Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Didn't you read that what I said was a scenario, not for real? That was the last sentence. Anyways, I understand what you said. I do agree with most of what you said about ancient oppression of women (needs to stop now), racism (which exists in the West mostly, but nonetheless needs to be stopped), cruel and unusual punishment (needs to stop), etc. What I don't agree with is what you said about religion being the last thing on the government's mind. I sometimes think about a form of government called a Theocratic Democracy. In this form of government, people follow the particular laws of their religion. Ex: Christians follow their laws, Muslims theirs, Jews theirs, etc. Atheists and agnostics follow the democratic laws/values. Of course all will be allowed to vote, run for office, etc. But I'm still working on a how the courts will work out on what would happen if 1 religious person did a thing to another religious person who was of a different religion. And I will tell my brothers to tell other Muslims not to fall to extremism, but you will have to tell others that Islam's not as bad as it's portrayed. OK?

There's two big flaws in a system like that (and that's after dismissing for arguments sake the fact that it's based on religion). 1) The people aren't equal before the law. And 2) Religious groups get to influence the laws atheists and agnostics have to follow while not being subject to it themselves and being immune to similiar medling by atheists and agnostics.

Oh no, Atheists and Agnostics don't have to follow the religious laws, they follow democratic laws. And why wouldn't people be equal?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I don't understand why I'm debating with a bigoted-minded person. How would it make you feel if I said that nuns were cellebut women in Harry Potter cloaks that don't know how to have a good time, or if you are Atheist, a strung out person with no aim in life? How does this make you feel if I said that directly to you? Note that what I just said is a scenario, not for real.

Calling someone an atheist isn't necessarily much of an insult.

What I said after that (the name-calling part) was the insult SCENARIO, not real. Many people mistake my scenarios for being real.

[Jetan]

But not wrong when Islamists do it? Islamism - not Islam - is a cancer upon Earth, just like any other religion-fuelled ideology, and must be eradicated in any way possible. The only reason I say "Islamism" and not "Fundamental Christianity" is because there aren't any radical Christian states executing people for heresy or apostasy, but then you look at Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I didn't even say anything about Islamism 1st off. And It's not a cancer if we know how to use it right without hurting people. It's not Islamism that's the cancer, it's the people who misuse it are.

Really now.

Besides, Islamism is just what the Muslim world needs right now with what's going on.

[Valaran]

What I said after that (the name-calling part) was the insult SCENARIO, not real. Many people mistake my scenarios for being real.

I wasn't saying it was real. Even in a scenario, its not always much of an insult.

[Draakonite]

I'm a Catholic, and I can't be bothered if you said that nuns were celibate women. They even aren't people in Harry Potter cloaks. It's an invalid comparision.

What I think is that the Middle Eastern people immediately need to re-enforce their revolution. To restart it, and to create a completely secular civilisation, in where every religion has an equal role, and has no role in politics. A society in where people do not have to listen to religious laws, but to choose to follow those, without percussions. A society in where people listen to the national law first, and after that, treating people as humane, and as last, religious law.

I cannot respect people that do not wish to do so. Arranged marriages, female circumcision, stoning, lashes, going to jail if you say your own leader is being corrupt, death penalty for adultery, execution for blasphemy, absolute monarchies or dictatorships, very flawed democracies, discrimination against both people of other religions and ethnicities, disallowing women to have equal rights (based on the story that women are less than men because they would have eaten from a forbidden fruit first and tempted a man to do it as well - despite the woman supposedly having done it under pressure of the snake) --- the list goes on and on and on.

To all of that; nothing of that is happening in the West. The Middle East is years behind. I think it is time for them to finally realise that something needs to be done about it. You, as a Muslim, can try to better the world yourself, by breaking the tradition and spreading the awareness.
One that does not do that, as a Muslim, would not be spreading the word of peace. He would be spreading the word of violence, and that is forbidden to - in any normal form or sect of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Bahai, Hinduism, Atheism, Agnosticism, et cetera.

Didn't you read that what I said was a scenario, not for real? That was the last sentence. Anyways, I understand what you said. I do agree with most of what you said about ancient oppression of women (needs to stop now), racism (which exists in the West mostly, but nonetheless needs to be stopped), cruel and unusual punishment (needs to stop), etc. What I don't agree with is what you said about religion being the last thing on the government's mind. I sometimes think about a form of government called a Theocratic Democracy. In this form of government, people follow the particular laws of their religion. Ex: Christians follow their laws, Muslims theirs, Jews theirs, etc. Atheists and agnostics follow the democratic laws/values. Of course all will be allowed to vote, run for office, etc. But I'm still working on a how the courts will work out on what would happen if 1 religious person did a thing to another religious person who was of a different religion. And I will tell my brothers to tell other Muslims not to fall to extremism, but you will have to tell others that Islam's not as bad as it's portrayed. OK?

