Secularism = Political Atheism

[eyeball]

On 1/9/2017 at 6:09 AM, Altai said:

I think that secularism is the adapted version of atheism to the state laws and therefore its a dictatorship. Because in secular governments, religious persons are forced to comply with secular laws. 


Secularism = Political Atheism


What do you think ? 

That isms are the real problem.

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, Benz said:

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

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4]

It is not just a lack of belief. It's the belief there are no gods. And agnostism is...

Your link refutes your claim.

 

 

2 hours ago, Benz said:

I'll give you an example. In some culture, most of the time for religious beliefs, they cut the clitoris of the young girls. They believe it is the will of god. On my country, this is totally illegal.

In some cultures, they cut the foreskin of young boys. They believe it is the will of god. In my country, this is totally legal. But female genital mutilation without consent is illegal.

What a wonderful sexist country we live in.

 

[Goddess]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

In some cultures, they cut the foreskin of young boys. They believe it is the will of god. In my country, this is totally legal. But female genital mutilation without consent is illegal.

I absolutely agree with you on this.

The only difference is that male circumsicion is not done to prevent boys from enjoying sex/orgasm.  Very different from what is done to females.

[-1=e^ipi]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

The only difference is that male circumsicion is not done to prevent boys from enjoying sex/orgasm.  Very different from what is done to females.

Actually, if you look at the history, especially in the USA, it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Actually, if you look at the history, especially in the USA, it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

Interesting.  I always thought it was invented as a requirement by Yahweh to Jewish men.

[-1=e^ipi]

Well you have that too. But Kellogg is they guy responsible for its high rate in the US.

[kimmy]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Actually, if you look at the history, especially in the USA, it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

Wow!  That's pretty crazy.

Nonetheless, from my limited sampling I'm of the belief that circumcised men don't seem to have any trouble enjoying sex. It's admittedly a pretty small sample size, but from my observations, things seemed to work quite well.  I suspect that a reason male circumcision is tolerated in North America is that there are a lot of circumcised men who are pretty happy with how things work.

 -k

[-1=e^ipi]

34 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Wow!  That's pretty crazy.

Nonetheless, from my limited sampling I'm of the belief that circumcised men don't seem to have any trouble enjoying sex. It's admittedly a pretty small sample size, but from my observations, things seemed to work quite well.  I suspect that a reason male circumcision is tolerated in North America is that there are a lot of circumcised men who are pretty happy with how things work.

There are women in Egypt or Somalia who are pretty happy with how FGM turned out. And there are men in north america who are not happy with how MGM turned out.

 

It's a matter of consent and choice. If people want to modify their genitals, be it FGM, circumcision, sex change, etc. fine. But there needs to be consent, and a baby cannot consent.

[kimmy]

8 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

There are women in Egypt or Somalia who are pretty happy with how FGM turned out. And there are men in north america who are not happy with how MGM turned out.

 

It's a matter of consent and choice. If people want to modify their genitals, be it FGM, circumcision, sex change, etc. fine. But there needs to be consent, and a baby cannot consent.

I personally agree, and wouldn't have my child circumcised. If I had a child. Which I don't.

 -k

[Altai]

17 hours ago, kimmy said:

In Canada we make reasonable accommodation for everyone's religious beliefs.

 -k

Nice for Canada but things dont work in this way in many other countries which "claims" of being "secular", you are forced to obey "secular" laws if you are a religious person. 

Okay lets imagine a "secular" govt that all religious persons are given their right to live their life as they wish, what if religious people of this imaginal country wants criminal laws to be suitable with their believes. For example what if "religious" people in Canada wants murderers to be executed and what if "secular" people wants them to be jailed ? How we will solve this problem ? 

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

Nice for Canada but things dont work in this way in many other countries which "claims" of being "secular", you are forced to obey "secular" laws if you are a religious person.

You mean like France and the Burkini ban?

 

Okay lets imagine a "secular" govt that all religious persons are given their right to live their life as they wish, what if religious people of this imaginal country wants criminal laws to be suitable with their believes.

Yeah, sorry. No going around stoning apostates that don't believe in your religion.

 

For example what if "religious" people in Canada wants murderers to be executed and what if "secular" people wants them to be jailed ? How we will solve this problem ? 

Democracy.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Altai said:

Nice for Canada but things dont work in this way in many other countries which "claims" of being "secular", you are forced to obey "secular" laws if you are a religious person. 

