those God-given verities on which it is ultimately founded."
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Pages: 152-153)
I would conclude from this that we cannot compare the governments of
the past with what will eventually come about. There are pros and
cons to each type of government, and you are right that whatever form
this government takes will have to incorporate non-Baha'is. I made a
separate post about the Lesser Peace and the Supreme Tribunal, but
that is only one branch of the future government.
"The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Baha'u'llah, implies the
establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races,
creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which
the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and
initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and
completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can
visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as
the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire
resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as
shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust
the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed
by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at,
and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will
safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world
tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict
in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements
constituting this universal system."
My understanding is that the countries and leaders must use the
principles outlined by Baha'u'llah, but that doesn't mean that they
must become Baha'i.
Cheers,
Bill.
Smaneck
>be a Theocracy.
Dear Bill,
In the strictest sense of the word theocracy means clerical rule. Since we
don't have a clergy, on some level we can't have a theocracy. But in that sense
the Islamic world has rarely had a theocracy either, the current Iranian
government being a notable exception.
warmest, Susan
ANTHONY S HIGGINS
You wrote,
> For some time now, I have heard certain individuals talk about
> theocratic government as if it were the future of world government.
>
> the concept of a Baha'i Theocracy to be a truly Baha'i Idea: Given a
> democratic theocracy based on current Baha'i Administration: How does this
> protect such rights of individuals who choose neither to confirm in nor to
> embrace the Baha'i Faith as their religion without admitting voting rights
> to non-believers as well?
Baha'u'llah, inaccurately referred to as a theocracy (in my opinion anyway),
is far from being realized, will not be realized in our lifetimes and
remains veiled from our understanding in many of its significant
particulars. To lump its promise of a bright future, founded as it is upon
mankind's attainment of true maturity in all spheres of life, spiritual as
well as material and sociological, with the failures of Christianity and
Islam, both of whose theocratic structures stood more upon the wishful
thinking of those who stood to gain from its promotion than upon the
revealed Word of God, both of which were defective from inception, is to do
a grave disservice to the pursuit of truth and to a proper understanding of
the Baha'i Faith.
You may already have been familiarized with the well known letter of Shoghi
Effendi that tells his vision of the succeeding stages in the evolution of
the Baha'i administrative system, but in case you have not I will quote it
here for you:
"And last but not least, the multitudinous issues that must be faced, the
obstacles that must be overcome, and the responsibilities that must be
assumed to enable a sore tried Faith to pass through the succussive stages
of unmitigated obscurity, of active repression, and of complete
emancipation, leading in turn to its being acknowledged as an independent
faith, enjoying the status of full equality with its sister religions, to be
followed by its establishment and recognition as a state religion, which in
turn must give way to its assumption of the rights and prerogatives of the
Baha'i state, functioning in the plenitude of its powers, a stage which must
ultimately culminate in the establishment of the worldwide Baha'i
Commonwealth, animated wholly by the spirit and operating in direct
conformity with the laws and principles of Baha'u'llah."(Shoghi Effendi,
Advent of Divine Justice)
This then is the prophesy. The non-believer is free to disbelieve as his
conscience directs him to. But to understand the prophesy one must
dispassionately examine what the laws and principles of Baha'u'llah are, and
based upon ones understanding of those judge whether or not its goals are
worth pursuing or are even attainable. No one is to be pressured to join the
Faith; jihad, or holy war (of the external kind), was the first spiritual
law that Baha'u'llah abrogated, doing so on the day He publicly declared His
Station and His Mission. If this Cause is not the Cause of Truth, then,
Timothy, your fears are unnecessary because no Baha'i "theocracy" will ever
be established, but if it is, then it will succeed in attaining its goals,
in which case you have nothing to fear either, because its success will only
be achieved as the community that bears His name ever increasingly manifests
the spirit of love, compassion, unity, and humility expressed in the
writings of its Divine Founder. Perhaps this is an adequate answer to your
question.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony
Smaneck
>"And last but not least, the multitudinous issues that must be faced, the
>obstacles that must be overcome, and the responsibilities that must be
>assumed to enable a sore tried Faith to pass through the succussive stages
>of unmitigated obscurity, of active repression, and of complete
>emancipation, leading in turn to its being acknowledged as an independent
>faith, enjoying the status of full equality with its sister religions, to be
>followed by its establishment and recognition as a state religion, which in
>turn must give way to its assumption of the rights and prerogatives of the
>Baha'i state, functioning in the plenitude of its powers, a stage which must
>ultimately culminate in the establishment of the worldwide Baha'i
>Commonwealth, animated wholly by the spirit and operating in direct
>conformity with the laws and principles of Baha'u'llah."(Shoghi Effendi,
>Advent of Divine Justice)
To which he then stated:
>
>This then is the prophesy.
