Murders in France

[Hax]

How about acquitting those same people because according the court judged no criminal activity had been produced? And other such examples

If you want to use every single example in which a Muslim country passes a law that finds its roots in shari‘a, you can go ahead. For me, that's not nearly enough to pass judgement on the entirety of the state. Not nearly. The Algerian government keeps close track of who's doing what in terms of religion. The state is controlling religion, not the other way around. I think that's a fundamental aspect of an Islamic state.

[rvg]

How about acquitting those same people because according the court judged no criminal activity had been produced? If you want to use every single example in which a Muslim country passes a law that finds its roots in shari‘a, you can go ahead. For me, that's not nearly enough to pass judgement on the entirety of the state. Not nearly.

So, what's the magic number then? How many infractions against religious liberty does a muslim state get to have before they are declared islamist?

[Hax]

Well, apparently, the justice apparatus is working, isn't it? People are being acquitted. Apparently, the state is not​ persecuting Christians or are they?

[rvg]

Well, apparently, the justice apparatus is working, isn't it? People are being acquitted. Apparently, the state is not​ persecuting Christians or are they?

In that specific case it has worked. Now, to bring the attention to the cartoon case:

Prosecutors sought five-year prison terms for Chriet and Khatir and three-year terms for the other journalists, but the court ruled that the broadcast did not intend to ridicule the Prophet. Chriet claimed that the tape had not been verified and the cartoons' broadcast was thus a technical error.

The only reason why these men didn't get jailed is because they proved that the broadcast was an accident. This is not in any way an indication that they are free to publish the cartoons.


You are trying to put a lot of lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[HoreTore]

So, what's the magic number then? How many infractions against religious liberty does a muslim state get to have before they are declared islamist?

You're searching in quite the wrong place. The UK has a large public sector, yet it is not communist Russia. Nor are the foundation of the UK's public sector and the foundation of the USSR the same.

Islamism is a specific political theory, it is not simply a catch-all phrase for states in the muslim world who suppress religious freedom and has religious influence on its society(laws). It seems you believe the latter, and as such Algeria fits your use of Islamism. If so, you are using the term in a different way than the rest of us, hence the counter-arguments you juet met.

[rvg]

Islamism is a specific political theory, it is not simply a catch-all phrase for states in the muslim world who suppress religious freedom and has religious influence on its society(laws). It seems you believe the latter, and as such Algeria fits your use of Islamism. If so, you are using the term in a different way than the rest of us, hence the counter-arguments you juet met.

So, what would in your view be the definition of a muslim state that suppresses religious freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma?

[HoreTore]

So, what would in your view be the definition of a muslim state that suppresses religious freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma?

A muslim state which suppresses religous freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma.

Edit: usually, however, I just refer to them as "dictatorships" for simplicity.

[rvg]

A muslim state which suppresses religous freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma.

I can live with that. So, Hax, I retract my statement about Algeria being an islamist state. Algeria is merely a muslim state that suppresses religious freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma. I hope you're cool with that.

[Husar]

Well rvg, the one problem I have with your argument is that when you say it's about how things effectively work, then the US is a theocracy as well since noone has any hopes of being elected as president without showing that they are a devout christian sticking up for christian morals.

Besides that, there is a lot of suppression of freedom in the US based on some old christian morals and teachings, of course that isn't always encoded in the law but you said earlier it's about how thing effectively work out. Does it realistically make a difference whether a constitution or 60% of the people demand that a president be of a certain religion? In both cases you end up with a president who is expected to adhere to a religious code, essentially making your country a theocracy.

[rvg]

Well rvg, the one problem I have with your argument is that when you say it's about how things effectively work, then the US is a theocracy as well since noone has any hopes of being elected as president without showing that they are a devout christian sticking up for christian morals.

You mean, like Mormon Mitt Romney?

Besides that, there is a lot of suppression of freedom in the US based on some old christian morals and teachings, of course that isn't always encoded in the law but you said earlier it's about how thing effectively work out.

Got proof?

Does it realistically make a difference whether a constitution or 60% of the people demand that a president be of a certain religion? In both cases you end up with a president who is expected to adhere to a religious code, essentially making your country a theocracy.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

[HoreTore]

Uhm.... Did you just argue that christianity and mormonism are two different religions....?

I think you just proved Husar's point.

As for proof of suppression of freedoms; compare live at the apollo with live in new york....

[rvg]

Uhm.... Did you just argue that christianity and mormonism are two different religions....?

Of course I did.

As for proof of suppression of freedoms; compare live at the apollo with live in new york....

Que?

[Husar]

You mean, like Mormon Mitt Romney?

What HoreTore said, Mormonism is just Christianity's crazy little brother.

