"Only God can judge me!" Religious debates rerun

[ecco]

Unfortunately, secularism very often becomes confused and conflated with amorality. To the degree that many "secularlists" think and espouse amorality as one of their highest ethical ideals.

Perhaps you can name some of those "secularlists" who think and espouse amorality as one of their highest ethical ideals.

We see this here on RF often in discussions about pornography and prostitution, where ANY implication of immorality is seen as outrageously unethical religious fanaticism.

You mean like in a thread where some religious conservatives condemned things like pornography and prostitution based on nothing more than their own prejudiced views?

You mean like in a thread where some religious conservatives wanted to ban things like pornography and prostitution based on nothing more than their own prejudiced views?

Well, if those proclamations are based primarily on the same religious prejudices that promoted Prohibition and purity rings, then yes, I would say they are based on outrageously unethical religious fanaticism.

 

[ecco]

Wonderful attempt at provocation. I assume you are addressing the onlookers?

She was addressing you. But her comment and your continued evasion are not missed by onlookers.

I explicitly said that I could debate what you said and implied that I will not debate it. Instead I explained to you the situation regarding banning hijabs.

It's quite clear that you prefer "explaining" over debating or discussing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just finished. It struck me as an extremely well done appeal to orthodoxy.

It is probably a video which target audience are Muslims. So I'm guessing it isn't "an appeal to orthodoxy" so much as an appeal to non-practicing Muslims to stop talking nonsense about Islam.

What does the phrase "appeal to reason" mean to you?

To me it means making an argument that relies upon a shared appreciation of reason. Similarly, to me an appeal to orthodoxy suggests an argument that relies upon a shared appreciation of a particular orthodoxy.

 

[ChristineM]

You can't mean that. I hope

Of course i mean it, its appears to be true

 

[ChristineM]

No. You brought up the question about the niqab — because you mistakenly thought I was referring to that earlier — though no one asked you and it has nothing to do with the topic. I explicitly said that I could debate what you said and implied that I will not debate it. Instead I explained to you the situation regarding banning hijabs. It was only then that you remembered that you think you know something about this topic and it would be fun to be condescending once more and talk empty talk.

You made the statement about religious clothing. No mistake there

You brought up the hijab, no mistake there

My contribution was veiling the face. Not specifically the hijab.

So please do not make up stuff and claim that i wrote it, there is evidence withing this thread, do you want post numbers?

Perhaps another apology is required? Or right, you don't do apologies when you are caught out misrepresenting someone do you?

 

[danieldemol]

I watched the video and I think you misunderstood it entirely. It is saying that Muslims need to enjoin the good and forbid evil and that "secular Muslims" don't do this.

If it says that it was wrong. Secular Muslims do strive to enjoin good and forbid evil, they are just less brainwashed about what constitutes good and evil.

If you're only reason that you forbid something is because a book written by primitives people said so you don't have much of a reason.

What the author really means is that they don't forbid what is evil according to an antiquated orthodoxy

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Secularism is irreligious.

Duh!

Religion is irrational -- is that so much better?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's worth noting that the "neutral" Secularism has begun banning some religious clothing.

If an omnipotent God wanted you in some special clothes -- you'd be in them coming out of the womb.

Why on earth would anybody imagine that God gives a hoot what you wear? This is the clearest possible evidence possible that all religion is created by humans, and reflects nothing but human notions.

For those who can't understand what I'm saying, let me point out the wolves, penguins, fish, potatoes, and everything else on this planet come covered appropriately as they should be, with what they need for their own survival. The idiotic notion that God wants you dressed with special aprons, or clothes made of only one fabric, or special face coverings for only half of you, or your head covered so He can't see in (as if!), is all just specious nonsense. And if you don't have the sense to understand that, you really cannot be all that bright.

 

[Rise]

If you believe that telling people music is haram will prevent violent society of course I will laugh at you, but it is completely within the scope of secular society for you to say that.

What is not within the scope of secular society is enshrining within law compulsion on people to follow your religion.

The ideal of secularism you talk about (your religious worldview having no influence over law) is impossible. It doesn't really exist and never has.
Because all law is derived from morality (if it claims to be a just law it claims to be based on moral truth).
And you cannot separate an individual's sense of what is moral (right or wrong) from what they believe about the world (ie. Religion, or lack thereof).

So your demand and expectation that someone should divorce their sense of religious morality from what they advocate is moral for society is unreasonable - and logically impossible if they really believe in what their religion teaches is moral.

