Could atheist westerners, please explain?

[abaris]

That is unless you feel you know the Trumps policy on Israel better than the jews.

Just two words: David Duke.

[Drich]

That is unless you feel you know the Trumps policy on Israel better than the jews.

Just two words: David Duke.

One word:
So?

[abaris]

So?

Either you don't know Duke's opinion on jews or you just don't reflect on why a man like that feels like endorsing Trump. I get it, you're comfortable with attacking every other minority, but this one is particularly outspoken when it comes to jews.

[CapnAwesome]

Nobody speaks about it??? WTF are you talking about. The debate over Israel and it's legitimacy is pretty fierce in the west. Many western countries regularly condemn Isreal. I don't know what good pretending the west is unified behind Isreal does you.

[abaris]

Only last November, the EU decided on a mandate for goods coming from settlements in the occupied territories to be labeled as such. That's not a boycott, it's to make it easier for consumers to come to their decision.

[Drich]

So?

Either you don't know Duke's opinion on jews or you just don't reflect on why a man like that feels like endorsing Trump. I get it, you're comfortable with attacking every other minority, but this one is particularly outspoken when it comes to jews.

As stated earlier:

Men like david duke vote, and they influence votes as well. So bottom line what does it matter if a man like that wants to vote for one candidate over another? Realistically his bigotry limits his ability to vote to either trump or cruze, as these two men are the only two that fit his profile. Make no mistake they will vote because for them nothing's worse than a woman running the country than an old Jew. So then why should I be manipulated in how I vote just because someone I may or may not like, votes the way I do or do not want? What if He supported Cruze should all Cruze supporters run to donald?



His endorsement (unless I was KKK) means nothing.

[abaris]

His endorsement (unless I was KKK) means nothing.

Figures.

[WinterHold]

Ben Davis

    Okay, let's dial this back a little: there are some distinctions to make here. I oppose the banning of religion: the government must have no mandate to prevent people's right to self expression or else we end up with totalitarianism. However it must be recognised that people act on their beliefs and if a belief system results in the persecution of other beliefs/believers, there must be no opportunity given for those persecutive beliefs to be mandated in to legislation. We do not live in isolation and if we are going to maintain diverse, cohesive communities, any legislative preference towards any one particular belief is going to be damaging to that end. So in the parts where Islam tells you how to live your life, you're welcome to it however in the parts where Islam instruct you to behave anti-socially, you must expect (and will receive) opposition from those who are community minded.

Let's narrow it to a judicial point view, temporarily:
If I had a family member killed, Islam would give me the right to get him to the execution chamber, but a constitution with "blood doesn't wash away blood" will force itself upon me, by force, by the sword.

  

  Not when what they want is to persecute others. You seem to have things a little mixed up: opposition to tyranny is not tyrannical.

If I chose to punish blood with blood, is that considered persecution ?
It seems like a definition crisis, since I personally believe that monopolizing the judicial  system and preventing an eye-for and eye, is the real persecution.
It's a never ending cycle, that's why I suggested anarchism, where a real & true just system, would allow you to judge and rule.


  

  It's not me deciding this, it's a natural result of the right to self expression: you have no right to mandate against the beliefs of others. You don't get to cry 'persecution' when you're trying to persecute others.

I don't believe "natural result" is the best place to derive sentences and constitutions. Still, it demands me to have your sight, your skin, your scars & your wounds. In other words: the streams of history differ, we might share the general concept, but there are tiny details that truly differ, one distinction can be seen between Islam and Christianity.

    If what you want is to oppose freedom then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Thanks for admitting it: Nationalism & Secularism, are forced on our throats since birth by the sword, and whomever wants to break free, is an enemy of the state.

    You're so enamored and dependent on your chains that you would argue to keep them. That's one of the saddest aspects of religious indoctrination.

It's the world I grew up in, so it's normal to find me attached to acoustic guitar covers, youtube, video games and other stuff, but secularism don't hold the credit of that: human mind does, though. And believe me: I don't hold the slightest respect or love to the Saudi Kafala system, or the European immigration process, I won't miss the American tactical bombers, and of course won't miss the arrogant tone demanding me to subdue and obey, then strip value off my faith.

   

Quite the opposite: anarchy is a self-organising system however because people disagree so often and so vehemently about how they should live, and because resources are finite, competition arises with often violent consequences. What secularism does is provide societies with a mechanism for resolving those conflicts without resorting to violence.