Got proof?

Your legal drinking and having sex and driving age are mostly 21 or at least higher than in the rest of the world.
Abortions are largely illegal because of religious birthers if I'm not mistaken.
You were really late to the party concerning gay marriage because of religious resistance.
Obama saying churches have to provide contraceptives via insurance to their employees like every other employer is somehow a huge deal in your country etc.
Obama was criticized by a large portion of people for "being a muslim" as though that were a bad thing.
Nipplegate.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

The 60% were hypothetical, that the reality of a situation makes a country a theocracy is something that you mentioned yourself although it's possible that I misunderstood how you meant that.
Oh and I don't think the USA is a theocracy, it was a generic statement anyway.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

It depends, but hey you've got people like Santorum in the race so it's not that far fetched. The guy appeals to a base who would quite happily turn the USA into a theocracy in every sense of the word. Oh yes I hear you: right now he's probably just pandering away, as are the lot of them, and in reality he might not enact anything like it. But at the core the base isn't just pandering to itself, it is their belief America should have a much more theocratic approach to government.

(This thing, btw, isn't unique to US of A -- we've got some hard lines proddies who seek to implement an uncompromising theocracy in the Netherlands, as well.)

That in this hypothetical theocracy of America there might not be quite the same level of virtue police on the streets isn't very relevant then. What matters is that his base wants essentially an affirmation of one flavour of religion (Christianity in its broader sense) as supreme over others and specifically seek to remove the separation of Church and State which is supposed to prevent theocractic lawmaking.

About got proof: you might find the gay marriage issue to be highly instructive, as you might also find laws against polygamy highly instructive. Note that you can argue the points from a non-Christian-values perspective, but so far that is largely not how the debate has been argued by those in favour of restrictions on these arrangements. It's therefore fair to conclude that it is a particular religious world view which effectively restricts the liberties of others who do not fit it.

[rvg]

What HoreTore said, Mormonism is just Christianity's crazy little brother.

How familiar are you with the Mormon religious creed?

Your legal drinking and having sex and driving age are mostly 21 or at least higher than in the rest of the world.

Legal drinking age -- 21, same as Russia. Driving? 16. Sexual Consent? Varies by state, but generally 16-17

Abortions are largely illegal because of religious birthers if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken. Abortions are legal.

You were really late to the party concerning gay marriage because of religious resistance.

Religious aspect is just one reason for it, not the only reason.

Obama saying churches have to provide contraceptives via insurance to their employees like every other employer is somehow a huge deal in your country etc.

So, having a dissenting opinion is a sign of theocracy?

Obama was criticized by a large portion of people for "being a muslim" as though that were a bad thing.

Is it a good thing?

Nipplegate.

Nothing to do with religion.

The 60% were hypothetical, that the reality of a situation makes a country a theocracy is something that you mentioned yourself although it's possible that I misunderstood how you meant that.
Oh and I don't think the USA is a theocracy, it was a generic statement anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean here...

It depends, but hey you've got people like Santorum in the race so it's not that far fetched. The guy appeals to a base who would quite happily turn the USA into a theocracy in every sense of the word. Oh yes I hear you: right now he's probably just pandering away, as are the lot of them, and in reality he might not enact anything like it. But at the core the base isn't just pandering to itself, it is their belief America should have a much more theocratic approach to government.

There's a huge difference between what some people might want and what the state actually does. For instance, I want hackers to be hanged in public. That's not gonna happen though.

That in this hypothetical theocracy of America there might not be quite the same level of virtue police on the streets isn't very relevant then. What matters is that his base wants essentially an affirmation of one flavour of religion (Christianity in its broader sense) as supreme over others and specifically seek to remove the separation of Church and State which is supposed to prevent theocractic lawmaking.

Where's your evidence?

About got proof: you might find the gay marriage issue to be highly instructive, as you might also find laws against polygamy highly instructive. Note that you can argue the points from a non-Christian-values perspective, but so far that is largely not how the debate has been argued by those in favour of restrictions on these arrangements. It's therefore fair to conclude that it is a particular religious world view which effectively restricts the liberties of others who do not fit it.

So ban on polygamy == theocracy? Really? You gotta do better than this.

[HoreTore]

Of course I did.

Where's that popcorn smiley.....

Live at the Apollo is a stand-up show on BBC. Live in New York is the american version. Compare.

[rvg]

Where's that popcorn smiley.....

Live at the Apollo is a stand-up show on BBC. Live in New York is the american version. Compare.

Never watched either one of them. What's your point?

[Hax]

Is it a good thing?

What does being a Muslim have to do with being a capable president? It's not a bad or a good thing, it's about as relevant to his administrative capabilities as what kind of cereal he likes in the morning.

