Egypt Plans to Remove Qur’ân From Curriculum

[The Archregimancy]

Western Christians... fucking up their Eastern co-religionists in the name of saving them since AD 1096.

To be fair, Eastern Christendom has also screwed over their Middle Eastern brethren through similar interventions.

Middle Eastern Christians are Eastern Christians. Even if I were to accept your basic contention that these 'similar interventions' are in any way equivalent - which I don't - they offer a sharp contrast to Western Christianity's history of frequently disastrous and usually counter-productive actions in the Eastern Mediterranean from the First Crusade all the way through to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Bush invasion of Iraq.

Western Christianity's attitude towards Eastern Mediterranean Christianity over the centuries has often seemed to combine elements of Arnaud Amalric's approach at the 13th-century assault on Beziers, and the American military's attitude at the Battle of Bến Tre. Caedite eos; novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.

But perhaps a topic for another thread; I'm not sure we want to combine an already reported genocide derail with a tangential handbags at dawn denominational bitchslap.

[Salus Maior]

Again, why is that necessary? I'm a practicing Muslim. Do you view Muslims and other religious people as threats to society inherently because of our faith, and our adherence to those books that you'd like to eliminate?

Yes you are right.I view each and every religious person as a threat to the society if they go about publicly displaying their religion.Why it has to be public ? Practise your religion inside your home and no one's gonna bother you,why show other people who or what you are ?
And I have no hard feelings against Muslims in particular. I hate every religious people,it doesn't matter if they are Muslims,Christians,Jewish,Hindus,Buddhists,each one of them.

Why not? Why should people bother me if I want to pray my rosary in public? What's it to you?

Ok, so you're a bigot. Good job.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Again, why is that necessary? I'm a practicing Muslim. Do you view Muslims and other religious people as threats to society inherently because of our faith, and our adherence to those books that you'd like to eliminate?

Yes you are right.I view each and every religious person as a threat to the society if they go about publicly displaying their religion.Why it has to be public ? Practise your religion inside your home and no one's gonna bother you,why show other people who or what you are ?
And I have no hard feelings against Muslims in particular.I hate every religious people,it doesn't matter if they are Muslims,Christians,Jewish,Hindus,Buddhists,each one of them.

What about religious festivals and gatherings?

[Punished UMN]

I'm not that familiar with German culture specifically, but I know that in many Western countries, cultural works extensively reference religion, and it seems unlikely that that's not the case with Germany historically.

C'mon you've studied history. What have Germans done historically except rape and pillage all of Europe and destroy more advanced civilizations than themselves

Fair enough

[Greater Cesnica]

I also question the need to eliminate religious beliefs. I'm a practicing Muslim myself. I don't consider myself to be a religious extremist or an Islamist in any sense. Let me practice my faith, and I'll respect your beliefs, and vice-versa.

There can be no meaningful compromise between people who have fundamentally divergent perspectives on what is good and righteous.

Get back to me on “tolerance” when my transgender friends don’t have to fear for their safety.

Have I personally contributed to that feeling of fear that your transgender friends experience? Stop lumping all religious people into one basket.

[Sannyamathland]

Yes you are right.I view each and every religious person as a threat to the society if they go about publicly displaying their religion.Why it has to be public ? Practise your religion inside your home and no one's gonna bother you,why show other people who or what you are ?
And I have no hard feelings against Muslims in particular. I hate every religious people,it doesn't matter if they are Muslims,Christians,Jewish,Hindus,Buddhists,each one of them.

Why not? Why should people bother me if I want to pray my rosary in public? What's it to you?

Ok, so you're a bigot. Good job.

Atleast I am not a religious bigot.I am an atheist,and it is far better to hate all religions than hating only a few of them.

[Insaanistan]

Why not? Why should people bother me if I want to pray my rosary in public? What's it to you?

Ok, so you're a bigot. Good job.

Atleast I am not a religious bigot.I am an atheist,and is far better to hate all religions than hating only a few of them.

Or you could just not hate them.

