Islamification of Toronto?

[Michael Hardner]

Your test is... Before you post something ask yourself if you could find Christian examples of this ever happening and what that indicated what that meant.

[Moonlight Graham]

If this country truly embraces multiculturalism and a secular state, we have to be comfortable with the idea of a possible future where some city somewhere in Canada has a majority of Muslims living in it, the same as Christians, Sikhs, Chinese, or any other cultural/religious/ethnic group.

That would mean Muslim mayors, maybe a majority of city counselors who are Muslim.  What if an entire province that becomes majority Muslim?  With Islamic school boards like we have Catholic boards.  A province that is bilingual - english and Arabic?  Maybe Islamic-ish laws passed in the province, in the city?

Maybe one day BC becomes majority Chinese?  Maybe it becomes 55% Chinese and 40% South Asian.  Maybe the official languages are changed to english, chinese, and punjabi?

If you value multicultural and democracy, this is what we need to be prepared to accept as a possibilty.  Democracy means people have the right to representation and self-determination.  Nationalism means a nation-state that is dominated and governed by a particular national group.

If we think any of this hypothetical diversity would go down smoothy, with no nationalist infighting between white anglos, Muslims, south asians, aboriginals, Quebecois/francaphones... well you're wrong.  We're seeing it right now in Quebec with religious symbols laws and language laws.

Get your heads out of the sand people.  Diversity can be extremely divisive, because different sub-national groups fight for their rights.  It's happened with Quebec for hundreds of years.  This country was founded on multiculturalism, and those 3 founding groups - anglos, francaphones, and indigineous, haven't been able to get along in Canada's entire history going back to the 1700's and beyond.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

If we think any of this hypothetical diversity would go down smoothy, with no nationalist infighting between white anglos, Muslims, south asians, aboriginals, Quebecois/francaphones... well you're wrong.  We're seeing it right now in Quebec with religious symbols laws and language laws.

 

Wait.. is that what we're afraid of? Political disagreements and Court cases? Because there's plenty of those going around anyway right? I thought they wanted to ban Muslims because they're inherently violent.

 

No one has been able to explain why Muslims immigrating in North America would be different from others they certainly seem to leave the faith at the same rate that Christians do so...

[Shady]

Just a reminder.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

See if you can discuss with that insulting me. Now provide me that proof please provide me actual proof not just little pieces of evidence about Muslim countries because that doesn't prove anything. I'm asking you to show me something that proves that the Muslim religion or any religion is the cause of certain behavior.

Saying this or that Muslim country does this thing is not proof and if you don't understand that we can't really continue.

You just accused me of being emotionally unstable for using caps MH. It's right here in this thread. Stop crying.

 

I didn't say "This country does thing". I said "Several countries do these things that other countries don't do, which are abhorrent by Canadian standards."

13 countries are religitarded, and they all share a religion: https://www.seeker.com/where-blasphemy-can-get-you-a-death-sentence-2041523454.html

Quote

According to the latest International Humanist and Ethical Union's Freedom of Thought report, 13 countries currently have laws on the books carrying a penalty of death for blasphemy or apostasy. Including Pakistan, the other 13 countries are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Each of these countries have adopted Islamic law as the ideological foundation of the government.

Iran is religitarded:  https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/yasaman-aryani-took-off-her-headscarf-was-sentenced-to-16-years-in-prison/ 

Pakistan is religitarded: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/8/pakistan-court-sentences-three-to-death-for-blasphemy

Quote

Since the 1980s, nearly 80 people have been killed by individuals or angry mobs even before their trials were concluded in courts.

Keep in mind that article was written by Al Jazeera, which is the opposite of anti-islam.

 

How is it that whole countries can be religitarded in the year 2021 if not because of their religion? How can this violence, oppression and violent bigotry have nothing to do with religion? How can you support such things and yet claim to be a liberal? Which one are you: a psychotic religious fanatic or a bleeding heart liberal? 

How can you have such a strong opinion on this topic and yet be so completely ignorant about it?

Your contribution to this thread is like the argument of a kindergarten student who's criticizing Bill Gates because their iPad [made by Apple fyi] froze. 

