Middle East Conflict Megathread (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc)

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

That doesn't imply they're synonymous.

Of course, it's a case of square versus rectangle. State atheism is secularism, but secularism isn't always state atheism.

[Aulus Maximus]

That doesn't imply they're synonymous.

Of course, it's a case of square versus rectangle. State atheism is secularism, but secularism isn't always state atheism.

Well, in secularism the state is neutral towards the Church (ie religious institutions).
In State Atheism Atheism is pushed by the State against religious institutions.

As seperation of church and state means that the state does not intervene with the church - I'd argue that state atheism is not secularism.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Of course, it's a case of square versus rectangle. State atheism is secularism, but secularism isn't always state atheism.

Well, in secularism the state is neutral towards the Church (ie religious institutions).
In State Atheism Atheism is pushed by the State against religious institutions.

As seperation of church and state means that the state does not intervene with the church - I'd argue that state atheism is not secularism.

Separation of church and state means the state does not acknowledge the authority of the church in morality.

[Aulus Maximus]

Well, in secularism the state is neutral towards the Church (ie religious institutions).
In State Atheism Atheism is pushed by the State against religious institutions.

As seperation of church and state means that the state does not intervene with the church - I'd argue that state atheism is not secularism.

Separation of church and state means the state does not acknowledge the authority of the church in morality.

No, the seperation of church and state means the church won't intervene in state matters and the state not intervene in church matters.

State atheism is the opposition of the state to church in the daily life of citizens.

[Soviet-mongol]

So apparently US launched air strikes on Syria and Russia is to scared to retaliate. It seems Russia is the new France.

Unsurprising, Putin is just a bully, he will make a big show when he can, as in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, but he doesn't want war with NATO and the Arab League.

Imagine if USA decides to sent ground troops to Syria Russia would literary just watching and eventually only Call an UN energency meeting where it will radi se only "depest concerns". What the US should do is continue to strike Syria the rebells will eventually overthrow Assad.

[Pilarcraft]

Separation of church and state means the state does not acknowledge the authority of the church in morality.

No, the seperation of church and state means the church won't intervene in state matters and the state not intervene in church matters.

State atheism is the opposition of the state to church in the daily life of citizens.

Actually, the Separation of the Church and the State merely means "The Church can not interfere at the matters of the State". The Church is not, legislatively speaking, relevant enough to have the right to dictate whether or not the State can interfere with her matters.

[Aulus Maximus]

No, the seperation of church and state means the church won't intervene in state matters and the state not intervene in church matters.

State atheism is the opposition of the state to church in the daily life of citizens.

Actually, the Separation of the Church and the State merely means "The Church can not interfere at the matters of the State". The Church is not, legislatively speaking, relevant enough to have the right to dictate whether or not the State can interfere with her matters.

Not according to the arm's length contract principle. Herein the two (church and state) are seen as independent entities with separate authority and either of the two cannot intervene.

It's a two way street, not a one way street.

[Pilarcraft]

Actually, the Separation of the Church and the State merely means "The Church can not interfere at the matters of the State". The Church is not, legislatively speaking, relevant enough to have the right to dictate whether or not the State can interfere with her matters.

Not according to the arm's length contract principle. Herein the two (church and state) are seen as independent entities with separate authority and either of the two cannot intervene.

It's a two way street, not a one way street.

That's just the popular mode, because the Church, often, has enough of a public popularity to have the relevancy to dictate its own existance. But, for example, French Secularity (Laicite) doesn't have anything silly like that, and that's still "separation of the church and state"

[Aulus Maximus]

Not according to the arm's length contract principle. Herein the two (church and state) are seen as independent entities with separate authority and either of the two cannot intervene.

It's a two way street, not a one way street.

That's just the popular mode, because the Church, often, has enough of a public popularity to have the relevancy to dictate its own existance. But, for example, French Secularity (Laicite) doesn't have anything silly like that, and that's still "separation of the church and state"

Which isn't a problem in a secular state. The church can have authority but not over the state.

a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[2] State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[3][4][1]

Temperman, Jeroen (2010). State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law : Towards a Right to Religiously Neutral Governance. Brill Academic/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 140. ISBN 9789004181489. "Although the historical underlying incentives that accompanied the establishment of a secular state may have been characterized by criticism of certain religious doctrines or practices, presently a state of secularity in itself does not necessarily reflect value judgements about religion. In other words, state secularism does not come down to an official rejection of religion. State secularism denotes an intention on the part of the state to not affiliate itself with religion, to not consider itself a priori bound by religious principles (unless they are reformulated into secular state laws) and to not seek to justify its actions by invoking religion. Such a state of secularity denotes official impartiality in matters of religion rather than official irreligiosity. By contrast, secularism as a philosophical notion can indeed be construed as an ideological defense of the secular cause, which might include criticism of or scepticism towards religion. Thus, states that are 'ideologically secular' and that declare secular world-views the official state doctrine give evidence, explicitly or by implication, of judgements about the value of religion within society. Most versions of state communism, for instance, embrace Marxist criticism of religion."

emperman, Jeroen (2010). State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law : Towards a Right to Religiously Neutral Governance. Brill Academic/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 140–141. ISBN 9789004181489. "Before the end of the Cold War, many Communist States did not shy away from being openly hostile to religion. In most instances, communist ideology translated unperturbedly into state atheism, which, in turn, triggered measures aimed at the eradication of religion. As much was acknowledged by some Communist Constitutions. The 1976 Constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, for instance, was firmly based on a Marxist dismissal of religion as the opiate of the masses. It provided: "The state recognizes no religion of any kind and supports and develops the atheist view so as to ingrain in to the people the scientific and materialistic world-view.""