Okay lets imagine a "secular" govt that all religious persons are given their right to live their life as they wish, what if religious people of this imaginal country wants criminal laws to be suitable with their believes. For example what if "religious" people in Canada wants murderers to be executed and what if "secular" people wants them to be jailed ? How we will solve this problem ? 

Quite simply.  The secular law wins every time.  You have the right to practice your religion within that law.  You have no right to insist anyone else does.

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

I absolutely agree with you on this.

The only difference is that male circumsicion is not done to prevent boys from enjoying sex/orgasm.  Very different from what is done to females.

There are different forma of FGM, from the most extreme excision (labia amd clitoris removal) and the mildest form, where only the prepuce is removed.   I don't know what form is most popular, but I imagine it's somewhere between the two extremes.

Things like piercings and rings are also considered FGM, and are often voluntarily done by Western women.   

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Quite simply.  The secular law wins every time.  You have the right to practice your religion within that law.  You have no right to insist anyone else does.

 

that's not how Islam functions.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

There are different forma of FGM, from the most extreme excision (labia amd clitoris removal) and the mildest form, where only the prepuce is removed.   I don't know what form is most popular, but I imagine it's somewhere between the two extremes.

Things like piercings and rings are also considered FGM, and are often voluntarily done by Western women.   

 

 

So are you FOR or AGAINST it?

[msj]

 

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There are different forma of FGM, from the most extreme excision (labia amd clitoris removal) and the mildest form, where only the prepuce is removed.   I don't know what form is most popular, but I imagine it's somewhere between the two extremes.

Things like piercings and rings are also considered FGM, and are often voluntarily done by Western women.   

 

Not sure why this is so hard to understand: doing something voluntarily is fine. Being forced to have anykind of mutilation without consent is not. 

This is not rocket science so screw off with the false equivalency crap 

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

So are you FOR or AGAINST it?

I've had my labia and prepuce pierced so does that mean I'm for it?

I'm devestated by the horror and pain women and girls experience from most forms of traditional FGM.  Does that mean I'm against it?

 

[msj]

It is the consent that is important. 

Again, not rocket science. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

I've had my labia and prepuce pierced so does that mean I'm for it?

I'm devestated by the horror and pain women and girls experience from most forms of traditional FGM.  Does that mean I'm against it?

 

 

Since you are calling the piercings women in Canada get FGM, I'll be saying you're defending the practice.

You equate the two as being the same...

[dialamah]

Not so much false equivalency crap as looking things up and discovering that even labial piercing is considered FGM.  I was surprised.

The separate paragraphs mean I recognize that traditional FGM as practiced by Middle Eastern and African societies is different than that practiced by Westen women.

Yes, consent.   Rarely, grown women have consented to have complete excision done to prove themselves devout.   I don't agree with that either, even though its her "choice".  Would you?

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

that's not how Islam functions.

It is how secular society functions.

I'm not saying there won't be bloodshed.

[msj]

Think it's obvious from this thread that I don't think genuine consent is possible by religious people as they are indoctrinated and such practices such as disturbing sleep and other methods of blaring religious BS is used to keep the sheep faithfull.  

Nevertheless, who am I to judge ones sincerity? 

 If an adult wants to cut off his foreskin or her clitoris then that is their problem. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by msj

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, msj said:

Think it's obvious from this thread that I don't think genuine consent is possible by religious people as they are indoctrinated

Yeah, agreed. 

[Goddess]

32 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Since you are calling the piercings women in Canada get FGM, I'll be saying you're defending the practice.

You equate the two as being the same...

Not just false equivilency, it's worse.  Frantically searching the internet for an "almost" example of how Westerners are "exactly the same" just denigrates, cheapens and belittles the very real experience of millions of women and girls.

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not just false equivilency, it's worse.  Frantically searching the internet for an "almost" example of how Westerners are "exactly the same" just denigrates, cheapens and belittles the very real experience of millions of women and girls.

Where did I say exactly the same as Westerners?   As I have already clarified to msj, I was surprised to find that voluntary piercings are also considered FGM.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11480359/FGM-Vaginal-piercing-to-be-recorded-as-female-genital-mutilation.html

I have also made it clear, here and elsewhere, that - just like you - I'm  horrified by the kind of FGM that is generally practiced by people in the ME and Africa.  

But I see that, like DoP and Argus, you have joined the cadre of people determined to misconstrue and misrepresent what I say as part of your Islamaphobic zeal.  Why do you three feel it so important to discredit me wherever and whenever you can?