I said (as you quoted above) "Strict adherence to ANY code is, by definition, anathema to “Western Democracy.” That is not “rule of law,” but we’ll go with what you said just for the fun of it: if your strict moral code prevents you from treating those you consider to be sinners with equality, and such a definition of sin includes classes that are protected, you could run afoul of the rule of law. If you wanted to say “ethics,” you could likewise be ethically bound to commit an action that is against the law (freeing animals from being tortured in labs, for instance). So as you can see, strict adherance to a code can certainly cause problems with the law.
I can’t really make any sense of this.
That’s okay. I’ll try to explain: a code (in this context) is a set of rules and regulations that apply to procedures of conduct. If thing “A” occurs, you are to do thing “B” according to the almighty “Code of A and B.” That’s how codes work. Compare this to democracy: is thing “A” occurs, you have debates both public and private, appeals from special interest groups, marketing blitzes to get the public behind their ideas, and then finally people vote on it (if it gets out of committee and passes any fillibuster) and something may or may not happen as a result. That’s not a code being followed … that’s politics in a Western-style democracy.
I didn’t throw a particular name into that statement? I also mentioned that strict adherence to Christianity was at one point anathema to democracy too. What exactly am I self examining?
That’s alright. I’m not here to bring you to the light, or anything. You’ll note I didn’t quote anyone in my post above. That was because I was trying to address everyone as a whole without calling out individuals in an antagonistic manner. Sometimes clarity is what suffers when I do that. It’s a fair trade for peace, in my opinion.
I haven’t seen any evidence that the majority of muslims are not strict adherents (or that they are strict adherents).
Saudi Arabia and Iran both give significant power to the Ulama. Pakistan needs no introduction, Indonesia, while still remaining a strong democracy has seen a huge rise in militant Islam, accompanied by the rule of a lame duck and ineffectual President. Militant and conservative Islam is on the rise in Bangladesh (hefazat-e-islam and JI), and Egypt…well. :)
You bring up an interesting dillemma. How does one effectively first glean and then extrapolate understanding of a faith from news headlines? You really can’t. And yet people seem to be trying it all the time, and more foolishly claim to be successful at it.
How about this for a juxtaposition: we have the afore-mentioned push to make Christianity the state religion in NC. We fairly recently had a huge stink over whether or not Obama was a Christian. Right now, there’s a huge debate that has reached the Supreme Court regarding whether LGBT couples will be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals. In the last decade we’ve had prominent public figures declare that natural disasters have occurred because of the sins of our people. Annually, there’s outrage over “the war on Christmas” whenever some community tries to be more inclusive. With all of the above and any other examples you can find, can someone say whether or not strict Christianity constitutes the majority of Christians in this country? It demonstrably does not, and yet cherry-picked headlines can paint a different picture.
Now consider what you brought up: political bodies and movements. Do Republican and Democrat platforms really represent the opinions of 95% of this nation? Certainly not, and yet that’s what voting tallies seem to indicate if someone doesn’t tease apart the underlying factors that led to such results. You often get extremes in office and positions of power, not because that’s what represents the typical outlook, but because they take the typical and place it on steroids. That helps them get past challengers. For instance, <silly alert> if someone is in a contest for official ice cream taste tester, a lucrative job that gives you some modest control over what flavors are present at public functions, they’d want to appeal to those who are voting. This can have strange results:
Candidate A says “I like all flavors, and I’ll be happy with whatever flavor winds up on our plates as long as it is the highest quality, because that’s what you all deserve.” All around, people clap. Nothing disagreeable whatsoever. A totally safe thing to say, or so he thinks …
Candidate B, on the other hand, did some research and found a slight favoratism for chocolate by the majority of the public. They still like the other flavors, but that rich chocolaty goodness just barely wins out when stacked up against the rest. “I love chocolate,” he says. A murmer of approval starts to spread. “Chocolate is by far and away the best flavor of all time. I’ll make sure we have the best chocolate around at every public outing.” People cheer: he’s championing the favorite of the majority, even though it’s to an extent that none of them feel.
Candidate B wins. Now what the voters don’t always realize is what unintended consequence this may bring about. Sure, there’s some awesome chocolate to be had, but the other flavors get ignored. When someone brings up the issue, they get rebuffed because the topic is not chocolate-related, and therefore of lesser importance. People who like vanilla or strawberry, even those who have a slight preference for chocolate, are now relagated to has-beens in the field of candidates. The only way you can beat this fellow is by professing that you love chocolate even more and then go out and find some way to prove it.
Thus, we can get our extremists arising from the primordial ice cream soup, going further and further extreme as time goes on.
In short, bombastic political movements are frequently not the best way to determine what view a majority holds. What’s worse, is they essentailly create feedback loops.