Secularism = Political Atheism

[DogOnPorch]

 

Quote

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?

You're free to support Islam. I expect you to defend it vigorously as a hanger-on.

Edited January 11, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Goddess]

There is a clash between Islamic and Western cultures.  I don't think acknowledging that constitutes "Islamophobia".

[dialamah]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to support Islam. I expect you to defend it vigorously as a hanger-on.

And you are free to support Islamaphobia.  I expect you to continue to misrepresent millions of Muslims to generate hate snd fear.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

And you are free to support Islamaphobia.  I expect you to continue to misrepresent millions of Muslims to generate hate snd fear.

 

I'm against your cult/religion...not individual Muslims. You're free to leave Islam...right?

Edited January 11, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There is a clash between Islamic and Western cultures.  I don't think acknowledging that constitutes "Islamophobia".

 

It's like fearing a hand grenade.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There is a clash between Islamic and Western cultures.  I don't think acknowledging that constitutes "Islamophobia".

Tell you what ... You try reading what I actually write and responding to that,  and I'll stop lumping you in with Argus and DoP.  

There is a clash between ignorant, cruel and backward cultural practices that exist in the Middle East and Africa, and our more progressive and humane Western culture.   Not everybody in the ME or Africa is Muslim and those inhuman cultural practices are followed by all creeds in that region; most of those customs and traditions predate both Christianity and Islam. 

Islam is no more a clash with our Western civilization than is Christianity or any other religion that supports patriarchy.   There are millions of Muslims in Canada and around the world who live quote compatibly with Western culture.

DoP and Argus and you assume that these cultural practices of which we all disapprove are specifically Islamic, which is just wrong.  I condemn the same things you do, but do not agree with blaming Islam and Muslims for things that are also practiced by the majority in that culture, and which many Muslims abhorr as much as we do.   

You and DoP and Argus choose to misconstrue this as supporting FGM or terrorism or killing gays, apostates and raped women, and ignore every statement I make that condemns the evil that people do, even people who call themselves followers of Islam. 

So as long as you choose only to hear part of what I say,  forgive me if I call you blinded and deafened by your fear of Islam and Muslims.

 

[dialamah]

26 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'm against your cult/religion...not individual Muslims. You're free to leave Islam...right?

I'm against the demonization of a specific group of people.  You're free to stop doing that ... right?

[Altai]

I think there is noone able to reply this question. I can write pages of my thoughts but I am trying to write in summary. I dont like long posts such as ancient Gilgamesh Legend. Noone has time for it.

It always takes my attention that everyone defines "secularism" different. We need to be agree about its definition before anything else. In later times you will also see that how secularism and democracy will contradict with each other. Because these terms are not complate and have lacks in some points. I just want to ask questions. If you cant reply, I will reply my own question to find true path. 

We can find many examples but I want to give examples for difficult and endpoint situations.

For example secular people would like to jail thieves. Religious people would like to cut their hands. What we will do ? 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Altai

[kimmy]

21 minutes ago, Altai said:

 I just want to ask questions. If you cant reply, I will reply my own question to find true path. 

We can find many examples but I want to give examples for difficult and endpoint situations.

For example secular people would like to jail thieves. Religious people would like to cut their hands. What we will do ? 

Not all religious people would cut off the hands of theives. Christians wouldn't, Buddhists wouldn't, Hindus wouldn't, Jews wouldn't, non-religious people wouldn't, and for that matter a lot of Muslims wouldn't either.

You think the law should be changed to suit the opinion of some small portion of the Muslim community, even though the rest of the religions would not agree?

No. That isn't how it works. In a country where lots of different religions exist, no one religion gets their way all the time. We let everybody practice their own religion as long as it doesn't affect others, but people don't get to impose their religion on the public as a whole.

 -k

[cybercoma]

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

Not everybody in the ME or Africa is Muslim and those inhuman cultural practices are followed by all creeds in that region; most of those customs and traditions predate both Christianity and Islam. 

But, MUSLIMS!

[cybercoma]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

It always takes my attention that everyone defines "secularism" different.

Secularism is pretty simple. It's separates the state from religious institutions.

The principle means that you're free from government interference into your practice of religion.

