If this quote is real, I feel like Gaddafi is trying to say that “Ruling in the name of religion” i.e. a theocracy will never work and will only lead to discontent, contradictions, and problems.
So basically, “Keep the state absolutely secular”, there is no place for religion in policy making, moral argument, or dictating the lives of others. That’s why socialist states can only be secular. Not anti-religious as that will lead to the same problem as a theocracy but inverse, but instead secular in approach to the proletarian.
this is exactly how I interpreted this quote
Didn’t Libya have some religious laws and policies? From what I read, while it was pretty secular compared to the rest of the region at the time, it did have some backward religious laws. Not trying to diminish the greatness of Gaddafi or socialist Libya, just stating.
deleted by creator
I don’t think he’s saying being religious is bad in this quote, they way I see it, it is a quote about theocracy. Also yeah he is religious he’s a muslim.
Yes, based as always, many countries are secular only on paper, and then our president gives 40$ million+ to church every year and then they make monuments to nazi collaborators and priests take all the money.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You do realize that throughout the late 70’s and 80’s Gaddafi reconsidered this stance and halted the Islamation of Libyan law correct? People can change their minds on certain topics, especially after seeing how the initial approach was not working.
deleted by creator
I never said this quote was genuine. I said that Gaddafi’s position on the Islamation of Libyan law changed and he reversed the majority of his early 70’s Islamic policies by the early 80’s.
There is no need to be as aggressive as you are. Almost every thread you reply to is in hostility, like we are fighting you or we are your enemies. You could have just asked me to clarify what I meant.
deleted by creator
Aggressive in the sense of accusing everyone in the thread of “chauvinist Islamophobia”, and “militant atheism” with no backing, simply for discussing religion. I cannot even find a single sentence in any way discussing Islam at all. Most of the people instead are referring and demeaning Christianity if anything.
I also have not seen any “militant atheists” other then a single person who is heavily downvoted. Everyone is simply discussing the failures of a theological state, and how theocracy is incompatible with socialism. If people were putting words in Gaddafi’s mouth or inventing history, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but everyone is simply giving their own personal observation of theocracy by observing the message of the quote, even if it may not be real itself. So no one is “disrespecting” revolutionary heroes.
deleted by creator
I agree that, for the most part, those who rule via religion can’t be reasoned with. They are either so strong in their beliefs they will ignore you, or they are using religion as a means of control, in which case they will also ignore you. Most of the time in order to break someone from religion it can’t be done via direct intervention as it will only strengthen the “evil will try to corrupt you” type stuff many religions spout. I don’t know anyone that was really “debated” away from religion but I know some that simply gave up on it through their own realizations. This is why if you want to remove religion from society you can’t just go around attacking or banning it. You are only confirming their biases. You have to just educate the general populace and let them slowly phase it out themselves. Only time you should take direct action is with the crazy and violent groups.
As far as rulers BEING religious idk. There are some people that can separate their religion from their decision making but it also depends on the religion itself. Something like Christianity, catholicism, and similar such a religions I have doubts. There are too many rules and judgements. Those religions were designed around control. Developed for that purpose over more than a thousand years. Other, less strict beliefs idk. I haven’t much personal experience with them other than Taoism which isn’t ever really a religion per se. More like a general state of mind.
Absolutely right, especially for the cult of mammon, but wasn’t that kinda self own for him?
I don’t think I have to say anything knowing my reply history lmao
Fair, I hope my presence doesn’t anger you or anything like that. Have a nice day :)
I don’t care about people believing something, it’s the belief itself I may have or not a problem, specially if I’m de facto condemned to eternal torture just for not believing, but individuals are individuals, they are people, they have needs, they have feelings, life, aspirations, fears, pain, joy, can’t hate people nor anybody unless it actively attacks me, specially just because being born in the wrong family.
Sorry for the wall text, just wanted to share personal context, bro.
Thank you for the insight! You mentioned you were a Jehovah’s Witness once right? If you were ever hurt by the Jehovah’s Witness cult then I am sorry about that.
Thanks for the consideration! My history also includes esoteric cultism and some other Christian factions, but I have a specific special grudge against the Watchtower for murdering my grandma.
You’re opposed to a secular state? You think a state should only be antireligous?
Look at yanks and how they treat their “liberal values”. I agree wholeheartedly.
Sorry religiousbros… gaddafi is right as usual. although idealist rule isn’t exclusive to religion