 

FYI apostasy, mentioned in the uppermost quote about the 13 countries, is simply the act of disavowing the islamic faith. If you leave the religion, you can be sentenced to death by the highest court in the land. 13 whole countries have that law on the books. It's not a fringe thing from a few small sects here and there. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by WestCanMan

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. You just accused me of being emotionally unstable for using caps MH. It's right here in this thread. Stop crying.

2. I didn't say "This country does thing". I said "Several countries do these things that other countries don't do, which are abhorrent by Canadian standards."

1. I said you use your emotionality instead of logic when you reason.

2. It doesn't matter.  It's still not proof.  Explain how you can separate geo-political circumstances from religion in your analysis.  They're not independent factors.   Let me put it this way... do you think that a Muslim is irredeemable ?  That a Muslim born in Canada is not a real Canadian ?  That Islam is some kind of poison unlike other religions ?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What's the principle here? You find a country or an individual Muslim that does something bad and that's the proof? It's not.

If we were talking about things that happened once every ten years in the US, based on the small muslim population there, or once or twice a year in muslim countries, then you would have a point MH. But, as usual, you do not.

2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2017

If we were talking about laws at the tribal level in a few remote areas of the mountains then you would have a point, but I'm talking about laws that are on the books in 13 modern countries with populations in the tens of millions. It takes a lot of people, sharing the same f'd up beliefs, to end up with entire countries which are like the Lord of the Flies on steroids. 

 

You think that your astonishing ignorance is proving something. It's not. 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I said you use your emotionality instead of logic when you reason.

2. It doesn't matter.  It's still not proof.  Explain how you can separate geo-political circumstances from religion in your analysis.  They're not independent factors.   Let me put it this way... do you think that a Muslim is irredeemable ?  That a Muslim born in Canada is not a real Canadian ?  That Islam is some kind of poison unlike other religions ?

1) Does what you say really matter when you're pushing the limits of human ignorance with every new sentence?

2) You just glossed over the fact that most of the muslim countries on earth in 2021 share laws which are so extremely bigoted that they seem harsh by dark ages standards.

I'm not interested in answering your stupid questions until you acknowledge what it means for so many countries have so many violent & oppressive religiously bigoted laws. 

You're down 1,000 - nothing now MH. You're making zero headway. You have the reasoning and logic of an ayatollah. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your test is... Before you post something ask yourself if you could find Christian examples of this ever happening and what that indicated what that meant.

Your test is, look at the world in 2021 and ask yourself if Christian countries are extremely violent and bigoted towards religious minorities. Ask yourself how many Christian countries sentence people to death for blasphemy. Ask yourself how many women have been sent to jail for not wearing the proper religious symbols in Christian countries.  

This country should not be allowing schools or courts to uphold the rights of muslims to inflict their religion on other people, period. Not one single child should be subjected to reading or listening to muslim prayers in public school, period. 

Religion can not be forced upon people in public places, period.

We used to have the Lord's Prayer in the morning up until I was in Grade 2 or 3 in public school, then it went away, as it should have. It was a holdover from back in the day when almost all of the schools in the country were financed by the Catholics, and the fact that it is gone is a blessing.

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1.If we were talking about things that happened once every ten years in the US, based on the small muslim population there, or once or twice a year in muslim countries, then you would have a point MH. But, as usual, you do not.

2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2016

2. You think that your astonishing ignorance is proving something. It's not. 

 

 

1. You are starting with your hypothesis, then looking at data to prove it.  That's not how it's done.

2. Let's recap: I asked you how you separate religion from the geo-politics and you tell me I'm ignorant.  Do you have an answer or not ?

EDITED: Posting at me 4-to-1.  I am asking for proof that religion causes something, not observations.  

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You are starting with your hypothesis, then looking at data to prove it.  That's not how it's done.

2. Let's recap: I asked you how you separate religion from the geo-politics and you tell me I'm ignorant.  Do you have an answer or not ?

EDITED: Posting at me 4-to-1.  I am asking for proof that religion causes something, not observations.  

