Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Secular democracy
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418141 is a reply to message #417834] |
Thu, 21 January 2010 06:12   |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Turkey is doomed...it's days as a secular state are numbered as the military doesn't have enough support amongst the people to overthrow the government while the latter pisses on Atatürk's grave.
Applaud the Swiss for not giving a fuck about political correctness when it comes to Islam. Any chance of Cameron having the balls to put an end to this appeasement madness? Of all the grand European parties, the tories should in theory be at the forefront of doing something...it's really puzzling how the situation is worse in the UK than in the supposedly pacifist, dastard Germany.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418186 is a reply to message #418143] |
Fri, 22 January 2010 11:33 |
 |
slosha
Messages: 1540
Registered: September 2008
Location: North Dakota FTW
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
It's strange how any of those American laws were established in the first place.
The road I cruise is a bitch now, baby.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418190 is a reply to message #418186] |
Fri, 22 January 2010 11:53 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ireland has become the latest in the list of countries that have passed stricter anti-blasphemy legislation in the recent past. In June of 2009, new blasphemy legislation was smuggled into the Irish legal system under the guise of defamation law reform.
Under this proposed law, if a person expresses one belief about gods, and other people think that this insults a different belief about gods, then these people can become outraged, and this outrage can make it illegal for the first person to express his or her beliefs. [13]
|
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, are they serious?...
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418195 is a reply to message #418191] |
Fri, 22 January 2010 12:35 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Fri, 22 January 2010 13:04 |
Many of them stem from a time where it was more acceptable.
|
"more acceptable" as far as religion is concerned, since it was much more powerful at the time and could get away with pretty much anything. thankfully it's lost a lot of its power.
| Quote: |
A lot of laws are not repealed. I remember reading a case where someone offered to settle a dispute (In the UK) via a "Trial by combat", an old right that is exactly as it sounds. 
|
look up the chancel repair law tbh
| Quote: |
At any rate, before anyone is led astray - I'm a leader with the Scout Association, and in the UK (And thus it should be the case globally) that there is no such rule preventing athiests becoming Scouts - the guidance reads simply that "Scouts should be aware that there is a spiritual side to life".
|
yeah, it's really just in the states. the penn and teller bullshit episode on boyscouts is worth watching imho.
| nikki wrote |
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, are they serious?...
|
yep. if i may roughly quote pat condell. ireland is a country that has been literally raped by religion, and now they've made a law saying you can't criticise it. talk about stockholm syndrome.
free speech be damned... now the person being spoken to can just decide they're offended and boom, law broken.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418198 is a reply to message #418186] |
Fri, 22 January 2010 12:49 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Glock~ wrote on Fri, 22 January 2010 19:33 |
It's strange how any of those American laws were established in the first place.
|
What's hilarious is that they're still in heavily Democrat states (you know, the ones that are apparently not religious nazis, unlike those evil nasty Republicans)
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418202 is a reply to message #418198] |
Fri, 22 January 2010 13:22 |
|
slosha
Messages: 1540
Registered: September 2008
Location: North Dakota FTW
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 22 January 2010 13:49 |
| Glock~ wrote on Fri, 22 January 2010 19:33 |
It's strange how any of those American laws were established in the first place.
|
What's hilarious is that they're still in heavily Democrat states (you know, the ones that are apparently not religious nazis, unlike those evil nasty Republicans)
|
| FreeThought |
All laws against atheists holding office were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable by the 1961 Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins on a first amendment basis
|
The road I cruise is a bitch now, baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418239 is a reply to message #418198] |
Sat, 23 January 2010 01:30 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 22 January 2010 11:49 |
| Glock~ wrote on Fri, 22 January 2010 19:33 |
It's strange how any of those American laws were established in the first place.
|
What's hilarious is that they're still in heavily Democrat states (you know, the ones that are apparently not religious nazis, unlike those evil nasty Republicans)
|
Apart from Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas (All very heavy Republican states), the others are all amongst the original 13 colonies, which means the laws likely originated from a time before either party existed, and every politician was an evil nasty religious nut by today's standards. I don't see what you're trying to observe here.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418266 is a reply to message #417834] |
Sat, 23 January 2010 10:44 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Anybody care to look up the figures on elected officials who are atheists or agnostics... or, for that matter, anything besides Christians or Jews? Up until only a few decades ago, even Jewish politicians would have been in for a hell of a fight trying to get elected anywhere in the US. If anybody's taken their history lessons on this side of the pond, they'll recall that John F Kennedy's religion (Catholic) was a major issue during his election. Plenty of people opposed the guy just because he wasn't a Protestant Christian.