[Greater Cesnica]

Again, why is that necessary? I'm a practicing Muslim. Do you view Muslims and other religious people as threats to society inherently because of our faith, and our adherence to those books that you'd like to eliminate?

Yes you are right.I view each and every religious person as a threat to the society if they go about publicly displaying their religion.Why it has to be public ? Practise your religion inside your home and no one's gonna bother you,why show other people who or what you are ?
And I have no hard feelings against Muslims in particular.I hate every religious people,it doesn't matter if they are Muslims,Christians,Jewish,Hindus,Buddhists,each one of them.

You just can't stop, can you?

[Punished UMN]

Exactly.Not just eliminate but do every bit to ensure that the people do not discuss the contents of these books in the public.

That seems a bit extreme. In fact, I want people discussing the specific contents of these holy books more. Their self-evidentially outdated nature will make itself painfully obvious in the free marketplace of ideas.

Prohibition, generally speaking, is not how you pull people out of the clutches of organised religion. The Soviets tried for seven decades and look where they are now - former-Communist Eastern Europe is now the bastion of Christendom, of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox flavours, and is the European heart of the reactionary politics that is the inevitable result of that.

---

Define "eliminate all of them."

Change society in such a way as to minimise the number of people who believe in or are tempted to begin believing in any form of organised religion.

The means by which that can be achieved, though... I’m far less confident on that.

I also question the need to eliminate religious beliefs. I'm a practicing Muslim myself. I don't consider myself to be a religious extremist or an Islamist in any sense. Let me practice my faith, and I'll respect your beliefs, and vice-versa.

There can be no meaningful compromise between people who have fundamentally divergent perspectives on what is good and righteous.

Get back to me on “tolerance” when my transgender friends don’t have to fear for their safety.

Moral philosophy can't be "outdated" because there's no objective standard that changes through time. Trying to disprove religion by simply saying that it's ideas don't line up with mainstream ideas now doesn't disprove it, it may make it less popular, but wouldn't disprove it. And there are certainly things you could do that would be more productive in terms of disproving certain religions than to just say they're outdated as if that is a meaningful statement.

[Wallenburg]

It seems their dictator is just looking for more ways to control people. Not surprising.

[Salus Maior]

To be fair, Eastern Christendom has also screwed over their Middle Eastern brethren through similar interventions.

Middle Eastern Christians are Eastern Christians. Even if I were to accept your basic contention that these 'similar interventions' are in any way equivalent - which I don't - they offer a sharp contrast to Western Christianity's history of frequently disastrous and usually counter-productive actions in the Eastern Mediterranean from the First Crusade all the way through to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Bush invasion of Iraq.

Western Christianity's attitude towards Eastern Mediterranean Christianity over the centuries has often seemed to combine elements of Arnaud Amalric's approach at the 13th-century assault on Beziers, and the American military's attitude at the Battle of Bến Tre. Caedite eos; novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.

But perhaps a topic for another thread; I'm not sure we want to combine an already reported genocide derail with a tangential handbags at dawn denominational bitchslap.

I wouldn't say either Sykes-Picot or the Bush invasion have a strong connection to a Christian worldview, Western or otherwise. Certainly not compared to say, Medieval Catholic interest in recovering lands for Christendom or Tsarist attempts to liberate Orthodox communities from the Ottoman sultan.

[Greater Cesnica]

It seems their dictator is just looking for more ways to control people. Not surprising.

Indeed. This wasn't a good-faith move. Nothing from Sisi really is.

[Insaanistan]

Exactly.Not just eliminate but do every bit to ensure that the people do not discuss the contents of these books in the public.

That seems a bit extreme. In fact, I want people discussing the specific contents of these holy books more. Their self-evidentially outdated nature will make itself painfully obvious in the free marketplace of ideas.

Prohibition, generally speaking, is not how you pull people out of the clutches of organised religion. The Soviets tried for seven decades and look where they are now - former-Communist Eastern Europe is now the bastion of Christendom, of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox flavours, and is the European heart of the reactionary politics that is the inevitable result of that.

---

Define "eliminate all of them."

