[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Questions about secular system and Democracy

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> General Discussion & Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pasagarde



Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 191
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:32 pm    Post subject: Questions about secular system and Democracy Reply with quote

As far as I know, all of us claim to be secular and put religion at home when it comes to lead the government, right?

Now, I try to see how secular we are and how you will face to these questions.

Imagine, you are the head of a country like Iran, so you got to bring the mentality, culture, education, .... of them into account, now answer me please:

1, Gay marriage? Do you rule it allowed? Why?

2, If yes for the first question, marriage between family, Two sisters or two brothers marry each other? why?

3, Regardless of answer to the first question, marriage between family? (Don’t bring me the reason of Genetics please, I know lots of stuff about Genetics and it’s unacceptable, besides if they don’t bring any offspring).... why?

4, Multiple marriage, men or women? Why?

5, Custody of the child? Why? How to apply?


The point is, no matter how hard we try to be secular, we are still under a big influence of religion and we have no choice but conform those "thousands years old" rules into account.

Another issue is "Human right", can be vote against it? If "NO" (which I expect all of you say so), what's the difference between a book like "Quran" and "Human right chart"? Both of them are unchangeable..... The reason of "one of them is right and the other one is wrong" is your/our idea and it may have different view in different nations/culture and generations.

The point here is, do we need a base to start with? Some thing unchangeable? Like Bible, Quran, god, Human Right, ...

Regards
_________________
"May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought"

Koroush Kabir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Persian



Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 254

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:52 am    Post subject: Re: Questions about secular system and Democracy Reply with quote

Pasagarde wrote:


2, If yes for the first question, marriage between family, Two sisters or two brothers marry each other? why?

Evil or Very Mad what the hell are you talkin about? you pscycho or something?

you're mind is filled with just as much dirt as the hizbollahi basterds.


First of all, don't come here with that fake flag. what is that? that's not Iran's flag!

secondly, with this line of questioning, there is no hope you'd ever get it. Even if we offered 100,000 answers and debates.


dear Admins ---> some are trying to change the subjects and waste this site's resources for stupid debates. we no longer have time or space for this. please show them the way out to other sites where they fit, like IRI websites. thanks.
_________________
Long live Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Saman



Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 506
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Persian joon, don't waste your time on this guy. We all know what Pasagarde stands for. He supports the islamic regime. He has clearly said so before.
_________________
Zoroaster's philosophy: Good thoughts, good words, good deeds.
Pâyandeh bâd xâke Irân e mâ!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Liberator



Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1086

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Questions about secular system and Democracy Reply with quote

Persian wrote:
dear Admins ---> some are trying to change the subjects and waste this site's resources for stupid debates. we no longer have time or space for this. please show them the way out to other sites where they fit, like IRI websites. thanks.



Dear Persian,

I have raised the same issue with the Admins. This forum is for people who support a "FREE IRAN" not those who support the IRI and bring their ideas to this board in order to waste valuable space. If this guy is allowed to stay, then everyone should be aware of his real agenda. He might shed some crocodile tears, but rarely, most of the time he will post articles on the "progress" under the IRI and try to paint as "lenient" as possible picture of his mollah masters.

BE AWARE!


Ba Sepaas
_________________
JAVID IRAN!



www.anjomane-padeshahi.org
http://aryamehr11.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
reza



Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 466
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

actually pasargrade, humans no longer need religon to govern themselves - we have morally progressed from mere savages and we now have secular laws to abide by. Religon is no longer the law giver yet it still has its place for now
_________________
"When on the battlefield if you have the sole intention of breaking into the enemy lines, you will manifest martial valour. Furthermore if you are slain in battle you should be resolved to having your corpse facing the enemy" - Yamamoto tsunetomo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope I'm not off base responding here since this site is regarding a free Iran, but I do find these questions interesting.

