NationStates

A m e n r i a wrote:Lmao since when is wanting others and oneself to be safe from divine wrath extremist?

Can you demonstrate with empirical evidence that this supposed “divine wrath” exists?

If I, hypothetically, have a vision tonight that people who wear purple cause natural disasters and start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple, the fact that I would be doing so with the best of intentions wouldn’t change that I would be insane for doing so.

If I start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple because some dude 1,400 years ago had a vision that purple causes natural disasters and dictated some books about it, I would be even more insane.

Society shouldn’t pretend that people’s silly doomsayer superstitions and fairytales about magical sky friends are some kind of legitimate concern that ought to be reflected in public policy.

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:Lmao since when is wanting others and oneself to be safe from divine wrath extremist?

Can you demonstrate with empirical evidence that this supposed “divine wrath” exists?

If I, hypothetically, have a vision tonight that people who wear purple cause natural disasters and start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple, the fact that I would be doing so with the best of intentions wouldn’t change that I would be insane for doing so.

If I start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple because some dude 1,400 years ago had a vision that purple causes natural disasters and dictated some books about it, I would be even more insane.

Society shouldn’t pretend that people’s silly doomsayer superstitions and fairytales about magical sky friends are some kind of legitimate concern that ought to be reflected in public policy.

And apparently A m e n r i a is the "rational" one lol.

Vassenor wrote:

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:A movement can be extremist in the methods it uses, but a movement can also be extremist in the beliefs that it espouses.

“People shouldn’t commit blasphemy” is religious extremism. If someone is advocating for extremist beliefs, then that someone is an extremist regardless of how peaceful the methods they use to spread that belief are.

"We disagree with the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes about Islam" is extremism now, apparently.

That's practically western liberal rhetoric right there. "Everything moral is extremism".

Stellar Colonies wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:

1.Cosmic laws applies everywhere, even in absolute shiteholes.
2. I mean, if you prefer hellfire, that's strange, but still, a state is responsible for it's people's afterlife. Leaders will be questioned on their people then.



Lmao since when is wanting others and oneself to be safe from divine wrath extremist?



"Wrong" isn't a view. Sins are objective. Rakib and Atid don't care about your opinions. And while I'd love for the world to be a Mahdian Islamic utopian theocracy, I'm fine with having human governments that tolerate all religions. I'm always respectful when visiting Taoist and Buddhist temples, why can't westerners be respectful to Muslims?

Secular law should override religious law, and usually does in a western democracy.

A state shouldn't force people into following a religion they do not believe, and nothing about Islam makes it more legitimate for being given such treatment as with others like Buddhism or Christianity.

1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

2. I agree, and God accepts different ways to reach Him. God probably wouldn't doom native Americans of the past to hell for eternity just because they never embraced Islam, for example. As for your second point, everything about Islam makes it more legitimate. We're the ones whose teachings come directly from Him, uncorrupted and untarnished.

Roegerland wrote:

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:Can you demonstrate with empirical evidence that this supposed “divine wrath” exists?

If I, hypothetically, have a vision tonight that people who wear purple cause natural disasters and start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple, the fact that I would be doing so with the best of intentions wouldn’t change that I would be insane for doing so.

If I start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple because some dude 1,400 years ago had a vision that purple causes natural disasters and dictated some books about it, I would be even more insane.

Society shouldn’t pretend that people’s silly doomsayer superstitions and fairytales about magical sky friends are some kind of legitimate concern that ought to be reflected in public policy.

And apparently A m e n r i a is the "rational" one lol.

Hey, I'm the Muslim. Also, no spaces needed, I just added spaces to my name because my earlier nation sucked.

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:Lmao since when is wanting others and oneself to be safe from divine wrath extremist?

Can you demonstrate with empirical evidence that this supposed “divine wrath” exists?

If I, hypothetically, have a vision tonight that people who wear purple cause natural disasters and start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple, the fact that I would be doing so with the best of intentions wouldn’t change that I would be insane for doing so.