1) I'm looking at centuries of data on a massive scale and pointing out the most largest and most relevant causes for concern while you choose to pretend that there's nothing to be gleaned from such things. 

2) Let's recap: the religion IS the geo-politics. It's their everything. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

There's a reason why 99% of muslims think that Israel's history and existence is an abomination, while those same people have no qualms about Pakistan's history or existence. 

I don't have to explain all of this to you. The information is here for you to look at and if you choose to stick your head in the sand that's your prerogative. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I said you use your emotionality instead of logic when you reason.

2. It doesn't matter.  It's still not proof.  Explain how you can separate geo-political circumstances from religion in your analysis.  They're not independent factors.   Let me put it this way... do you think that a Muslim is irredeemable ?  That a Muslim born in Canada is not a real Canadian ?  That Islam is some kind of poison unlike other religions ?

Islam is just much worse than other religions.  No religions get a pass.  Hindus want to kill Muslims for eating beef, Christians want to lock up abortion providers for 99 years, Mormons want young girls to marry old geezers, etc.

I'm sure if I looked I'd be able to find stuff by Jews, Janes, Sikhs and Rastafarians too.  It's in the nature of a religion to foster intolerance.  It's just that right now, Islam is the worst.

Edited June 16, 2021 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) I'm looking at centuries of data on a massive scale and pointing out the most largest and most relevant causes for concern while you choose to pretend that there's nothing to be gleaned from such things. 

2) Let's recap: the religion IS the geo-politics. It's their everything. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

There's a reason why 99% of muslims think that Israel's history and existence is an abomination, while those same  

3) I don't have to explain all of this to you.  

4) The information is here for you to look at and if you choose to stick your head in the sand that's your prerogative. 

1) No you don't have data you have observations.  You are falling into confirmation bias.  Christianity was brutal centuries ago too...

2) Thank you.  You just admitted there's nothing inherently wrong with Islam.

3) And yet, here you are doing it.

4) No, I explained to you why you were wrong.  Then you backtracked and said it's the geo-politics.

Thanks, no reason to continue ...

 

 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1)Christianity was brutal centuries ago too...

And it is the opposite now. Islam hasn't changed at all.

Quote

2) Thank you.  You just admitted there's nothing inherently wrong with Islam.

Wow, your ignorance has turned to delusion. I honestly didn't see that coming. 

Quote

3) And yet, here you are doing it.

No, I didn't really explain what any of it means, I left it there for you to mull over but it's all apparently beyond your reckoning. 

Quote

4) No, I explained to you why you were wrong.  Then you backtracked and said it's the geo-politics.

You've never explained anything, when you get backed into a corner and you have no answers to give you just cower behind your ignorance. 

I backtracked lol. I said that their religion is everything, and I was correct. 

If 999 Jewish kids are killed by a rocket tomorrow all will be fine in the world of islam because they're just Jews. If a woman takes her hijab off in Iran tomorrow it's a serious crime. That's islam. I get that you don't see a problem with that, and that's why there's something seriously wrong with you. 

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wait.. is that what we're afraid of? Political disagreements and Court cases? Because there's plenty of those going around anyway right? I thought they wanted to ban Muslims because they're inherently violent.

Some political disagreements can cause civil wars, or referendums calling for separation, or simply a great amount of national disunity.  Go ask the aboriginals and Quebecois what that looks like.  It's the cancer of a nation.

What do you think Canada, or Quebec, will look like in 50 years?  And how will that impact national unity?  Ask the Quebecois how it's it going so far.  I'm not asking this to be ignorant, i'm asking this because I fear for my country.  Most people aren't as calm and level-headed as you are Mike.  A lot of people don't want to bother listening to what the other side has to say.

I'm wondering if humans are able to handle multiculturalism when more than 1 faction grows to a size of certain level of political and social power.    When has this ever worked in human history and i'll give you dozens more examples when it ended in violence.  It hasn't worked in Canada thus far.  The FLQ weren't no joke.  Quebec hasn't even signed the damned constitution and aboriginals want to cancel Canada Day.  The Balkans didn't do very well did they?  Do you know what the term "Balkanization" means?  This is what we need to be afraid of.

