In actual fact the title should probably read, The problem with democracy as only in a ( genuine) democracy can multiple religions, as in, freedom to practice one’s religion, flourish.
Unfortunately, herein lies the danger or irony if you will.
A theocracy doesn’t usually tolerate competition very well. It tends to make the ruling theocratic body somewhat nervous, and based on evidence said body tends to issue edicts soon after attaining power that severely restricts or outright ban all other religious practices.
Once Christians gained power in ancient Rome it wasn’t long before it was pretty much a case of ‘Convert or else….’ and this situation in varying degrees of severity lasted until secularism , albeit somewhat watered down, gained the upper hand and those of a more repressive religious bent were put in their place. Of course in many cases this did not apply to Indians ( Native Americans) Aborigines, Africans, and any other individual not regarded as proper Christian. Oh, and women were put in their place as well. I suppose someone had to do the ironing.
So we arrive at a more or less democratic society where you can practice whatever religion you like, even if this includes doing odd things to animals to ward off evil spirits.
In such a society, and because you value basic human rights….more or less, and providing women still do the ironing, you allow refugees to take refuge within your borders because their own country just had an attempted coup by an extremist religious group which resulted in a civil war.
Fifty years down the line , a democratic election sees a previously small, somewhat insignificant religion elect it’s first hard-line religious person as head of a local Town Council.
Not long after, a petition is brought forward to allow Religious Law to take precedent over certain issues. A vote is taken. The petition is granted.
You know … because it’s a democracy and religious freedom is important, right?
I wonder what this picture would look like in a hundred years?
Just a thought.
Ark.
A Tale Unfolds 
This is not even a problem with democracy so much as a problem with immigration. A country is entitled to regulate immigration however it chooses — that’s one of the integral elements of being a sovereign state. Certainly there is no obligation to allow large-scale immigration of culturally-incompatible people. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are democracies and they allow almost no permanent immigration of people from different cultures. In Japan at least, most people look at the huge problems created by the substantial Muslim minorities in Europe, and feel vindicated in their decision. There will be no hard-line religionist elected to a town council over there (unless it’s a Shintoist), much less a Japanese equivalent of Malmö.
As for refugees, letting them move permanently to stable countries is not the answer. By that logic half the Earth’s population would now live in Europe and the US. It would be a good idea to help promote stability and democracy and freedom and economic development in countries that are geographically close enough to generate a large refugee problem, to the extent that we’re able to. But as for the rest of the world, well, Europe built up free and stable and prosperous societies by itself, over centuries, without any more advanced outside power acting as a mentor. Other societies should be able to do the same, especially with all the modern industrial and communications technology that now exists, and by and large they’re doing so. Most of the “Third World” is far richer, freer, more democratic, and has much lower birth rates, than fifty years ago. The remaining basket cases like Pakistan are for their immediate neighbors to deal with.
Europe’s exasperated voters have been trying for decades to get their “leaders” to pay attention to such concerns, and the mainstream parties have mostly responded with name-calling. The entirely predictable result surfaced in the Dutch election a few days ago, and there will be more like it. If mainstream politicians won’t listen, eventually people will just vote for whoever will listen, even if they’re otherwise a bit crazy.
As to the existing Muslim populations, there are still ways to ward off that vote for religious law in the town council. Strengthen the teaching of pluralistic values in the schools. Increase pressure for cultural assimilation, generation by generation. Deport non-citizens who make trouble, as the French and Scandinavians are intimating they will start doing. Crack down hard on rabble-rousers who incite violence. And for heaven’s sake show solidarity with other countries dealing with the same problem. France can’t crush Islamic terrorism in Paris and then hand-wring about Israel crushing Islamic terrorism in Ashdod. It’s all one fight.
And if we want to be consistent about civilized standards, maybe we should be a bit less tolerant of those people doing odd things to animals.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I am not sure this is a problem of religion or even immigration per se, thought this is the way it is presented.
It is a cultural problem and in the public square, where cultures compete, the dominant culture wins. Looked at this way, then, the cultures being overrun should rethink their strategy. Before someone hangs me, I am not saying Islam itself is a culture, I am saying culture is the whole way of life of a people and includes their religious beliefs and who does the dishes.
