Rant First Eruopean/Islamic woman with a headscarf in parliament

[TheBinarySurfer]

However, if a religious person is democratically elected, she has a legitimate claim to express her religiously inspired view in the parliament. On the condition of course, that she attempts to argue in terms which are understandable for people who don't share her religious presuppositions as well.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

It is not, however, fact. It really irks me when people present their opinions as facts.

A religiously inspired view is not one based on reason or facts.

In fact the two are almost diametrically opposed since the very foundation of a truly religiously inspired view is effectively "because of god".

The fact is that in your example, Chris would not have been elected on his policies alone, and thus his Christian moral compass would most likely be shared by a good majority of those that voted for him -making his feelings on those issues representative of his community.

You are trying to make everything black and white, but it is not that clear cut, and you know it.

If you change the example you can't then argue the new one vs the old one...

Do you honestly believe that basing a country's policies around a religious view is fair to anyone? One of the key reasons for separating religion and state is that religion serves itself and it's adherents best.

You can't honestly tell me that someone who bases their ideas and viewpoint around a single religion, would be better than an objective, logical, reasoning elected official would for the country as a whole? At the very least, the other religions are going to lose out.

Finally (before i weigh out on this topic):
I love the irony of you saying see things in black & white (which, by the way i don't but you are assuming from my post), and saying that is a bad thing. What else sees things in black & white...Hmmm... Could it be religion?

Doesn't pretty much every religion have very clear do's and don't's in most areas? Isn't that black & white? So the very thing you are advocating, you dislike in another form...

 

[mooSe_]

Even if a religious person is elected on the basis of their religion, they should still not be able to enforce their religious views on the whole population. Even if the majority voted for that person, the minority in this case would be forced to adhere to a set of rules which, to them, made absolutely no sense. It's basically a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority, which is something that should be avoided in a state which professes to value individual freedom.

 

[Ch3tan]

Even if a religious person is elected on the basis of their religion, they should still not be able to enforce their religious views on the whole population.

Who said they can? One person does not hold power unless you are living in a dictatorship.

Binary - I am not changing the example, your example was simply flawed. I believe that a government should reflect it's people, nothing more, nothing less. Now like it or not (and I am athiest for your info), we live in a world were religion is a big part of the majority of the population, thus elected officials will reflect that. Now you can argue separation of church and state all you want, and it's a great ideal -but in reality those officials and the people they represent are guided by their own moral compass, be it based on religion or not.

 

[old.Osy]

The OP fails to notice that the Western part of the world is built around democracy - and, in the EU, the people represented by those parliament members are muslims, christians, protestants, etc

The Islam is no longer that distant area in the world where car bombs and suicide bombers are a daily fix - Islam is a part of Europe - and they have as much right to be here as you, and also to be represented properly in the EU parliament.

YouTube - Muslim Demographics

 

[Vintersorg]

The OP fails to notice that the Western part of the world is built around democracy - and, in the EU, the people represented by those parliament members are muslims, christians, protestants, etc

The Islam is no longer that distant area in the world where car bombs and suicide bombers are a daily fix - Islam is a part of Europe - and they have as much right to be here as you, and also to be represented properly in the EU parliament.

YouTube - Muslim Demographics

Edit, I won't even bother to respond on that. Since the video you post comes from a christian fundy who calls for gospel-preaching to the muslims, figures in the video are untrustworthy.
Yes, they are here now, and I have no problem with that.
But there are laws and rules here; And we have to follow them, but they do to. Just because they are Muslims doesn't give them more rights than us.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

But there are laws and rules here; And we have to follow them, but they do to. Just because they are Muslims doesn't give them more rights than us.

Lets be fair a minute though, it's not Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks or Asians, or any one minority group that's the issue. It's the legal precedent that has been set saying "challenge anything you dont like on the basis of being a minority".

This creates a vicious cycle of genuine positive and negative discrimination (resentment from those who aren't given preferential treatment, and a sense of automatic entitlement to those that are), which is why we're in this mess today where many people will not given even an inch further, and nutters like the BNP have managed to win seats at the last election because currently to be white, middleclass and non-religious in the UK often means being a second-class citizen.

Oh and of course by saying anything about the constant positive discrimination, you are automatically a racist (nevermind that my ex-fiance was mixed-race, apparently that counts for nothing) and should be ashamed of yourself...

Much like a pendulum, a big swing to one side will in time create an almost equally big return swing to the other, which is how those racist loons got in. Sadly, we haven't seen the last of the BNP at the elections i suspect...

 

[dub]

this is not about religion , its about democracy , and yes its a fact that if your democraticly elected you can pursue whatever agenda you want....

you cant outlaw stupidity , you can only educate.

and secular comes after democracy , its a choice our democracy makes , not an inherent part of it.

i really dont think its worth destroying democracy just to keep those i find stupid out of it

 

[noblok]

However, if a religious person is democratically elected, she has a legitimate claim to express her religiously inspired view in the parliament. On the condition of course, that she attempts to argue in terms which are understandable for people who don't share her religious presuppositions as well.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

It is not, however, fact. It really irks me when people present their opinions as facts.

Obviously it is my opinion. I do however think it's a fact as well. I really see no reasonable argument as to why her claim to a seat in the parliament would be illegitimate. It's not as if allowing her to enter the parliament is anti-democratic.

While I understand that you may think there is a danger of totalitarianism if religious arguments are allowed to play a role in the public sphere, I don't think this is enough to outlaw them altogether. This is also why I think that arguments who simply refer to religious authorities have no place there. If these were the only arguments used, then, yes, it would be in essence totalitarian and anti-democratic. However, if she tries to use arguments which can also be understood by others I don't see any problem with it.

A religiously inspired view is not one based on reason or facts.

In fact the two are almost diametrically opposed since the very foundation of a truly religiously inspired view is effectively "because of god".

It may in the end be grounded in "because of God", but that doesn't mean that there are no reasonable arguments whatsoever for their point of view. On the contrary, many religious people think that reason supports faith (just read Thomas Aquinas e.g.). I gave you an example where a religious person gives an argument which is inspired by his religion, but which can also be understood by people who don't share that religion. What is wrong with this?