NationStates

Berhakonia wrote:One thing I've noticed from you and Parkus, is that both of you enjoy baiting users into rage.

Not saying it's a bannable offense, but it makes you look annoying and immature.

For asking a question about loyalties?

If that's enough to put someone into a rage, then they have anger problems to begin with.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:Why would I support a nation that persecutes against a fundamental building block of my personal character?

The Nation is not a fundamental building block of your personal character?

If it persecutes against me, I will not sanction it.

Common sense, lad

Conserative Morality wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:One thing I've noticed from you and Parkus, is that both of you enjoy baiting users into rage.

Not saying it's a bannable offense, but it makes you look annoying and immature.

For asking a question about loyalties?

If that's enough to put someone into a rage, then they have anger problems to begin with.

Yes, if one hates the idea of Republicanism and/or Democracy, and that is what their nation they live in upholds, why not just simply move to a nation that has an absolute monarchy. Move to Swaziland....

Berhakonia wrote:If it persecuted against me, I will not sanction it.

Common sense, lad

That's not an answer to the question.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:One thing I've noticed from you and Parkus, is that both of you enjoy baiting users into rage.

Not saying it's a bannable offense, but it makes you look annoying and immature.

For asking a question about loyalties?

If that's enough to put someone into a rage, then they have anger problems to begin with.

False equivalence, hit me up with more falacies while you're at it, habibi

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:Why would I support a nation that persecutes against a fundamental building block of my personal character?

If you don’t like the basic values of the nation you live in, then why not move?

I concur. Simply because faith is such a core part of one's character that it is a higher priority than their nation does not mean that is the case for the rest of their nation, and I question any ideology that supports actively forcing others to fall in line with church doctrine. Nearly every major religion still has an area with theocratic practices or a state religion as it is, we don't need more.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:Why would I support a nation that persecutes against a fundamental building block of my personal character?

The Nation is not a fundamental building block of your personal character?

As far as I know, the only nation on Earth that aims to make the nation "a fundamental building block of everyone's character" is North Korea.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:If it persecuted against me, I will not sanction it.

Common sense, lad

That's not an answer to the question.

Congrats, you demonstrate a lacking of common sense.

If my nation tells me to f off due to my religion, I'll take my religion and f off

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:
As far as I know, the only nation on Earth that aims to make the nation "a fundamental building block of everyone's character" is North Korea.

It's actually been a very basic aspect of countries since the rise of liberal nationalism in the 19th century.

Berhakonia wrote:
Congrats, you demonstrate a lacking of common sense.

If my nation tells me to f off due to my religion, I'll take my religion and f off

Which isn't what was asked.

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:Why would I support a nation that persecutes against a fundamental building block of my personal character?

If you don’t like the basic values of the nation you live in, then why not move?

I don't know, you tell me. Why wouldn't I move?

Berdan wrote:

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:If you don’t like the basic values of the nation you live in, then why not move?

I concur. Simply because faith is such a core part of one's character that it is a higher priority than their nation does not mean that is the case for the rest of their nation, and I question any ideology that supports actively forcing others to fall in line with church doctrine. Nearly every major religion still has an area with theocratic practices or a state religion as it is, we don't need more.

Yes, and it appears that Christians that want a theocracy can’t seem to accept the fact their beliefs are very similar to Islamists. They response is typically “But MY RELIGION IS TRUE THOUGH!”

Conserative Morality wrote:

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:
As far as I know, the only nation on Earth that aims to make the nation "a fundamental building block of everyone's character" is North Korea.

It's actually been a very basic aspect of countries since the rise of liberal nationalism in the 19th century.

You basically are saying "the nation wants to brainwash everyone into defending it at all costs". Only North Korea does that.

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:You basically are saying "the nation wants to brainwash everyone into defending it at all costs". Only North Korea does that.

... no, I'm saying that the national identity that's drilled into people is an essential part of most of us.

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:

Berdan wrote:I concur. Simply because faith is such a core part of one's character that it is a higher priority than their nation does not mean that is the case for the rest of their nation, and I question any ideology that supports actively forcing others to fall in line with church doctrine. Nearly every major religion still has an area with theocratic practices or a state religion as it is, we don't need more.