If I start pestering everyone to stop wearing purple because some dude 1,400 years ago had a vision that purple causes natural disasters and dictated some books about it, I would be even more insane.

Society shouldn’t pretend that people’s silly doomsayer superstitions and fairytales about magical sky friends are some kind of legitimate concern that ought to be reflected in public policy.

1. haha divine wind go brr
2. Only if you're wrong
3. Exactly. This is why I want an Islamic state.

i'm speechless, tbh

A m e n r i a wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
"We disagree with the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes about Islam" is extremism now, apparently.

That's practically western liberal rhetoric right there. "Everything moral is extremism".

Stellar Colonies wrote:Secular law should override religious law, and usually does in a western democracy.

A state shouldn't force people into following a religion they do not believe, and nothing about Islam makes it more legitimate for being given such treatment as with others like Buddhism or Christianity.

1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

2. I agree, and God accepts different ways to reach Him. God probably wouldn't doom native Americans of the past to hell for eternity just because they never embraced Islam, for example. As for your second point, everything about Islam makes it more legitimate. We're the ones whose teachings come directly from Him, uncorrupted and untarnished.

1. Well, of course Human laws are flawed, although they're generally better than legal anarchy. Not addressing the second bit because it's based on a circular argument.

2. This is just the same circular argument, not addressing it either.

Stellar Colonies wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:
That's practically western liberal rhetoric right there. "Everything moral is extremism".



1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

2. I agree, and God accepts different ways to reach Him. God probably wouldn't doom native Americans of the past to hell for eternity just because they never embraced Islam, for example. As for your second point, everything about Islam makes it more legitimate. We're the ones whose teachings come directly from Him, uncorrupted and untarnished.

1. Well, of course Human laws are flawed. It's better than legal anarchy. Not addressing the second bit because it's based on facts and logic.

2. This is just the same facts and logic, not addressing it either.

Fixed. At least you acknowledge humanity's inherent imperfection, so that's an improvement.

A m e n r i a wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:1. Well, of course Human laws are flawed. It's better than legal anarchy. Not addressing the second bit because it's based on facts and logic.

2. This is just the same facts and logic, not addressing it either.

Fixed. At least you acknowledge humanity's inherent imperfection, so that's an improvement.

You're simply extending the logical fallacy...

This almost seems to be a deliberate joke.

A m e n r i a wrote:3. Exactly. This is why I want an Islamic state.

Well you're certainly not alone seeing that more British muslims joined ISIS than did the British Armed forces.

Roegerland wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:3. Exactly. This is why I want an Islamic state.

Well you're certainly not alone seeing that more British muslims joined ISIS than did the British Armed forces.

Allow me to rephrase my earlier statement. I want a real Islamic state. Not a big fan of the far-right who haramize everything remotely fun fyi.

Besides, they're probably in for more earthly reasons, not unlike people who leave the Mexican army for drug lord armies.

A m e n r i a wrote:1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

1. Because we have 70.000 books all claiming THEIRS is the only true will of said omniscient entity. And they disagree with eachother.
At least human laws can be evaluated on their merit in practice.

2. Because what is good for the Entity and the Universe is not necessarily good for us.

3. Because we are in puberty and rebelling

A m e n r i a wrote:1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

Can the omnipotent, omniscient almighty find the omnipotency to change his future mind?

Roegerland wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:3. Exactly. This is why I want an Islamic state.

Well you're certainly not alone seeing that more British muslims joined ISIS than did the British Armed forces.

And did you stop to ask -why- that might be rather than just making assumptions? Or for that matter what proportion of the 2,786,635-strong British Muslim population either sample represents?

The Alma Mater wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

1. Because we have 70.000 books all claiming THEIRS is the only true will of said omniscient entity. And they disagree with eachother.
At least human laws can be evaluated on their merit in practice.