What else would you like besides unconstitutional bills banning religious symbols and non-french speaking?  Pitch-folks and torches in the night?  Montreal on fire like in Minneapolis?  Another referendum?  Another FLQ?  If you think this can't happen in Canada, it already has.

The naive fools who think we'll all sing kumbaya around the campfire and love each other because "diversity is our strength" are damned fools who don't know their history or human nature.  There's a difference between wanting an ideal vs if it's likely to occur.  Maybe it is possible, for the sake of this country I pray it is.

[Yzermandius19]

Many of you make great points about some of the troubles with Islam, Islamic nations, Islamic culture and many Muslims around the world

to the point where I don't have much to add

but since MH is unable to articulate a well reasoned argument for some of his few stronger points

I'll do it for him so as to not make the conversation such a one sided beatdown

I'll steelman his poorly articulated kernels of truth, pulling the needle out of the haystack, so to speak

to provide more balance and nuance to the conversation that MH isn't capable of

this way y'all will have a strong differing perspective to debate in order stay sharp

instead of getting soft easily attacking a weak argument instead

it's not what you take, it's who you're taking it from, you feel me?

how do you intend to run with wolves come night and all

Omar knows

anyways.....

 

Islam is not a monolith, Muslim's are not a monolith

Individuals should be judged on their own merits, not by their group identity, or the beliefs held by a large part of a group they identify as

many followers of Islam have barbaric beliefs but not all

a larger percentage of Muslim's may agree with barbaric beliefs than members of other religions

but individual Muslim's can be as against those barbaric beliefs as the most ardent critics of the religion, culture, nations and people

some Muslim's are perfectly compatible with living harmoniously in western nations, some Muslim's are extremely incompatible with living harmoniously in western nations, and there are some Muslim's who fall somewhere in between

there being more bad apples in the Islam barrel relative to many other barrels, should not be grounds to throw out all the good apples in the barrel too

painting with an overly broad brush is not necessary to properly critique certain aspects of Islam, Islamic nations, Islamic culture or Muslim's themselves

Edited June 16, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

1. What do you think Canada, or Quebec, will look like in 50 years?  And how will that impact national unity?   

2. A lot of people don't want to bother listening to what the other side has to say.

3. I'm wondering if humans are able to handle multiculturalism when more than 1 faction grows to a size of certain level of political and social power.   

4. When has this ever worked in human history and i'll give you dozens more examples when it ended in violence. 

5. It hasn't worked in Canada thus far.  The FLQ weren't no joke.  Quebec hasn't even signed the damned constitution and aboriginals want to cancel Canada Day.

6.  The Balkans didn't do very well did they?  Do you know what the term "Balkanization" means?  This is what we need to be afraid of.

7. The naive fools who think we'll all sing kumbaya around the campfire and love each other because "diversity is our strength" are damned fools who don't know their history or human nature.  

1. Religion continues to decline, and the world is bound closer all the time.

2. Who is to say that optimism won't be the dominant view?  

3. If economic times are good, people make it work.

4. Was it triggered by an economic collapse?  And then political scapegoat making?

5. Quebec has been part of Canada fir centuries now.  How long until you would call this a success?

6. Yes, a closed society with a dictator who repressed dissent.  There were other factors at play.

7. If you meet some of the immigrants who are making things happen, creating products and bringing new ideas, you could change your mind.

The world is open now, so money, people, ideas move freely between borders.  Canada, has a small and traditionally risk-averse country, could advance itself very well in this new world.

What's the alternative? Saying no to foreign investment and skills? Sitting on our resources as our future?

EDIT:

Army Guy helped establish, on this thread, that what appears as an ethno-religious phenomenon is actually geo political.  That means, with time, we should see the melting pot effect that (in Canada) absorbed Irish, German, Chinese, Japanese, Italian and then Indian immigrants.  It's also borne out by the Pew survey that shows Muslims "lose" religion at the same rate as Christians in the US.

Fifty years in the future is a long time.  Go back to 1971, and see if you could predict the roles of the Pacific countries, Europe, the fall of the Soviet Union, the new global economy, and digital technology, Green energy... and the role of women, LGBTQ, international terrorism...

