Egyptians & Supporters of Egypt's Constitution

[Meow Mix]

Ok, I'll try to explain this further. But first let me ask you this...
When is someone's opinion not an acceptable opinion?

Only when it's internally or externally inconsistent, illogical (in that it contains a logical error), or fallacious -- then it's wholly objectionable.

It can be a valid opinion, albeit disagreed with, if it's "merely" morally objectionable or otherwise is based on different values than the listener.

Do you feel as though I haven't accepted your opinions? Friend, I am just something of a pedantic debater -- I will split hairs for the sake of it just to satisfy my love of the sport (though I do feel as though my hair splitting is still constructive, or I wouldn't do it). I assure you it's in good fun only, that it's friendly, and that I have an open mind to differing backgrounds and opinion. That doesn't mean I won't express disagreement, and why I disagree.

 

[cocolia42]

Do you feel as though I haven't accepted your opinions? Friend, I am just something of a pedantic debater -- I will split hairs for the sake of it just to satisfy my love of the sport (though I do feel as though my hair splitting is still constructive, or I wouldn't do it). I assure you it's in good fun only, that it's friendly, and that I have an open mind to differing backgrounds and opinion. That doesn't mean I won't express disagreement, and why I disagree.

No no, I'm much like you. Sometimes I will even argue on the side I disagree with just for the sake of debate. As long as it stays respectful (which you always are) then it's all good

Only when it's internally or externally inconsistent, illogical (in that it contains a logical error), or fallacious -- then it's wholly objectionable.

It can be a valid opinion, albeit disagreed with, if it's "merely" morally objectionable or otherwise is based on different values than the listener.

You are basically saying that what makes someone's opinion acceptable or not is based on your own opinion. And since we all have our own opinion, man will never be able to have a system that everyone feels is fair towards them.
By following God's law instead of man's, we don't have to worry about who is right or wrong because God is always right. (of course, if you don't believe in God, you'll have a different opinion )

On the topic of oppression, you assume that people will be oppressed under sharia law. Someone not being able to do what they want to do, whether you think they have a "right" to do it or not, is not oppression. Oppression is someone not being able to do what someone else is able to do.

So, to go back to your question of the Divine Religions mentioned in the Egyptian constitution...
By God's command we are to worship Him, the God of Abraham. Therefore, anyone who worships the God of Abraham, regardless of how they perform that worship, is given the freedom to worship Him as they see fit. Anyone who worships someone/something other than the God of Abraham may not be given such freedom. This is not oppression because the law does not give people the right to practice religion, it gives people the right to worship the God of Abraham. Make sense?

 

[Meow Mix]

No no, I'm much like you. Sometimes I will even argue on the side I disagree with just for the sake of debate. As long as it stays respectful (which you always are) then it's all good

Indeed, and likewise

You are basically saying that what makes someone's opinion acceptable or not is based on your own opinion. And since we all have our own opinion, man will never be able to have a system that everyone feels is fair towards them.
By following God's law instead of man's, we don't have to worry about who is right or wrong because God is always right. (of course, if you don't believe in God, you'll have a different opinion )

On the topic of oppression, you assume that people will be oppressed under sharia law. Someone not being able to do what they want to do, whether you think they have a "right" to do it or not, is not oppression. Oppression is someone not being able to do what someone else is able to do.

So, to go back to your question of the Divine Religions mentioned in the Egyptian constitution...
By God's command we are to worship Him, the God of Abraham. Therefore, anyone who worships the God of Abraham, regardless of how they perform that worship, is given the freedom to worship Him as they see fit. Anyone who worships someone/something other than the God of Abraham may not be given such freedom. This is not oppression because the law does not give people the right to practice religion, it gives people the right to worship the God of Abraham. Make sense?

I understand the notion in terms of understanding what it's supposed to be, but imagine a debate in America before the Civil Rights movement:

(Black and white couple): We're being oppressed, why can't we marry one another?

(Same ethnic couple): But you're not being oppressed -- we can't marry someone of a different ethnicity either!

According to your definition of "oppression," the inter"racial" couple isn't actually being oppressed since no one else has the right to marry someone from a different ethnic background either...

...but isn't it still so obviously a form of oppression?

Or consider Madeupland where hijab is forbidden for everyone, such that if a Muslimah says, "I'm oppressed for being unable to cover my hair!" and someone else says, "Ah, but NONE of us are allowed to do so, so you aren't oppressed!"

Is that not oppression?

Am I looking for a different word? I think of "oppression," and "systemic discrimination," and "injustice," though I already suspect we have different definitions of justice (yours being based on a particular theistic coda, mine being based on fairness and freedom).

To go back to your original question, I accept your opinion as a valid one, I just disagree with it on ethical grounds in this case.

One of your strong points is:

And since we all have our own opinion, man will never be able to have a system that everyone feels is fair towards them.

It might be true that, say, a psychopath might say "But my opinion is that it's just fine to rape and murder, so this system is unfair to me."

You propose what you believe to be Allah's will as an arbiter for decision, but I don't find that to be an ethical choice considering the lack of justification for its truth (not to get into theism vs. atheism here, just listing it among the reasons) and because there is a different arbiter that societies can agree to and operate on: whether or not there is involuntary harm consciously involved.