In 100 years, the most dominant culture will rule supreme regardless of who has the guns.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nope… Religion, plain and simple.
In general I have no problem with any culture that does not put a deity and/ or religious law before human beings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When the colonial powers conquered Africa and upended the culture, it was religion and guns. Even though they were minority, theirs became the dominant culture.
And as infidel has said above sometimes it has little to do with immigration or religion.
And while on immigration, how many refugees does Europe take in a year?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Religion still underpinned much of colonialism by Christians. God and country, remember? And note, God came first.
Muslims were similar.
I have no idea how many refugees Europe takes in a year.
LikeLike
You are right, religion played a part both in the North and the rest of Africa
LikeLiked by 1 person
ahhh but not ALL Christians, Ark. Only, in colonial times, could the RIGHT Christians settle. Catholics (and Jews and gypsies) were quickly ushered out of town, often wearing bells or some such, to announce that they were not welcome (move along here, no crowding, the Out of Town road is waiting…) and religion really ran the show at least in the earlier days of this country.
If you didn’t believe, you faked it. And the distinct separation between cultures endured well into this century…
After all, the Pilgrims had left their homeland(s) for their religious abuse at home, and I can see the overreaction when they finally settled here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s true that it’s not always about immigration. Here in the US our dangerous religious nutters are quite indigenous (Christian fundamentalists) and they too cause plenty of mischief when they get onto town councils, or higher positions. In my own comment I was thinking mainly of Europe.
What makes a culture dominant is a multi-faceted thing. Until the mid-twentieth century Christianity was overwhelmingly dominant in the US. Women didn’t get the vote until 1920, or full civil rights until the 1970s. Same-sex marriage was pretty much unthinkable just thirty years ago. Today the non-religious are a third of the population and growing rapidly, while same-sex marriage is generally accepted and attitudes about the role of women have shifted dramatically. Guns had no role in causing those changes, nor did immigration have much effect, and it certainly wasn’t atheists out-breeding Christians. Education, and modern communications technology like the internet exposing people to new ideas, seem to have been stronger factors. So what used to be the dominant culture has actually massively lost ground to rival cultural values which, to start with, had little or no power of their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make good points and I agree that guns have little to do with it and that’s why I said regardless of who has the guns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Freedom” and “religion” are a contradiction in terms, resolved in practise only by “survival of the fittest”.
It’s heehoo time again—
—heehoo has the biggest gun sets the nation’s religion.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Agreed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark…Our Creator gave us free will….It went to all peoples but when the less loving began to take over the 10 Commandments were given as a better direction for living. If we would all just “do unto others as we would like to be done” life for all would be a lot more pleasant.
LikeLike
Well, belief in a Creator who cannot be demonstrated to exist is the first problem.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe you are looking in all of the wrong places.
LikeLike
Come on Ark… if should know by now that if you don’t believe then it’s always the non believer’s fault. In this case, you’re not looking in the ‘right’ place (even if you’ve read different bibles)!
LikeLiked by 1 person
In truth, I’ve never bothered to look.
I always presumed Yahweh … Or Allah would know exactly where I was.
To my mind this saves a lot of unnecessarily crawling around in the metaphorical dark
LikeLiked by 4 people
Your 10 commandments argument fails … “do unto others…” is not in any one of them. The Commandments are all about seeing Yahweh as the Supreme Being who has the power to enforce “his” commands.
Consider: I am the LORD thy God … Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me
There is no “love” in the 10 Commandments.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi bcparkison. You say the 10 commandments like they were somehow the only ones. The 10 commandments many people know are just some of many. There were several times in the bible they were adjusted, you have to wonder why? In reality there were 613 commandments. But that doesn’t fit well on a tablet nor make for good talking points, especially when you read some of them. Hugs
613 commandments
According to Jewish tradition, the Torah contains 613 commandments. This tradition is first recorded in the 3rd century CE, when Rabbi Simlai mentioned it in a sermon that is recorded in Talmud Makkot 23b
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes…but people on here just need to deal with the simple first.