Pasagarde said,

Quote:
Imagine, you are the head of a country like Iran, so you got to bring the mentality, culture, education, .... of them into account, now answer me please:


First of all, in a free democracy one man doesn't set the agenda. Laws are established by extensive discussion of people of many backgrounds and faiths. Also the mentality, culture and education in Iran has been damaged by the criminal Mullahs and needs to be set free with a free democratic government. In a free democracy faith doesn't contribute directly to the laws of the land, but are a collective consensus of what all the people want.

Quote:

1, Gay marriage? Do you rule it allowed? Why?


That is for the people collectively to decide. In the US the majority of people oppose it because they believe marriage is too important to mess with. Most people are willing to accord gays many of the rights given to a married couple but feel family is so important for raising children the term "marriage" should to be reserved for a union of a man and woman. For those who wish to change things, it is their responsibility to prove to the rest that their ideas will not ultimately damage the traditional family. So far they have not made their case.

Quote:
2, If yes for the first question, marriage between family, Two sisters or two brothers marry each other? why?

3, Regardless of answer to the first question, marriage between family? (Don’t bring me the reason of Genetics please, I know lots of stuff about Genetics and it’s unacceptable, besides if they don’t bring any offspring).... why?


This is one question, not two. When you marry a couple, you have no right interfering in their wishes whether or not to have children. Therefore marrage which could result in genetically damaged children is not allowed. I'm not sure about your genetic information. There have been first cousin marriages which are successful such as the Rothchilds who kept the wealth within the family that way. I don't believe marriage between siblings is safe genetically, where do you come up with your information?

Quote:
4, Multiple marriage, men or women? Why?


This is the danger lurking in the background when you change the traditional Western definition of marriage. Polygamy is the source of much evil in societies which practice it. In most patriarchial societies you are discussing polygyny. If there is roughly an equal number of women and men in society, this results in a large pool of men who have no legitimate way to obtain mates. This tends to destabilize a society and cause increased violence or for the Islamist a large supply of suicide bombers. This is in addition to the psychological damage done to wives and their children.

Quote:
5, Custody of the child? Why? How to apply?


This has to be determined on an individual, case by case basis. There is no single rule which applies in all cases.

I have answered your questions and have not once appealed to the Bible, the Koran or God. I believe we each need our personal faith to make us better people and a society without a strong religious foundation is in trouble. However, laws should be based on reason and consensus not on holy books. The ball is now in your court.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pasagarde



Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 191
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the answers, here are my portion:

1, I know what democratic society means, but if someone ask your opinion about them as, for example of candidate of presidency, what would your answer to gay marriage? Besides, marrige is not about having kids, to make it clear "are you goinig to rule no strile woman/man can marry?" or "no marrige for women after 50 years old?"

2,3, So, what's your final answer? Do you agree with that? If yes, what's your condition? If no, what's your condition again?

You asked me how sure I am, right? well look at the nature, we are part of it too and nature doesn't apply such rule (no immidate family mating) . Or it does and I don't know about it? I know some stuff about Genetics , I know what I am talking about.

If you want to know why I say the marriage doesn't hurt, I will open another thread to tell you scientifically. We have indeed few disorders that easily can be predicted and those ones are not ONLY between sister/brother.... So, can we ban any marriage for the risk of such a disorders? and not only immidate family?.......... wait a moment ..... YOU actually are interfering with the right of people who wanna marry each other. Why not Even siter/brother? what's your answer? If a sister/brother have a kid, without marriage of course, do you have any punishment for them? Why? If yes, why? if not, why then they can't marry?

4, Again, you escape from the answer, do you agree or not? if some one does that, what's your punishment? If 2 men and one woman come and want to marry each other, what's your reason to say "NO"? If the population is your reason, incase of the number changes, you change your rule too? Besides, these 3 (imaginary) people can easily live together in a western country and have as many as kids they want, why not marry? Isn't it "marriage" is actually a "religious" event? ...and you can't rule out of it?