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Actually, the Separation of the Church and the State merely means "The Church can not interfere at the matters of the State". The Church is not, legislatively speaking, relevant enough to have the right to dictate whether or not the State can interfere with her matters.

Not according to the arm's length contract principle. Herein the two (church and state) are seen as independent entities with separate authority and either of the two cannot intervene.

It's a two way street, not a one way street.

Separation of Church and State is not a contract.

It's impossible for a state not to intervene in a church's authority. Ultimately the state is above the church.

[Aulus Maximus]

Not according to the arm's length contract principle. Herein the two (church and state) are seen as independent entities with separate authority and either of the two cannot intervene.

It's a two way street, not a one way street.

Separation of Church and State is not a contract.

It's impossible for a state not to intervene in a church's authority. Ultimately the state is above the church.

A secular constitution is a contract.

In essence, if the state dictates what the church must say - I'd say that's no more secularism.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Separation of Church and State is not a contract.

It's impossible for a state not to intervene in a church's authority. Ultimately the state is above the church.

A secular constitution is a contract.

With the people, not the Church.

In essence, if the state dictates what the church must say - I'd say that's no more secularism.

No.

[Aulus Maximus]

A secular constitution is a contract.

With the people, not the Church.

In essence, if the state dictates what the church must say - I'd say that's no more secularism.

No.

Yes, secularism is a two way street. The state can not influence what the church has to say otherwise there is no separation of church and state.

Granted - it almost never happens. Turkey is no secular state for example. The government dictates what the imams must say.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

With the people, not the Church.

No.

Yes, secularism is a two way street. The state can not influence what the church has to say otherwise there is no separation of church and state.

Granted - it almost never happens. Turkey is no secular state for example. The government dictates what the imams must say.

There's more to a church than what it says. For example, Iceland banning circumcision. Still secular.

[Socialist Czechia]

Yes, secularism is a two way street. The state can not influence what the church has to say otherwise there is no separation of church and state.

Granted - it almost never happens. Turkey is no secular state for example. The government dictates what the imams must say.

There's more to a church than what it says. For example, Iceland banning circumcision. Still secular.

Circumcision should be banned everywhere IMO

no matter how would you try to reason, it is, still, MUTILATION.

[Pilarcraft]

Yes, secularism is a two way street. The state can not influence what the church has to say otherwise there is no separation of church and state.

Granted - it almost never happens. Turkey is no secular state for example. The government dictates what the imams must say.

There's more to a church than what it says. For example, Iceland banning circumcision. Still secular.

Iceland literally has an official state religion and recognized church though. Like England.

[Shofercia]

Or sell the S-400s to Iran, since Israel was involved.

Because Putin wants to fuck up Russian-Israeli relations.

Israel was given the green light to hit Hezbollah. In exchange, Israel promised to not hit SAA. If Israel isn't going to be true to its word with Russia, why the fuck should Russia treat Israel differently than any other Middle Eastern country?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

There's more to a church than what it says. For example, Iceland banning circumcision. Still secular.

Iceland literally has an official state religion and recognized church though. Like England.

Still secular until proven otherwise.

[Pilarcraft]

Iceland literally has an official state religion and recognized church though. Like England.

Still secular until proven otherwise.

Does the fact that their constitution state an official religion, and the fact that it also does not state, anywhere, a separation between the Church and the State constitute as proof? because that's the only way you can see if a country's secular or not. (I mean, Secularity is a constitutional matter, after all.). The fact that in practice, Iceland employs secular policies is irrelevant to whether it is secular or not. After all, every country has to employ a level of secular policies (even Iran, of all places).

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Still secular until proven otherwise.

Does the fact that their constitution state an official religion, and the fact that it also does not state, anywhere, a separation between the Church and the State constitute as proof? because that's the only way you can see if a country's secular or not. (I mean, Secularity is a constitutional matter, after all.). The fact that in practice, Iceland employs secular policies is irrelevant to whether it is secular or not. After all, every country has to employ a level of secular policies (even Iran, of all places).

Actually, it's quite relevant.

[Socialist Czechia]

I wonder if Western media would defend Israel, if Russians destroyed their nuclear missile silos and stockpiles of warheads in such strike.

Which, you know, are much worse than some barrel of chlorine, and we all knows Jews have them and lie about them

[Pilarcraft]

I wonder if Western media would defend Israel, if Russians destroyed their nuclear missile silos and stockpiles of warheads in such strike.

Which, you know, are much worse than some barrel of chlorine, and we all knows Jews have them and lie about them

If they ever drop one of these nukes on the rebels in Palestine, Russia can destroy any single missile silo she wants. Whether or not they have them, unlike Assad and his chemicals, they have yet to use any.

[Nakena]

There's more to a church than what it says. For example, Iceland banning circumcision. Still secular.

Circumcision should be banned everywhere IMO

no matter how would you try to reason, it is, still, MUTILATION.

Iceland as inspiration?

I wonder if Western media would defend Israel, if Russians destroyed their nuclear missile silos and stockpiles of warheads in such strike.

Which, you know, are much worse than some barrel of chlorine, and we all knows Jews have them and lie about them

Israel doesnt uses Silos but mobile launchers, air-based and submarine delivery systems.

[Socialist Czechia]

Israel doesnt uses Silos but mobile launchers, air-based and submarine delivery systems.

They actually have Jericho ICBMs and static missile silos in Negev desert.
But I guess, logically, most of their nuclear arsenal would be used through classic air strikes.

Mobile launchers are more Indian/Pakistani obsession.

[Mujahidah]

We actually can't be entirely sure what Israel uses. For diplomatic reasons they don't officially admit to having Nuclear Weapons.