Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolepgeek]

I don't consider people thinking that their religious law should be actual law are unreasonable. I think they're wrong, but I don't find it to be an unreasonable thing for someone to want.

And shariah law/quranic law has specific parts intended for non-believers, mostly relating to economic and criminal law and the penalties involved.

Jailing women for getting an abortion is also barbaric. See how many people in my country think that should be the case. Refusing to acknowledge birth control as an option results in how many thousands of young women getting pregnant before they're in a situation to support a child? Jail systems where you can't even get medical care as a pregnant teenager, and dying after less than thirty days is barbaric. Maybe you and I just have different frames of reference.

[Sergarr]

Maybe you and I just have different frames of reference.

Yes, most definitely. This is the excellent example of the Overtone Window in effect - for me, it's simply unthinkable that a religious law can overturn a governmental one - all people are under one law, after all; but in your country, it's something which is widely considered as being possible.

It is why I believe that giving in to the Sharia law (and any other kind of fundamentalist religious/ideologic law, in fact - I do not condone Christians when they try to force their ancient laws on the secular society, at all), no matter how limited, would have a horrible effect simply because it would shift the definitions of what's acceptable and what's not - and it would shift it in a very bad direction. So it's better to just stop that altogether, in my opinion - to prevent what you've said was happening in your country from happening in mine, and in all its neighbours.

[Rolepgeek]

This has never not been the case in America.
Also, implementing a democratic religious government might be a lot more helpful than trying to institute a secular democratic government, in terms of stability, in those countries where the majority of the population wants religious law anyway and would just vote it into effect as soon as you let them.

And if you don't let them, then it's not exactly a democracy, is it? It's foreigners forcing their values on the country.

[Orange Wizard]

And if you don't let them, then it's not exactly a democracy, is it? It's foreigners forcing their values on the country.

Screw democracy, western secularism is objectively superior

[misko27]

Guys, it looks like the coup is failing. Don't get too excited.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Guys, it looks like the coup is failing. Don't get too excited.

Evidence?

[WealthyRadish]

And if you don't let them, then it's not exactly a democracy, is it? It's foreigners forcing their values on the country.

Screw democracy, western secularism is objectively superior

From what I've read about post-colonial or communist states from WWII forward, before a stable secular and democratic state can be made, it requires international/domestic security, a successful industrialized economy, above-average education, and political sophistication that satisfies the people's beliefs without appealing mostly to religion or ethnic conflict. If any of these aren't met by the first 20 years or so after independence, the state is usually doomed to flounder in cycles of dictatorship and corruption that is extremely difficult to recover from. Secularism isn't necessary to fulfill any of those requirements, nor is a functional democracy (in fact it's often been a hindrance), but if they're all met, suddenly ideas such as secularism and democracy have real natural appeal and material benefit, which is what's really needed for the people to want it enough to demand and hold onto it.

The difficulty is that these countries are dominated by autocrats who devote the vast majority of their energy to the first item in that list, and typically have no motivation to develop education and the economy when the state can fund itself on oil or mineral exports instead of a developed economy. The result is that a large disgruntled populace is left with 19th century political ideals of simple nationalism and religious morality, making democracy unworkable (even if the people in charge wanted it to work), let alone a modern secular democracy. I also wouldn't read too much into those figures about most muslims wanting Sharia law; muslims who live under the Islamist governments that seriously implement Sharia law instead of just paying lip service to it sing a very different tune. It's a bit like people voting for Brexit and then regretting it, only replace "voting for Brexit" with "getting murdered by the Taliban".

[hector13]

Guys, it looks like the coup is failing. Don't get too excited.

Evidence?

Erdogan came home; upset at army's irresponsibility during the empty

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

It looks like a war of words now for all sides

[Orange Wizard]

You want to ban an ideology? That's kinda totalitarian.

Neo-nazies and other white racists agree with you.

I'm pretty sure anyone who values freedom of expression will agree with me

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You want to ban an ideology? That's kinda totalitarian.

Neo-nazies and other white racists agree with you.

I'm pretty sure anyone who values freedom of expression will agree with me

Do you know who likes unlimited freedom of expression the most? One who plan to totally destroy it once they come to power.

[Orange Wizard]

Okay, hang on. I think your argument's asinine but we should probably work through this properly.

First, how is banning an ideology in any way not totalitarian?

Second, why does this not conflict with your assertion:

I sound like a guy who thinks that totalitarian ideology like Islam should be banned in any civilized country

... that Islam should be banned because it is totalitarian?

[Sheb]

Ok, Germany bans Nazism now. Is the BRD a totalitarian state?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Okay, hang on. I think your argument's asinine but we should probably work through this properly.

First, how is banning an ideology in any way not totalitarian?

Second, why does this not conflict with your assertion:

I sound like a guy who thinks that totalitarian ideology like Islam should be banned in any civilized country

... that Islam should be banned because it is totalitarian?

Let's start with a definition of what totalitarianism is. When I say totalitarianism I mean

the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

Under this definition enforcing one ideology is totalitarian , banning one\few of them is not.

Do you have some other definition of the world? When we discuss politics and various isms we better be sure that we are speaking about the same things.

[hops]

(removed)