Iran doesn't seem like a perfect nation... its pretty bad infact.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I didn't even say anything about Islamism 1st off. And It's not a cancer if we know how to use it right without hurting people. It's not Islamism that's the cancer, it's the people who misuse it are.

Really now.

Besides, Islamism is just what the Muslim world needs right now with what's going on.

Yes.

If I must persecute 5% of the population to preserve the democratic and human rights of 95%, I will do so. That 5%, if Islamists, will seek to eradicate all democratic rights and freedoms, and should not be granted any leniency.
^That's what that last post was to.

[Jetan]

There's two big flaws in a system like that (and that's after dismissing for arguments sake the fact that it's based on religion). 1) The people aren't equal before the law. And 2) Religious groups get to influence the laws atheists and agnostics have to follow while not being subject to it themselves and being immune to similiar medling by atheists and agnostics.

Oh no, Atheists and Agnostics don't have to follow the religious laws, they follow democratic laws. And why wouldn't people be equal?

They don't but at the same time by allowing everyone to vote (while only atheists and agnostics follow the democratic law) you are allowing the religious communities control over the irreligious. As for equality, that's pretty obvious. You as a muslim, and I as an atheist would for example suffer different punishments for the same crime. Alternatively, one of us could be punished for something the other would be immune to due to the multiple legistlations.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Didn't you read that what I said was a scenario, not for real? That was the last sentence. Anyways, I understand what you said. I do agree with most of what you said about ancient oppression of women (needs to stop now), racism (which exists in the West mostly, but nonetheless needs to be stopped), cruel and unusual punishment (needs to stop), etc. What I don't agree with is what you said about religion being the last thing on the government's mind. I sometimes think about a form of government called a Theocratic Democracy. In this form of government, people follow the particular laws of their religion. Ex: Christians follow their laws, Muslims theirs, Jews theirs, etc. Atheists and agnostics follow the democratic laws/values. Of course all will be allowed to vote, run for office, etc. But I'm still working on a how the courts will work out on what would happen if 1 religious person did a thing to another religious person who was of a different religion. And I will tell my brothers to tell other Muslims not to fall to extremism, but you will have to tell others that Islam's not as bad as it's portrayed. OK?

Iran doesn't seem like a perfect nation... its pretty bad infact.

Well I said Theocratic Democracy, not just Theocracy. But even then, Iran doesn't practice Islam correctly.

[Jetan]

Really now.

Yes.

If I must persecute 5% of the population to preserve the democratic and human rights of 95%, I will do so. That 5%, if Islamists, will seek to eradicate all democratic rights and freedoms, and should not be granted any leniency.
^That's what that last post was to.

I'm aware, and take no stance on what it was in reply to. You claimed you didn't bring up islamism, I pointed out that you did.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh no, Atheists and Agnostics don't have to follow the religious laws, they follow democratic laws. And why wouldn't people be equal?

They don't but at the same time by allowing everyone to vote (while only atheists and agnostics follow the democratic law) you are allowing the religious communities control over the irreligious. As for equality, that's pretty obvious. You as a muslim, and I as an atheist would for example suffer different punishments for the same crime. Alternatively, one of us could be punished for something the other would be immune to due to the multiple legistlations.

How? If everyone can vote, the irreligious will still have their rights. As for equality, I can see what you're saying. I'll need to work on that.

[Reunited Republic of America]

of course we should ban the veil, it serves no purpose in Western society, plus if we cannot see your face then how are we supposed to know who you are?

[Herargon]

Iran doesn't seem like a perfect nation... its pretty bad infact.

Well I said Theocratic Democracy, not just Theocracy. But even then, Iran doesn't practice Islam correctly.

AFAIK there's currently only one example of a theocratic democracy, and even that example is only temporarily a democracy. It's the Vatican City. When the Pope dies, a new one is elected by cardinals from the whole world. Each round, the cardinals vote upon who the new pope will be.
During this process, there is black smoke coming out from the Saint Peter's Cathedral.
If no candidate has received an unanimous approval, the cardinals revote.
This process often goes on for days, sometimes weeks - during this period, the camerlengo is the temporary 'ruler'. The cardinals are not allowed to call, talk, or have contact with the outer world in any sense whatsoever during this period - save for getting food and water. These cardinals pray during this period as well.
When after enough rounds a pope has been elected, he steps out and goes onto the balcony, to say his 'Habemus Papam' (We have a Pope) and his pontificial name.
After that, it's the pope's turn to rule absolutely, again.


One benefit of this is that a pope has an approval rate of 100%, higher than any leader. This gives him the absolute last word over theological disputes within the Catholic Church.
A downside however, is that he due to his absolute status, can impose tyranny upon the Church again if he wishes to do so. It hasn't happened yet though, but still, there may be that chance.