However, we also recognize a code of Human Rights as supreme. That means that your religious practices are subject to a certain standard. You can't, for instance, sacrifice virgins and drink their blood because that would be murder and violates someone's right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

[Altai]

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

Not all religious people would cut off the hands of theives. Christians wouldn't, Buddhists wouldn't, Hindus wouldn't, Jews wouldn't, non-religious people wouldn't, and for that matter a lot of Muslims wouldn't either.

You think the law should be changed to suit the opinion of some small portion of the Muslim community, even though the rest of the religions would not agree?

No. That isn't how it works. In a country where lots of different religions exist, no one religion gets their way all the time. We let everybody practice their own religion as long as it doesn't affect others, but people don't get to impose their religion on the public as a whole.

 -k

I ve asked a simple question. I dont discuss religions here, I just give an example. Please avoid to derail my topic and dont make it "lets puke some hatred to Islam" topic as you people are doing in all topics. Name it as xxx religion and read my question again if you want to reply.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Altai

[Goddess]

40 minutes ago, Altai said:

I ve asked a simple question. I dont discuss religions here, I just give an example. Please avoid to derail my topic and dont make it "lets puke some hatred to Islam" topic as you people are doing in all topics. Name it as xxx religion and read my question again if you want to reply.

Pardon me?  You don't want to discuss religion, but you want the right to chop people's hands off in the name of your religion?  And you want the right to force everyone else to follow your religion?  But you don't want this to be about religion?  

Quote

For example secular people would like to jail thieves. Religious people would like to cut their hands. What we will do ? 

 

[?Impact]

On 1/10/2017 at 3:50 AM, Altai said:

Imagine that you are a religious person and you want state laws to be suitable with your religious believes but you live in country which is ruled by a secular government. Is not it a violation of your rights ? 

What rights? The right to freedom of religion as defined by that secular nation? Do you presume some other 'human rights' beyond those that are the law of the land?

Let's take your example of wanting to take a break from school, or from work for that matter. Nothing is stopping you from doing so, but if you want to benefit from the public investing in your education then there are practical considerations that you must take into account as well. A public education requires a certain level of participation from individuals, and it would not be practical in a group setting to allow many unique exemptions. There are reasonable exemptions already allowed, but a some point there is a limit to what is practical. There is nothing stopping those who want to start their own private education system, without public support, and make unique exemptions for that group. We have many examples of private education in this secular nation, including private education associated with religion. The same applies to work. If you want a specialized work environment, then create your own company that provides it.

[?Impact]

On 1/11/2017 at 3:26 AM, Altai said:

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 ? 

As defined, freedom of religion does not include freedom from the laws of the land. Our laws are made by the legislature, and they are absolute.

[?Impact]

On 1/10/2017 at 8:52 PM, kimmy said:

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.

I don't think that is the fundamental issue, but yes it a difference in outcome for the practices between genders. The fundamental issue in my opinion is that nobody should be forced to undergo any body modification unless there is a serious health threat if they do not. Once one reaches the age of reason (notice I didn't say adult, or 18, or any other arbitrary value) then I don't think society should stand in their way if they want to have a body modification (tattoo, circumcision, piercing, or whatever), although we should provide them with proper education so they can make an informed decision.

[kimmy]

16 hours ago, Altai said:

I ve asked a simple question. I dont discuss religions here, I just give an example. Please avoid to derail my topic and dont make it "lets puke some hatred to Islam" topic as you people are doing in all topics.

Your question has been answered several times by several people. You either don't like the answer or you can't understand the answer.

16 hours ago, Altai said:

Name it as xxx religion and read my question again if you want to reply.

Fine, it doesn't actually change the answer:

 

Not all religious people would ((insert religion-specific practice here)) to punish thieves. Religion Y wouldn't, Religion Z wouldn't, Religion W wouldn't, Religion V wouldn't, non-religious people wouldn't, and for that matter a lot members of of Religion X wouldn't either.

You think the law should be changed to suit the opinion of some portion of the Religion X community, even though the rest of the religions would not agree?

No. That isn't how it works. In a country where lots of different religions exist, no one religion gets their way all the time. We let everybody practice their own religion as long as it doesn't affect others, but people don't get to impose their religion on the public as a whole.

 

 -k

[Argus]

On 1/11/2017 at 1:05 PM, dialamah said:

I'm against the demonization of a specific group of people.  You're free to stop doing that ... right?

So if a group worships Satan and practices ritual sacrifice and child rape you'd be indignant about them being demonized, right?