Is your marriage and mate have the same meaning? Then, you shouldn't let any mating out of marriage (well I call it IRI ), if not, you can't let the same thing goes on in society but you can't let them do it in official manner like "Marriage".

For all above, your reasons were not convincing, but you could easily say "religion" does not let us to do so.

The whole point, is you can't escape from the fact that "we are living in a religious society" of course with different degree.

Regards
_________________
"May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought"

Koroush Kabir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eski



Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Location: Washington State, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the problem with Whacko Pseudo - Intellectuals.............. They always have to make simple things complex! The question of so called, "Gay Marriage" and other forms of marriage are not difficult to put into perspective. Marriage between people of the same sex is not beneficial to anyone or society. The reason marriage is for a man and a woman is because we are able to reproduce naturally and contribute to our population in a natural way. We don't marry our siblings because this corrupts the gene pool and offspring are usually born with abnormalities. Besides........ Sleeping with your brother or sister is just creepy. And having multiple wives is not nescessary anymore since our populations are out of control as it is. Plural marriage was acceptable in the past because the populations of the world were small and families had to be big to survive. Lots of kids were needed to keep the family above water and support the elders later in life. Quite a few kids didn't survive to adulthood also. This isn't nescessary anymore and so it doesn't happen on a regular basis outside of countries that have plurality as part of their culture. And those cultures should really think things through more........ if you can't feed em' don't make em'. Besides, having more than one wife could make a man mean and in a perpetual bad mood. I have one wife and she is more than enough for me. God knows I love her but he also knows I don't understand her! Confused
So you see.......... religion doesn't really come into play here. Maybe for people that are religious it does but it is more a matter of common sense. It doesn't require alot of thinking or intellectual prowess.....just some good old fashioned common sense! Shocked
_________________
Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pasagarde said

Quote:
1, I know what democratic society means, but if someone ask your opinion about them as, for example of candidate of presidency, what would your answer to gay marriage? Besides, marrige is not about having kids, to make it clear "are you goinig to rule no strile woman/man can marry?" or "no marrige for women after 50 years old?"


I'm not sure why you are arguing details of a single issue. I thought you were interested in the big picture which is that millions of individuals will each make up their minds on issues and vote. You don't need a religion to answer those kinds of questions.

As for your specifics, marriage is indeed about having kids. The future of any society lies in raising and inculturating children. Marriage has been part of the process for thousands or millions of years. The fact that every marriage doesn't result in kids doesn't negate the rule. There are other aspects of marriage such as companionship, but children are the most important result of marriage as far as society is concerned.

Quote:
If you want to know why I say the marriage doesn't hurt, I will open another thread to tell you scientifically. We have indeed few disorders that easily can be predicted and those ones are not ONLY between sister/brother.... So, can we ban any marriage for the risk of such a disorders? and not only immidate family?.......... wait a moment ..... YOU actually are interfering with the right of people who wanna marry each other. Why not Even siter/brother? what's your answer? If a sister/brother have a kid, without marriage of course, do you have any punishment for them? Why? If yes, why? if not, why then they can't marry?


I don't understand your point here. Just telling me you know about genetics doesn't explain anything. Lots of people understand genetics. I thought your issue was that you need religion to tell everyone what is right or wrong. How does this section advance your argument? All you are telling me is you disagree with my ideas on a specific issue, but so what does that prove?

Quote:
, Again, you escape from the answer, do you agree or not? if some one does that, what's your punishment? If 2 men and one woman come and want to marry each other, what's your reason to say "NO"? If the population is your reason, incase of the number changes, you change your rule too? Besides, these 3 (imaginary) people can easily live together in a western country and have as many as kids they want, why not marry? Isn't it "marriage" is actually a "religious" event? ...and you can't rule out of it?


I told you why polygyny is bad for a society. I'm not evading anything. The breakdown in society when people engage in orgies is well documented. Not only does it spread diseases such as AIDS but also there are children born without an intact family to raise them, a bad thing for society. That is why a stable society encourages monogamy in a stable family setting. Other than that I miss your point entirely.
Quote:

The whole point, is you can't escape from the fact that "we are living in a religious society" of course with different degree.


