Politics

[Mr Greene]

That's been the case since the Sumerians invented writing, it's called 'civilization'.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You make "secular" a pejorative?

Indeed. It's my right. Secularism cracks badly when it's executed without a moral system; it showed its flaws with WW1 and WW2 and the invention of atomic bombs.

You realize that it is secularism - and secularism only - that protects your religious freedom, right?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC he doesn't know that. All he knows about secularism is what the ayatollah told him.

[Deesse23]

Afiak, all secular systems ever created had an underlying moral system. Of course not the one Atlass wants.
Of course they werent perfect, in theory and execution, but so are all moral systems of religions.

Oh i forgot, the moral system of Islam is less of a "system" and more of a list of proclamations, mainly to marginalize every non-muslim or non-male. My bad.

[The Grand Nudger]

Secularism itself is a moral product. The topline summary of centuries of moral philosophy regarding imposition, freedom, and good governance. The underlying contention being that a theocracy, de jure or de facto, cannot fail to produce misery in some segment of it's population. This contention is well supported by the history of theocratic governance - but also made plain in the examples of other fascist systems - like the Nazi's and Soviet's. Cults of State.

"Cracks", in secularism...Atlas, would be instances in which a population did not realize they were privileging the dominant theocratic compulsions, and then used their presumed secularism as a shield or even a weapon to advocate for that continued privilege. That happens.

[WinterHold]

Indeed. It's my right. Secularism cracks badly when it's executed without a moral system; it showed its flaws with WW1 and WW2 and the invention of atomic bombs.

You realize that it is secularism - and secularism only - that protects your religious freedom, right?

Boru

Protecting religious freedom is a sentence specified in the Quran:

https://quran.com/2/256?translations=
Sahih International

(256) There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

So it's very wrong to claim that secularism is the only way to protect religious freedom.
People did have religious freedom outside of imperialist Europe in the Islamic lands the past. And I still insist that modern secular nations are abusing religious freedoms via proxy, what do you call the secular urge to support foreign dictators who demolish religious rights?

It's very sad and confusing to see free societies supporting the dictators of places like the Middle East and Africa. It's also a very severe crime and contradictory to what these societies claim.

That Brian, is where Secular law breaks.

---

OFC he doesn't know that.  All he knows about secularism is what the ayatollah told him.

No. The guns though and torture tools the Ayatollah use are very western and secular.

---

Secularism itself is a moral product.  The topline summary of centuries of moral philosophy regarding imposition, freedom, and good governance.  The underlying contention being that a theocracy, de jure or de facto, cannot fail to produce misery in some segment of it's population.  This contention is well supported by the history of theocratic governance - but also made plain in the examples of other fascist systems - like the Nazi's and Soviet's.  Cults of State.

"Cracks", in secularism...Atlas, would be instances in which a population did not realize they were privileging the dominant theocratic compulsions, and then used their presumed secularism as a shield or even a weapon to advocate for that continued privilege.  That happens.

No. Cracks is where the secular nations show their claws.
That usually happens when their foreign policy fails. They turn "nuclear" if you know what I mean.

[The Grand Nudger]

Secular law breaks when homegrown facist theocrats in other countries gather enough popular support to be the governing authority of an islamist state?

It's more an issue of having to deal with the assholes that can maintain power than anything else, Atlas. We prefer secularism. Obviously, islamists don't. We have no choice but to deal with islamists. Short of invading their countries and getting our regime change boogey on..theres nothing we can do to make an islamist state less islamist (and it usually works the other way round).

Long story short, clean up your own house, islamist. This constant idea that your own worst attributes expose some flaw in the other guys principles is hot garbage. A crack in secularism with respect to islamism would be the paradox of tolerance. Not that you guys are a bunch of assholes, lol. That's a you problem.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

256) There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

And yet it is an unarguable fact - not an opinion, not a theory, not a guess - that theocratic states (including Islamic ones) have tortured and executed people for blasphemy and sacrilege.

I honestly don't care what the Quran has to say about it.  The real-world facts speak for themselves.

Boru

[WinterHold]

Secular law breaks when homegrown facist theocrats in other countries gather enough popular support to be the governing authority of an islamist state?

It's more an issue of having to deal with the assholes that can maintain power than anything else, Atlas.  We prefer secularism.  Obviously, islamists don't.  We have no choice but to deal with islamists.  Short of invading their countries and getting our regime change boogey on..theres nothing we can do to make an islamist state less islamist (and it usually works the other way round).

Long story short, clean up your own house, islamist.  This constant idea that your own worst attributes expose some flaw in the other guys principles is hot garbage.  A crack in secularism with respect to islamism would be the paradox of tolerance.  Not that you guys are a bunch of assholes, lol.  That's a you problem.

No. You don't get to play on the racism, sectarian wars or civil wars by coming from the outside, supporting the side you like more with money and weapons to get interest in return.

That makes you a very evil and immoral man, stinky to deal with, smelly to approach, a mere invader that will get his ass kicked sooner or later just like American kicked the red coats. Your empire will rot and collapse too just like Rome, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire.

Your historical mention would include the rivers of blood your method caused; people will hate your guts and the guts of your brethren too. History says that; not me.

---

256) There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

And yet it is an unarguable fact - not an opinion, not a theory, not a guess - that theocratic states (including Islamic ones) have tortured and executed people for blasphemy and sacrilege.

I honestly don't care what the Quran has to say about it.  The real-world facts speak for themselves.

Boru

I don't recall a theocratic state that practiced this verse except the very early Islamic nation under prophet Mohammed -peace be upon him-, the massive tolerance to other religions is mentioned  here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

Rights of non-Muslims
The non-Muslims had the following rights on the condition they "follow" the Muslims:[32]

1. The security of God is equal for all groups,[33]
   
2. Non-Muslim members have the same political and cultural rights as Muslims. They have autonomy and freedom of religion.[34]
   
3. Non-Muslims take up arms against the enemy of the nation and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[35]
   
4. Non-Muslims are not obliged to take part in the Muslims' religious wars.[36]
   

If you don't care about the Quran -even though it's a fine archeological piece-, you should care about documented history.

[The Grand Nudger]

There we go with the mad ranting ayatollah bit, again.

Anyway, I'm not sure what method you're referring to, but obviously it isn't secularism. Secularism is an attempt to prevent those sectarian rivers of blood from flowing. The passage you graced us with from your magic book is a secular proposition.