(February 26, 2016 at 9:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Whoah, whoah...

Atlas wants to rule with his religion? Am I reading this correctly?

Well, if your God was real, I'm sure that would be extremely easy. Since he's not, tough luck. Secularism is the only sensible way forward for civilization, and if you're against it you're part of the problem you're complaining about.

You see, you might not have noticed, but there's more than one religion. And when two religions with your mindset both want to rule a country, and there's no secular foundation, this is when religious wars happen. Whereas in civilised, secular countries, people of all faiths can coexist without feeling the need to control each other with their personal beliefs.

You think taking away your "right" to dominate others with your religion is persecution? Yeah, no.

Really, rob?
Let's wait, and observe Orwell's 84 as it come true day by day, I like your choice of words; "forward". We're half way there btw, towards the "forward" you speak about. 84, in its best.

Anyhow, I said in my comment:

Quote:The idea of secularism itself, is denying me my right to rule with religion, even if the majority was by my side.

So tell me again how you couldn't see this bold, red word?

"If"; I think; is a conditional statement. So no worries; my religion won't be favored or even counted if the majority was by your side.  In sura 2, scroll to verse 256, so my God is forbidding me from forcing my faith on you, like you force your faith on me. Saying that secularism is the only way, is actually, a form of forcing a concept upon me.

But what you're saying is that, even "if" I had the majority by my side, I have no right to rule with Islam ??
So, it is true& possible that secularism & democracy can contradict each other.

Your speech about civilization reminds me with this piece of work:





So, seculars are the keepers of peace now?
No. Religion is just replaced with other labels like nationalism, capitalism & communism, but the bloodshed? believe secularism isn't even close from solving that.

"They have things like the ATOM BOMB !"

Bless you, Andrew Sisters & Danny.

You have lost your mind. I won't be talking to you anymore.

(February 26, 2016 at 11:01 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

---

Really, rob?
Let's wait, and observe Orwell's 84 as it come true day by day, I like your choice of words; "forward". We're half way there btw, towards the "forward" you speak about. 84, in its best.

Anyhow, I said in my comment:

Quote:The idea of secularism itself, is denying me my right to rule with religion, even if the majority was by my side.

So tell me again how you couldn't see this bold, red word?

"If"; I think; is a conditional statement. So no worries; my religion won't be favored or even counted if the majority was by your side.  In sura 2, scroll to verse 256, so my God is forbidding me from forcing my faith on you, like you force your faith on me. Saying that secularism is the only way, is actually, a form of forcing a concept upon me.

But what you're saying is that, even "if" I had the majority by my side, I have no right to rule with Islam ??
So, it is true& possible that secularism & democracy can contradict each other.

Your speech about civilization reminds me with this piece of work:





So, seculars are the keepers of peace now?
No. Religion is just replaced with other labels like nationalism, capitalism & communism, but the bloodshed? believe secularism isn't even close from solving that.

"They have things like the ATOM BOMB !"

Bless you, Andrew Sisters & Danny.

---

Since rob doesn't want to talk, how about responding to my challenges on the subject?

(February 26, 2016 at 11:01 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(February 26, 2016 at 9:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Whoah, whoah...

Atlas wants to rule with his religion? Am I reading this correctly?

Well, if your God was real, I'm sure that would be extremely easy. Since he's not, tough luck. Secularism is the only sensible way forward for civilization, and if you're against it you're part of the problem you're complaining about.

You see, you might not have noticed, but there's more than one religion. And when two religions with your mindset both want to rule a country, and there's no secular foundation, this is when religious wars happen. Whereas in civilised, secular countries, people of all faiths can coexist without feeling the need to control each other with their personal beliefs.

You think taking away your "right" to dominate others with your religion is persecution? Yeah, no.

Really, rob?
Let's wait, and observe Orwell's 84 as it come true day by day, I like your choice of words; "forward". We're half way there btw, towards the "forward" you speak about. 84, in its best.

Anyhow, I said in my comment:

Quote:The idea of secularism itself, is denying me my right to rule with religion, even if the majority was by my side.

But what you're saying is that, even "if" I had the majority by my side, I have no right to rule with Islam ??
So, it is true& possible that secularism & democracy can contradict each other.

Sharp as a bowling ball, aren't you? Yes, secularism and democracy can contradict each other. A constitutional republic with a bill of rights also contradicts democracy. That's no accident.

