Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Cappuccina]

People talking about 'rights" not actually caring about these supposed "rights", big shock.

Wdym?

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

[Nakena]

Wdym?

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.

[Novus America]

State Atheism, which is essentially a religion in itself has proven to be just as oppressive as the worst religions. It is absolutely not a solution to religious radicalism.

[Napkizemlja]

Since religions survived the Stalinist era and communist Romania, continue to survive in the PRC and North Korea, Kowani's ideas are doomed to failure. People will just use their homes as places of worship, just as they do now in the PRC, North Korea, and in fundamentalist states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc) and other secret locations. It's also how Christianity survived and spread in Antiquity until it became socially tolerated. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc will just go underground just as they have in the past until society gets its head out of its ass.


This is also why utilitarians are dangerous since they often slip into brutal totalitarianism.

[Greater Adamsia]

Since religions survived the Stalinist era and communist Romania, continue to survive in the PRC and North Korea, Kowani's ideas are doomed to failure. People will just use their homes as places of worship, just as they do now in the PRC, North Korea, and in fundamentalist states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc) and other secret locations. It's also how Christianity survived and spread in Antiquity until it became socially tolerated. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc will just go underground just as they have in the past until society gets its head out of its ass.


This is also why utilitarians are dangerous since they often slip into brutal totalitarianism.

If I may, Kowani is only a utilitarian on a macro level, i.e. with regards to society. With regards to the self, he’s an egoistic hedonist. Ah, but I’m nitpicking, somewhat. I concur with your broader point, that religious practice will just go underground.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Which is French for secularism

Nope.

Laïcité ([la.i.si.te]), literally "secularity", is a French concept of secularism. It discourages religious involvement in government affairs, especially religious influence in the determination of state policies; it also forbids government involvement in religious affairs, and especially prohibits government influence in the determination of religion. However, laïcité doesn't preclude a right to the free exercise of religion. [1][2]

[Al Mumtahanah]

I don't know what secularism has to do with religious freedom, France is very secular yet cracking down on religious freedom.

Not every secular government grants religious freedom. But every government that grants religious freedom is secular.

That's false.

[Ohioan Territory]

Not every secular government grants religious freedom. But every government that grants religious freedom is secular.

That's false.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you give examples, then?

[Fahran]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you give examples, then?

Quakers?

[Greater Adamsia]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you give examples, then?

Quakers?

Ah, my home state. Founded on utopian ideals... which the state sadly has abandoned. Also, please visit PA, we need the tourism dollars, since the Commonwealth is fucking broke.

[Novus America]

Not every secular government grants religious freedom. But every government that grants religious freedom is secular.

That's false.

A religious government granting true religious freedom is extremely rare.
BTW if you criminalize apostasy you are not allowing religious freedom, regardless of if you allow other religions to exist as second class citizens.

[Greater Adamsia]

That's false.

A religious government granting true religious freedom is extremely rare.
BTW if you criminalize apostasy you are not allowing religious freedom, regardless of if you allow other religions to exist as second class citizens.

My home state and current state of residence, Pennsylvania, didn’t criminalize apostasy back in the colonial days, to my knowledge at least.

[Al Mumtahanah]

That's false.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you give examples, then?

Muslim states

[North German Realm]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you give examples, then?

Muslim states

There is literally no country, historical or modern, that has had its law based on Islam, that has respected -much less upheld- religious freedom. The very existence of law-based-on-religion is by its nature against religious freedom lmao.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Muslim states

There is literally no country, historical or modern, that has had its law based on Islam, that has respected -much less upheld- religious freedom. The very existence of law-based-on-religion is by its nature against religious freedom lmao.

Islam applies different laws to you depending on your religion, you follow the laws of your holy book or clergy.

[Duvniask]

There is literally no country, historical or modern, that has had its law based on Islam, that has respected -much less upheld- religious freedom. The very existence of law-based-on-religion is by its nature against religious freedom lmao.

Islam applies different laws to you depending on your religion, you follow the laws of your holy book or clergy.

And if my beliefs entail neither clergy nor a holy book?

[Al Mumtahanah]

Islam applies different laws to you depending on your religion, you follow the laws of your holy book or clergy.

And if my beliefs entail neither clergy nor a holy book?

You mean you're a moral relativist?

[Duvniask]

And if my beliefs entail neither clergy nor a holy book?

You mean you're a moral relativist?

I do not consider myself so, where did you get that impression?

[Al Mumtahanah]

You mean you're a moral relativist?

I do not consider myself so, where did you get that impression?

Because you don't have a moral system that is important enough for you to even write down

[Duvniask]

I do not consider myself so, where did you get that impression?

Because you don't have a moral system that is important enough for you to even write down

So are you going to answer my initial question, by the way?

And, as a moral realist I don't need to draw my morality from books, much less a single one.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Because you don't have a moral system that is important enough for you to even write down

So are you going to answer my initial question, by the way?

And, as a moral realist I don't need to draw my morality from books, much less a single one.

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

[North German Realm]

There is literally no country, historical or modern, that has had its law based on Islam, that has respected -much less upheld- religious freedom. The very existence of law-based-on-religion is by its nature against religious freedom lmao.

Islam applies different laws to you depending on your religion, you follow the laws of your holy book or clergy.

Even if that were not a bold-faced lie (as there is no such thing as "following the laws of your holy book or clergy" if you're not an Ahlulkitaab), it would only make Islam religiously pluralistic in terms of law (which is, of course, a bad thing in and of itself) and irrelevant to religious freedom, that is to say "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs."

Islam has never upheld religious freedom, because by its very nature it stands in its opposition.

[Novus America]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you give examples, then?

Muslim states

They absolutely do not.
Allowing a religious minority to exist, within 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.

[Duvniask]

So are you going to answer my initial question, by the way?

And, as a moral realist I don't need to draw my morality from books, much less a single one.

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?

[Al Mumtahanah]

Muslim states

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.