Dear Anthony,
I'm not sure if the Guardian intended it as prophesy, per se. Those six stages
are the same ones given in Edward Gibbon's *Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire*
for the development of Christianity. As you probably know the Guardian
constantly read those volumes. Shoghi Effendi may have simply been pointing to
what he considered the natural process of history here rather than making a
prophesy in the supernatural sense of the word.
warmest, Susan
Bill Wood
Hi Susan,
I guess this just goes to show that a word can be interpreted
in many ways. I looked it up and also got the following meaning:
theocracy
n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials
thought to be divinely guided)
2: the belief in government by divine guidance
It could be argued that since the Universal House of Justice is
believed by Baha'is to be divinely guided, it could be the head of a
theocracy. The Baha'i approach to the adminstrative order is
certainly one of praying for guidance and using divine principles, so
even though the Local and National Spiritual Assemblies don't have a
hotline to God, they could certainly be considered "officials thought
to be divinely guided" even if that guidance comes in the form of
Revelation from God. I guess I am saying that it could certainly fit
the definition of theocracy if the definition of clergy were
considered in a different light. We could certainly follow the word
origins on a tangential path of discussion for days and both sides
could be supported by arguments. :-)
I think that the history of theocracies would make for fascinating
study. Thanks for your input and for inspiring me to ponder this
more.
Cheers,
Bill.
dmcadam
>Well, I don't think Baha'i Institutions well necessarily be identical with
>the
>state, if that's what you mean. But legislation appears to be a sacred
>actiivty
>not a secular one. As the Will and Testament says, "The House of Justice
>makes
>the laws and the government enforces them."
>
>In some sense Baha'is do not believe in theocracy, for that usually denotes
>governance by a priesthood or clergy, and we have none. What we do
>recognize is
>that spiritual principles must pervade our entire lives, including the
>political sphere.
Hi Susan-
Is "government" here referring to non-Baha'i or secular government or can
we deduce that the government will also be Baha'i?
I was thinking of all this and our passion for looking into the future,
making suppositions about what the Faith and the Divine System might be
like and realized a couple of things.
1) We don't have all the Writings available at this time.
2) We are only a miniscule fraction of time into a 5000 century
Dispensation.
Both of which add up to me that there is no way we can imagine what the
Divine System and its participants will be like. In fact, didn't the
Guardian say, after writing about the Future Prospect in, I believe Call
to the Nations where he outlined what the future would be like, that this
was as far as he could imagine. If he, with his overall grasp of the
Writings could not imagine further then how can we?
We have so many virtues to acquire, and if I remember correctly my old
friend Marian Lippitt said she estimated she had indexed over 10,000
verities from the Writings, that I do not see how we can discuss future
possibilities. To me it would be like unborn children trying to argue
what is outside the womb of the mother.
warmest,
doug
Timothy Casey
Smaneck <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8ogp5c$8as$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> >Every theocratic system of the
> >past has been a failure if only because of the "divine irresponsibility"
> >that accompanies the demand for blind faith. I cite the various Christian
> >and Islamic theocracies and their well known atrocities as examples here.
>
> Dear Timothy,
>
> It is rather fashionable to blame religions for atrocities, and certainly
there
> have been a number of them done in the name of God in history. What often
gets
> forgotten is that much worse atrocities were committed by states that
largely
> rejected religion. Look at Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Cambodia,
etc.
Dear Susan,
Thankyou for your time and insights. I am not
blaming religion but lack of government accountability. The examples you
provide owe a great deal (but not everything) to this old world problem.
> Much more killing has been done in the name of ideologies which have come
> to replace religion such as Nationalism and Communism.
>
> Historically, what a religion beliefs has a lot to do with the amount of
> tolerance within its system. Christendom has one of the worst histories in
this
> regard, while Islam, despite our stereotypes has one of the better ones.
Methinks Islamic theocracy earned Islam's stereotypes in recent times.
When a
> religion such as the Baha'i Faith, explicitly forbids holy war, the
destruction
> of books, and the shunning of other religious communities and instead
urges its
> followers to consort with the followers of all religion with joy and
> spirituality, I think that is going to make a big difference.