Yes, and it appears that Christians that want a theocracy can’t seem to accept the fact their beliefs are very similar to Islamists. They response is typically “But MY RELIGION IS TRUE THOUGH!”

For once, I want to see religious people arguing against atheists explain why their specific religion is the correct one

Conserative Morality wrote:

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:You basically are saying "the nation wants to brainwash everyone into defending it at all costs". Only North Korea does that.

... no, I'm saying that the national identity that's drilled into people is an essential part of most of us.

What exactly do you mean by "a fundamental building block of your character"?

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:What exactly do you mean by "a fundamental building block of your character"?

A non-negligible non-transitory aspect of one's character?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Berhakonia wrote:
Congrats, you demonstrate a lacking of common sense.

If my nation tells me to f off due to my religion, I'll take my religion and f off

Which isn't what was asked.

Alright kiddies, I see that some of you are a bit slow, but don't worry, everybody's a winner! Now, Timmy, let me explain to you why the cultural dominance of religion outweighs that of the state.

Now, what is this "state" thing, you might ask? That's simple, Jim. It's the amalgamation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers that are responsible for running the nation on a daily basis!

"Well, how is that detrimental in any way?" You might ask? Well, Bob, sometimes Congress or parliament or what-have-you, doesn't always act in favour of the nation or the individual. Oftentimes, these laws and policy directions may outright clash with certain beliefs or religions. Whenever this occurs, you gotta remember that a priest can't lock you up in jail for supporting the country... but a senator can!

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
Yes, and it appears that Christians that want a theocracy can’t seem to accept the fact their beliefs are very similar to Islamists. They response is typically “But MY RELIGION IS TRUE THOUGH!”

For once, I want to see religious people arguing against atheists explain why their specific religion is the correct one

I’m a deist, so debating about the existence of a creator of the universe is considered settled. However, religious people seem to struggle in proving their specific religion is the correct one.

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
Yes, and it appears that Christians that want a theocracy can’t seem to accept the fact their beliefs are very similar to Islamists. They response is typically “But MY RELIGION IS TRUE THOUGH!”

For once, I want to see religious people arguing against atheists explain why their specific religion is the correct one

I have tried to get them to do exactly that in the thousands of "creation vs evolution" debates we had here, by offering various creation stories from other religions and asking why theirs is better.

They seem... unable.. to grasp the concept that other religions could ever be taken more seriously than their own.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:What exactly do you mean by "a fundamental building block of your character"?

A non-negligible non-transitory aspect of one's character?

To what extent would you say it should influence someone's life?

National identity isn't subject to change. If it deviates from one supportive or, at the least, tolerant to my religious beliefs, you can take that as a definite favouritism towards religion over nation.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:For once, I want to see religious people arguing against atheists explain why their specific religion is the correct one

I have tried to get them to do exactly that in the thousands of "creation vs evolution" debates we had here, by offering various creation stories from other religions and asking why theirs is better.

They seem... unable.. to grasp the concept that other religions could ever be taken more seriously than their own.

Yeah. In questions of morality, I always see fundamentalist Christians insist that Judeo-Christian values and secular values are the only values which exist

Berhakonia wrote:Alright kiddies, I see that some of you are a bit slow, but don't worry, everybody's a winner! Now, Timmy, let me explain to you why the cultural dominance of religion outweighs that of the state.

Again, not what was asked.

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:To what extent would you say it should influence someone's life?

I think it should be the top collective identity and as such have a guiding influence on most decisions. Which it does, for most.

Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:I have tried to get them to do exactly that in the thousands of "creation vs evolution" debates we had here, by offering various creation stories from other religions and asking why theirs is better.

They seem... unable.. to grasp the concept that other religions could ever be taken more seriously than their own.

Yeah. In questions of morality, I always see fundamentalist Christians insist that Judeo-Christian values and secular values are the only values which exist

Most American fundamentalist Christians seem to be completely unaware about the religious beliefs of the some of the founding fathers, they paint Thomas Jefferson as having the same beliefs as Jerry Falwell.