[Nearly Finland]

Welp, that sucks.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes.

If I must persecute 5% of the population to preserve the democratic and human rights of 95%, I will do so. That 5%, if Islamists, will seek to eradicate all democratic rights and freedoms, and should not be granted any leniency.
^That's what that last post was to.

I'm aware, and take no stance on what it was in reply to. You claimed you didn't bring up islamism, I pointed out that you did.

But you brought that last post from something else we were talking about. When I said "persecution's wrong", and he said (to the effect), "but if Islamists do it it's not", that's when I said that I didn't say anything about Islamism. In my "persecution's wrong" post.

[Draakonite]

Iran doesn't seem like a perfect nation... its pretty bad infact.

Well I said Theocratic Democracy, not just Theocracy. But even then, Iran doesn't practice Islam correctly.

They are a democracy. Not a good one by western standards (although pretty great by regional standards...)

[Jetan]

They don't but at the same time by allowing everyone to vote (while only atheists and agnostics follow the democratic law) you are allowing the religious communities control over the irreligious. As for equality, that's pretty obvious. You as a muslim, and I as an atheist would for example suffer different punishments for the same crime. Alternatively, one of us could be punished for something the other would be immune to due to the multiple legistlations.

How? If everyone can vote, the irreligious will still have their rights. As for equality, I can see what you're saying. I'll need to work on that.

Muslims follow islamic law. Muslims define islamic law.
Jews follow jewish law. Jews define jewish law.
Christians follow biblical law. Christians define biblical law.
Atheists follow democratic law. Atheists, Muslims, Jews and Christians jointly define democratic law.

See the problem?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

of course we should ban the veil, it serves no purpose in Western society, plus if we cannot see your face then how are we supposed to know who you are?

Then I guess we should ban the cross in Eastern society cause it doesn't have it's place there (scenario). Religion doesn't work like that. If my Muslim sisters think the niqab is better for them, then they should be able to wear it. Same for the cross wearer.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

How? If everyone can vote, the irreligious will still have their rights. As for equality, I can see what you're saying. I'll need to work on that.

Muslims follow islamic law. Muslims define islamic law.
Jews follow jewish law. Jews define jewish law.
Christians follow biblical law. Christians define biblical law.
Atheists follow democratic law. Atheists, Muslims, Jews and Christians jointly define democratic law.

See the problem?

Kind of.

[Herargon]

of course we should ban the veil, it serves no purpose in Western society, plus if we cannot see your face then how are we supposed to know who you are?

Then I guess we should ban the cross in Eastern society cause it doesn't have it's place there (scenario). Religion doesn't work like that. If my Muslim sisters think the niqab is better for them, then they should be able to wear it. Same for the cross wearer.

That is not a valid comparision. Wearing a cross doesn't block others from seeing your face.
A more valid comparision would be if a Muslim weared a small moon around his/her neck.
Or; a Christian having his or her face completely covered on religious grounds.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Then I guess we should ban the cross in Eastern society cause it doesn't have it's place there (scenario). Religion doesn't work like that. If my Muslim sisters think the niqab is better for them, then they should be able to wear it. Same for the cross wearer.

That is not a valid comparision. Wearing a cross doesn't block others from seeing your face.
A more valid comparision would be if a Muslim weared a small moon around his/her neck.
Or; a Christian having his or her face completely covered on religious grounds.

But still, it's the principle of the matter.

[Communist Xomaniax]

That is not a valid comparision. Wearing a cross doesn't block others from seeing your face.
A more valid comparision would be if a Muslim weared a small moon around his/her neck.
Or; a Christian having his or her face completely covered on religious grounds.

But still, it's the principle of the matter.

If people can't wear ski masks in public, you can't wear your burqa or whatever. Fair's fair.

[Kubumba Tribe]

But still, it's the principle of the matter.

If people can't wear ski masks in public, you can't wear your burqa or whatever. Fair's fair.

What are you talking about? Ski masks aren't religious whatsoever, so don't equate religious wear to non-religious wear.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

So looking up the religion statistics in Latvia there are about 319 Muslims.

Wow such an impressive decision, and to Balkens "muh culture" argument then why not ban everything except the traditional clothing of Latvia?

[Kubumba Tribe]

So looking up the religion statistics in Latvia there are about 319 Muslims.

Wow such an impressive decision, and to Balkens "muh culture" argument then why not ban everything except the traditional clothing of Latvia?

In 2010, the Muslim population was 2000. And according to www.breibart.com/london/2015/10/15/latv ... y-leaders/, Latvia will have a Muslim majority in 50 years!

[Draakonite]

If people can't wear ski masks in public, you can't wear your burqa or whatever. Fair's fair.

What are you talking about? Ski masks aren't religious whatsoever, so don't equate religious wear to non-religious wear.

Secularism. France was once pretty big on that.