Let me start with this disclaimer, this post is for the purpose of discussion, there are no hidden attacks herewith and should you feel attacked, please push the button. I ask these questions with full knowledge that this is a controversial subject, but one I feel needs to be approached in a forum where shared responses are valued and open for discussion.
The politics of religion, do they belong within the politics of government: I am only aware of the Ten Commandments as any true tenets of Christianity as related to the New Testament and practiced widely, or considered relating to the institution of secular laws, though I find half of them simply rooted in religions antiquity, I acknowledge the necessity to define laws of man within some conformed standard in the history of humanities social evolution. I find many of the Commandments merely outdated, however, 6, 8 & 9 are the true power holders, imho, but these are not religious laws to me as much as they are humanities, in general, leaving the other commandments to personal, religious and historical interpretations. I know interpretations of biblical verses led to many human judgment issues in the early days of Christianity, as well most religions and ideologies in the foundation of creating cohesion's within their particular sect, but these were, from what I understand, merely interpretations of verse, i.e. "the church says" or “the bible/verse/parable is interpreted to mean” especially as far as the New Testaments’ “parables”...... Not to mention that many of these “books” of the bible are written by men from viewpoints that were entrenched in the historical developments of communities “governed” by oligarchies, rooted patriarchal, and within specific tradition, and passed via birthrights or bloodlines of power, as opposed to ones true capacity to rule.
My understanding is that these “books/texts of the Bible” were different religious mens perceptions and interpretations of the verses’ or parables’ “inherent” teachings in the simplicity of the Ten Commandments as interpreted to fit one tribe’s choices of “law” at that time in history under the circumstances of their particular moment, but not the actual “words” of God to be harkened as strictured law in this day. I am also led to believe, and attempt to understand, that all verses of the Qur’an are considered to be “The verbatim word of Allah” and to be accepted as such from the writings of Muhammad. From what I know of the Qur'an, which isn't much because without the knowledge of the stories behind the words, it just comes across as, at times, beautiful poetry left open for a myriad of interpretations. Though, I also find that the "verses" are taken more literally in instances of "law" and are taken to minute detail and decisions. I am led to believe that the words of the Qur’an are totally devoid of personal interpretation even in the present everyday life of Muslims who live devoutly within Shari'ah, or not, it is what it is, period. Correct me too, when I say, that most punishments within the teachings of the New Testament (as opposed to the Old) fell more to God, after one dies, and less and to the religious leaders of a sects organization, outside of being ostracized by specific groups (i.e. some Mormon practices and some Jehovah witness sects ostracizing their members), there isn’t a whole lot of “stoning” or “honor killing” or “mutilation” as payment for the breaking of a spiritual law that is linked back to Gods’ actual words and not mans interpretation of them in the New Testament.
I guess what I am saying is that the New Testament, and the modern human condition within truly secular societies, allows for mankind to question the “laws/ideologies/interpretations” of the bible as more than just the “word of God” but the word of God as interpreted by man. Truly secular societies are permitted to question their religious books and the words therein, fundamentally and historically, without persecution, without fear of being ostracized from family and friends or even death. True secularization within modern societies has developed from understanding and accepting the inherent self-servitude of mankinds’ interpretations of histories religious and or ideological past societies’ and any individuals antiquated interpretations of others interpreted verses, allowing growth for humanities’ development and the eventual separation of church and state that came as a final end to the varied murky attempts at religious text elucidations. It seems to me that the Qur’an disallows, in general, any and all interpretations that would allow it to be fully embraced within a modern establishment of progressive societies, outside of attempts to mold a society around the word of Muhammad, which is perceived as the verbatim word of Allah and is not to be interpreted by the average reader but only by those who are born within the realms of the religious leaders of Islam and their interpretations, therefore it would seem impossible to separate Islam and in turn Shar’iah from the politics of governing within Muslim societies until the Qur’an can be seen more as a personal guide in faith and less as an Islamic societies law. It seems to me that Muslims are forced to adhere to the Qur’an with no wiggle room or they merely wiggle themselves outside the faith of Allah, altogether. I wonder if the ability to interpret the words of the Qur’an will be permitted to happen at all outside of the Imams, will Islam ever allow for personal interpretations of the Qur’an to match the evolution of mankind in, modern politics, technology, science, evolution of the species, etc…? Am I right to believe that the worse affront to Allah is to be a Muslim who has turned away or denies the Islamic faith and Shar’iah law?
Again, let me reiterate, the questions I am asking are an attempt to understand, not an attempt to negate or defame or insult anyone or anyone’s belief, but to try and see a perspective that will help me appreciate more the religious devotions’ and politics of Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity, we can talk Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, New Age, Hare Krishna, Sikhism, Agnostic, Atheist, Scientology, Satanism, etc…. I am interested in them all, it just so happens that about half of the worlds population call themselves Christian or Muslim, Hindus make an impressive third most followers’ leaving the remaining 30% or so of the populace scattered amongst all forms of interesting beliefs (39+ different beliefs/religions/ideologies
Religion, World Religions, Comparative Religion - Just the facts on the world's religions.) or lack thereof. If I am being perceived as insulting, this is not my intent, and I apologize. I respect completely each and every humans individual right to believe in whatever they wish and do not, myself, strive to sway any one to my views. Thank you for any and all personal perspectives, I think we have a right, as well as a necessity, to discuss openly the beliefs of others as well as ourselves to help in removing fear that can be found in ignorance, but in this we must strive to realize that many people want to ask some tough questions and are truly afraid of not only offending others, but of persecution too and considering that Islam cannot be removed from the politics of governing in it’s current capacity, I am deeply curious how the political affairs of humankind can coexist within the politics of a religious based culture that does not seem to recognize the profound necessity to completely separate church and state in all of humanities governing judicial matters.
