Hello Lev -
It's hard to distinguish between religion and culture when talking about Islam. Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently said she was Muslim, when she has rejected all the major tenets of the belief system of Islam - she is a product of the Islamic cultures in which she has lived, and so can call herself a Muslim.
Islam was invented at the time when forming a community meant claiming to belong to a deity - hence the cross-over between the religious and political sphere. A community must decide on its nature to establish its identity, and must choose how much it wants to enforce those decisions. Islam chose to enforce the decisions pretty hard - death to apostates, for example. Some other religions have made the similar choices, but the gradual secularisation of the last few centuries has cured all but Islam of its desire for political control.
It's this desire for political control that irks me, as it does the minority groups that have survived Islam's oppression for 1400 years.
Many things will seem morally repugnant in a war, but allowing the former oppressors to re-establish their oppression is certainly one I wish to avoid. And if all Muslim countries recognise Israel, how many of them insist on the right of return for the former oppressors of the jews (and others) in Palestine?

Hi Camo,

I disagree that it is particularly difficult to differentiate between religion and culture, and certainly the people of the various Malay cultures would disagree strongly.

There is certainly no surprise that a person could reject the major tenets of a faith and still be a member. Many Christians certainly fall into that category; as do many Jews. Why not Muslims? Sure to a fundamentalist the would be considered heretics of some brand or another, but that's just the nature of theological reasoning.

All this however, is quite moot. The total separation of religious edicts from civil laws the provision of equal rights (not "equal but different" or "equal but separate") for all nationalities etc is requisite for any modern state. Many fall below that threshold and in a manner of degrees; whenever an opportunity arises to support these just changes it should be supported.

All the best,

Lev

Hello Lev - Christianity has undergone both disestablishment and secularisation in the western world. So Christians might well be expected to have separated their religion from their expectation of political power.
Jews have had a much harder time - never having much control over the parcel of land they thought they owned. Scattered by the Romans as punishment for a series of uprisings, blamed by some of the gospel writers/ editors for killing their Jesus, and after scorning a new demand for prophethood from an Arabian named Muhammed, Jews find themselves scattered at the mercy of all the dominant groups they live amongst. Fighting back against all of this has been a cultural more than a religious phenomenon, but of course the creation of the state of Israel has attracted the religious at least as much as the secular.
As far as I can see, Islam hasn't reached any similar conclusion from its experience, particularly its experience of defeat. Nor has it gone through a process of disestablishment - Sharia is important, sometimes central, in all the various Muslim states around the world, regardless of whether these governments are Monarchies, Republics or Theocracies.
Christianity and Judaism have settled for political influence, resigned to being one group amongst many in the state in which they find themselves. Islam, by contrast, still seeks political control, even though that control is often neglected (and Indonesia is a good example). But every now and then, even in such states, Islam's claim to political control fires anew - the Achenese are finding this out now, much to the dismay of many of them.
A question remains - by what means do those Muslims who do not want any particular version of the Sharia forced on them resist the pressure from those who do wish to impose it? Desiring to live under Sharia is of principle importance in Muslim culture and theology: claiming to not want to live under Sharia law can bring a death sentence.
I do not wish to live under such a system, and support those others who do not wish to.

Lev, on one of your other points, and very pertinent to the conversation: many modern states fail the equality/ non-discriminatory test. None moreso than most of the various Islamic states in the Middle East, and particularly those which support the palestinians against Israel. As does the state envisaged by both Hammas and the PLO. The vision they project of a secular Palestine protecting the rights of all its inhabitants is a lie, to go by their statements made when they are amongst themselves. And how successful is the international community in protecting the rights of oppressed minorities in those countries supporting the palestinians? How successful do you think that same international community will be protecting Jews (and Christians) in an Islamic Palestine?
The project to establish a secular, jewish state in the homeland of the jews is a project worth supporting. It is a war, of national liberation, first against the nominally christian powers, now against the Islamic powers. The nominally christian powers have been conned into supporting the palestinians (with the exception of the US) and with the extent of Muslim immigration into Europe, may well find that policy very hard to reverse. Will the jews be sacrificed again? Will you find that abhorant?

Camo,

I have already stated my opinion on this matter on a number of times and your comments do not proffer any convincing arguments to the criteria established. i.e.,

The total separation of religious edicts from civil laws the provision of equal rights (not "equal but different" or "equal but separate") for all nationalities etc is requisite for any modern state. Many fall below that threshold and in a manner of degrees; whenever an opportunity arises to support these just changes it should be supported.

Naturally enough "failed states" includes the various states that impose Sharia law, the proposed unitary state by Hamas in Palestine, and to a lesser extent, the Jewish state of Israel. This has already been stated numerous times.

As I have already pointed out "The project to establish a secular, jewish state in the homeland of the jews" contains an explicit contradiction. You simply cannot have a Jewish state that is secular; you can however have a Jewish homeland in a secular state.

Whilst this remains a minority position in both Israel and in the occupied territories, it is the most consistent proposition and the only proposition that has the capacity to gain international acceptance from all others. Dr. Karmi erudite comments of the matter indicate the possibility of peace and unity.

Regards,

Lev

Lev,

You say >> “Whilst this remains a minority position in both Israel and in the occupied territories, it is the most consistent proposition and the only proposition that has the capacity to gain international acceptance from all others”

You fully acknowledge that the one state solution is highly unpopular with BOTH Israelis and Palestinians, so HOW on earth can you suggest it as a solution? The only way the situation will be resolved is by negotiation and that requires the consent of both parties. If neither party is interested in your proposal it is DEAD IN THE WATER.

BTW No-one else would care about the details of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement if both sides could agree on a solution. No international agreement is required, and they certainly don’t have to satisfy you and Dr Karmi.

Your ridiculous argument that you push for change where change has most likelihood of success means that 95% of the time you will be criticizing Israel, since the reforms you hope for have ABSOLUTELY no chance of being implemented in the Islamic states. For me this is a highly skewed idea and flies in the face of any semblance of equity or fairness. Surely our efforts at improving rights for citizens should be focused on those who are most abused. Your focus on those who aren’t as badly off, but are easier to help is a cop out of the highest order.

You say >> “The total separation of religious edicts from civil laws the provision of equal rights (not "equal but different" or "equal but separate") for all nationalities etc is requisite for any modern state.”

Can you tell me Lev why you are restricting your requirements to ‘modern states’? Shouldn’t all states be held to the same standard? Third world dictatorships included?

You surely must also recognize that the herd, seeing you always criticize Israel and never the Islamic dictatorships, will get the idea that Israel is a bigger human rights violator than Hamas or Syria or Saudi when that is clearly not the case.