If involuntary harm, consciously inflicted, is the line in the sand, then pretty much everyone wins: people are able to worship as they see fit, love whom they will, participate in what activities they will, and so a vast range of culture and mindsets can coexist amicably.

Indeed, rapists, murderers, thieves, and others who cause harm might find it unfair -- but as you pointed out, there needs to be a line in the sand for a functioning society. You've offered one version of that line, but with the line you favor, people like me would be miserable our entire lives.

I would rather die than be unable to openly live in loving monogamy with my fiancee, yes, another woman -- I'm fond of enjoying alcohol with friends on public balconies and patios, and wearing shorts, and being able to express my opinions about religions and yes, even Islam. In "your world," this life wouldn't be worth living for me.

But in "my world," nothing would happen to you: you'd still be able to worship as you see fit. You'd be able to abstain from things you believe Allah forbids you. In your world, I lose. But in my world, we both win.

So why can't we all win, besides people who believe they can choose violence?

This goes back to my point about "not using force against someone isn't the same thing as supporting their actions." If your friend was going to a bar and invited you, you wouldn't chain her to a rail to keep her from going. You'd express your disagreement with the principle and explain why you don't believe it's a good thing for you, and maybe even why you might possibly believe it's bad for her. But you wouldn't use FORCE against her.

But you do propose using force in exactly that way when you talk about inflicting Sharia on non-Muslims simply because they were born in the wrong country. Isn't that a discrepancy?

If what Allah wants is a concern, is it your fault that you warned your friend not to go to the bar, but she did it anyway? Are you culpable for not tackling her and holding her down? I wouldn't think so -- do you believe Allah would hold you culpable?

If Allah alone can be the judge of your friend, then why can't Allah alone be the judge of the rest of us, and you (general you, for instance as a nation state you) can abstain from using force against us as long as we aren't harming other people? (For instance, obviously, it's fair game to use force against drunk driving, etc.)

 

[cocolia42]

I understand the notion in terms of understanding what it's supposed to be, but imagine a debate in America before the Civil Rights movement:

According to your definition of "oppression," the inter"racial" couple isn't actually being oppressed since no one else has the right to marry someone from a different ethnic background either...

...but isn't it still so obviously a form of oppression?

No, it's not a form of oppression by itself. When we talk about the civil rights movement, we keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal." Therefore, to say that a white man can marry a white woman, but a black man cannot marry a white woman, removes that equality. Therefore, it is oppression.

Or consider Madeupland where hijab is forbidden for everyone, such that if a Muslimah says, "I'm oppressed for being unable to cover my hair!" and someone else says, "Ah, but NONE of us are allowed to do so, so you aren't oppressed!"

Is that not oppression?

If the law forbids the wearing of hijab AND does not proclaim freedom of religion, than it is not oppression. If the law proclaims freedom of religion, then it would be oppression.

If involuntary harm, consciously inflicted, is the line in the sand, then pretty much everyone wins: people are able to worship as they see fit, love whom they will, participate in what activities they will, and so a vast range of culture and mindsets can coexist amicably.

Again, this is open to opinion. What you consider harm and what I consider harm are not the same thing.

Indeed, rapists, murderers, thieves, and others who cause harm might find it unfair -- but as you pointed out, there needs to be a line in the sand for a functioning society. You've offered one version of that line, but with the line you favor, people like me would be miserable our entire lives.

Let's suppose that 8% of the adult population of Madeupland get together to rally for lowering the age of consent to 13 years old. They are a minority, but they could argue that 13 year olds are willfully having sex already, so the age of consent should be lowered so that these adults can legally have consenting sex with 13 year olds. What does your line say about that?

But in "my world," nothing would happen to you: you'd still be able to worship as you see fit. You'd be able to abstain from things you believe Allah forbids you. In your world, I lose. But in my world, we both win.

Again, that's a matter of opinion as we would not agree on what "winning" is. "Winning" to me is not about being able to do what I want, when I want, where I want, how I want, with whom I want.

This goes back to my point about "not using force against someone isn't the same thing as supporting their actions." If your friend was going to a bar and invited you, you wouldn't chain her to a rail to keep her from going. You'd express your disagreement with the principle and explain why you don't believe it's a good thing for you, and maybe even why you might possibly believe it's bad for her. But you wouldn't use FORCE against her.

But you do propose using force in exactly that way when you talk about inflicting Sharia on non-Muslims simply because they were born in the wrong country. Isn't that a discrepancy?

No, it's not a discrepancy...

If what Allah wants is a concern, is it your fault that you warned your friend not to go to the bar, but she did it anyway? Are you culpable for not tackling her and holding her down? I wouldn't think so -- do you believe Allah would hold you culpable?

Allah holds leaders culpable. It is a LEADER's responsibility to LEAD the people in God's way. My responsibility is only to set an example and remind others when they go astray.

If Allah alone can be the judge of your friend, then why can't Allah alone be the judge of the rest of us, and you (general you, for instance as a nation state you) can abstain from using force against us as long as we aren't harming other people? (For instance, obviously, it's fair game to use force against drunk driving, etc.)

Allah alone is the judge of everyone. He judges our actions and our intentions. And we were given a responsibility to help others. Part of this is to remind others of what Allah expects from the.