Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Wyman wrote:Where are atheists persecuted in the modern era in the West?
Nowhere.

On the flip side, Muslims exterminated 100,000 Christians last year...and where where all these "liberal-minded" Atheists while that was going on? We might ask the Yazidis and the Assyrians just how compassionate the West is when people are being killed.

As long as the only people dying are some sort of Christian or Jew, it all seems just fine with the Atheist liberals.

But let one Islamist express "hurt feelings" or break a nail, and...straight to their aid they go, with the liberal press in tow.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Wyman wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Wyman wrote: For instance, America's wars in the mid east have nothing to do with Christianity,.
What a croc of shite!

The US government and Israeli governments are the chief motivating forces for these wars, and BOTH are highly motivated by their religious populations.
You're stuck in the 1950s. .
On the contrary. The scientific idealism of the 50s is long gone. What has happened in the last 30 years if the meteoric rise of the religious right, deeper and stronger links with Israel and A continued war against Islamic countries.
The US has flooded Israel with arms, and funded a range of de-stabilising and modernising dictatorships.
Have you not been paying attention.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wyman wrote:Where are atheists persecuted in the modern era in the West?
Nowhere.

On the flip side, Muslims exterminated 100,000 Christians last year..
Hello?
Where?
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Dubious »

Dubious wrote:'To repeat, the mass-murderers of the period, couldn't care less about religion or simply made it subordinate to their political agendas. If useful, they used it; if not, they ignored it.'
Wyman wrote:The same might be said about historical 'christian' leaders. The Romans switched religions when it suited them, for instance.
The Romans were somewhat nonchalant about religion not unlike many modern states. The gods of conquered peoples were contained within the famous Pantheon. The Roman Gods themselves, mostly imports from the Greeks, were acknowledged as state gods. It was only necessary to respect them that being an acknowledgment of respect for Rome and the Emperor. Beyond that one was free to pray to whatever, whomever you wanted. The only real change in Rome’s religion came with Constantine.
Wyman wrote:Many atheists substitute politics for religion to satisfy their moralistic tendencies.
It may be mildly true but I have a hard time imaging how politics could satisfy moralistic tendencies! It's not uncommon that those who enter politics with such tendencies lose them soon enough conquered by the expediences of power. I would sooner say theists subordinate religion or adapt it in their will-to-power tendencies.
Wyman wrote:The progressive belief that history is tending toward something better often carries with it a desire to 'speed up' the process via social engineering. Marxism lends itself to such treatment - that is what Lenin was trying to do, speed up the progress of history. And given that he outlawed religion, one could plausibly call him and his political experiment 'atheistic.'
For reasons already outlined, I don’t believe you can classify every subrogation of power to oneself as atheistic and subsume negative religious connotations for all tendencies. To judge whether it be or not depends as much on motive as on expediency.

The former has an interest in culling religion for whatever reason while the latter remains indifferent only focusing on what stands in its way.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Wyman »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Wyman wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What a croc of shite!

The US government and Israeli governments are the chief motivating forces for these wars, and BOTH are highly motivated by their religious populations.
You're stuck in the 1950s. .
On the contrary. The scientific idealism of the 50s is long gone. What has happened in the last 30 years if the meteoric rise of the religious right, deeper and stronger links with Israel and A continued war against Islamic countries.
The US has flooded Israel with arms, and funded a range of de-stabilising and modernising dictatorships.
Have you not been paying attention.
The religious right hit its height and flamed out in the late eighties. I agree with you that US policy in the mid-east is a mess and for the life of me I don't know why we enter pre-emptive wars to protect Israel. I'm just saying that I have never heard the religious right advocate war in the middle east. Jerry Falwell and company harped almost exclusively on their fellow Americans and their fellow Americans have pretty much ignored them since the nineties. They're borderline irrelevant except as punching bags for the left from time to time. Clinton, Obama and Trump (and Hillary Clinton) are non-religious figures, only going through perfunctory motions as far as religion is concerned - like going to funerals and such. The religious zealots voted for Trump for Chrissakes - a womanizing, pro-gay lech who said he was against the Iraq war and wanted to get out of the middle east. Now, I don't believe him, mind you, but you have to admit, they did not back a war mongering prude. George W. did have religious support. But as Trump shows, the religious right will stick with the republican at all costs no matter what. It was as usual the moderates that threw things to Bush because Gore was a stiff, as was Kerry. Where have you been? Hanging out in Alabama?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote:... How many evangelical terrorists? ... There are reasons why the answer is "none."
http://shoebat.com/2016/02/06/how-the-e ... errorists/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-j- ... 01980.html
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Evangelica ... ism-449022
https://thinkprogress.org/yes-the-plann ... .vfnw3bsd6
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_moder ... s_partner/

Don't tell me IC, they are not 'real' Christians. But hold on, does that not mean that the Muslim can claim the same?