LikeLike
The precursor… well, the prerequisite… for any and all liberal democracies to accept anyone has to be to choose. The choice has to be a set of values. Those values must be embedded into a sworn oath so that each individual to be a member of the citizenry – regardless of place of birth or any other sets of ideological beliefs – is held to account for their actions either for or against those values. These values can then be protected and enforced by laws to create the baseline commonalty between and for all citizens of age majority.
This is not rocket science.
Education has to include what these common values are, how they must take precedence in any and all citizen actions, and why they must be upheld first and foremost because they are central to a functioning and healthy liberal democracy.
All other values – be they political or religious or tribal – must be of secondary value to be acceptable and so they musty fit into the common set, into the set of values that are fundamental for a civilized society that respects the human rights of that citizenry and the dignity of personhood within it.
I am truly astounded how far removed western citizenry has gone from understanding and supporting even the most basic necessary common values… like freedom of expression. People simply don’t understand it and so this basic value is being lost which, in turn, pushes along a civilization-wide failure. This failure leads to the dismantling of a necessary value from within. And that’s what we’re seeing today in so many ways with every liberal value while pointing the finger at newcomers as if they are to blame for this internal rot and moral capitulation to ‘victimized groups’. Well, conflicting values IS a problem of major proportions (is the law supposed to protect individuals or groups?) but it’s a symptom and not the illness.
So the response – electing ever more popularist and extreme (usually right wing) ‘leaders’ who promise to ‘fix’ the very problem from which grants them power – tears away another layer of liberal democracy, changes another law, inserts more and more privilege and discrimination under the terms ‘equity, diversity, and inclusion’. And citizens generally gobble it up. Offer social anarchy – which is the inevitable result of legal privilege and unfairness regardless of what it may be called – OR authoritarianism and people will choose authoritarianism every time while permitting it’s democratic authority to clamp down (and over-ride legal protection to the necessary common values) on these targeted people who represent the vilified groups. Often for cause. But it’s a recipe for increasing internal partisanship, deepening tribal division, solidifying group allegiances, and guaranteeing never-ending conflict until there’s nothing left of the original liberal democracy. This is often portrayed as some kind of ‘better’ system and uses lovely words to pretend it’s working. That’s what’s unfolding today. And we’ve been down this road. We know what happens. Yet here we go again… because people have forgotten (or have never been taught) why protecting and supporting liberal values is absolutely fundamental to peace, order, and good governance that protects human rights and legally respects the dignity of personhood throughout a civilization.
Islam, for example, is anti-liberal in every value. Acting on its precepts and tenets will cause anti-liberal actions. It USES democracy to undermine liberal values, which is why every single ‘democratic revolution’ with majority Muslim populations always produces some version of anti-liberal authoritarianism.
This really isn’t complicated.
So I think in order to give a religion like Islam time to adjust and go through its own enlightenment to become compatible with the necessary values of liberal democracies requires a legal bludgeon that unambiguously places liberalism above religious (or any other ideological) belief. And EVERY citizen must be equally responsible through their oath of citizenship to the fundamental liberal values, which are the bedrock of western liberal democracies. It’s the ‘LIBERAL’ part that is essential and not the ‘democracy’ part, which is identical to mob rule. All of us need to understand and commit to these shared values or this ‘great experiment’ will fail, will have broken faith with those who have given their last full measure. Lest we forget? Well, we’ve forgotten. We even have westerners supporting Islamic terrorist death cults, the mass murder of civilians, and calling it supporting ‘freedom’. Si I think a reboot is rather important before it all goes to shit.
LikeLike
Modern humanity already has sufficient charters of international human rights which CAN and should be applied, practiced, enforced, and modified (slightly?) as needed. [1] There is no logical reason to include the planet’s near 4,000 various faiths/religions in the public domain. Period. Full stop. [2] Faith and religious traditions belong ONLY in the private domain and certainly not affecting government.
However, as long as a sizable population on this Earth (violently?) obstinately cling to Bronze Age myths and legends which, as you rightly comment Ark, cannot be adequately demonstrated as real—if not for the mere fact that even among the Earth’s major religions those faith-believers CANNOT agree completely amongst themselves on many key doctrines, practices, and an irrefutable “nature” of their gods, demi-gods, or historical leaders—shows the folly of their proclamations otherwise. It really is easy to witness their folly too by their contradictory behaviors.