 

If you're talking 50 years into the future, you're talking about mega trends. I would bet on continued prosperity, increasing interconnectedness of countries and their governments, increasing prosperity and the reduction of poverty, more Green technology.

 

And my predictions are not optimistic, they're based on what's happening right now.

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Many of you make great points about some of the troubles with Islam, Islamic nations, Islamic culture and many Muslims around the world

to the point where I don't have much to add

but since MH is unable to articulate a well reasoned argument for some of his few stronger points

I'll do it for him so as to not make the conversation such a one sided beatdown

I'll steelman his poorly articulated kernels of truth, pulling the needle out of the haystack, so to speak

to provide more balance and nuance to the conversation that MH isn't capable of

this way y'all will have a strong differing perspective to debate in order stay sharp

instead of getting soft easily attacking a weak argument instead

it's not what you take, it's who you're taking it from, you feel me?

how do you intend to run with wolves come night and all

 

Islam is not a monolith, Muslim's are not a monolith

Individuals should be judged on their own merits, not by their group identity, or the beliefs held by a large part of a group they identify as

many followers of Islam have barbaric beliefs but not all

a larger percentage of Muslim's may agree with barbaric beliefs than members of other religions

but individual Muslim's can be as against those barbaric beliefs as the most ardent critics of the religion, culture, nations and people

some Muslim's are perfectly compatible with living harmoniously in western nations, some Muslim's are extremely incompatible with living harmoniously in western nations, and there are some Muslim's who fall somewhere in between

there being more bad apples in the Islam barrel relative to many other barrels, should not be grounds to throw out all the good apples in the barrel too

painting with an overly broad brush is not necessary to properly critique certain aspects of Islam, Islamic nations, Islamic culture or Muslim's themselves

I have no disagreement with what you said there TBH, I just don't agree with the farcical belief that islam doesn't churn out violent religious bigots at a much higher rate than any other religion or culture. 

[Goddess]

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Individuals should be judged on their own merits, not by their group identity, or the beliefs held by a large part of a group they identify as

I somewhat disagree with this part.

Yes, people should be judged on their own merits.  But if you choose to openly attach yourself to a questionable group, it is natural for others to assume certain things about you.  If you're wearing a KISS t-shirt, I'm going to assume you like that band.

For instance - could I join the KKK, only because I enjoy their fellowship and agree with "some" of their beliefs, am attached to their style of dress, live in a predominantly KKK area or whatever - and then claim I'm not part of the violent aspects of the group?  If I choose to dress as a KKK member, should I really be surprised and offended when others associate me with that group?  If a "large part" (as you say) of a group holds violent, misogynistic, barbaric beliefs - why on earth would someone want to associate themselves with that group?  

Like it or not, we are judged by others for the groups we attach ourselves to. 

[myata]

Are we now into judging people by beliefs? But who knows, who may what someone believes? And what is "a belief" anyways, if we examine meaning behind the label, word? Is it the book that is thousands years old and believed in, literally? Is one book-belief better than another?

And if we're not trying to judge beliefs there can be meaningful questions here, fore example:

Is non-religious, secular society and its institutions required to be accommodating and welcoming to religions, or only certain one (based on what?) or only accepting them? Yes there's is a line between allowing everyone in a public school, and performing religious rituals there even voluntarily; at young age peer pressure is an important factor; display of gender discrimination can have real effects at this age.

Yes there can be difference between freedom of religion and displaying extreme gender-discriminating attire where public does not have a choice to avoid it. There may not be an obvious answer to these and other such questions. But it does not mean that they do not exist; and the answers can be found on the grounds of peaceful dialogue based on shared values. So maybe, they values are in the core of the question?

Are democratic values being threatened or damaged? Where is the main threat/damage coming from? In my view, complacency, disengagement and apathy can be far greater problem for the democracy than any particular beliefs. Like anyone is discussing these matters seriously and responsibly; like there's even a place, forum, channels where these questions can be discussed and understanding essential for entire society formed.

