|
420 Gank Mid posted:How is a state where the Head of Government and the Head of Church are not only the same person, but has a recognized separation of State-Religion members and Religious Minorities as citizens/subjects with different rights, anything other than Theocracy? It was secular for it's time, secular compared to its historic peers. You can't take concepts like secular and tolerant out of their historic context. If you do, you will get weird poo poo like 18th century USA being an oppressive& undemocratic shithole by modern definitions of 'democratic'. Also, modern China has a highly effective and uncorrupted bureaucracy, by the standards of the bronze age.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Are you talking about pretty much every Protestant fiefdom in Germany during the 16th/17th century? Yes, there were (and a small few remain) Theocracies in Europe. Leofish posted:The Queen is still technically the Head of State... Yes but David Cameron is the Head of Government and as far as I know he isn't required to wear a silly hat and burn a Papist every Sunday or whatever the hell WASPs do Not every government without strong separation of church and state is a theocracy. A government with the legal framework of religious apartheid where any given citizen's legal identity is founded primarily on their religion as perceived by the state. The Millet system was without a doubt more humane than most historical examples but it still qualifies, and the Ottoman Sultan not being recognized by every single Muslim is of no more consequence than saying not every Christian recognizes the Bishop of Rome. Papal Italy (and the modern Vatican) was still a theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Why isn't a life without religion something we should strive for? I'm not a Hitchens-esque, Internet atheist - I understand the very real and valid reasons people choose to be religious, some of which have been pointed out in this very thread: a sense of community, a way to explain complex or unexplainable phenomena, etc. and the contributions religion and religious people have made to science and society. But there's very real reasons why people choose to be racist, too, for example. There's real and valid reasons that people choose to be afraid of Obama and liberals. Does that mean we shouldn't endeavor to overcome that? Why not work towards a secular world in all respects?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why isn't a life without religion something we should strive for? I'm not a Hitchens-esque, Internet atheist - I understand the very real and valid reasons people choose to be religious, some of which have been pointed out in this very thread: a sense of community, a way to explain complex or unexplainable phenomena, etc. and the contributions religion and religious people have made to science and society. Striving for it is one thing, I agree we should. But freedom of belief and freedom of choice is another that we must respect, and its part of why Dawkins/Hitchens kinda irk me, because they burn far too many bridges with moderates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why isn't a life without religion something we should strive for? I'm not a Hitchens-esque, Internet atheist - I understand the very real and valid reasons people choose to be religious, some of which have been pointed out in this very thread: a sense of community, a way to explain complex or unexplainable phenomena, etc. and the contributions religion and religious people have made to science and society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:For one thing, religion doesn't inherently gently caress up society the way racism does. I guess that depends on how you define "gently caress up".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why isn't a life without religion something we should strive for? I'm not a Hitchens-esque, Internet atheist - I understand the very real and valid reasons people choose to be religious, some of which have been pointed out in this very thread: a sense of community, a way to explain complex or unexplainable phenomena, etc. and the contributions religion and religious people have made to science and society. That's fine, but don't expect it to solve the problems we have with violence. Religion is a convenient way to unite people into an in-group with shared political goals and justify violence, but secular ideologies can do that job just as well. Currently religion is what's providing that in the Middle East, but nationalism has played that role as well. In the 1920's you could have said the opposite: the Ottoman Caliphate was tolerant of minorities but replace the religious book that compels them to tolerate minority cultures with nationalism and everyone goes crazy genociding each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
You're right, but I think nations have much better tools to deal with that than religions do. Nations are also far more flexible - abortion went from being illegal to legal, and slaves went from being commonplace to illegal at relative warp speed compared to the ways religions change. No one's saying that Nazi Germany wasn't powerful or that it wasn't as dangerous (or more dangerous) than the most powerful religions. But (virtually) nobody's a declared Nazi now, the ideology has been destroyed. Can't say that about the influence of popular religions. Just being secular doesn't make everything a happy fairy funtime land, but it allows infinite agility and flexibility compared to Catholicism or Islam. Radbot fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You're right, but I think nations have much better tools to deal with that than religions do. Nations are also far more flexible - abortion went from being illegal to legal, and slaves went from being commonplace to illegal at relative warp speed compared to the ways religions change. Uh what. It's the other way around. Catholic Missionaries fought against the Spanish Crown's enslavement of the Native Americans from the very beginning of colonization, the Pope banned it in the 16th Century, people stubbornly persisted with it for economic reasons. Pope Paul III posted:.The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good... Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty... Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery... Religions don't magically make people good or bad or resistant to change or not. Religions can be quick to embrace new ideas or slow. Atheists are perfectly capable of irrational rejection of the scientific method (Deutsche Physik, or Lysenkoism anyone?). Come to think of it, abortion is another example of religion changing quickly to adapt to political realities (in a bad way): abortion didn't become a sin for American Evangelicals until the late 70s as part of the Republican Moral Majority gambit, a dogma manufactured in just 15 years to create a solid voting base for regressive policies after civil rights shattered the New Deal coalition. And it wasn't just a generational thing either, you had the same people reverse themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#Protestant_denominations posted:Former Southern Baptist Convention President W.A. Criswell (1969-1970) welcomed Roe v. Wade, saying that “"I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed." This was a common attitude among evangelicals at the time. Criswell would later reverse himself on his earlier position. TLDR: You're oversimplifying humanity, culture, and religion quite a bit