You're all godbothering loons to me.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Londoner »

Wyman wrote: Where is Christianity the state religion? Or are you speaking of the middle ages? And if so, is it really fair to go that far back in history? Where are atheists persecuted in the modern era in the West? Should we forget the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? The 'liberal' political philosophers of the Enlightenment were theists, as were most of the scientists, such as Newton. The doctrine of natural rights and social contract were developed by theists - why would they advocate for natural rights for individual citizens which trumped the power of the State, if they wanted to persecute non-Christians?
No; it lasts much later than the middle ages. At various points there is no longer a state religion in the sense of the state enforcing only one particular variety of Christianity; Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism say, but that is not opening the door to atheism or other religions. Although you might be allowed to be a non-Christian, there was no obligation for institutions to treat everyone equally. So, for example, a Jew or an atheist had no right to attend a university, join certain professions, or be elected to the legislature...or join a 20th century golf club.

I also think you misunderstand the term 'liberal'. To call yourself a liberal was itself a religious label; it identified you as anti Roman Catholic, certainly not as non-Christian. The ones asking for some tolerance for Catholic practices are the opposition to the liberals. (That is how the labels work in England, but the same divisions occur elsewhere).

My point is not that Christians are particularly liable to oppress those they disagree with; only that they are much like everyone else. If you know you are in possession of THE TRUTH, then to act against those who work against that truth is not thought of as 'persecution', any more than locking up criminals is 'persecution'. And that sort of certainty, that sense that I know THE TRUTH, can be found amongst atheists, Jews, Muslims and Christians. And when I see people writing obsessively about their religion on these boards, and attacking others, I think it is a fair indication that they are one of those people.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wyman wrote:Where are atheists persecuted in the modern era in the West?
Nowhere.

On the flip side, Muslims exterminated 100,000 Christians last year...and where where all these "liberal-minded" Atheists while that was going on? We might ask the Yazidis and the Assyrians just how compassionate the West is when people are being killed.

As long as the only people dying are some sort of Christian or Jew, it all seems just fine with the Atheist liberals.

But let one Islamist express "hurt feelings" or break a nail, and...straight to their aid they go, with the liberal press in tow.
20/20

Is war the only answer we have since Islam will not reform?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

Dubious wrote:[

The Romans were somewhat nonchalant about religion not unlike many modern states. The gods of conquered peoples were contained within the famous Pantheon. The Roman Gods themselves, mostly imports from the Greeks, were acknowledged as state gods. It was only necessary to respect them that being an acknowledgment of respect for Rome and the Emperor. Beyond that one was free to pray to whatever, whomever you wanted. The only real change in Rome’s religion came with Constantine.
.
Your view of Rome is true for the time before 325 ce but after that the attitude changed along with the laws.

Constantine’s laws against free thought and why Christianity became the Western religion.

Here is some history. It's a list of Roman laws starting around Constantine’s time and extending forward from there.

I'll bold and underline the killers for those with limited time.

Quote:

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/ ... -laws-364/

313CE Oct 31

Certain catholic clerics are being harassed by heretics so that compulsory public services are too much for them to bear. They should be relieved of their civic duties, and replacements found, and in the future, clerics should not be forced to fulfill compulsory public services.

318CE June 23

Constantine gives Christians the right to take their cases before an ecclesiastical court rather than a secular court. The ruling of those bishops will carry the same authority as a secular court.

325CE

Constantine exhorts the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene faith, which he praises, and to disavow Arius, whom he condemns. The council is to be regarded as the will of God.

326CE Sept 1

Exemption from compulsory public services shall only be granted to clergy of the Catholic Church, and not to heretics or schismatics.

327CE

Constantine invites Arius to his court, where he may end his exile by confessing the Nicene faith before Constantine. Arius is allowed to use public transportation.

333 or 327CE

Constantine orders that Arians now be referred to as Porphyrians, that all works of Arius or Arians be burned, and that anyone hiding a work of Arius suffer capital punishment.

Constantine sends a long, belittling letter to Arius and his followers. At the end, he threatens to heavily fine the Arians and force them to accept compulsory public services unless they immediately return to the catholic faith. If Arius returns, he promises to be lenient.

341CE

Pagan superstition and sacrifices are completely forbidden, in accord with the law set forth by Constantine.

346CE Dec 1

Pagan temples are to be closed; access to them is denied, and violators face capital punishment.
The property of a violator will be given to the state treasury. Governors who fail to carry out this
punishment will be punished.

347CE

The Donatists were ordered to be reconciled with the Catholic Church in North Africa. Those who refused were to be exiled or killed.

352 July 3

Persons who join Judaism from Christianity, if the accusation can be proven, shall have their property confiscated and given to the state treasury.

353 Nov 23

Night-time pagan sacrifices, which had briefly been allowed under the usurper Magnentius, are again forbidden.

356 Feb 20

Those guilty of idolatry or pagan sacrifices must suffer capital punishment.

362

Julian castigates the pagan Alexandrians, who had murdered Athanasius’ rival archbishop George when he ruined the temple of the local god Serapis. They should not have broken the law, but should have taken out their grievances legally.

No Christians are allowed to teach the pagan classics (essentially debarring them from being teachers).
Any student may study them, however.

370CE Feb 17

Laws formerly enacted against Christians under Julian shall have no validity, and policies of the late Constantius are to be upheld.

372CE Mar 2

Manichaeans and similar groups may not assemble. Their teachers will be punished, their followers segregated, and their places of gathering confiscated.

377CE Oct 17

Any who teaches a second baptism is to desist and be restored to the Catholic Church. The uncorrupted faith of the Evangelists and Apostles must be preserved. Furthermore, properties where re-baptizers or other expelled persons gather are to be confiscated.

379 Aug 3

All heresies are forbidden. One may hold to heretical teachings in his own mind but is forbidden to teach them to others, especially the teaching of re-baptism. Assemblies of those who hold to
re-baptism are forbidden, and none may teach this doctrine.

380CE Feb 28

This edict is sometimes referred to as “Cunctos Populos.” Everyone in the empire shall be part of the religion that believes in God as a single Deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Trinity, as taught by St. Peter to the Romans, and now taught by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. Only those following this rule shall be called “Catholic Christians.”

Meeting places of those who follow another religion (including heretics of a Christian variety) shall not be given the status of churches, and such people may be subject to both divine and earthly retribution.

381 Jan 10

Heretics shall have no place of meeting. Heretics are defined as those who do not observe the Nicene faith.
The Phontinians, Arians, Eunomians and others are specified, but not exclusively. Their teachings are forbidden.
A definition of the Trinity and the term ousia is established. Catholic churches throughout the empire are to be returned to orthodox bishops. Heretics are to be driven out of the churches and the cities.
The property rights of Manichaeans are revoked, and property inherited from a Manichaean which should have been confiscated by the state is now to be confiscated. Manichaeans are forbidden to gather.

381 May

Christians who have converted to paganism shall not be allowed to make a will, and any will made by such a person is invalidated.

Manichaeans may not inherit property or leave it to others through wills, and any property inherited from a Manichaean is to be confiscated. The only exception is the child of a Manichaean who converts to the Catholic faith. Also, Manichaean assemblies and sacraments are prohibited.

381 July

It is forbidden for Arians, Eunomians, or followers of Aetius to build churches.
If any such churches are built, they will be confiscated.

391CE

Persons with inherited rank or status who abandon Christianity shall lose their position and be branded with infamy.

Heretics are to be driven from cities, villages, and communities. They are not able to hold public meetings or secret gatherings.

so on and so forth... the jackboot is in.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Wyman wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Wyman wrote:
You're stuck in the 1950s. .
On the contrary. The scientific idealism of the 50s is long gone. What has happened in the last 30 years if the meteoric rise of the religious right, deeper and stronger links with Israel and A continued war against Islamic countries.
The US has flooded Israel with arms, and funded a range of de-stabilising and modernising dictatorships.
Have you not been paying attention.
The religious right hit its height and flamed out in the late eighties.
One word "Bush". Case closed.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greatest I am wrote:Is war the only answer we have since Islam will not reform?
I would hope not. I think we have other ways to go, for sure.

But one thing is for sure not the answer: to pretend Islam is sweet and benign so long that we end up under the thumb of the mullahs and the other proponents of Sharia, with a pile of dead Jews, secularists and Christians, and the rest of the populace professing Islam purely out of terror.

That doesn't look like a good option at all.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Is war the only answer we have since Islam will not reform?
I would hope not. I think we have other ways to go, for sure.

But one thing is for sure not the answer: to pretend Islam is sweet and benign so long that we end up under the thumb of the mullahs and the other proponents of Sharia, with a pile of dead Jews, secularists and Christians, and the rest of the populace professing Islam purely out of terror.

That doesn't look like a good option at all.
It isn't, but if Islam will not reform, and left wing governments continue to give Islam respect it does not deserve, then war seems like the only option left.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greatest I am wrote: It isn't, but if Islam will not reform, and left wing governments continue to give Islam respect it does not deserve, then war seems like the only option left.
There are different kinds of "war," though. Not all of them require the use of guns and bombs. There are economic wars. There are cultural wars. There is also such a thing as a "war of ideas." And that may be a workable option. While it may not produce a reform in Islam, it's the sort of thing that, given enough time and a deliberate strategy, could expose Islam for what it is, and make its destructive values unpalatable to enough people that Islam itself dies from lack of support.

But an non-lethal war cannot happen unless physical conflicts are prevented long enough for the most powerful and truthful ideas to take hold. Keeping violent constituencies from performing violent acts would be key to maintaining the long game, which is to undermine Islam by education and information. That means not letting pugnacious people flood your borders and dominate your public agenda, so the truth has time and space to be heard.

That's our best way to avoid war, I think.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Greatest I am wrote: It isn't, but if Islam will not reform, and left wing governments continue to give Islam respect it does not deserve, then war seems like the only option left.
There are different kinds of "war," though. Not all of them require the use of guns and bombs. There are economic wars. There are cultural wars. There is also such a thing as a "war of ideas." And that may be a workable option. While it may not produce a reform in Islam, it's the sort of thing that, given enough time and a deliberate strategy, could expose Islam for what it is, and make its destructive values unpalatable to enough people that Islam itself dies from lack of support.

But an non-lethal war cannot happen unless physical conflicts are prevented long enough for the most powerful and truthful ideas to take hold. Keeping violent constituencies from performing violent acts would be key to maintaining the long game, which is to undermine Islam by education and information. That means not letting pugnacious people flood your borders and dominate your public agenda, so the truth has time and space to be heard.

That's our best way to avoid war, I think.
It is if the other side is paying attention. I do not think Islam is as they continue to try to grow by the sword instead of good deeds.

I do hope they reform though as a clash of civilization and a killing war may not be an option till a lot more Muslims die.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greatest I am wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:That's our best way to avoid war, I think.
It is if the other side is paying attention. I do not think Islam is as they continue to try to grow by the sword instead of good deeds.

I do hope they reform though as a clash of civilization and a killing war may not be an option till a lot more Muslims die.
Yes, well, none of us wants that.

I think there's a kind of hope in the fact that many, many Muslims today don't really want to be Muslims. They don't, for example, want to read the Koran, practice the Five Pillars, beat women, and so on. They also want many of the blessings of Western prosperity. They want good jobs, options, and a better life for their children. And good for them.

If we have time, I think the case for the West makes itself. Every place where Islam reigns is a human rights hell-hole. Eventually, nobody sane wants to live like that. But it takes time for that realization to blossom. Some people from thence mistakenly think they still want to import elements of that into the West. Don't let them do that.

So my advice to Western leaders is, "buy time." Don't allow uncontrolled migration. Don't give Sharia any status in Western democracies. Allow peaceful Muslims to be peaceful. Keep prospering, and set terms for anyone joining the benefits: namely, no radicalism. But given a bit of time, I think Islam will collapse. It's never been a religion that could stand much freedom or exposure to information.
Post Reply