Change society in such a way as to minimise the number of people who believe in or are tempted to begin believing in any form of organised religion.

The means by which that can be achieved, though... I’m far less confident on that.

I also question the need to eliminate religious beliefs. I'm a practicing Muslim myself. I don't consider myself to be a religious extremist or an Islamist in any sense. Let me practice my faith, and I'll respect your beliefs, and vice-versa.

There can be no meaningful compromise between people who have fundamentally divergent perspectives on what is good and righteous.

Get back to me on “tolerance” when my transgender friends don’t have to fear for their safety.

Iran literally has transgender surgeries, which al-Azhar in Egypt supports. I know Atheists that are transphobic and homophobic.

[Greater Cesnica]

That seems a bit extreme. In fact, I want people discussing the specific contents of these holy books more. Their self-evidentially outdated nature will make itself painfully obvious in the free marketplace of ideas.

Prohibition, generally speaking, is not how you pull people out of the clutches of organised religion. The Soviets tried for seven decades and look where they are now - former-Communist Eastern Europe is now the bastion of Christendom, of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox flavours, and is the European heart of the reactionary politics that is the inevitable result of that.

---

Change society in such a way as to minimise the number of people who believe in or are tempted to begin believing in any form of organised religion.

The means by which that can be achieved, though... I’m far less confident on that.


There can be no meaningful compromise between people who have fundamentally divergent perspectives on what is good and righteous.

Get back to me on “tolerance” when my transgender friends don’t have to fear for their safety.

Iran literally has transgender surgeries, which al-Azhar in Egypt supports. I know Atheists that are transphobic and homophobic.

I think they're lumping in evangelicals in the United States with Muslims and other religious people broadly.

[Salus Maior]

Atleast I am not a religious bigot.I am an atheist,and it is far better to hate all religions than hating only a few of them.

So you admit you harbor irrational hatred of a group simply because they're in a group? Is this supposed to score you some kind of points somewhere?

Being an atheist doesn't mean you get a pass on being a bigot. Don't drag atheism through the mud just because of your own personal hangups.

[Greater Cesnica]

Atleast I am not a religious bigot.I am an atheist,and it is far better to hate all religions than hating only a few of them.

So you admit you harbor irrational hatred of a group simply because they're in a group? Is this supposed to score you some kind of points somewhere?

Being an atheist doesn't mean you get a pass on being a bigot. Don't drag atheism through the mud just because of your own personal hangups.

How ironic that Sannyamathland accuses us of extremism/bigotry...

[Sannyamathland]

That seems a bit extreme. In fact, I want people discussing the specific contents of these holy books more. Their self-evidentially outdated nature will make itself painfully obvious in the free marketplace of ideas.

Prohibition, generally speaking, is not how you pull people out of the clutches of organised religion. The Soviets tried for seven decades and look where they are now - former-Communist Eastern Europe is now the bastion of Christendom, of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox flavours, and is the European heart of the reactionary politics that is the inevitable result of that.

---

Change society in such a way as to minimise the number of people who believe in or are tempted to begin believing in any form of organised religion.

The means by which that can be achieved, though... I’m far less confident on that.


There can be no meaningful compromise between people who have fundamentally divergent perspectives on what is good and righteous.

Get back to me on “tolerance” when my transgender friends don’t have to fear for their safety.

Iran literally has transgender surgeries, which al-Azhar in Egypt supports. I know Atheists that are transphobic and homophobic.

Atheists are homophobic ?????!!! How can you say such a thing ? Atheists are fighting for these things only !

[Greater Cesnica]

Iran literally has transgender surgeries, which al-Azhar in Egypt supports. I know Atheists that are transphobic and homophobic.

Atheists are homophobic ?????!!! How can you say such a thing ? Atheists are fighting for these things only !

Atheists aren't one cohesive unit.

[Punished UMN]

Middle Eastern Christians are Eastern Christians. Even if I were to accept your basic contention that these 'similar interventions' are in any way equivalent - which I don't - they offer a sharp contrast to Western Christianity's history of frequently disastrous and usually counter-productive actions in the Eastern Mediterranean from the First Crusade all the way through to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Bush invasion of Iraq.