Ba'athists are secular and they attacked Israel. So the problem clearly isn't secularism. End of discussion.

(February 26, 2016 at 4:07 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: There are different approaches to secularism; the Soviets condemned Zionism for example and they were initially reluctant to allow Soviet Jews to travel to Israel. The problem is Christian eschatology; and to be clear many of these Christians are selfish (i.e. majority of  U.S. Republicans) and don't actually care about even Israel as it happens, let alone Palestine. They just want to see Jesus come back because they allowed the fulfilling of Biblical prophecy and some even believe that Jesus will kill all of the remaining Jews when he comes back (because they are not Christian). And they will stop at nothing to make sure the world plays out as their Bible says. If enough people are working towards fulfilling prophecy (and they have the incentive on then being able to say: The Bible was right about this) then chances are it will happen.

That's why the Gulf Cooperation Council are competing to build the tallest buildings. There is a Hadith which says the Arabs will compete to build tall structures so they have the incentive to build tall structures. They want to be able to say: "Muhammad was right all along".

Many people (secularists) support Palestine. Obviously you don't want to live under Hadith inspired Sharia. You can forget about Nancy Ajram if the Salafi/Twelvers/Wahaabis come to power.

So what's your alternative to secularism? I happen to think that theocracy would be worse for Palestine, especially Christian  theocracy, as that it was led to the Crusades (European royalty, even in the U.K. today, is often seen as getting their power from god). Jews have co-existed just fine in Arabia before even the time of Muhammad; it's only recently that it's become a problem. And it's because of the selfish Christians and Salafis/Wahaabis/Twelvers playing people against each other for personal gain that it's become a problem.

I think the soviets were reluctant towards any attempt to break through the iron curtain.
Furthermore, Stalin was a supporter for the creation of Israel, for the propaganda and opposition to grow stronger, was due to the siding of Israel with the west.

It's understandable then, that anti-zionism in the USSR, could've been a preemptive strike against a minority that Stalin thought it had loyalty that doesn't belong to the state.

Again: it's all about interest.  In Islam the concept of "the end justifies the means" is totally forbidden, while in secularism -correct me if I'm wrong-, it's totally accepted as a concept. One example on that is the creation of Atomic weapons, and the military tactical bombing. Secularism never stopped that from happening.

With religion, there is a known set of morals and code of ethics, that despite how the end seems attractive, the means must be controlled, watched.

As for the alternative, well, Anarchy is my way to go.
Let every human rule with the way they want, in their own communities, to hell with borders, nationalities & the mini-wanna be-God governments who control every bit of action we do.

Everybody should be free to to what they want.
As for me, I'll live in that world with Islam: I don't need to force it on anybody else (Sura 2, verse 256), so It'll be okay.
But secularism -after all- doesn't allow that. An anarchist, is an enemy of the state after It's better than religious extremism, yes, but in concept, it doesn't differ that much: it will be forced on people by the sword after all.

Ben Davis

Quote:Sorry, wtf?! Using your terms, Secularism is the prevention of religious mandate to be passed in to legislation. It makes absolutely no statement on thought control; the opposite of what Islam does. As a result, all people of all religions or none are able to benefit from the rule of government and are prevented from stopping others from doing so. So actually it opposes tyranny in its core.

Believe me, it does. When you ban religious ideas from being used and practiced, you are actually enforcing your dislike of religion.
Allowing people to act the way they want, doesn't actually fall to you. Trying to control others is the tyranny; secularism is nothing more than trying to control the state with enforcing a non-religious route; favoring one idea over the other: and enforce that concept; again and again.

People should be left to do what they want.

Quote:That's the thing, you have no such right because not everyone has the same religious belief as you. Governments' main concern is administrative governance of a nation not ideological control. Your misunderstanding, actually perversion would be a better term, of the purpose of government is your issue.

Who are you to decide what my rights are?
So you're technically saying, that if I was born in a certain state, then I'm fucked? that's it? I'm a slave? I can't decide the law I want?

Oh...I have to agree to the options you give me like a good slave..

Anarchy is the concept of taking down this evil. Nobody spoke about you, but if a group of Muslims wanted to live their way, you have no right to deny them that, or else, you are a slaver.

It's these chains, that lead people to be crazy everywhere in the world. Chains which are forced by the power of the state.

Quote:And that's why your blaming of secularists is not only unfounded but profoundly bigotted and unethical in both its premises and consequences. Why don't you try blaming the people actually responsible and stop using Israel as a premise to attack people of a differing ideology to you? All you're doing is being an arse.

Ah.. Accumalation.

Israel wouldn't be Israel, without help. A help that I believe that a certain ideology(s) helped to feed. Without the holes in that ideology, bad people could've not been able to use them holes to raise the state of Israel.

In other words.. it's not personal. Nobody said you're all evil. But the ideology has holes that I must cite.

(February 26, 2016 at 11:01 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(February 26, 2016 at 9:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Whoah, whoah...

Atlas wants to rule with his religion? Am I reading this correctly?

Well, if your God was real, I'm sure that would be extremely easy. Since he's not, tough luck. Secularism is the only sensible way forward for civilization, and if you're against it you're part of the problem you're complaining about.

You see, you might not have noticed, but there's more than one religion. And when two religions with your mindset both want to rule a country, and there's no secular foundation, this is when religious wars happen. Whereas in civilised, secular countries, people of all faiths can coexist without feeling the need to control each other with their personal beliefs.

You think taking away your "right" to dominate others with your religion is persecution? Yeah, no.

Really, rob?
Let's wait, and observe Orwell's 84 as it come true day by day, I like your choice of words; "forward". We're half way there btw, towards the "forward" you speak about. 84, in its best.

Anyhow, I said in my comment:

Quote:The idea of secularism itself, is denying me my right to rule with religion, even if the majority was by my side.

So tell me again how you couldn't see this bold, red word?

"If"; I think; is a conditional statement. So no worries; my religion won't be favored or even counted if the majority was by your side.  In sura 2, scroll to verse 256, so my God is forbidding me from forcing my faith on you, like you force your faith on me. Saying that secularism is the only way, is actually, a form of forcing a concept upon me.

But what you're saying is that, even "if" I had the majority by my side, I have no right to rule with Islam ??
So, it is true& possible that secularism & democracy can contradict each other.

Your speech about civilization reminds me with this piece of work:





So, seculars are the keepers of peace now?
No. Religion is just replaced with other labels like nationalism, capitalism & communism, but the bloodshed? believe secularism isn't even close from solving that.

"They have things like the ATOM BOMB !"

Bless you, Andrew Sisters & Danny.

That's one of the most racist songs I've ever heard.

(February 26, 2016 at 7:37 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: As for the alternative, well, Anarchy is my way to go.
Let every human rule with the way they want, in their own communities, to hell with borders, nationalities & the mini-wanna be-God governments who control every bit of action we do.

Everybody should be free to to what they want.
As for me, I'll live in that world with Islam: I don't need to force it on anybody else (Sura 2, verse 256), so It'll be okay.
But secularism -after all- doesn't allow that. An anarchist, is an enemy of the state after It's better than religious extremism, yes, but in concept, it doesn't differ that much: it will be forced on people by the sword after all.

I one thought that anarchy could be a good form of society.
And it can... Provided everyone behaves.
Sadly, the reality is too many do not behave.
So a system of checks and balances, rewards and punishments, needs to be set in place.
The religious system has worked well for small geographic communities, such as countries... But it cannot work for the worldwide community.
Secularism can, though... So I side with that. In our ever more connected society, we need some people who look at long term goals, even while some still squat around in their petty local regimes and fight each other over which of them should have possession of a small patch of land.

Some people blame the jews. Some blame the arabs. Some blame the west, others blame the east.

It's a very complex situation but, personally I blame hippies and rabbits.

Squirrels, too, may have had a hand in it byt the evidence for that is hard to find.

(February 26, 2016 at 8:25 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Secularism can, though... So I side with that. In our ever more connected society, we need some people who look at long term goals, even while some still squat around in their petty local regimes and fight each other over which of them should have possession of a small patch of land.

An ideal. How often did an ideal come to be? Reality has shown us that every idea, good as it may seem, can be turned into an ideology. And ideologies tend to enforce their way.

You already presented one example. Anarchism. Communism would be a second. The ideal of everyone sharing and noone falling behind, looks good on the outside. Reality however has taught us a different lesson. You can bet your ass, it would be the same with secularism, if it doesn't grow but is enforced.