Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[North German Realm]

TBH, you could probably annex most of those small holdings into already-existing states. America's Caribbean holdings could all be annexed into Puerto Rico if it was granted statehood, for example.

Where does American Samoa go?

Idk. I'd say Hawaii, if they weren't so far from each other.

[Novus America]

TBH, you could probably annex most of those small holdings into already-existing states. America's Caribbean holdings could all be annexed into Puerto Rico if it was granted statehood, for example.

Where does American Samoa go?

They should join with the COFA, Marianas and Guam to form a single, but highly decentralized state. We could call it the Commonwealth of the Pacific or something.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Because that's how Al-Islam works.

Why is that the case?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=462608&p=35813529#p35813529

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

What kinds of rights and freedoms are you talking about?

[Joohan]

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.

Liberal democracy is incompatible with most religions- modern muslims and Christian's usually have to pervert their own beliefs, or adopt apathy to accept liberalism.

[The South Falls]

If you're following the old testament there's no room for liberal democracy.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If you're following the old testament there's no room for liberal democracy.

If you're following many religions (well, the Abrahamic ones mostly) there's no room for liberal democracy.

[Joohan]

If you're following the old testament there's no room for liberal democracy.

Same with the new testament

[Novus America]

If you're following the old testament there's no room for liberal democracy.

Same with the new testament

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.

[Joohan]

Same with the new testament

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]

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

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).

[Novus America]

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

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]

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).

The liberal social order isn’t preventing Christians from practicing how they wish, at least in the West.

[Salus Maior]

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.

Then what's the deal with the "Catholic Spring"?

[Joohan]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Again, I'm not talking about any of this.

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.

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. 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. 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. The next hadith, by the way, pretty much establishes this - there the Prophet levies jizyah at one dinar per individual.

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.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Again, I'm not talking about any of this.

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.

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.

Good thing I don't accept aHaadith regardless of their validity.

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.

Source?

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.

I know that 4 dinars and 40 dirhams aren't equivalent to modern currency. This is also the 1st time I've come across any currency for jizyah

The next hadith, by the way, pretty much establishes this - there the Prophet levies jizyah at one dinar per individual.

Hence why I quoted both.

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.

This discussion about jizyah - stuff I (albeit vaguely) pointed out mean I understand everything poorly?

[Darussalam]

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

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?

[Darussalam]

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.

The first and the last narrated the policy of jizyah during the reign of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, after the Prophet's death. This left us with one remaining hadith, which narrated a different rate from one you recommend "according to the Sunna", ironically.

Hence why I quoted both.

So they're not at a fixed rate. Then how are we supposed to know it's just a 'tax' and not actually discriminatory, levied equally with zakat? After all, we do have a fixed rate of all form of zakat.

This discussion about jizyah - stuff I (albeit vaguely) pointed out mean I understand everything poorly?

A recurring trend not limited to this but yes. 5-minute Google Fu of sahih hadiths is a poor way to understand Islam. For good or bad, you're doing a disservice to the faith.

[Novus America]

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.

Jesus was against religious institutions being corrupt. But again not for any actions against those outside the premises. Again Jesus did not pursue them after they left.
And actually went quite easy on them. Did not seem to seriously harm or imprison them.
I believe the lesson there is to drive the corrupt from the church.

Liberal states do not require unrestricted mob rule, most have limits on it.

French and Scandinavian laïcité (which I oppose) is very different than the US version of secular religious freedom. And Christianity thrived in the US up until the 80s.

Yes liberalism is permissive but not supportive. But that is all you need.
If you ideas can win in a permissive but not supportive environment that is the fault of you, not the environment.

[Conserative Morality]

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

"We want to preach but not be preached to"

10/10

[Novus America]

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

Being supportive is not required for something to survive even thrive.
The “propaganda” you speak of is not from the government generally.
It is from private society. You just have to create your own, better propaganda which you have ever right to do.

Blaming modern society on the failure of modern Christianity is incorrect. Christianity has failed on its own internal problems. The failure to sell itself.

It is interesting that in the US while many churches are failing, some are thriving.

People still want the sense of community and purpose a church can provide.
The failure is the churches that have not realized how to communicate that.

Bad music and an hour long lecture is not going to excite people. Keep them around.
People want a church they actually enjoy going to, that offers more than just a Sunday mass.
That actually feels like a community.

If your ideas fail because you fail to communicate and convince people, that is your failure.
In a marketplace of ideas you win by showing your ideas are better.
If your community fails to attract and retain members it is a bad community.

Sitting back and complaining people are not joining your church when you drive people away instead of bringing people in, is counterproductive.

Instead of begging the government to subsidize you, make your church the place people want to go. Show them why it is good. How it benefits them.
If you do that your church will thrive. If you do not your church will fail.

Ah yes, Christianity cannot survive in a secular state
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening

[Joohan]

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?

That it's a dead movement that deserves to die for it's failure and succumbing to decadence.

[Novus America]

Actually if a church wants to succeed it should be sending its priests to business and marketing schools, not just a theology school.
I wonder what would happen if the church required all priests to get an MBA with a concentration in marketing.