Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:10 am
Idk. I'd say Hawaii, if they weren't so far from each other.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Idk. I'd say Hawaii, if they weren't so far from each other.
Conserative Morality wrote:Nakena wrote:
And thus Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy.
I disagree. Fundamentalist interpretations are incompatible with liberal democracy, but fundamentalist interpretations of most religions are incompatible with liberal democracy. There are plenty of modern Muslims who are ardent supporters of our rights and freedoms as Westerners.
Conserative Morality wrote:Nakena wrote:
And thus Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy.
I disagree. Fundamentalist interpretations are incompatible with liberal democracy, but fundamentalist interpretations of most religions are incompatible with liberal democracy. There are plenty of modern Muslims who are ardent supporters of our rights and freedoms as Westerners.
The South Falls wrote:If you're following the old testament there's no room for liberal democracy.
The South Falls wrote:If you're following the old testament there's no room for liberal democracy.
Joohan wrote:Novus America wrote:
How? Jesus states the whole give unto Caesar and my kingdom is not of this earth and all.
The New Testament is compatible with religious freedom.
Because Jesus preached a life of simplicity, zealous fervor in persecuting apostates ( picked up a whip to chase out money lenders ), made a point to go out of his way to convert people ( something totally at odds with liberalism's ideal of apathetic tolerance ), and the whole of his final journey into Israel up to golgotha is essentially a warning against democracy
Joohan wrote:Novus America wrote:
How? Jesus states the whole give unto Caesar and my kingdom is not of this earth and all.
The New Testament is compatible with religious freedom.
Because Jesus preached a life of simplicity, zealous fervor in persecuting apostates ( picked up a whip to chase out money lenders ), made a point to go out of his way to convert people ( something totally at odds with liberalism's ideal of apathetic tolerance ), and the whole of his final journey into Israel up to golgotha is essentially a warning against democracy
Salus Maior wrote:Joohan wrote:
Because Jesus preached a life of simplicity, zealous fervor in persecuting apostates ( picked up a whip to chase out money lenders ), made a point to go out of his way to convert people ( something totally at odds with liberalism's ideal of apathetic tolerance ), and the whole of his final journey into Israel up to golgotha is essentially a warning against democracy
I think it's entirely possible for the Christian community to exist in Liberal Democracy. So long as the Liberal social order allows them to practice as they will (which, apparently, they don't want that).
Kowani wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's entirely possible for the Christian community to exist in Liberal Democracy. So long as the Liberal social order allows them to practice as they will (which, apparently, they don't want that).
The liberal social order isn’t preventing Christians from practicing how they wish, at least in the West.
Novus America wrote:Joohan wrote:
Because Jesus preached a life of simplicity, zealous fervor in persecuting apostates ( picked up a whip to chase out money lenders ), made a point to go out of his way to convert people ( something totally at odds with liberalism's ideal of apathetic tolerance ), and the whole of his final journey into Israel up to golgotha is essentially a warning against democracy
Jesus chased the money lenders out of the temple as a private citizen.
He did not advocate continuing to go after them after the left the temple.
Did not advocate government action be taken against them.
Seeking converts is not a odds with a free society, religious freedom means the freedom to seek converts.
Sure there is a thing against mob rule, but Israel at the time was not remotely democratic.
Mob rule type stuff sucks, which is why we use a Constitutional Republic.
Nowhere does Jesus advocate a religious government on this earth. He actually rejects the idea.
Living a simple life is possible in a liberal and democratic society.
There are plenty of monasteries in the US.
Kowani wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's entirely possible for the Christian community to exist in Liberal Democracy. So long as the Liberal social order allows them to practice as they will (which, apparently, they don't want that).
The liberal social order isn’t preventing Christians from practicing how they wish, at least in the West.
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Again, I'm not talking about any of this.
Darussalam wrote:Pro-tip: make sure to read your source before linking them. If it's possible, do actually understand them and their context - contrary to what Salafis thought, you can't establish a practice as legitimately religiously ordained by relying on one hadith no matter its validity.
Darussalam wrote:It's known that the Prophet himself set different jizya for different communities - in some cases, it was presented in the form of collective tribute without regard on per-individual accounting, which would have been a difficult thing to do.
Darussalam wrote:Note also that four dinars and forty dirhams aren't always an equivalent which indicates the hadith can't be interpreted as an universal constant fixed rate - your failure to research this, likewise, tells me a lot about your discussion method.
