Defending Secularism against Religious Incursions

[icehorse]

I would have been happier if you had chosen to retire your dog whistle.

I'm asking for some Jay-approved terminology here. Imagine some religious extremists (you pick the denomination), were to take actions that you felt were undermining secularism. What term would you use?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

But like climate change, you can't see their claims. It's a lie, a scheme, backed up by falsified interpretation of mountains of data. So I don't think we're getting anywhere, you have an unwavering faith in the incorruptibility of the scientific community. Much like in days of old people believed the pope and his church were infallible.

Incorrect. The data and research is publicly available.

YOU just choose to not look into their claims from firsthand sources because you do not want them to be true.

 

[Augustus]

So I'll ask again, what is the word for the Christian body of law that would be in place in a Christian theocracy?

There isn't one.

Outside of perhaps the Byzantine Empire there haven't really been any Christian theocracies, and even there you have a very different situation than a formal body of laws derived directly from scriptures.

Christian theocracy is not really a thing that has much of a precedent.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's debatable.

Thanks for explaining that the other two issues were understated.

How is beating up a smaller human, debatable?

Seriously? Hitting a kid is abuse. Period. Studies after studies show that it's ineffective as a training method; the message the child receives is almost never the one intended.

And that is assuming the one doing the hitting, is not simply acting out of anger or other emotional response. All too often the case...

Do you hit a puppy, to "train" it? No? Why not? Isn't it ... "debatable"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Islamophobia is a term used to describe unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims. I don't think a person is an islamophobe for disagreeing or criticizing Islam,but if a person hates me and is hostile because I'm a muslim than yes that person is an islamophobe.

With the key word being "unfounded". Of course.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Critics who criticize ideas of Islam are simply called islam critics.

Yet... in many Islamic-run societies, cultures and neighborhoods, these critics are subject to murder just as often as those labeled "Islamophobes"...

A fact I always found ... interesting.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

" A term used to describe unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."

Unfounded.

What is the word for well-supported fear of what Muslims are doing to one's neighborhood/town/city... country?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There isn't one.

Outside of perhaps the Byzantine Empire there haven't really been any Christian theocracies, and even there you have a very different situation than a formal body of laws derived directly from scriptures.

Christian theocracy is not really a thing that has much of a precedent.

What would you consider Vatican city? Theocratic elected monarchy is the term I usually here. Albeit not necessarily a pure Christian theocracy.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What would you consider Vatican city? Theocratic elected monarchy is the term I usually here. Albeit not necessarily a pure Christian theocracy.

I always found it most amusing that the pope was ... elected. It's as if they cannot get a direct and meaningful answer from the god they purport to follow...

It seems to me, that tossing the dice, or perhaps shuffling a deck of cards, would be just as "godly"....

 

[Sakeenah]

Yet... in many Islamic-run societies, cultures and neighborhoods, these critics are subject to murder just as often as those labeled "Islamophobes"...

A fact I always found ... interesting.

I don't agree with threatening someone who criticizes my beliefs. Please explain how European and American citizens who happen to be Muslim are responsible for what Muslims on the other side of the world. We are discussing terms that are used to explain discrimination against Muslims in the West.

with the key word being..the West

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't agree with threatening someone who criticizes my beliefs. Please explain how European and American citizens who happen to be Muslim are responsible for what Muslims on the other side of the world. We are discussing terms that are used to explain discrimination against Muslims in the West.

with the key word being..the West

Oh, I'm glad you asked: the reason you *are* responsible?

Is that you all use the same book!

You claim your book does not encourage violence against non-muslims. Yet... people *just* as sincere as you, follow that exact same book, and say it commands them to murder people who dare criticize your "prophet".

But what's worse... is the silence from so-called "moderates" whenever we read about islamic violence against folk-- even muslim-on-muslim violence--- the silence is loud.


If you wish to be considered separate from those others? You must change your book to actually say what you claim it says--instead of what it actually says...

 

[Sakeenah]

Oh, I'm glad you asked: the reason you *are* responsible?

Is that you all use the same book!

You claim your book does not encourage violence against non-muslims. Yet... people *just* as sincere as you, follow that exact same book, and say it commands them to murder people who dare criticize your "prophet".

But what's worse... is the silence from so-called "moderates" whenever we read about islamic violence against folk-- even muslim-on-muslim violence--- the silence is loud.


If you wish to be considered separate from those others? You must change your book to actually say what you claim it says--instead of what it actually says...

Interesting, so you believe that if an extremist threatens a non muslim all 1.6 bilion muslims are responsible. I'm curious do you apply the same rule to non-Muslims. For example if an atheist extremist threatens a muslim? I mean all the atheists in the world share the lack of belief in God.
A dutch white male spat at me, does that mean every dutch white male in the world is responsible? They all are dutch,white and male.

I hope you get my point, I don't believe that the majority is responsible for the acts of a minority.
Yes we believe in the same book but we don't interpret it the same way. The violent extremists take verses out of context and interpret it a way that suits their political agenda.