Never. Secularism -and follow its definition- is nothing but an anti-religion line of thinking,  that is obsessed with keeping religion away from ruling. The Church's antidote.
If resources are finite, then people should share, right? Sharing is caring.

   

Nonsense. The creation of Israel as a nation state was entirely religio-political. There is no argument amongst serious commentators about that. You are entirely wrong here.

?
I think I was stating "clearly" in my comment, that the political reason weighs so heavily in this?
Secularism was, and is, a political thought in many aspects.
But religion mattered not, but to the footsoldiers who were sent first to die.

  

  That's a great attitude to have and I would welcome a serious criticism of the flaws of secularism. However you do not have one here.

I really do. And the example of the Quran is -as I showed- can lead our world better than secularism ever did.

robvalue

    I really have tried to have a sensible conversation but I feel like the answers are so random and not even internally consistent that it's going in pointless circles. I can only assume he has never been to a secular country, or if he has, his institutionalised outlook finds it unsatisfactory.

Born and raised in the Middle East, rob, under one of the most brutal regimes that your "secular" world has no problem in supporting and shedding a blind-eye on the crimes they do in the name of religion, and the name of lust. You know, the secular foreign policy is just that awesome.

And, I never traveled outside, but the whole world is secular, nobody rules with religion; hence: Islam. They threw morals in the nearest trashcan.

Cato

   

The bigger problem with Atlas is his idea 'that only if the Quran was followed'. This of course ignores why the Hadiths exist to begin with; namely, that the Quran is so ambiguous that early followers went to great lengths to give it specificity through recorded sayings of Mohammed. The frustrating part is that if Atlas' thoughts were codified we would ultimately have the Atlas Hadiths, his interpretation.

Assuming that all these followers were sincere?

Another point is that the Hadiths were used in an attempt to corrupt the original text -Quran-. There is a live example nowadays; and that is: the Sauds.

MrNoMorePropaganda

    And the Hadiths are pretty messy so you then need people to understand the Hadiths, like commentators. And there are thousands of Hadith. And on top of that you have the Isnad Chains, the Tafsir, the Sunnah and Sirah (because the Hadith are just sayings and not necessarily those of Muhammad). And on top of all that you have the Fiqh, Sharia and Madhhab. And people wanna say that this religion is simple? No way. In fact, it's very insulting to me.

    So complicated. I hate people who say that it's easy. Most people don't have time to really study even just the Quran, let alone the Hadiths. Not only that, buying Hadith and Tafsir collections in English is incredibly expensive; I've looked. It's a niche market. You have to dedicate your life if you want to study them and I have better things to do than to wade through mud. Quran is complicated enough, thank you very much.

That's why I quit the Sunni/Shia faiths. It's a tactic: complicate the whole thing, so that people become "dependent" on you in religious matters: the Sauds practiced this tactic and are doing it right now. Reading the Quran a little by little is not that harsh. But it's the sects that made it so complicated.

And after all. I personally believe that the believe in God comes first, then works as your main fuel to read more & more into the religious books.

Living in Death

I really feel my stomach turning because of the "Islam Is ISIS", Islam kills, sort of propaganda, I mean seriously? dude the secular world is the most hideous when it comes to crimes, the armies are sick, the wars are too many, the crimes infest the streets and ghettos, be my guest and take a walk after midnight in Rio, Brazil, or would you like to be born in Iraq where the great secular U.S is playing American football with Iraqies, or perhaps you would prefer to be shot inside the cinema?

Brian 37

I consider myself a very good political reader , something I know: it's just plain ignorant -severely-, to consider the moves of "Britain" religious. The land was given to the Jews by Britain, and that wasn't -at all- for religious reason, Britain don't care about the Jewish faith -and don't think Zionist leaders like Herzl care-, it was for domination and still is: for domination.

The murder won't stop, because morals don't exist on both sides. It's not like Sunnies/Shia have morals, or the Jews have. Both religions call for mass murdering the other side, and the secular mafias that profit from the war, will keep selling arms, and profit more and more from the blood.

post127 +128:

Yes; if you didn't notice, Chinese secularists didn't do me any harm, Indians too, Westerners was used to pinpoint the seculars who created Israel, who happened to be -sorry for that- westerners xD

abris: #129

Thanks for this interesting conclusion.
Kudos..