One more question, can a non-Muslim hold office in a traditionally Islamic state, would it be permitted under Shar’iah law for a Christian to be in a position of power within the political realm of Islam, or say a Hindu, or a Buddhist?
Quote:
Religious demographics
See also: Religious affiliations of current United States Senators
As of June 2008, the top five denominations in the Congress are Roman Catholic (29.3%), Baptist (11.1%), Methodist (10.2%), Jewish (7.8%), and Presbyterian (7.6%). Protestant denominations have held a large majority throughout congressional history, reflecting American's traditional demographics. 58.0% of seats are currently held by members of Protestant denominations. One member of the current Congress belongs to the Quakers, Representative Rush Holt. Two Representatives, Tim Johnson and Todd Tiahrt, are Pentecostal, as is one Senator, John Ensign.
A record 45 Jews currently serve in Congress.
Senator Olympia Snowe, as well as Representatives John Sarbanes, Zack Space, Gus Bilirakis, Dina Titus, Niki Tsongas and Melissa Bean are Orthodox Christians.
In 2007, Keith Ellison of Minnesota became the first practicing Muslim to become a member of the United States Congress; he was joined by André Carson of Indiana following a special election on 11 March 2008. Both are converts to Islam and are Sunni Muslims. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia became the first two Buddhists to be elected to the United States Congress on November 7, 2006. Johnson is a member of the Soka Gakkai movement, and Hirono (albeit non practicing) is a member of the Jodo Shinshu sect; both are Japanese Buddhist oriented.
Currently eleven representatives and five senators are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Representatives Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), and Pete Stark (D-CA) are the only Unitarian Universalists currently serving in Congress. In a response to a March 2007 survey from the Secular Coalition for America, Stark, a Unitarian Universalist, became the only open atheist in the history of Congress.[2]
Ten current representatives have declined to state their religious beliefs.
Women in Congress
See also: Women in the United States Senate and Women in the United States House of Representatives
As of 2009, 441 members of Congress are male (83%) and 92 are female (17%).[3] The global average for female representation at the parliamentary level in 2009 is 18.6%.[4]
Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to Congress, in 1916. Women could not vote or be elected in most of the United States until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920. Rebecca Felton was the first woman to become a Senator in 1922, serving for a brief two-day period when she was appointed to fill a vacancy left by Georgia Senator Thomas E. Watson. The first woman to win a race for Senate was Hattie Caraway, who won a special election in January 1932 to fulfill her late husband's Senate term of office. Caraway subsequently won the scheduled November 1932 election, eventually serving two more full terms.
In the early days following the legalization of national women's suffrage, most women elected to Congress were chosen as replacements for deceased husbands. Prior to the 1960s, most female members of Congress were either involved in this process of "widow's succession" or were members of influential political families. Elected to the House in 1965, Patsy Mink became the first non-white woman to enter Congress (she was of Japanese American heritage). Until 1992, a year that saw the election of four new female senators, the US Senate had never had more than three women serving at a time. Nancy Pelosi became the first female leader of a major party when she took over the position of House Minority Leader in 2002, and she is currently (since 2007) the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House.
In the 111th United States Congress, there are 76 women serving the U.S. House and 17 in the U.S. Senate, which is the highest number of women to hold Congressional office.[5]
Sexual orientation
There have been six openly GLBT members in the history of Congress. Gerry Studds (elected in 1972) became the first openly gay man when he publicly announced in 1983.[6] Barney Frank (serving since 1981) first spoke publicly about his sexual orientation in 1987.[7] Steve Gunderson, elected in 1980 and outed in 1994,[8] and Jim Kolbe, elected in 1984 and outed in 1996,[9] are two other previous members of Congress who were openly gay. Current congresswoman Tammy Baldwin is the first and so far only open lesbian woman to win election to Congress.[10] In 1998, she became the first ever openly gay person to win election to Congress as a non-incumbent. Former California representative Michael Huffington is bisexual, but did not come out until after his term had ended.[11] Jared Polis (who was elected in 2008 and assumed office on January 6, 2009) is the first openly gay man to have been elected to the House as a freshman. Republican representative Mark Foley's homosexuality was well-known in his district, though he did not serve openly in Congress and did not come out publicly until after his term ended.[12][13] It has been widely reported that current congressman David Dreier is gay,[14][15][16][17][18][19] though he has steadfastly refused to respond to these reports. Then-Senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's washroom at the Minneapolis airport in 2007[20], but insisted that he was not gay[21]. Notedly, there has never been an openly transgender or transsexual member of the house. There has never been an openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender member of the Senate.
|
Though still mostly Christian and or Jewish there are Muslim and Buddhist members of congress as well as many women and a beginning openness to GLBT within the political offices of the U.S., do you think this diversity, or beginnings of such, could been seen in the political leadership of Muslim nations under Shar’iah?
Are Muslims permitted to question the Qur'an without fear of retribution?