Muslim communities and organizations are not silent, you just don't hear about it in mainstream media, it's not controversial so it's not newsworthy. There are many mosques that work together with the local government and police to prevent radicalization. There are lectures in mosques,universities by muslim organizations and mosques on extremism. Muslim scholars have online lectures on extremist and why it is against the teachings of Islam. I would say Google " muslims against terrorism" and you'll see that muslims aren't silent but mainstream media is.

 

[Sakeenah]

Unfounded.

What is the word for well-supported fear of what Muslims are doing to one's neighborhood/town/city... country?

Let me think for a second, I think I remember the word, it's a bit of a long word!

"StopGeneralizingandDoSomeResearch"

 

[crowfeather]

Maybe nobody else noticed the irony of atheists, camped out on a religious forum, which would appear to indicate that atheism is a religion, vehemently complaining about religious incursions against secularism.

This has been a Public Service Broadcast.

Maybe we all might try a bit of that ol' tolerance-thing people so love to whack everybody else but themselves with.
Then again, maybe not.

 

[Glaurung]

What would you consider Vatican city? Theocratic elected monarchy is the term I usually here. Albeit not necessarily a pure Christian theocracy.

The King of Vatican City is actually a different office than that of the Bishop of Rome. It's just that those roles are always held by the same person as Vatican City is the remaining temporal territory of the very church which the Pope heads. Vatican City is a theocracy only insofar as it is the headquarters of the Church.

I always found it most amusing that the pope was ... elected. It's as if they cannot get a direct and meaningful answer from the god they purport to follow...

Apostolic succession means that there will always be a valid pope. (And this is promised by Christ in Matthew 16:18). However, who happens to be pope and whether or not that pope is any good depends on us. Christ established the Church, not the particulars of how the Church is organised.

And from another perspective as Hilare Belloc puts it.

"The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."

But by all means, if bashing the Church if it makes you fell all intellectual like...

 

[Notanumber]

What do you call someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

She is my kind of Muslim and I wish there were many more like her.

I don’t do Twitter but I am going to have to start following her - Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@Ayaan) | Twitter

She provides a link that sums up the double standards that Western feminists maintain - Western Feminists Snub an Iranian Heroine

Australia is trying to tackle the citizenship problem - Speak English, respect our values: Turnbull reveals tough new citizenship crackdown

 

[Augustus]

What would you consider Vatican city? Theocratic elected monarchy is the term I usually here. Albeit not necessarily a pure Christian theocracy.

By definition it is a state ruled by a 'Divinely guided' cleric thus a theocracy, although not necessarily ruled by a distinct 'Christian Law' that is identifiable from other forms of European Law.

I didn't mention that as the Vatican/Papal states are very much an anomaly due to specific circumstance which is not really generalisable. The extent of their independence and the degree to which they have been ruled by the Pope is also debatable.

But, yes, technically theocracies.

 

[icehorse]

Interesting, so you believe that if an extremist threatens a non muslim all 1.6 bilion muslims are responsible.

I don't. But about 1/3-1/2 of the world's Muslims believe things that are consistent with Islamic scripture. The term I've heard for such Muslims is "Islamist".

As I understand it, EVERY Muslim MUST believe that:

- the Quran is the perfect, timeless, unlalterable word of god
- Muhammad was the perfect role model

By far the most natural conclusions to draw from these fundamentals is that Muslims' beliefs are in conflict with universal human rights and secularism. Now I understand that that's not the case for many Muslims, but you have to do mental gymnastics in order to hold BOTH the scripture AND modernity as important. It must be possible, but it's a fundamentally dishonest stance.

Now imagine, if a group of Muslims were to stand up and say something like: We're a new denomination of Islam and we declare that the Quran and Muhammad's life must be considered in the context of 8th century desert life. We acknowledge that aspects of the Quran and of Muhammad's life must now be officially retired.

This would be an open and honest and TRUSTWORTHY stance.

 

[icehorse]

Maybe we all might try a bit of that ol' tolerance-thing people so love to whack everybody else but themselves with.

There are many forces threatening the planet these days. Sadly, religious extremists (primarily Christian and Muslim), are among the most concerning of these threatening forces. If such extremists weren't so worrying, I wouldn't worry too much about religion. But these two Abrahamic religions are a real threat to the survival of the species.

Maybe nobody else noticed the irony of atheists, camped out on a religious forum, which would appear to indicate that atheism is a religion, vehemently complaining about religious incursions against secularism.

You appear to have an unusual definition of religion, can you say more?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Interesting, so you believe that if an extremist threatens a non muslim all 1.6 bilion muslims are responsible. I'm curious do you apply the same rule to non-Muslims. For example if an atheist extremist threatens a muslim? I mean all the atheists in the world share the lack of belief in God.

False dichotomy. Which is a logical fallacy. Do atheists all share the same BOOK?

A book which literally calls for the DEATH of no-believers? No?

Do Muslims share such a book? Yes.

Until you change your book-- and strip out or put a disclaimer on the passages that call for the DEATH of people who do not slavisly follow your book?

You are indirectly responsible for all the evil that book inspires. You keep promoting a book which commands it's readers to murder.