Darussalam wrote:The next hadith, by the way, pretty much establishes this - there the Prophet levies jizyah at one dinar per individual.
Darussalam wrote:Islam is a faith with wealthy traditions and interpretations of many scholars - I couldn't care less about it, but even I'm concerned by your dumbed-down, poorly-researched understanding of it. And I'm afraid this has been a consistent trend among internet Salafis.
Joohan wrote:Kowani wrote:The liberal social order isn’t preventing Christians from practicing how they wish, at least in the West.
We wont stop you - but we are gonna surround you propaganda suggesting you to pursue anything but, and we're gonna try to drown you consumer goods and commercial responsibilities in order to distract you from doing it.
Not stopping you =/= supportive
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Darussalam wrote:You are. I do read your post above, and you quoted jizya as practiced by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (not to mention Umar ibn al-Khattab). Three out of four sources you mention are based on post-Prophethood practices.
Actually only the one where Umar Ibn 'Abdul-'Aziz mentioned, and the one Jolthig sent me is technically post-Prophethood, and even then, they are based on the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad SAWS.
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Hence why I quoted both.
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:This discussion about jizyah - stuff I (albeit vaguely) pointed out mean I understand everything poorly?
Joohan wrote:Novus America wrote:
Jesus chased the money lenders out of the temple as a private citizen.
He did not advocate continuing to go after them after the left the temple.
Did not advocate government action be taken against them.
Seeking converts is not a odds with a free society, religious freedom means the freedom to seek converts.
Sure there is a thing against mob rule, but Israel at the time was not remotely democratic.
Mob rule type stuff sucks, which is why we use a Constitutional Republic.
Nowhere does Jesus advocate a religious government on this earth. He actually rejects the idea.
Living a simple life is possible in a liberal and democratic society.
There are plenty of monasteries in the US.
If only mental gymnastics were a sport, you'd be an olympian.
Jesus chased out the money lenders as a private citizen: You're right; he took extrajudicial action in order to violently drive legal merchants from a premises which they had been welcomed at by the owners.
And considering Jesus is the model of how a Christian should lead his life....
In contemporary liberal societies - seeking converts is absolutely frowned upon: bans on religious garb, calls to tear down or remove religious iconography in public areas, scandanavian protective services taking children away when their parents teach them about Christ. This is not an affect so much of the liberal system of governance itself - rather the society it inevitably creates.
Liberalism is wholly dependent upon mob mentality. Trends and fashions have been what have defined liberal states from their inception. Riding the tides of trendy popular social movements is exacetly how one attains position in politics - not enlightened virtue.
#freeBarnabas
In regards to what is the ideal system of government, it's about what most supports and influences society toward Christian living. Liberalism permits Christian living, but doesnt support it - fostering a culture which actually fetishes hedonism and sin, making Christian living much harder.
Liberalism is permissive of Christian living, but not at all supportive: its secularism, materialism, apathetic tolerance, rationalism all in stark contrast to Christianity.
Joohan wrote:
We wont stop you - but we are gonna surround you propaganda suggesting you to pursue anything but, and we're gonna try to drown you consumer goods and commercial responsibilities in order to distract you from doing it.
Not stopping you =/= supportive
Joohan wrote:Kowani wrote:The liberal social order isn’t preventing Christians from practicing how they wish, at least in the West.
We wont stop you - but we are gonna surround you propaganda suggesting you to pursue anything but, and we're gonna try to drown you consumer goods and commercial responsibilities in order to distract you from doing it.
Not stopping you =/= supportive
Darussalam wrote:Joohan wrote:
We wont stop you - but we are gonna surround you propaganda suggesting you to pursue anything but, and we're gonna try to drown you consumer goods and commercial responsibilities in order to distract you from doing it.
Not stopping you =/= supportive
All this tells us is that social conservatism is doomed to failure. It's losing in elite and popular ground. Not only that it fails in the marketplace of ideas, it fails to capture social regulations. Movements that fashion themselves as the rising stars of the new right tend to be heralded by amoral hedonists. The only place where it's thriving is in the Orient, among Muslims. But Muslims suck at wars (they even suck at bombing, contrary to popular opinion), and people less socially conservative than Muslims seem to be pretty capable of bogging them down once they abandon certain liberal values. So what does it say about the future of social conservatism?