Brian:130

My solution for that, is interracial marriage, and gradual change of educational system to teach about "nationalismS" instead of "nationalism".

Rhythm: 131

Not so fast. When you run out of water, food or GOLD(either black or yellow), you will behead others for survival
Your military institution is doing it already in Syria right now.

Abris: 134

The Jews in Europe wanted a home, nothing more, nothing less. I agree on you conclusion.
Religion mattered only to the pawns dying in the frontline.

robvalue:135

Apologize for what I believe is true?
I still hold my view rob, you didn't convince me: Israel LOUDLY said that it's a "JEWISH STATE", when it marked its flag with a religious symbol.

Why don't you apologize for misquoting me, and putting words in my mouth? Loud and clear I said -and will say- this, again and again:

AtlasS33 said; post #115:
   

The idea of secularism itself, is denying me my right to rule with religion, even if the majority was by my side. That's why -for the existence of Israel-, I blame each and every secular person -if they accepted it as a legitimate state-; and accuse them of hypocrisy and bigotry if they didn't oppose Israel.

So the problem I have -as I have cited in that page- is with each and every secular person whom:
1) Accept Israel as a legitimate, legal state
2) Smile to the UN and the global system -and describe it as authentic- despite knowing that Israel exist.

It wasn't a broad generalization. One doesn't simply get to carry the sins of others.

I didn't insult you. I described a reality

Constable Dorfl

It's all about the existence of morals. If the world had morals, Israel would've never came to be, end of story.
It's funny how the invasion, occuping and murdering of millions doesn't move a hair in you.

robvalue: 137

An antidote of Christianity, only.
I said that earlier to you, post number 115 :

Islam is not Christianity, Islam is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Secularism is the anti-dote of the Church. But Islam is something else.

Dirch


Dun dun Daaaaaah !

[The Grand Nudger]

You're done with Japan, then, Atlas..you've finally abandoned your idiotic narrative?  You don't want to explore the islamic world circa 1940/1950? That's too bad..because we hadn't even begun to discuss the postwar relationship between the US, Japan, and whatever islamic shithole you care to mention....


So...how many boots do we, the Evil Empire, have on the ground in Syria at present?  How much gold have we extracted from Syria?  How much food, how much water (ridiculous, btw...we're the worlds breadbasket....)?  Oh..wait...no...we've -sent- many millions in aid.  The Umma is helping, how, do you reckon? Yet -again- you choose the worst possible example.

Speaking of Drich, theres your boy, he's one of the "non secular" westerners. Do you want to sit at a table and deal with him or continue to negotiate with us? Do you think for a moment that he'd leash me and mine if we were hell bent on your destruction? No, soldiers with hearts of stone and gear to match would descend upon everything you love and wipe it off the map. He thinks we -need- slaves....and the islamic world would make too juicy a target to ignore. It would be hell on earth till New Jerusalem came. We'd be wearing a bloody cross instead of the red, white, and blue. How'd that go last time around?

[WinterHold]

You're done with Japan, then, Atlas..you've finally abandoned your idiotic narrative?  You don't want to explore the islamic world circa 1940/1950?  That's too bad..because we hadn't even begun to discuss the postwar relationship between the US, Japan, and whatever islamic shithole you care to mention....


So...how many boots do we, the Evil Empire, have on the ground in Syria at present?  How much gold have we extracted from Syria?  How much food, how much water (ridiculous, btw...we're the worlds breadbasket....)?  Oh..wait...no...we've -sent- many millions in aid.  The Umma is helping, how, do you reckon?  Yet -again- you choose the worst possible example.

Speaking of Drich, theres your boy, he's one of the "non secular" westerners.  Do you want to sit at a table and deal with him or continue to negotiate with us?  Do you think for a moment that he'd leash me and mine if we were hell bent on your destruction?  No, soldiers with hearts of stone and gear to match would descend upon everything you love and wipe it off the map.  He thinks we -need- slaves....and the islamic world would make too juicy a target to ignore.  It would be hell on earth till New Jerusalem came.  We'd be wearing a bloody cross instead of the red, white, and blue. How'd that go last time around?

Ah, no, I'll reply to later to the points you made, I didn't neglect your past comment either.
I'm just occupied these days and my visits to the forum are rare.