Nevertheless, sustained world peace among all humans cannot take place as long as all the (radical) religious-faithers prefer exclusion rather than inclusion. Perhaps in a century or two the three Abrahamic religions will go extinct. We can only hope, eh? 😉
—————————
[1] – https://www.un.org/en/about-us/udhr/foundation-of-international-human-rights-law
[2] – https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Again Professor Taboo you hit the mark, the nail on the head. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kind thanks Scottie. ❤ I hope you and yours are well. 🙂
LikeLike
Re “Once Christians gained power in ancient Rome . . .” Prior to that point, Christians only approached the powers that be to ask for tolerance. After that point they were constantly asking for privilege, to the annoyance of Constantine, and shortly thereafter they define “heresy” and started to carve up the Christian community. Can you imagine what would have happened had Christians been as tolerant as the pagan religions were. Whole different world there would be, Mr. Frodo.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Steve. That is what is happening in the US right now. When they were in authority, they only wanted tolerance to push their religion everywhere and to display their symbols on everything. Anyone who argued about it was simply intolerant. But once they got political power, they started to demand special rights / privileges. Anti-Discrimination laws shouldn’t apply to them, in fact any law they don’t like shouldn’t apply to them, they should have the right to publicly force people to listen to their rants or prayers on their faith, they demanded state taxpayer funds for their schools that would deny much of the population that pays taxes, they demanded the right to deny adoption to anyone not their faith while again taking state funding to manage adoptions. The point is when they were automatically given these things due to no one questioning them, now that the country has moved on, they are struggling to get their prior authority enshrined in the secular laws before the country moves even farther from their religious beliefs. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike
Ah the problem with religion is when one religion has too much say in how other people live their lives or run their country. I for one am fortunate that New Zealand has been becoming much more secular the last few decades. Those who in power who hold religious beliefs (generally) don’t try to use them to influence others. If they do, then they’d likely lose support. Thing is, Christians disagree with each other on a lot of things, which is good for the rest of us!
LikeLiked by 4 people
A truly enlightened society is one in which individuals engage with one another via peaceful cooperation. Democracy (i.e. mob rule and tyranny of the majority ) is the antithesis of enlightened thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democracy alone is the antithesis of enlightenment thinking. But liberal democracy is the only practical means (as far as I can find) to work towards maximizing enlightenment products of that thinking (values). Peaceful cooperation is based on those values. So, without the necessary values present and supported, the thinking can be – and is – condemned as ‘anti-democratic’ (but synonymous with ‘social justice’ and ‘equity’ and uniformed ‘diversity’)! Such is today’s deeply (and perhaps fatal) muddled state of the ‘progressive’ mindset that is in large measure dooming us to authoritarianism of some kind (now in action from both the left and right). Religious authoritarianism is just one kind. But all versions are on the rise.
LikeLike
The term ” liberal democracy” is an oxmoron. It’s akin to advocating for a benevolent dictator or a compassionate slave master. There can be no freedom in a society that condones the existence of rulers.
As for rules, “The golden rule” is the only rule we need to follow. Live and let live. Don’t harm others and don’t take their stuff without permission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi. I tend to disagree with anyone anti-immigration who bases that on it changes the “culture” of the country. That is normal and if anyone really looks at history that is the normal progression of most countries. It is normal for populations to change, to added to the existing culture, to change it. It is normal for “races” to mix and become more homogenous. This desire to keep everything the way it once was is not good for society, and it is dangerous. Look at the trend by some religious extraneous when they take over an area / government that they want every thing to be dictated by what was understood 2000+ years ago. In the US we have young earth creationists religions that totally reject modern science, yet still use cell phones, and all modern continuances. Hey if they want to be Amish, go be Amish. But they want it both ways.
Every society is stronger and better by intermixing and interbreeding! Everyone understand why there are laws against close relatives breeding! If you don’t google generational incest, warning it is not pretty and it is stomach sickening.
The US prospered most when the wealthy were forced to pay for the US needs, and when we freely without rancor mixed ideas and societies. That is a fact that can not be denied, just look at the history of the US when the border was freely open and people from Mexico crossed back and forth every day. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike