Co-existance between religions and the roots of secularism

Coexistance between religions have always been the goal of peacefull people who are trying to advance and turn the world around.

First rule of Coexistance between religions is Secularism(al 3almana)

This will be part 1 in this thread, we will discuss each rule of coexistance starting with secularism.

As a start, it is well known that secularism is against the teachings of Islam, but on the other hand secularism is part of christianity.

Let's take a close look at the history of secularism.

Democracy – the rule of the citizens – was first defined by Aristotle by contrasting it with monarchy and oligarchy. It implies that the power to rule should be in the hand of “the citizens”. Thenceforth, and through the many exemplars in history, we’ve witnessed variations of that ruling group defined as “citizens”: Athenian democracy excluded slaves and women. Rome was the next to adopt democracy, introducing the concepts of representative democracy, where the citizens are represented by the senate. Many other models have been attempted before the 17th century, each with a different definition of citizenship, and restrictions to the ruling mass.
This Greco-Roman political concept was waiting for a humanitarian match.

Meanwhile, Christianity was ripening, and England and France led the Western world – Europe and the American states – by revolutions that would change the face of Modern politics. After the English Bill of Rights (1688), the United States Bill of Rights (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), and the 1905 French law on the separation of Church and State, the keywords were clearly set in Western politics: equality, secularism, and tolerance. This was the political achievement of the Christian world.
Maybe the French revolution seemed hostile to Christianity, but it was nothing else than Christian reform. Stripping the clergy power was merely getting Christianity on its right tracks, that of secularism started by Jesus Christ Himself: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; to God what is God's."

Christianity wasn’t only the subconscious behind secularism, but most of the values of today’s Western civilization. The most relevant would be equality and the rejection of ethnic fanaticism as Jesus clearly declared all nations as his people “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”, and most importantly democracy, since to Jesus Christ all people were equal in the eyes of The Father.
Christianity built up the Western World’s humane values, and found in democracy its political match.

The Western civilization, Democracy, Secularism, Liberty, the Human Rights, are the offspring of the Greco-Roman culture and the Christian religion merging. Isn’t it an act of totalitarianism – contradictory to that very civilization’s values – to impose this culture as supremacy over other civilizations?


Waiting for your input, I am currently writting about the best political system under which religions can coexist, I hope i'll finish it soon and i'll post it here

Co-existance in a federal system!

Federalism is found in christian churches, some modern evangelical Protestant Christians in the United States argue that the earliest source of political federalism is the ecclesiastical federalism found in the Bible.

There are many kinds of federalism, US federalism has come to mean something closer to confederacy which means weaker federal government and stronger state government.

In Canada, the system of Federalism is delineated by the division of powers between the federal parliament and the nation's several provincial.

In Europe, several federal systems still exist, specially in Switzerland, Germany and Belgium, each one has his own style.

Confederalism is close to "Dual federalism" which holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this case, there is a very large group of powers belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.

So as you can see, there are many kinds of Federalism, now which country can be taken into example, for the diversity it has and the possible federalist system in the future?

No other than our beloved Lebanon...

Political fraudulence is the mother of the last century's historical vices. The personal interests and treacherous speeches of corrupt politicians are not exactly what political fraudulenceimplies; rather a state of mass dishonesty between nations as a whole what some would prefer calling cultural fraudulence. Well, if I were to separate between nationalism or culture and politics, I would either be a contributor to that deceit, or a candid victim of it.
Pragmatic manoeuvre has actually stretched too far this time, over a whole century, so long that today's politics are rotating over nothing else than two resultant dilemmas. The first is storming the Eastern Sahara sands while the second sows terror in the Western enterprises.
[i]To each his own dilemma, yet, on the plateau of civilization, where the Mediterranean, the Crescent, the Semite religions, the European empires, the East, the West, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and where every wave meets its shore; in Lebanon, you can find them ALL.

Looking closer at the Lebanese social fabric, we find an amazingly woven paradoxical cloth. If one intends to categorize ethnically or by sectarian norms, one might find criteria to trace the history and interactions of different communities, but never to restrict a race to a religion. Most of the Lebanese Muslims are not Arabs “ meaning the original ethnical connotation of the word but converted local inhabitants. Ideologically, papers get even more mixed, as we see fervent Christian Arabists notably of the Orthodox Church and even more enthusiastic Lebanese Muslim Nationalists. As for the dialect or the artistic culture, the differences are irrelevant and occur even in one ethnical entity, varying mostly by geography. Maybe the most realistic categorization scheme is the geographical one, as we see religious groups spread over clearly drawn areas, but even that attempt would leave behind Christian islands in mainly Muslim regions, and fewer Muslim islands in Mount Lebanon and the North.
It is clear that through centuries the rivalling communities in these 10452 square kilometres have massively interacted, waving this paradoxical scarf around Feiruz's shoulders. And so if the people are one, how to explain the constant state of turbulence it has never escaped?

Adding a word or omitting another from the constitution, changing the form of government, trying new electoral laws, have all failed. Maybe it's time to consider the form of Republic. Maybe it's time to admit that some brothers can't sleep in one room; and understand that they can be given separate rooms under one roof, still being brothers. It's about time they should be given the chance to enjoy their lunch together singing their folkloric songs, eating their traditional dishes, and playing their favourite sports without having to quarrel around the bedroom lights external or internal politics. It is about time we look at humanity's experiences, at nations with less differences, but who never neglected to respect individualities of each community they shelter without having to draw borders between them. It's high time we understand we're not the first to face this dilemma.

We should consider a serious solution, the Spanish, the Swiss, the British, the German, the Belgian choice. Or are these shattered nations? They surely aren't, but the obstacle between Lebanon and the federalist choice remains. It isn't patriotic, geographical, military, or juridical.
From the patriotic point of view, Switzerland has a linguistic and sectarian partition; Spain has an ethnical and linguistic one, and so does Belgium. The United British Kingdom has a bloody history of wars, occupancy and resistance. Us, we have them all. They have their own decentralized regimes, and they understand that the concept of a central state is flexible and different levels autonomy can be granted to communities in what they differ about so that they can agree more about what they share. We don't and haven't. They are stable flourishing countries. We aren't.

Geographically Lebanon is already partitioned, with some exceptions imposing sacrifices that shouldn' and can' stand in the way of a long-term stable country. Federalism shouldn' be looked at in an offensive way, as it was suggested during the Lebanese war. If approached as a peaceful solution, it doesn' imply hostility between communities and it may possibly not be a strictly sectarian partition. Meaning Christians can live in the South, and Chiites can remain in Jbeil, each admitting the rule of the majority in the canton; just like you can find Protestants in Ticino, and Catholics in Zurich, in Switzerland. Some other Swiss cantons such as Appenzell are even divided into Protestant and Catholic sectors. Others are totally secular and do not recognize official religions. The options are unlimited if the intention is there. Constitutions can be as complex and elastic as required, and maps are ever ready to be redrawn. Geography should be in Humanity' service, not the other way round.

Military and police organization has never been the obstacle to creating a comprehensive decentralized federacy. Our Consensual Democracy prohibits our army to be functional when needed most, during rebellions and direct assaults on presidents such as the clashes of 1958, to resist exotic militant activity on Lebanese grounds, which was the reason behind the Lebanese war, or to secure the people's eementary rights, giving Tuesday January the 23rd 2006 as an example. While it prohibits the army to perform its duties for the sake of our infamous National Unity, European countries such as Britain and Spain have developed a pattern of asymmetrical devolution of centralization otherwise known as coconstitutionalism giving each community a different level of autonomy depending on the true distance between this community and the rest of the cantons, in different fields, including the armed options. Catalonia and the Basque Country have autonomous functioning police corps, independent of the Spanish central armed forces.

Never to forget that maybe the only way to assure Lebanon's olitical neutrality is through the confederational veto right, so that each community can assure no other would take the national decision towards a biased position, and each community that disrespects anothers opposition right would be clearly expressing its wish to separate from the confederacy, which can be executed while it could cause a civil war in a central state.
Finally, Lebanon doesnt lack the intelligence or ability to formulate a comprehensive functional constitution. So what is that real obstacle in the way of a true, radical, permanent solution for Lebanon?

Political Fraudulence, it is. The word federal has been strangely misunderstood in the evolution of Lebanese politics that it became a taboo which broken to be used as an incrimination to the other political party. This misconception has cumulated that today all caller for decentralization is a partitionist, and all partitionist is bad. This solution was only attempted as a last resort, by violent means, through the Lebanese war, and with an offensive approach, which has added to its negative connotation. It endangers what the Lebanese diplomats call National Unity, a unity the Lebanese have been killing themselves for through the last century; the kind of unity politicians have to evoke daily in their speeches so that it doesnt vanquish from existence. This unity has ended up as a tool in the hand of the dominant community, a pretext given to any minority or weakened voice trying to express its difference. This unity which is not a cause to fight for has been the cause of fighting.
When will we realise it is time to fight for our diversity, and that healthy interaction is by admitting the difference of the other, not imposing homogeneity? When will we show our differences? When will we admit were different? When will we be proud of our identity and not see it as a shame?

It is only by speaking loudly that the Lebanese 1920 formula was a Christian-Western choice, and that it was imposed on a revolting Muslim Street; it is only by saying frankly that Christians and Muslims do actually differ in politics, and still hold-on to their sectarian interests; it is only by accepting that the truth is as it is on the ground and not as Lebanese politicians preach it; it is only when Hezbollah stops speaking of secularism and diversity, and when the Lebanese Forces some speaking of Arabism; it is only when the question whats your confession? has no hostile connotation anymore, that the Lebanese solution can be applied.

