Should Muslims be banned from buying alcohol?

[Neutraligon]

It truly is incredible how much people are willing to give up what makes the Western world succeed when it comes to things they do not like, in Valystria's case religion in general.

You mean benefitting from a past history of colonialism and imperialism?

That's not being touched by the proposal here. What's done is done.

where did I say anything about colonialism and imperialism

[Infected Mushroom]

You mean benefitting from a past history of colonialism and imperialism?

That's not being touched by the proposal here. What's done is done.

where did I say anything about colonialism and imperialism

You said Valystria's position would result in ''giving up what makes the Western world succeed.'' Its not the fact that Muslims are allowed to drink alcohol under the law which has made the West ''successful.'' The reason the West is relatively successful now economically and politically compared to much of the rest of the world is because it was able to get such a head start in the past with successful imperialism and colonialism. I'm saying there is no connection between the implementation/non-implementation of the proposal and the stakes of the West's success. The success will remain regardless because the groundwork has already been set; its not something that can be eroded in a day by one regulation.

[Slovenya]

No, that's a bit stupid me tinks

[Neutraligon]

where did I say anything about colonialism and imperialism

You said Valystria's position would result in ''giving up what makes the Western world succeed.'' Its not the fact that Muslims are allowed to drink alcohol under the law which has made the West ''successful.'' The reason the West is relatively successful now economically and politically compared to much of the rest of the world is because it was able to get such a head start in the past with successful imperialism and colonialism. I'm saying there is no connection between the implementation/non-implementation of the proposal and the stakes of the West's success. The success will remain regardless because the groundwork has already been set; its not something that can be eroded in a day by one regulation.

Hardly, it was enlightenment thinking that has progressed the West as far as it has. Part of that are certain freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, tolerance, etc. These are at the core of what make the Western society the type of society we have today. It is because of this type of thinking that science has progressed as far as it has. With scientific progress has come technical progress. It is his technical progress that has allowed the West to succeed.

This one regulation goes against the core of enlightenment thinking that is at the base of our current societies. It gives the government far to much power and control over the actions of the citizens and people within their borders. It allows them to dictate what the people of a certain religion can and cannot access. it destroys the idea of equality before the law, since some within their borders are not treated equally when it comes to the law. It sets a terrible precedent.

[Baltenstein]

where did I say anything about colonialism and imperialism

You said Valystria's position would result in ''giving up what makes the Western world succeed.'' Its not the fact that Muslims are allowed to drink alcohol under the law which has made the West ''successful.'' The reason the West is relatively successful now economically and politically compared to much of the rest of the world is because it was able to get such a head start in the past with successful imperialism and colonialism. I'm saying there is no connection between the implementation/non-implementation of the proposal and the stakes of the West's success. The success will remain regardless because the groundwork has already been set; its not something that can be eroded in a day by one regulation.

Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution happened before imperialism. It was when the Western Powers were already at the top that they decided to distribute the rest of the world between themselves.

[Theocretes]

Simple question, Simple Answer:
NO
Anyone over 21 should be able to buy alcohol, some Muslims might betray their religion but that's their choice

[Trumpostan]

Banning hateful medieval cults like abrahamic religions is a much better idea than banning alcohol.

Considering the horrendous track record of the major abrahamic religions (and no, not just a "tiny minority" that "misrepresents" the religion, violence against unbelievers is at the core of these religions) it would be the right thing to do. But also completely impossible and unworkable.

Prohibitions on alcohol and drugs have never worked anywhere. I would like to wager that the broader the prohibition, the higher the actual consumption.

If you go to another country you adapt and adjust to the new country, not the other way round. "When in Rome..."

[Wallenburg]

Lolwutno

[Unabashed Skeptofascist]

No. Absolutely not!

Prohibiting someone from doing something based on the religion they follow has never turned out for the best.

Also the daily fail, seriously?

It seems to work well for the Middle East.

Regardless of the source, if it's citing something that can be proven, it really doesn't matter where you get it from. It's factual.

...since when it "works well in Middle East"? Do you mean they don't have massive problem of misogyny and sexual assault?

[The Archregimancy]

<sits sipping whisky in Dubai>

What was that about alcohol being banned in the Middle East <hic>? I didn't quite catch it....

[Len Hyet]

<sits sipping whisky in Dubai>

What was that about alcohol being banned in the Middle East <hic>? I didn't quite catch it....

Fuckin yes Archreg.

[Lansuo]

Hah, tell my Muslim relatives on my dad's side this....

[Infected Mushroom]

You said Valystria's position would result in ''giving up what makes the Western world succeed.'' Its not the fact that Muslims are allowed to drink alcohol under the law which has made the West ''successful.'' The reason the West is relatively successful now economically and politically compared to much of the rest of the world is because it was able to get such a head start in the past with successful imperialism and colonialism. I'm saying there is no connection between the implementation/non-implementation of the proposal and the stakes of the West's success. The success will remain regardless because the groundwork has already been set; its not something that can be eroded in a day by one regulation.

Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution happened before imperialism. It was when the Western Powers were already at the top that they decided to distribute the rest of the world between themselves.

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. The Spanish Empire predates the Enlightenment (I believe it was 15th century?) and certainly the Industrial Revolution. You had English and French colonial empires in North America by the time the Industrial Revolution rolled around.

Its also doubtful that during the Enlightenment or the Industrial Revolution whether the average European was truly yet ''at the top of the world'' as far as living standards went; my sense is that during all of those time periods the average person's life (unless you were a nobleman or a business magnate) was pretty miserable and scarce.

I'd say you have to go further down the timeline to really see a point where both the economies along with the living standards of the average Westerner really started to show a marked superiority in quality to the rest of the world. But all of that certainly stemmed from getting such a headstart with colonisation and imperialism (which set entire continents behind and entrenched economic patterns that largely enriched and favoured them and lasted long after the empires were formally disbanded).

[New confederate ramenia]

Banning hateful medieval cults like abrahamic religions is a much better idea than banning alcohol.

Considering the horrendous track record of the major abrahamic religions (and no, not just a "tiny minority" that "misrepresents" the religion, violence against unbelievers is at the core of these religions) it would be the right thing to do. But also completely impossible and unworkable.

Prohibitions on alcohol and drugs have never worked anywhere. I would like to wager that the broader the prohibition, the higher the actual consumption.

If you go to another country you adapt and adjust to the new country, not the other way round. "When in Rome..."

>violence against misbelievers is at the core of these religions
Proofs?

[Baltenstein]

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. The Spanish Empire predates the Enlightenment (I believe it was 15th century?) and certainly the Industrial Revolution. You had English and French colonial empires in North America by the time the Industrial Revolution rolled around.

Except the Spanish Empire also predates the age of Imperialism (aka, the time where Europe ruled supreme). Contrary to what you seem to believe, the Empire did not give Spain an edge in reaching the mordern age but was in fact, one of the main reasons for Spain falling behind the other European powers (namely Britain, France, Austria and Prussia), as it became over-reliant on American Gold and Silver and did not see the need for economic, societal and political modernization. At around 1800, Spain was no longer a great power and was quickly defeated and occupied by the French military once Napoleon decided he didn't have a use for the Spanish Bourbons anymore.
Likewise, the French had lost their colonies in North America after the French and Indian War, and Britain lost a huge part of them after the American Revolution. Despite this, those two countries dominated the early 19th to mid-19th century (France fell behind as a great power after the unification of Germany) The possessions in the new world were absolutely not the factor that enabled Europe to kick-start Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

Its also doubtful that during the Enlightenment or the Industrial Revolution whether the average European was truly yet ''at the top of the world'' as far as living standards went; my sense is that during all of those time periods the average person's life (unless you were a nobleman or a business magnate) was pretty miserable and scarce.

I'm talking about political power projection and technological superiority. Of course, the life for your average worker in Whitechapel was not much better than for your average worker in Hydarabad.

[Tafhan]

Simple question, Simple Answer:
NO
Anyone over 21 should be able to buy alcohol, some Muslims might betray their religion but that's their choice

Many Muslim religious leaders are of the opinion that general drunkenness is the sin. Not drinking. Hence, many Muslims drink. Even Iran doesn't Ban Alchohol. You can find it in any restaurant.

[Jochistan]

Simple question, Simple Answer:
NO
Anyone over 21 should be able to buy alcohol, some Muslims might betray their religion but that's their choice

I'm sure the Alawites, Alevis and Ismailis will be thrilled that you think they're betraying their own religion.

As much as I disagree with the people who say it's fine to drink, theres some manner of debate whether drunkenness is the heart of the issue or drinking is prohibited period. As some have already pointed out.

[Nordrgard]

Yes, good idea. Let's radicalize them more by demanding that they follow their green book.

[New confederate ramenia]

Yes, good idea. Let's radicalize them more by demanding that they follow their green book.

IKR! Why would anyone follow their own religion?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Not all Moslems are Practicing Moslems.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, good idea. Let's radicalize them more by demanding that they follow their green book.

IKR! Why would anyone follow their own religion?

Well, Christians and Jews should be stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children according to their holy books. I'd say that the modernization of religion is a good thing.

[New confederate ramenia]

IKR! Why would anyone follow their own religion?

Well, Christians and Jews should be stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children according to their holy books. I'd say that the modernization of religion is a good thing.

Christians have a New Testament saying we don't have to and Jews have the Talmud saying they don't have to.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

That's not discriminatory at all...

[Neutraligon]

Well, Christians and Jews should be stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children according to their holy books. I'd say that the modernization of religion is a good thing.

Christians have a New Testament saying we don't have to and Jews have the Talmud saying they don't have to.

Then we are not obeying our holy book. And that depends on which interpretation of the New Testament. If you do the one where Jesus says not to disregard the law, then again they are disobeying their holy book. It is almost like people pick and choose which aspects of their holy book they follow, regardless of what religion they are.

[Keynsinia]

We should just ban these dark age savages and send them back to the country that allows them get drunk then beat and rape women all they like.