To even make law from an anti-religious worldview is functionally no different than making law from a religious worldview. You're still "imposing" your unproveable atheistic worldview on others because you think it's true.

So I have to wonder why such a foundational principle of justice (ie secularism)

You will find no historical basis for your belief that secularism is required for justice, or that justice comes out of secularism.

English common law isn't based on it nor is US constitutional law.

The entire idea of secularism as the basis for a society doesn't appear outside of bloodbaths like the French revolution and various communist revolutions.

The idea of secularism is found in the soviet constitution as one of lenin's goals and the principles of marxism.

But their idea of secularism is not what you've been told secularism is.

Their idea of "separation of church from state" was that religion would be effectively removed from society by not being allowed to have influence over it. Ie. "You can have your private religious service, as long as you stay in the closet and don't try to change society based on your religion".

They didn't want competing moral views.

And that's what you unknowingly advocate for when you talk about how you think someone's religion shouldn't be allowed to influence what policies they advocate for on behalf of society.

At no point in english common law history prior to communism, or US constitutional history, was that ever the operating belief about how society should be ideally structured. And you will find nothing to support your belief that it was the foundation of those justice systems.

appears to be redefined to suit the self serving purposes of the religious whiner in the clip?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, but the premise underlying your conclusion is not true, as I pointed out above.


What he's pointing out is logically true. It makes no sense not to advocate for islamic morality if you believe in islamic morality. Just like it makes no sense not to advocate for atheistic based morality if you believe in atheism (like how the nazis claimed their eugenics program was morally right based on the atheistic idea of evolution and natural selection).

You might think islamic morality is destructive to your anglo-saxon western society that was built upon a protestant christian foundation (and I might agree with you there) - but if that's the case then you should rethink your position on letting people from all over the world migrate into your country who don't share your worldview, morals, and values. Either that or you're going to have to force them to give up their existing worldviews and be willing to adopt those your nation currently holds to. Otherwise you're going to have to accept them attempt to change what your society values, or overwhelming you in numbers eventually so you're forced to accept what they value.

If you're expecting them to let go of that and integrate into your society then you will have a hard time doing that honestly without also advocating they abandon islam.
Or, at the very least, you must advocate they adopt a toothless version of islam that doesn't actually follow or believe in what their ancestors did.
Because you can't logically expect them to not advocate for what they think is moral based on islam if they truly believe islam is true.

The left tries to have it both ways but they can't. You can't advocate for unchecked muslim migration into your country but also not demand those muslims do anything to assimilate into your culture by modifying what they belief (because that would be "offensive" to suggest they need to change) and then act surprised when they want to change what your country's laws are based on the values and worldview they imported.

You've got two options:
1. Keep your society's values and laws the same by preventing immigration from those who don't hold views compatible with your society. Or require that those who do immigrate be willing to give up their conflicting views in order to embrace what your society believes in.
2. Let them come in and let them retain their existing views. Which risks changing your country's values and laws over time if they are a minority. And if they become a majority then it guarantees your country's values and laws will change.

You can have one or the other, but you can't have both at the same time.

 

[Piculet]

If it says that it was wrong. Secular Muslims do strive to enjoin good and forbid evil, they are just less brainwashed about what constitutes good and evil.

If you're only reason that you forbid something is because a book written by primitives people said so you don't have much of a reason.

What the author really means is that they don't forbid what is evil according to an antiquated orthodoxy

You don't believe in Islam — we know. The video is for Muslims mainly, about people who say they are Muslims.

 

[Piculet]

come covered appropriately as they should be, with what they need for their own survival.

How do you explain winter clothes?

 

[Piculet]

What does the phrase "appeal to reason" mean to you?

To me it means making an argument that relies upon a share appreciation of reason. Similarly, to me an appeal to orthodoxy suggests an argument that relies upon a shared appreciation of a particular orthodoxy.

Then I misunderstood.

 

[Piculet]

It's quite clear that you prefer "explaining" over debating or discussing.

With those clearly ignorant, yes.

 

[danieldemol]

The ideal of secularism you talk about (your religious worldview having no influence over law) is impossible.

I don't think secularism argues that law does not come from the moral beliefs of the majority. What it argues is that you can't compel or force people to believe in a religion. So for example if the majority of folks in a society were Muslim it could be that the law would forbid listening to music, but it could not forbid people from converting away from Islam AND be secular.