Good luck ever putting a non-Christian of any flavor in the Oval Office. Religion is a heavy unwritten requirement to hold the office of President. Should it be? Fuck no. Yet there are enough people out there who would oppose any non-religious candidate on the grounds that he (or she, to be fair) would "destroy the moral fabric of the nation." The US doesn't have an established religion, huh? Please. We just don't have it in (Federal) writing. What do our elected officials swear on when they take office? A Bible. What do witnesses swear on before testifying in court? A Bible. Just in the past century, "In God We Trust" was put on all our currency. The Pledge of Allegiance was rewritten to include "under God." When somebody makes a public stink and asks for either to be changed back, the media reports the issue as if the way it is now is the way it has always been.
Bottom line, religious freedom in the US is marginal at best. You're free to believe what you want, but unless you believe what the majority wants you'll never be elected, and you'd better not have a problem with swearing to God either. With regards to any essential freedom, the freedom from something is just as important as the freedom to it. If the majority decides not to elect a politician on the basis of their beliefs, that is their right (which doesn't make it right that they do so, but that's a different thread). However, all too often the politicians who do get elected then go on to write policies and laws which favor one religion over another, and that simply isn't right.
Rant done. I'm outta this thread before the real flaming starts.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Secular democracy [message #418270 is a reply to message #418266] |
Sat, 23 January 2010 11:44 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| SS wrote |
Any chance of Cameron having the balls to put an end to this appeasement madness? Of all the grand European parties, the tories should in theory be at the forefront of doing something...
|
no, the only notable british political party who takes islam seriously is the BNP, who are a racist party. i did consider voting for them in the past - their policies are better than labour and the tories' - but i can't bring myself to.
| Quote: |
it's really puzzling how the situation is worse in the UK than in the supposedly pacifist, dastard Germany.
|
well, seems like modern german politicians would do anything they could to avoid thinking that they're persecuting a religious minority.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Sat, 23 January 2010 11:44 |
Anybody care to look up the figures on elected officials who are atheists or agnostics... or, for that matter, anything besides Christians or Jews?
|
i remember reading a while ago that there was a grand total of one man in congress (california i think) who is openly atheist.
| Quote: |
Up until only a few decades ago, even Jewish politicians would have been in for a hell of a fight trying to get elected anywhere in the US. If anybody's taken their history lessons on this side of the pond, they'll recall that John F Kennedy's religion (Catholic) was a major issue during his election. Plenty of people opposed the guy just because he wasn't a Protestant Christian.
|
yeah, i knew that.
| Quote: |
Good luck ever putting a non-Christian of any flavor in the Oval Office. Religion is a heavy unwritten requirement to hold the office of President. Should it be? Fuck no. Yet there are enough people out there who would oppose any non-religious candidate on the grounds that he (or she, to be fair) would "destroy the moral fabric of the nation." The US doesn't have an established religion, huh? Please. We just don't have it in (Federal) writing. What do our elected officials swear on when they take office? A Bible. What do witnesses swear on before testifying in court? A Bible. Just in the past century, "In God We Trust" was put on all our currency. The Pledge of Allegiance was rewritten to include "under God." When somebody makes a public stink and asks for either to be changed back, the media reports the issue as if the way it is now is the way it has always been.
|
entirely true; i've said all this myself.
| Quote: |
and you'd better not have a problem with swearing to God either.
|
there was a british guy, an atheist - i forget his name - elected to the house of commons who objected to taking the british MP oath since it swears to the christian god. he was basically told that he had to say it. i find this rather ridiculous... religious people would rather have an atheist swear an oath he doesn't mean, than make an honest oath.
i keep hearing about british politicians saying how they must always remember that they're accountable to a "higher power" (usually when they're caught fucking up, e.g. expenses scandal). i feel like slapping them. yes, they are answerable to a power that put them there... their constituents.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 23:40:28 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00937 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