Western Christianity's attitude towards Eastern Mediterranean Christianity over the centuries has often seemed to combine elements of Arnaud Amalric's approach at the 13th-century assault on Beziers, and the American military's attitude at the Battle of Bến Tre. Caedite eos; novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.

But perhaps a topic for another thread; I'm not sure we want to combine an already reported genocide derail with a tangential handbags at dawn denominational bitchslap.

I wouldn't say either Sykes-Picot or the Bush invasion have a strong connection to a Christian worldview, Western or otherwise. Certainly not compared to say, Medieval Catholic interest in recovering lands for Christendom or Tsarist attempts to liberate Orthodox communities from the Ottoman sultan.

I think more the point Arch is making is that, historically speaking, Western Christians, even those in communion with Eastern Christians, tend to not truly regard Eastern Christians as co-religionists, and that thus the mindset during interventions is different. With something like the Tsarist interventions (which certainly weren't entirely benevolent), there was a sort of sense among the Russians that they did share some sort of commonality through religion with the minorities within the Ottoman Empire, whereas Catholics and Protestants historically have emphasized the supposed inferiority of Eastern Christianity.

[Sannyamathland]

Atleast I am not a religious bigot.I am an atheist,and it is far better to hate all religions than hating only a few of them.

So you admit you harbor irrational hatred of a group simply because they're in a group? Is this supposed to score you some kind of points somewhere?

Being an atheist doesn't mean you get a pass on being a bigot. Don't drag atheism through the mud just because of your own personal hangups.

I wouldn't call it irrational,history has proved me correct everytime...

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

It’s almost certainly not a good-faith move. This is the country that regularly disappears inconvenient journalists and has a runner-up in the presidential election that is openly subservient to the winner. A benevolent regime this is not.

That being said, I’m not going to denounce an action I agree with just because I dislike the people doing it or the reasons they’re doing it for. I approve when corporations dump money into charity-related PR campaigns - charity is charity - and I approve when a brutal dictator secularises education, too.

[Greater Cesnica]

That being said, I’m not going to denounce an action I agree with just because I dislike the people doing it or the reasons they’re doing it for. I approve when corporations dump money into charity-related PR campaigns - charity is charity - and I approve when a brutal dictator secularises education, too.

Fair. Just recognize the context too. Also, I don't appreciate you implying that I'm a transphobe (from earlier).

[Punished UMN]

It’s almost certainly not a good-faith move. This is the country that regularly disappears inconvenient journalists and has a runner-up in the presidential election that is openly subservient to the winner. A benevolent regime this is not.

That being said, I’m not going to denounce an action I agree with just because I dislike the people doing it or the reasons they’re doing it for. I approve when corporations dump money into charity-related PR campaigns - charity is charity - and I approve when a brutal dictator secularises education, too.

I would say a government's reasoning behind an action is important regardless of the action. For example, when Conservatives in the US propose that one must have a photo ID to vote, that by itself is certainly not a strange law or a particularly odious one, but when viewed in the context that the goal of said law is to limit the participation of political opponents in the system, certainly one must view it with suspicion.

[Salus Maior]

So you admit you harbor irrational hatred of a group simply because they're in a group? Is this supposed to score you some kind of points somewhere?

Being an atheist doesn't mean you get a pass on being a bigot. Don't drag atheism through the mud just because of your own personal hangups.

I wouldn't call it irrational,history has proved me correct everytime...

A very cherry-picked history I'm sure.

And yeah, hating people simply because they're in a group is irrational. You don't actually know anything about that person outside of one thing, and you've decided you hate them? Where's the logic in that? You don't know if they're innocent or guilty of anything, and yet you want to deprive them of livelihood and cause them to suffer?

Guess horseshoe theory is right. Cause that's not any different from what a Waffen-SS soldier thinks before they'd shoot a Jewish child into a mass grave.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

very interesting! i never would of thought this.