NationStates

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Novus America wrote:
They absolutely do not.
Allowing a religious minority to exist, which in strict confines is not religious freedom.
Penalize apostasy (but only for one religion, Christians in Muslim states can not punish apostates who convert to Islam), you grossly violated religious freedom.

The state funds mosques yet strongly restricts the ability of Christians to build churches? Also violates religious freedom.

Of course also Atheists get nothing either, not even second class citizenship.

Strict confines? Christians have served in Muslim government.

Nakena wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:I think I misread, tbh. Kowani apparently doesn't believe in rights? Wtf is he arguing for then?

Fully Automated Gay Space Communism.

So I have been told.

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

Kowani wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Fully Automated Gay Space Communism.

So I have been told.

I need a better name for that...

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

We should ban Islamists tbh

Duvniask wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:If you can't articulate a moral code others can depend on you to follow, there's a problem.

Nowhere did I say that I, or others like me who spend way more time thinking about these matters, couldn't articulate a moral code, just that there's no great, holy work from which such a moral code could be extrapolated.

Now, answer me this, what's my religious freedom under the Islamic state you speak so fervently in favor of?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

We should ban Islamists tbh

Novus America wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

And in most cases you would not get even get that. Second class status is only reserved to certain religions. In most cases Buddhism does not make the list.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Nowhere did I say that I, or others like me who spend way more time thinking about these matters, couldn't articulate a moral code, just that there's no great, holy work from which such a moral code could be extrapolated.

Now, answer me this, what's my religious freedom under the Islamic state you speak so fervently in favor of?

I would say you don't have a religion.

Nakena wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
We should ban Islamists tbh

Indeed. However oddly enough theres still some right-wingers who have an fondness for islamist integralism over the so-called "Globohomo"

Novus America wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Why does it always seem like there's an Islamist on RWDT trying to convince us all that we actually have Islamism totally wrong and should enthusiastically accept second class status?

And in most cases you would not get even get that. Second class status is only reserved to certain religions. In most cases Buddhism does not make the list.

Novus America wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
We should ban Islamists tbh

Certainly we should ban them from immigration. We have long banned certain groups like Communists from immigration, why not do what we did to Communists in the 50s but do it to Islamists?

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Kowani wrote:
I need a better name for that...

Post-scarcity civilization?

Cappuccina wrote:I disagree with Al Mumtahanah, "religious freedom" is a western secular (aka atheist) concept which is alien to and non-existent in Islam (as it should be).

A Muslim state has no need for 'religious freedom" and Muslim relationships with unbelievers is governed by scripture. God (swt) had already layed out for us how to govern and how to behave, musings of unbelievers are irrelevant.

Novus America wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:I would say you don't have a religion.

Religious freedom includes the right to have no religion. Or your own.

Nakena wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
We should ban Islamists tbh

Indeed. However oddly enough theres still some right-wingers who have an fondness for islamist integralism over the so-called "Globohomo"

Bear Stearns wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Certainly we should ban them from immigration. We have long banned certain groups like Communists from immigration, why not do what we did to Communists in the 50s but do it to Islamists?

Our immigration policy used to pretty sensible, and we'd ban people most likely to cause trouble. This included:
-Communists
-Anarchists
-Criminals
-Alcoholics
-Drug addicts
-Crippled
-Diseased
-Mental cases
-Anti-social people
-The lazy

The point of Ellis Island was to screen for these people.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Certainly we should ban them from immigration. We have long banned certain groups like Communists from immigration, why not do what we did to Communists in the 50s but do it to Islamists?

Our immigration policy used to pretty sensible, and we'd ban people most likely to cause trouble. This included:
-Communists
-Anarchists
-Criminals
-Alcoholics
-Drug addicts
-Crippled
-Diseased
-Mental cases
-Anti-social people
-The lazy

The point of Ellis Island was to screen for these people.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Indeed. However oddly enough theres still some right-wingers who have an fondness for islamist integralism over the so-called "Globohomo"

You mean all four of them? Find me a normal American right-winger or even alt righter whoa actually likes Islam.

Bear Stearns wrote:-Crippled

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Our immigration policy used to pretty sensible, and we'd ban people most likely to cause trouble. This included:
-Communists
-Anarchists
-Criminals
-Alcoholics
-Drug addicts
-Crippled
-Diseased
-Mental cases
-Anti-social people
-The lazy

The point of Ellis Island was to screen for these people.

Define "mental cases", if you don't mind of course.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

Novus America wrote:
And in most cases you would not get even get that. Second class status is only reserved to certain religions. In most cases Buddhism does not make the list.

Not true, Buddhists were classified as people of book. So were Hindus

Kowani wrote:

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
Post-scarcity civilization?

Not bad.

Cappuccina wrote:I disagree with Al Mumtahanah, "religious freedom" is a western secular (aka atheist) concept which is alien to and non-existent in Islam (as it should be).

A Muslim state has no need for 'religious freedom" and Muslim relationships with unbelievers is governed by scripture. God (swt) had already layed out for us how to govern and how to behave, musings of unbelievers are irrelevant.

I swear, the greatest enemies of Muslims are Muslims themselves.