[rvg]

What does being a Muslim have to do with being a capable president? It's not a bad or a good thing, it's about as relevant to his administrative capabilities as what kind of cereal he likes in the morning.

True, but nobody's obligated to think like that. People can favor it or disfavor it, take it into consideration or ignore it.

[Greyblades]

Where's that popcorn smiley.....

Live at the Apollo is a stand-up show on BBC. Live in New York is the american version. Compare.

[Hax]

And I'm not obligated to ignore it when people pretend that it's a big deal, right? I mean, have we reached the situation where self-identification as a Muslim automatically brands you as being potentially harmful? That's really something of a dangerous road to go on.

[rvg]

And I'm not obligated to ignore it when people pretend that it's a big deal, right?

Of course not. Your opinion is just as valid.

I mean, have we reached the situation where self-identification as a Muslim automatically brands you as being potentially harmful? That's really something of a dangerous road to go on.

For some. Some people see past that, some don't. Ultimately they vote according to what they think is best (for them and/or for their country).

[Rhyfelwyr]

What does being a Muslim have to do with being a capable president? It's not a bad or a good thing, it's about as relevant to his administrative capabilities as what kind of cereal he likes in the morning.

I want my political representatives to be people that reflect me and my world. My values, my culture, my history etc. A Muslim cannot be a part of that.

[Hax]

Would that also be the case when everything he's done during his career reflect your wishes?

[rvg]

Would that also be the case when everything he's done during his career reflect your wishes?

Ultimately, it's a question of merit. While being a muslim does not win you any favors in America, people will overlook it if you're really good at what you're aiming to be. At this point I'd vote for Lucifer himself if he were to propose a balanced budget.

[Hax]

And that's exactly why I actually really admire America. Well, parts of it at least.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If he has a different belief system I don't see how all the decisions that he makes could reflect what I want. Although this point is moot for Obama since obviousy he isn't a Muslim.

But on the Obama point, as far as American politicians go, I like him. He's a sensible guy, I would trust his as a political leader.

But I'm a romanticist, I want something more than that. I want to be able to really identify with my political leaders. And not just them, I want to really be able to identify with the people that live around me.

I want to live in a world where I see my friends and their parents and their Granny at church on a Sunday. I want to be able to go for a pint with them after work with then and grab a bacon buttie on the way home. I want to look at the buildings around me and feel like I am in Britain and not Waziristan. I want my little brother to get a part-time job at the shop down the road and not get rejected because they just hired 50 immigrants. I want to read a history book about my ancestors like William Wallace and Cuchulainn and know that it is their blood that flows in my veins. That I am what I am and the world around me is the way it is because of what they did. I want my children to look remotely like me and know that in 1,000 years we will still be the same people.

And all this is why I find the typical debates on immigration and cultural differences to be... uninspiring. Unlike the right, I don't want foreigners to assimilate. Unlike the left, I don't want want a society of many cultures. I don't care for the EDL and their appeals against Islamic extremism, since they have little basis in reality.

I know that the Muslim world has a great and complex history, and wish its people all the best. But here, in the UK... this is not the Muslim world. Islam is out of place here and always will be. Protestantism lies at the heart of everything that Britain stands for and has done for thousands of years.

Britain is fundamentally a WASP nation. Everything that Britain and Britishness means was shaped by a purely WASP people. That to me seems to be extremely significant.

[Fragony]

And I'm not obligated to ignore it when people pretend that it's a big deal, right? I mean, have we reached the situation where self-identification as a Muslim automatically brands you as being potentially harmful? That's really something of a dangerous road to go on.

One rules out the other, if he's serious about his religion he cannot be democratic

[Hax]

No True Scotsman.

Why are you judging who is a Muslim and who isn't? Why don't you let them decide for themselves?

I want to live in a world where I see my friends and their parents and their Granny at church on a Sunday. I want to be able to go for a pint with them after work with then and grab a bacon buttie on the way home. I want to look at the buildings around me and feel like I am in Britain and not Waziristan. I want my little brother to get a part-time job at the shop down the road and not get rejected because they just hired 50 immigrants. I want to read a history book about my ancestors like William Wallace and Cuchulainn and know that it is their blood that flows in my veins. That I am what I am and the world around me is the way it is because of what they did. I want my children to look remotely like me and know that in 1,000 years we will still be the same people.

Identification, for me, is self-appropriation of the national identity of the place where you were born and raised. I feel more connected to Europe than most, but ethnically speaking, I'm really not? What's your solution for the people born from mixed marriages?

[Fragony]

It's quite simple Hax, you can be our best friend here, but you can't be family. Anyone denying that is an idiot, Europe is for Europeans and you can stay, but nothing is going to change that we will always want the pea-soup granny made. We are people as well.