A good religion which teaches people to love and respect each other and to live in a stable family situation is very important in a society. Children need to learn to abandon narcissistic behavior and mature morally. This is taught in a good religion. Morally mature citizens is very good for a society, but those same citizens will also learn as part of their moral training to respect the right of other people to disagree with them without trying to kill them. They will also learn to argue various policy points logically without resorting to holy books to support themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pasagarde



Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 191
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm not sure why you are arguing details of a single issue. I thought you were interested in the big picture which is that millions of individuals will each make up their minds on issues and vote. You don't need a religion to answer those kinds of questions


I am interesed in the bigger picture, that's why I don't go to the details anymore as, I guess, I've already made my point in there.

To answer your quote """you don't need a religion to answer those kinds of questions""", my point is exactly this:

"as a politician, we have no choice but follow those millions people who are not secular".

So, back to the initial comments "as much as we want to be a secular, but in reality we can't."
_________________
"May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought"

Koroush Kabir
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pasagarde said,

Quote:
I am interesed in the bigger picture, that's why I don't go to the details anymore as, I guess, I've already made my point in there.


I'm not sure what point you made.

My understanding of your original post was that people had to base civil laws on teachings from holy books. To prove your thesis, you asked some specific questions apparently with the assumption that they were unanswerable without reference to a holy book. I then answered them logically using information which is generally available to the citizens who vote to make the laws.

You then returned to reargue the same set of questions. I'm not sure how further arguing those specific questions advances your hypothesis. The fact I was able to answer your questions without reference to a holy book or to God has already disproven your original position. Logically, it is adequate if I believe my own arguments, I don't need to convince you or any one else on those specific points to win the debate.

Citizens in a free country will often give different answers for the same questions. That's why we have elections, so everyone can have their say about things. Many Americans will disagree with me, sometimes strongly on those very disputed issues. To be effective, those who disagree will have to show how my side has thought illogically or has made incorrect assumptions. In order to advance our understanding in the argument we must all have freedom of speech, so people can discuss the issues logically and convince as many as possible on the other side to change their minds. You don't need holy books for those discussions. In my opinion, your original hypothesis is already disproven.

Quote:
"as a politician, we have no choice but follow those millions people who are not secular".

So, back to the initial comments "as much as we want to be a secular, but in reality we can't."


Your comment is probably right if you are referring only to Muslims. I agree Muslims are probably not capable of living in sizeable numbers in a free democratic country since their understanding of God demands a theocracy. I have seen no evidence Muslims can learn how to think logically about morality since Islam is based on a series of taboos derived from the teachings of Muhammad and his associates whom they consider infallible. Since Muslims literally consider themselves slaves of Allah, it would be unimaginable for them to think about or question the rules found in the Koran. The role of a slave is not to question but to blindly obey any command regardless of how foolish it may be. To repeat, you are probably correct, it is impossible for Muslims to to govern themselves without constant reference to their holy books since that is all they have.

Most Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists find no such hinderance to freedom and democracy. Righteousness is based on general principles of respect for human rights and responsible use of the environment. They have no religious restrictions which prevent logical discussions of morality and civil laws and have no necessity to constantly refer to the holy books. For them, religion is a very important private committment to moral excellence not an issue to be forced on others.

So yes, it is possible to have a completely secular society without reference to holy books. On the other hand, I completely agree with you that a society which has actively excluded God is probably not sustainable. The human need for God is so fundamental, if God didn't exist, we would have to invent Him. Society should not be hostile to those people of faith who respect freedom and democracy, but should honor and encourage them. The role of religion in a secular society is to provide a moral foundation to individual citizens who will be ethically mature and obey reasonable laws of their own free will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> General Discussion & Announcements All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group