To even make law from an anti-religious worldview is functionally no different than making law from a religious worldview. You're still "imposing" your unproveable atheistic worldview on others because you think it's true.

First of all I'm not an atheist FYI, I'm a liberal monotheist. Second of all imposing law on people is not the same as imposing a worldview on people. You don't have to believe in a law to follow it, so long as that law does not directly interfere with freedom of conscience.

The entire idea of secularism as the basis for a society doesn't appear outside of bloodbaths like the French revolution and various communist revolutions.

Whoever told you secular states are only communist was ignorant. What about secular states such as Australia or various places in Europe such as Sweden?

The idea of secularism is found in the soviet constitution as one of lenin's goals and the principles of marxism.

But their idea of secularism is not what you've been told secularism is.

Their idea of "separation of church from state" was that religion would be effectively removed from society by not being allowed to have influence over it. Ie. "You can have your private religious service, as long as you stay in the closet and don't try to change society based on your religion".

They didn't want competing moral views.

And that's what you unknowingly advocate for when you talk about how you think someone's religion shouldn't be allowed to influence what policies they advocate for on behalf of society.

I don't recall arguing that somones moral beliefs shouldn't be allowed to influence what policies they advocate for on behalf of society.

What he's pointing out is logically true. It makes no sense not to advocate for islamic morality if you believe in islamic morality. Just like it makes no sense not to advocate for atheistic based morality if you believe in atheism (like how the nazis claimed their eugenics program was morally right based on the atheistic idea of evolution and natural selection).

Evolution and natural selection are not an "atheistic" idea, they are a scientific idea followed by many believers and non believers.

You might think islamic morality is destructive to your anglo-saxon western society that was built upon a protestant christian foundation (and I might agree with you there) - but if that's the case then you should rethink your position on letting people from all over the world migrate into your country who don't share your worldview, morals, and values. Either that or you're going to have to force them to give up their existing worldviews and be willing to adopt those your nation currently holds to. Otherwise you're going to have to accept them attempt to change what your society values, or overwhelming you in numbers eventually so you're forced to accept what they value.

There is a lot more diversity in the left than what the right believes there is. I do not believe in letting people in who are opposed to free speech for example.

The left tries to have it both ways but they can't. You can't advocate for unchecked muslim migration into your country but also not demand those muslims do anything to assimilate into your culture by modifying what they belief (because that would be "offensive" to suggest they need to change) and then act surprised when they want to change what your country's laws are based on the values and worldview they imported.

I haven't argued for "unchecked Muslim migration".

 

[danieldemol]

You don't believe in Islam — we know. The video is for Muslims mainly, about people who say they are Muslims.

Amongst those who say they are Muslims are different types of Islam such as the more hadith based Islam of Middle East and North Africa ranging to more Quran centric interpretations in the west, and then to liberal Muslims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Duh!

Religion is irrational -- is that so much better?

Evidence, please.

 

[Piculet]

Amongst those who say they are Muslims are different types of Islam such as the more hadith based Islam of Middle East and North Africa ranging to more Quran centric interpretations in the west, and then to liberal Muslims.

I know that's important to you, but the problem is they don't follow the Quran. What the so called liberal ones do and what the hadith rejecter do as well, is what the Christians do with the Bible. They insist there is no one interpretation, that their faith is a "personal" matter ("in the heart") and that what anyone ever at anytime says about the Quran — if they don't like it — is not in the Qur'an.

Like homosexuality addressed in the Bible. You see multiple users on this forum apparently actually believing what they're saying when they say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex/marriage/sodomy/etc. No matter if someone quotes all of the Bible verses related to the topic, they will insist homosexuality and the practicing of it is permitted in every way, in the Bible.

It is no use engaging in debates with such people and we are advised not to do so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you explain winter clothes?

You did notice I was referring to animals, did you not? And while some change their plumage or fur from season to season, I am aware of none that makes clothes.

 

[ecco]

It's quite clear that you prefer "explaining" over debating or discussing.

With those clearly ignorant, yes.

That's not what you said when you wrote...

I explicitly said that I could debate what you said and implied that I will not debate it. Instead I explained to you the situation regarding banning hijabs.

It's apparent that you make up excuses for your refusal to debate. Perhaps the real reason is that you cannot support your position.

 

[Piculet]

That's not what you said when you wrote...


It's apparent that you make up excuses for your refusal to debate. Perhaps the real reason is that you cannot support your position.

If you think saying, "I disagree, but let's not debate that" as an excuse, have a blast.