>
One of the more common objections I encounter is that explicit prohibitions
have not prevented theocracies of the past from turning a blind eye to the
occasional religious prohibition when convenient. I think that the procedure
of democratic election of the Baha'i religious administration will go a long
way to preventing such problems from occuring in the Faith. However, this
democratic procedure is vulnerable to certain practices current in
modern society. One such practice is to go "inactive" when dissatisfied
with the administration, instead of voting for change. Another practice is
to blindly accept what certain individuals hold as opinions on the basis
that they have popular support, or hold prominent or prestigious positions.
I have observed this to be a modern trend in Australia as many people do not
go to the
source and see it with their own eyes. A prime example of this is the
Referendum Handbook (Australian) of 1999 regarding the institution of a
republic. Most Australians got a copy. There were green (for) and red
(against) pages outlining the opposing opinions concerning what the proposed
constitutional changes were, and at the back, the black and white pages
quoting the constitution and its proposed changes word for word. I have
spoken with many people, even Skeptics members and I have not yet met one
single voter who read and considered the _actual_ changes (in the black and
white pages) for him/herself. This is quite a perverse situation when one
considers that within the coloured pages were statements in such obvious and
frequent
contradiction with the black and white pages down the back, that one could
only conclude that the proponents of said statements were lying. This is a
matter of public record and yet no-one seems too fussed by it. This sort of
intellectual laziness (not going to the source) can pave the way to all
sorts of abuses. By way of example, the Quran forbids acts of national
aggression (Sura 4:90). Consider how many "literalist" Muslims are unaware
of this fact and what consequences this has wrought. Persecution of
religious minorities is also explicitly forbidden in Islam but what dark
wonders hath the heart beheld in Iran in recent decades?
> >Society is no more that a support network to allow _all_ individuals the
> >equal and just opportunity to pursue what they percieve as important. It
is
> >the equality aspect that limits this freedom to those pursuits that do
not
> >interfere with equivalent pursuits conducted by others.
>
> That is typical Western notion of the state which grows out of the
> Enlightenment. But it is not the concept of the State which most societies
have
> held throughout history, nor is one our Writings describe. It seems to me
that
> in the Baha'i concept of the State it exists for the general welfare of
> society, not simply for the protection of life, liberty and property.
> And any concept of the general welfare rests upon a concept of the "good"
and
> it is the job of religion to define the "good."
I do not remember mentioning life, liberty, or property. My intended
emphasis was equal opportunity (AKA Justice). Albeit, the welfare of the
individual is the welfare of the society. If the individual is uneducated,
unfed, or unrested, for example, the consequences are usually disastrous.
Modern tyrannies thrive on lack of education/literacy. People who have no
recreational time do not get the opportunity to exercise their creativity
beyond the task of putting food on the table which in turn, checks progress.
Jurji Zayden mentions a period in Islamic history when one of the rulers
misappropriated the "poor tax". The result was a certain amount of civil
disobedience that seriously threatened the nation's economy. While the
individual is not the only consideration in the building of society, the
individual is still fundamentally important because societies are made up of
individuals.
>
> Statements in the
> >Ninth Ishraq, The Covenant, Matthew 7:12, Talmud, Shabbat 31a, concerning
> >the purpose of religion lend support to this concept
>
> How so?
Firstly, these statements define "good" by defining the purpose of religion.
For example, in the Covenant it is written, "...The religion of God is for
love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity and dissension..." A society
based on such religious concepts exists to serve its people and not to be a
new ediface for idolatry (any object, value or concept given greater
importance than the stated purpose of religion). I agree that individualism
carried to excess is harmful. Eg. Political systems in which the rich can
pay for, or otherwise facilitate the election campaigns of politicians can
only guarantee in our gullible western society, that the needs and desires
of wealthy individuals will be
represented long before those of the poor and needy individuals. But so too
can excess "civilisation" (regulatory implimentation) be harmful: Eg
Hitler's Germany. On this theme of moderation, Shoghi Effendi has stated:
"The civilization," writes Baha'u'llah, "so often vaunted by the
learned exponents of arts and sciences will, if allowed to overleap the
bounds of moderation, bring great evil upon men... If carried to excess,
civilization will prove as prolific a source of evil as it had been of
goodness when kept within the restraints of moderation... The day is
approaching when its flame will devour the cities, when the Tongue of
Grandeur will proclaim: `The Kingdom is God's, the Almighty, the
All-Praised!'"
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 194)
"Consider for instance such things as liberty, civilization and the like.
However much men of understanding may favorably regard them, they will, if
carried to excess, exercise a pernicious influence upon men...."
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Page: 216)
> Well, I don't think Baha'i Institutions well necessarily be identical with
> the state, if that's what you mean.