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You're right, but I think nations have much better tools to deal with that than religions do. Nations are also far more flexible - abortion went from being illegal to legal, and slaves went from being commonplace to illegal at relative warp speed compared to the ways religions change. good thing far-right ideology has been destroyed, i'd be getting pretty nervous right now otherwise!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:good thing far-right ideology has been destroyed, i'd be getting pretty nervous right now otherwise! I agree that it's far better far-right ideology remain just that, an ideology, versus a religion or state. You can't kill ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
This is sketchy, although looking at WebBank, it seems like it might be a bank loan rather than a random transfer.quote:EXCLUSIVE - A $28,500 deposit was made to Syed Farook’s bank account from WebBank.com on or about Nov.18, some two weeks before he and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out the San Bernardino massacre, a source close to the investigation told Fox News Monday. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ml?intcmp=hpbt4
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why isn't a life without religion something we should strive for? I'm not a Hitchens-esque, Internet atheist - I understand the very real and valid reasons people choose to be religious, some of which have been pointed out in this very thread: a sense of community, a way to explain complex or unexplainable phenomena, etc. and the contributions religion and religious people have made to science and society. If we get to the point where we're living in a post-scarcity Star Trek society, maybe then life will be simple and palatable enough for most so that they don't turn to things like conservativism and organized religion to water it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
So it turns out they radicalized very early on and they probably did have contacts with ISIS or affiliates. Pretty scary poo poo, weird that there doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing it here while topics like thin privilege get pages of posts per day. I mean, it's not like no info came out in the past couple days, there's been lots of new news on it. Anyway, if this happens again before Iowa it's going to be a very interesting republican primary and general election. I wonder which is more scary for people, Paris style attacks by Jihadist foreigners or people that would have been considered completely ordinary until the shooting unleashing a meticulously planned operation with no one, including their family, apparently smelling a wiff of something going on. Probably the latter is much worse when you consider the anti-Islam side of the equation. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Pretty scary poo poo, weird that there doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing it here while topics like thin privilege get pages of posts per day. oh wow another shooting in the states so interesting
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:I wonder which is more scary for people, Paris style attacks by Jihadist foreigners or people that would have been considered completely ordinary until the shooting unleashing a meticulously planned operation with no one, including their family, apparently smelling a wiff of something going on. Probably the latter is much worse when you consider the anti-Islam side of the equation. All jihad is scary, Troika, whether its mass-style jihadist attacks, or self-radicalized small-town jihadis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:So it turns out they radicalized very early on and they probably did have contacts with ISIS or affiliates. Pretty scary poo poo, weird that there doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing it here while topics like thin privilege get pages of posts per day. I mean, it's not like no info came out in the past couple days, there's been lots of new news on it. Anyway, if this happens again before Iowa it's going to be a very interesting republican primary and general election. The latter happens literally every other day in America. People did really care in April of 1999, but it's just one of those things now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:So it turns out they radicalized very early on and they probably did have contacts with ISIS or affiliates. Pretty scary poo poo, weird that there doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing it here while topics like thin privilege get pages of posts per day. I mean, it's not like no info came out in the past couple days, there's been lots of new news on it. Anyway, if this happens again before Iowa it's going to be a very interesting republican primary and general election. except the paris attacks were done by french/European nationals too. they just had direct funding/oversite/training from isis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Whoops.quote:Contrary to previous reports that suspected San Bernardino mass shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik posted their support for jihad on social media, the FBI announced Wednesday that the pair, in fact, did not. The agency's chief, James Comey, told the media on Wednesday that the couple only established their jihadi support in private emails and messages. "We have found no evidence of a posting on social media by either of them," Comey reportedly said. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/12/16/fbi-san-bernardino-shooters-didn-t-post-jihad-support-on-fb.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:All jihad is scary, Troika, whether its mass-style jihadist attacks, or self-radicalized small-town jihadis. Lol if you're living in the United States and you're more scared of spooky Muslims beheading you instead of anti-social white boys shooting up your workplace. FuriousxGeorge posted:Whoops. Aaaaand the odds of anybody in the rightwing Dome of Fear and Panic taking any sort of notice of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:except the paris attacks were done by french/European nationals too. they just had direct funding/oversite/training from isis. If they received funding from Daesh, I expect people to ask, with the same vehemence they have against refugees, to block international financial transactions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Where did those reports come from in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:51
|
|