[Argus]

On 1/10/2017 at 9:28 PM, -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.

This is an absurdly false equivalency. Male circumcision does not stop men from gaining an enormous amount of pleasure through sex, including orgasm. Female circumcision prevents females from having orgasm or receiving physical pleasure during sex.

Male circumcision is largely done out of somewhat misguided concerns for cleanliness.

Female circumcision is done because women are natural whores and that taking away the physical pleasure might help prevent them from becoming wanton sluts. At least, as long as you make sure you beat them regularly, keep them under close supervision, and cover them in bedsheets from heat to toe.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is an absurdly false equivalency. Male circumcision does not stop men from gaining an enormous amount of pleasure through sex, including orgasm. Female circumcision prevents females from having orgasm or receiving physical pleasure during sex.

You are lumping all forms of FGM together here, which is ridiculous. Mild forms of FGM, such as clitoral hood removal, doesn't prevent females from having orgasm or receiving physical pleasure during sex.

 

Female circumcision is done because women are natural whores and that taking away the physical pleasure might help prevent them from becoming wanton sluts. At least, as long as you make sure you beat them regularly, keep them under close supervision, and cover them in bedsheets from heat to toe.

Male circumcision was popularized in North America because Kellogg wanted to reduce male masturbation.

[?Impact]

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

Male circumcision was popularized in North America because Kellogg wanted to reduce male masturbation.

In John Harvey Kellogg's words, how to correct "local uncleanliness" or "the habit" or "self abuse" are in his chapter on "Unchastity" in his book "Plain Facts for Old an Young": A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.

Not to worry ladies, he hasn't forgotten you: In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control.

Something to think about next time you have Corn Flakes for breakfast.

[Altai]

22 hours ago, ?Impact said:

As defined, freedom of religion does not include freedom from the laws of the land. Our laws are made by the legislature, and they are absolute.

So secularism means that religious people can pray as they wish but they dont have any other rights and believer people have to obey unbeliever people's laws.

[Altai]

23 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What rights? The right to freedom of religion as defined by that secular nation? Do you presume some other 'human rights' beyond those that are the law of the land?

Let's take your example of wanting to take a break from school, or from work for that matter. Nothing is stopping you from doing so, but if you want to benefit from the public investing in your education then there are practical considerations that you must take into account as well. A public education requires a certain level of participation from individuals, and it would not be practical in a group setting to allow many unique exemptions. There are reasonable exemptions already allowed, but a some point there is a limit to what is practical. There is nothing stopping those who want to start their own private education system, without public support, and make unique exemptions for that group. We have many examples of private education in this secular nation, including private education associated with religion. The same applies to work. If you want a specialized work environment, then create your own company that provides it.

State should provide all of these requirements. Because its not only your country and you are not the only person paying taxes. You cant say "go ahead and establish your own school" or "go ahead and create your own job". 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Altai

[Altai]

7 hours ago, kimmy said:

Your question has been answered several times by several people. You either don't like the answer or you can't understand the answer.

Fine, it doesn't actually change the answer:

 

Not all religious people would ((insert religion-specific practice here)) to punish thieves. Religion Y wouldn't, Religion Z wouldn't, Religion W wouldn't, Religion V wouldn't, non-religious people wouldn't, and for that matter a lot members of of Religion X wouldn't either.

You think the law should be changed to suit the opinion of some portion of the Religion X community, even though the rest of the religions would not agree?

No. That isn't how it works. In a country where lots of different religions exist, no one religion gets their way all the time. We let everybody practice their own religion as long as it doesn't affect others, but people don't get to impose their religion on the public as a whole.

 

 -k

Sorry I cant see many of replies because all of them are in my ignore list. I also dont think that any of them are able to give a logical answer. This is why they are ignored.

Please can you tell me who creates "secular" laws and they create it according to what ? 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

So secularism means that religious people can pray as they wish but they dont have any other rights and believer people have to obey unbeliever people's laws.

Religious people have all the same rights as anyone else, and have to obey the same laws as anyone else.

1 hour ago, Altai said:

State should provide all of these requirements. Because its not only your country and you are not the only person paying taxes. You cant say "go ahead and establish your own school" or "go ahead and create your own job". 

You are welcome to use the state schools, you are not welcome to change them to suit your unique desires.