2. Because what is good for the Entity and the Universe is not necessarily good for us.

3. Because we are in puberty and rebelling

1. Hey, all of them have some truth but only ours is the most accurate.
2. That's literally the opposite.
3. Eh, understandable.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:1. That's just stupid. Why should human laws, that are obviously flawed, be prioritized over laws from literally the entity that's omniscient?

Can the omnipotent, omniscient almighty find the omnipotency to change his future mind?

Honestly, nobody could answer this question. We haven't even explored the ocean completely, how do you hope to rationalize something so eldritch it's nothing like anything we have seen, or will ever see, or can even imagine?

A m e n r i a wrote:3. Exactly. This is why I want an Islamic state.

...and that fundamentally makes my point. This is what all religions build towards, in the end: a society built and run on religious law for the supposed “benefit” of everyone. So-called “moderates” also pull towards that direction, even if they pretend not to agree with that end.

---

The secular and religious ways of life are fundamentally incompatible, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

If we are to preserve the modern liberal-democratic system that we’ve spent a generation’s worth of blood to achieve, consequently, religious influence must be purged from society. Liberal society and a belief that fundamentally rejects every principle of liberalism cannot “tolerate” each other in any meaningful way.

Any protest against so-called “blasphemy” or “immorality” should be ignored. Any immigration from heavily religious countries should be conditional on the immigrants integrating into a secular way of life. Political arguments made on the basis of “God” or other such supernatural phenomena must be summarily rejected. No exceptions from regulations nor special considerations should be made on the basis of religious faith.

Above all, fundamental social and political rights should be prioritised over the delicate sensibilities of Christians, Muslims, etc.

A m e n r i a wrote:1. Hey, all of them have some truth but only ours is the most accurate.

In a singular person we would call this arrant egotism.

A m e n r i a wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Can the omnipotent, omniscient almighty find the omnipotency to change his future mind?

Honestly, nobody could answer this question. We haven't even explored the ocean completely, how do you hope to rationalize something so eldritch it's nothing like anything we have seen, or will ever see, or can even imagine?

I was taking a piss on the idea of supernatural beings with omnieverything characteristics, as imagined by Iron Age people living in Middle Eastern hovels terrified to their bones every time comet Halley came around.

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:3. Exactly. This is why I want an Islamic state.

...and that fundamentally makes my point. This is what all religions build towards, in the end: a society built and run on religious law for the supposed “benefit” of everyone. So-called “moderates” also pull towards that direction, even if they pretend not to agree with that end.

The secular and religious ways of life are fundamentally incompatible, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

---

If we are to preserve the modern liberal-democratic system that we’ve spent a generation’s worth of blood to achieve, consequently, religious influence must be purged from society. Liberal society and a belief that fundamentally rejects every principle of liberalism cannot “tolerate” each other in any meaningful way.

Any protest against so-called “blasphemy” or “immorality” should be ignored. Any immigration from heavily religious countries should be conditional on the immigrants integrating into a secular way of life. Political arguments made on the basis of “God” or other such supernatural phenomena must be summarily rejected. No exceptions from regulations or special consideration should be made on the basis of religion.

Above all, fundamental social and political rights should be prioritised over the delicate sensibilities of Christians, Muslims, etc.

1. True, this is why secularism is one of the biggest threats to humanity.
2. It's the opposite. Left alone, liberalism is a threat to civilization. Islam should permeate all aspects of life. God gave Islam not just for the mosque, but for humanity's own benefit in every facet of daily life.
3. "Social and political rights" is a flasehood. An illusion. A human construct. Obviously, we should prioritize what's real; God's cosmic laws and the afterlife.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:1. Hey, all of them have some truth but only ours is the most accurate.

In a singular person we would call this arrant egotism.

A m e n r i a wrote:

Honestly, nobody could answer this question. We haven't even explored the ocean completely, how do you hope to rationalize something so eldritch it's nothing like anything we have seen, or will ever see, or can even imagine?