That is the direction I am thinking in - Remember, not everyone will share
all our beliefs nor will they desire all our laws. Unless of course, we come
up with a revolutionary new method of consultation to replace voting... ..at
this point I must concede that in spite of my (over?)confidence in my own
opinions, I don''t know everything! :^)
> But legislation appears to be a sacred actiivty
> not a secular one. As the Will and Testament says, "The House of Justice
> makes the laws and the government enforces them."
"This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them.
The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid
and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony
of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm
and strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise
itself. "
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 14-15)
A revealing statement that would apply given human nature, separate secular
democratic government and a majority of Baha'is. The next sentence draws the
context back to fairness and justice. I assume such a lofty purpose would
dictate that non-believers will have a transparent and fully accountable
avenue in which to contribute their voice to the consultation.
> In some sense Baha'is do not believe in theocracy, for that usually
> denotes governance by a priesthood
> or clergy, and we have none.
This is an interesting approach, however, this definition of theocracy based
on an appointed clergy could be considered obsolete. This is because of
innovations made on the concept of religious administration by the Baha'i
Faith. Eg. election of administrators, Victorian Ballot (or secret ballot -
as introduced in Victorian Parliament in Australia on March 19, 1856 by
William Nicolson if I remember rightly). Whether or not this is to become a
form
of religious rule (Eg. where religious administration is given power over
the lives of non-believers as well) was one of the questions I was
exploring.
> What we do recognize is
> that spiritual principles must pervade our entire lives, including the
> political sphere.
Deviation from spiritual principles is the heart of the problem is it not? I
think that most people outside the Faith would agree. Perhaps the problem
goes deeper than that. We often use terms such as "spiritual principles"
whose definition is based on values. If the values are left undefined, the
meaning of this term is unconstrained. This is where the purpose of religion
as stated in the relevant scriptures becomes so important. Unconstrained
terms tend to fuel debates over what turns out to be no more than hot air.
In religious
circles, those with material values can construe "spiritual principles" to
define priorities that are alien to religion. An example of this is
bibliolatry where the words or originator of the words in scripture are
deemed to be of primary importance. This spawns the old "appeal to
authority" which is an entirely invalid arguement: In this case stating the
conclusion that
because it is in the scriptures, it must be true, and therefore any other
evidence is inadmissible. Such dogmatic approaches have spawned the clash of
religion and science (not to mention sect and sect) and in modern times is
used by certain cults to justify fraud and other acts of brazen dishonesty.
This is because truth in such a system, is dumped in favour of a
materialistic idol fashioned from selected scriptures and those "contexts"
not constrained by the purpose of religion as stated in the scriptures used.
There is a great deal of material in the writings concerning such issues
addressing the harmony of religion and science, and the independent
investigation of truth. Such ideals if applied are a cure to such problems.
Anyway, that's just my two cents worth.
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
ca...@smart.net.au
Nystel, Tom
restriction to keep their religious institutions from becoming entangled in
the affairs of state. The US has the 1st Amendment which requires a neutral
position. Most European and Latin American states have similar policies of
religious tolerance. Mexico went so far as to divest the Catholic Church of
most of its properties. The wars of the Protestant Reformation and the
persecutions of Jews, Protestants and indigenous believers by the Spanish
Catholics were the basis for this separation. Most Christian theologians
regard these events as gross aberrations now, but they did occur. There are
still echoes of them even now, such as in Northern Ireland and in the
Balkans. The US, despite the Constitution, ruthlessly suppressed indigenous
religions as recently as the 1920's. Christian religious tolerance is a
rather recent development.
Now, we have the Revolutionary Government in Iran, the ultra-fundamentalist
government of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and numerous states from Nigeria
to the Phillipines where some separatist group or other is calling for the
establishment of Islamic Law. Even in so-called moderate Arab states, women
are not permitted full participation in public life and other religions are
not permitted open expression. During the Gulf War, the Coalition forces
were forced by their host country to keep Christian religious ceremonies
inside their tents, so that they could not be seen by others. Those type of
restrictions, coupled with the apparently never-ending jihad against Israel
and the corresponding terrorist attacks against the US and other allies of
Israel, lead the rest of the world to regard Islam as a religion that does
not tolerate dissent, despite what the Quran and moderate Islamic spokesmen
say.
Because of these problems, it is going to be hard to get the world to accept
any call for the development of a world government that enshrines religious
principles, however tolerant and enlightened. I know that God can do it,
but I think that it will take a long time to accomplish. Maybe in a
thousand years, they won't have to deal with car bombs. I hope so.
Tom Nystel
tny...@door.net