To promote federalism in Lebanon is nothing else than to set this country on the right tracks of political evolution. We see today the Balkan countries finally finding stability by separatism, and citizenship losing its absolute nature to gain a new relative one: a Catalonian belongs to Catalonia, to Spain, and to the European Union in the same time; and, not to forget his political life is limited by jurisdictions and pacts under the shade of the United Nations. Which is his citizenship? What is a country? A canton? A confederacy?
As countries are partitioned giving each community the right to differ, the same countries can join larger unions that are forming to put in common what they agree about. Are the Flanders one people? Or are the Belgians one people? Or are the Europeans one people? Its finally your choice, the limits are illusive and the borders are manmade. If Globalization will be reached one day, it will be through this machinery the world can become one asymmetrically decentralized confederacy.

After a century of hidden intentions, fears and plans, it must be clear to all now that these can only cumulate and never reach any goal, unless they are revealed.

On the plateau of all civilizations, we can be the example of how Christianity and Islam will peacefully coexist, or we can be the early requiem for one of them. This solution, which is in essence admitting differences and in political translation decentralization, permits these two civilizations to interact correctly by sharing what they like to share and keeping away the dissonances from their dialogues.
On an international level, sincerity and admitting differences is the solution as well. The Islamic world, after breaking free from colonial influence must now feel free to criticize modernity and to have a selective approach to it, without being offended by the Western world itself. The modern West must understand that it should not try to control anymore what terrorizes it because imposed control breeds more terrorism, and radical Muslims must understand they must not terrorize the colonials, because terror breeds more need to control. Stopping political interference and pressure would relieve other cultural interactions such as art, tourism, sports, etc...


The recurrent chain of political fraudulence must be broken, and differences admitted, so that stability might be reached by Humanity, this House of Many Mansions.

The End.

PS: i hope you like it, i have wrote many articles about such issues(secularism, federalism etc...), this one is the best so far, please feel free to criticize any flaws.

thanks

HI MIKE,
i was very happy reading those writing....
but i still have some question: " can we cnsiderthe human right acheivemnet or the developement of the western idol, are a christan acheivement!
here the discussion must be more historic, in france the protestant and the catholic was killing each others by some huge massacre "e.g. Batlle of saint deniz", then the queen to end this "civil war" made her famous statement of fre religion.
the statement was not because of the christan background but because of the afraid of the collapse of the france society.
i want to beleive that the human rights is due to the christan background but i know it's not real.
the christanity llived in europe for more than 15 century full of human abuse (slave, religious war....), and the christanity was not ripening in europe but it was collapsing.
and a new area was coming when europe is divided and evry house was divided between catholics and protestant.
in fact, no one can deny an effect of the christanity background on the idol in the europe community, but it's not the basic.

also i can't accept this opinion as an historical opignion: "Maybe the French revolution seemed hostile to Christianity, but it was nothing else than Christian reform. Stripping the clergy power was merely getting Christianity on its right tracks, that of secularism started by Jesus Christ Himself: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; to God what is God's." maby i thing that the final effect of the revolution was christan, but not it's Goal.

in fact i cant accept federalisim in lebanon, i'm from tripoli where the majority are muslims, here my fathers and granfathers lived, and here where i want my child to live (apocalypto )
i can accept living in muslims law, where in 5 km near, (Koura) there is another law, all tripoli christan will leave to koura, this is the reality.
i want my child to live in tripoli as a free equal christan man, federalism can not afford this, or i'm wrong? [/img]

Hello Michel, it is always nice to hear somebody else's opinion, specially about such a complex subject.

You might be right, the reason behind the French Revolution and other incidents that changed the western world, are not Christian.

But this lead us to another question...

How come, out of all religions and races in the world, it is only us Christians that gave humanity the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire, Newton etc...

Where is the Islamic Voltaire that will change the face of the Islamic world forever?

You are right, for 15 century Europe lived the dark middle ages, killing, plages, slavery etc...

But can you denie that the Catholic Church is not corrupt?

That the Crusades were wrong to start with?

That the Kings of Europe were bad and not Christian(bi ma lil wasef men me3na).

I think that the Europeans, even though Christians on papers, did not apply Christianity till after Napoleon.

Christianity is not how kings treat their people or their slaves, its not when kings decide to wage wars.

Christianity for me is a philosophy, a bunch of ethics, beautiful ethics that if and only if, you adapt them, will leave peacefully physically and mentally.

As for Federalism, i already wrote a paper about this issue, i'll post it here lter on.

why christanity did not give buza, or gande, did not give "el-halaj" or "el hawarezmi", or "aresto" or "AFlaton", no u can't say that.....
historically what is called christan community is not more "taher" or "genius" than other.. i can't accept this