I was taking a piss on the idea of supernatural beings with omnieverything characteristics, as imagined by Iron Age people living in Middle Eastern hovels terrified to their bones every time comet Halley came around.

No matter what you think, facts stay the same.

The idea of having my mores dictated to me by some Middle Eastern Iron Age men who couldn't even see the moons of Jupiter and thought comet Halley was the portent of the End Times is based on immense hubris and perhaps... just a little bit revolting.

So if I'm gathering things correctly, the school displayed inappropriate images of Muhammad, resulting in the parents of Muslim schoolchildren to protest against this depiction of Muhammad, and the school in response fires the teacher and admits that the image of Mohammad was indeed inappropriate... Okay then? The United Kingdom is a free, democratic nation with a clear showing that it is willing to discuss other religions to schoolchildren, a protest should be fine to have. The alleged death threats are of course extreme and should not be tolerated in polite society.

My opinion on all of this? The reactionaries have yet again searched for another "example" of another religion displaying concern about depictions of one of their holy figures. Did anyone die? Not that I could tell from the article or other comments here, as naturally the reactionaries would flock all over to that, drowning out any other details.

Yet another reason as to why the "culture war" is PATHETIC and if you're concerned by this, you need to either get off social media and look at REAL politics. or grow the fuck up. Oh BOO FUCKING HOO, WHY DO YOU CARE? Why not look at shit that actually matters instead of what mentally disabled gamers/social media addicts call """"""politics""""""?

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The idea of having my mores dictated to me by some Middle Eastern Iron Age men who couldn't even see the moons of Jupiter and thought comet Halley was the portent of the End Times is based on immense hubris and perhaps... just a little bit revolting.

Good. In Islam, your mores are dictated by none other by the one true God and no human.

A m e n r i a wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The idea of having my mores dictated to me by some Middle Eastern Iron Age men who couldn't even see the moons of Jupiter and thought comet Halley was the portent of the End Times is based on immense hubris and perhaps... just a little bit revolting.

Good. In Islam, your mores are dictated by none other by the one true God and no human.

If you think your God is the realest this time around that speaks volumes of the hubris of your arguments.

Engadine Mcdonalds 1997 wrote:So if I'm gathering things correctly, the school displayed inappropriate images of Muhammad, resulting in the parents of Muslim schoolchildren to protest against this depiction of Muhammad, and the school in response fires the teacher and admits that the image of Mohammad was indeed inappropriate... Okay then? The United Kingdom is a free, democratic nation with a clear showing that it is willing to discuss other religions to schoolchildren, a protest should be fine to have. The alleged death threats are of course extreme and should not be tolerated in polite society.

My opinion on all of this? The reactionaries have yet again searched for another "example" of another religion displaying concern about depictions of one of their holy figures. Did anyone die? Not that I could tell from the article or other comments here, as naturally the reactionaries would flock all over to that, drowning out any other details.

Yet another reason as to why the "culture war" is PATHETIC and if you're concerned by this, you need to either get off social media and look at REAL politics. or grow the fuck up. Oh BOO FUCKING HOO, WHY DO YOU CARE? Why not look at shit that actually matters instead of what mentally disabled gamers/social media addicts call """"""politics""""""?

The teacher hasn't actually even been fired. Just suspended.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:
Good. In Islam, your mores are dictated by none other by the one true God and no human.

If you think your God is the realest this time around that speaks volumes of the hubris of your arguments.

It's not hubris if it's factual.

A m e n r i a wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If you think your God is the realest this time around that speaks volumes of the hubris of your arguments.

It's not hubris if it's factual.

Billions of people said this very line throughout history. Every last one of them was wrong. What makes you special?

Vassenor wrote:

Roegerland wrote:
Well you're certainly not alone seeing that more British muslims joined ISIS than did the British Armed forces.

And did you stop to ask -why- that might be rather than just making assumptions? Or for that matter what proportion of the 2,786,635-strong British Muslim population either sample represents?

Because these people are all facts no context for anything that could pop their little bubble of comfortableness