jump to navigation

What Muslims need to do is admit there is a problem July 2, 2007

Posted by Al in : interesting,people,politics , trackback

Here’s an interesting article by someone who was once a believer in the use of terror because it was legislated within his religion. Now, he has stood back from this and has described why this belief is present, and what can be done to resolve the issue. I am all for the followers of any religion to have the right to practice their religion, just as I assume I have the right not to have to follow any religious laws, or beliefs (although I do believe that religions should lose their tax-exempt status and be treated as a normal business). However, I also believe that religions should be willing to question themselves, and to produce ways of reforming their beliefs if they decide that the world has moved on and there is a need to do so.

It’s not just the Muslim religion that needs to change it’s world view either: the Catholic church is still denying it’s followers the right to use condoms, even though they would protect Africans and South Americans from AIDS. Also, a more informed look at abortion by a number of major religions, where it might be frowned upon but not considered a sin, might prevent many children being born into abject poverty and suffering. And most importantly, in my opinion, is the separation of church and state at all levels.

Much has been made, in the UK, of Tony Blair’s visit to the Pope recently, and whether he will convert to Catholicism in the near future. He has been forbidden from doing so during his tenure, as a Prime Minister is still required to be a member of the protestant church. This is wrong, I believe, and any religion should be allowed for all government officials; however they should have to declare their religion formally, and also swear on all that they hold holy that their religion would not sway their carrying out of their duties to their constituents.


1. jhood - July 2, 2007

“the Catholic church is still denying it’s followers the right to use condoms, even though they would protect Africans and South Americans from AIDS.”

I ahve to admit I never understood this argument as to why the Church should change its policy. I highly suspect if a Catholic is engaging in Sex outside marriage that he or she is not going to fret the condom thing

2. Al - July 3, 2007

Who said anything about extra-marital sex?

People can catch AIDS from any number of sources, including blood transfusions, drug use, and the most popular – rape. In some African countries rape is used regularly by troops, and local thugs, to enforce their power over the locals. This is probably the most common way that AIDS is spread in such places, and would you deny a raped woman the solace of love from her husband? However, how would he feel knowing that his wife is likely to have contracted AIDS after her ordeal, yet he cannot protect himself from the disease due to the rulings of his faith?

Also, the argument for abortion above could also be applied to contraception. Millions of children are born into this world only to experience poverty and suffering for their entire lives. If contraception were permitted by the Catholic church then maybe people wouldn’t be out hunting feral children on the streets of Rio and Sao Paulo. Maybe less children would mean less of a strain on a poor countries infrasctructure, more food for everyone else, less need to cut down rainforests to provide land for agriculture, less disease, less suffering al round. Overpopulation is becoming a problem in many countries, and the enforcement of contraception, sterilisation and abortion in China has helped that country deal with it’s serious population issues. Admittedly, such state enforcement is definitely drastic and possibly draconian, but wouldn’t it be nice if people could have the chioce to use these options without fearing eternal damnation?