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, myata said:

Are we now into judging people by beliefs?

At times, we all do.  Of course we do. We must.

My neighbour who constantly cuffed his wife across her head....you bet I judged his belief that women are trash who need to be cuffed across the head.

According to some here, the problem in this scenario is ME - I should not be judging him or the stone-age religious belief that inspires his treatment of his wife.

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Goddess

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your test is... Before you post something ask yourself if you could find Christian examples of this ever happening and what that indicated what that meant.

Here's the problem with that:

Of course you will find a small pocket of another religious group doing the same thing (interestingly, Christians often do the same as Muslims in Muslim-ruled countries, but it is outside the scope of what Christianity normally does.  For example - FGM.) but it is never on the same scale as Islamic countries, so not a real equivalency.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Are we now into judging people by beliefs? But who knows, who may what someone believes? And what is "a belief" anyways, if we examine meaning behind the label, word? Is it the book that is thousands years old and believed in, literally? Is one book-belief better than another?

And if we're not trying to judge beliefs there can be meaningful questions here, fore example:

Is non-religious, secular society and its institutions required to be accommodating and welcoming to religions, or only certain one (based on what?) or only accepting them? Yes there's is a line between allowing everyone in a public school, and performing religious rituals there even voluntarily; at young age peer pressure is an important factor; display of gender discrimination can have real effects at this age.

Yes there can be difference between freedom of religion and displaying extreme gender-discriminating attire where public does not have a choice to avoid it. There may not be an obvious answer to these and other such questions. But it does not mean that they do not exist; and the answers can be found on the grounds of peaceful dialogue based on shared values. So maybe, they values are in the core of the question?

Are democratic values being threatened or damaged? Where is the main threat/damage coming from? In my view, complacency, disengagement and apathy can be far greater problem for the democracy than any particular beliefs. Like anyone is discussing these matters seriously and responsibly; like there's even a place, forum, channels where these questions can be discussed and understanding essential for entire society formed.

It's simple.

1) We don't discriminate against muslims because we know that a lot of decent people get hurt by it and because the last thing that we want to do is emulate evil things that other people do/did.

2) We also refuse to let islamic prayers or beliefs be inflicted on children in public schools because we're not in the business of spreading violent bigotry. 

3) The truth is always relevant, and when people make false claims like 'islam is the religion of peace' or 'islam is no more violent or bigoted than any other belief system', the obvious thing to do is offer up blatant proof of their bullshit. If people want to stop making false claims then we can stop providing the truth. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, myata said:

Are we now into judging people by beliefs? But who knows, who may what someone believes? And what is "a belief" anyways, if we examine meaning behind the label, word? Is it the book that is thousands years old and believed in, literally? Is one book-belief better than another?

And if we're not trying to judge beliefs there can be meaningful questions here, fore example:

Is non-religious, secular society and its institutions required to be accommodating and welcoming to religions, or only certain one (based on what?) or only accepting them? Yes there's is a line between allowing everyone in a public school, and performing religious rituals there even voluntarily; at young age peer pressure is an important factor; display of gender discrimination can have real effects at this age.

Yes there can be difference between freedom of religion and displaying extreme gender-discriminating attire where public does not have a choice to avoid it. There may not be an obvious answer to these and other such questions. But it does not mean that they do not exist; and the answers can be found on the grounds of peaceful dialogue based on shared values. So maybe, they values are in the core of the question?

Are democratic values being threatened or damaged? Where is the main threat/damage coming from? In my view, complacency, disengagement and apathy can be far greater problem for the democracy than any particular beliefs. Like anyone is discussing these matters seriously and responsibly; like there's even a place, forum, channels where these questions can be discussed and understanding essential for entire society formed.

Why wouldn't you judge people by their beliefs?  There are those on here who think Trump was robbed by fraud.  I judge them all the time. (no offence meant)

And they're not nearly as bad as those who think people should be punished for blasphemy. (I don't care who gets offended)

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

Here's the problem with that:

 

Ok, then try to state an objective principle or rule that can be applied to assess the relative worth of a religion or philosophy.  It's important because otherwise one can only view things through a cultural lens.