Anonymouse Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 That is no argument for or against the validity of the US Constitution. The foreign policy in the middle east adpoted by the US in the last 50 years was not something that was derived from its constitution. I understand you are angry with the US involvement in your region of the world (and probably rightly so), but this has little bearing on the type of society we are discussing here. Sassun, you are completely confusing your hatred of the US foreign policy with your dislike of fundamental individual freedoms to choose how they want to live and not necessarily be tied to YOUR Allah. No, I don't acknowledge your Allah as any sort of Universal Truth if that wasn't clear in our discussions up to this point. I NEVER will. So the ONLY way you and I can coexist in a society is if that society separates dogma from the state. Do you think you and I can ever coexist peacefully? If so, then you are acception the notion of separation of church and state Well, I'm sure in his society you would be spared as long as you proclaimed your "People of the Book" status, albeit you will be taxed to death. But if you dared say you're an atheist, well Sip, I would just start to run as fast as you can. Maybe if you get a head start you can out run them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Nah, Islam isn't my place because ( a) you intentionally misrepresented the things I believe and stand for ( B ) you intentionally misrepresentated my stance on homosexuality and ( c) I will reply if I feel like it because dried fruits (read "chir" in Armenian) have no business telling me what I can or cannot do. I never said you couldn't reply to me. I said don't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Well, I'm sure in his society you would be spared as long as you proclaimed your "People of the Book" status, albeit you will be taxed to death. But if you dared say you're an atheist, well Sip, I would just start to run as fast as you can. Maybe if you get a head start you can out run them. Oh I have run from those places and I will try to stay as far away as possible. I grew up listening to these chants of how horrible the US and the west is. But I'll take the murder and rape rates here ANY day over the stoning, hanging, and the downright barbarism of "fundamental Islam" (or any theistic based religion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) I never said you couldn't reply to me. I said don't bother. In an Islamic world, we would get to beat up Nairi ... In a Christian world of a few hundred or so years ago, we would have declared her a witch and burned her. Is there a wonder she doesn't care much for either of those? Edited June 12, 2007 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) That is no argument for or against the validity of the US Constitution. The foreign policy in the middle east adpoted by the US in the last 50 years was not something that was derived from its constitution. I understand you are angry with the US involvement in your region of the world (and probably rightly so), but this has little bearing on the type of society we are discussing here. Actually it IS an argument, and it is THE argument. Attitudes are a reflection of the environment and system one is brought up in. Do you really think that Wahabist-Salafist terrorism is not a reflection of the environment and SYSTEM these people are brought up in ? Because that is what your argument would entail if you extend it to other parts of the world, be they secular or not (the idea is that people are a product of the system, be it secular or religious). American foreign policy cannot be viewed separately from the American system or the American mode of thinking. Policies are a reflection of interests, interests are a reflection of the things that a society values and the means it thinks are justified for the achievement of those ends. American foreign policy is a reflection of the rotten nature of American society and system. Just like Saudi Arabian foreign policy is a reflection of the rotten nature of Saudi society and system. You talk about not being tied to MY God, and yet, you expect me to be tied to yours (secularism). In the end you are not advocating the doing away with all systems (which is the only thing that would save you from being a hypocrite) but are advocating one system over another. A dogmatic system, too. That is what secularism is: it is a dogma. Yes, we can co-exist peacefully. But not under secularism. Because secularism will strip both of us - whether we like it or not - of our attachment to morality (to one degree or another) and to God (it seems it has done so already to you). It will also strip me of my freedoms, and if I have a wife, my wife's freedom to wear a Hijab, or my child's freedom to wear Hijab in school, or my freedom to go to Friday prayer, and so on. And when I say we cannot co-exist peacefully I do not mean I would be the one doing the harm, but rather, the majority of the society against the minority. Edited June 12, 2007 by Sassun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 You talk about not being tied to MY God, and yet, you expect me to be tied to yours (secularism). In the end you are not advocating the doing away with all systems (which is the only thing that would save you from being a hypocrite) but are advocating one system over another. A dogmatic system, too. That is what secularism is: it is a dogma. Sassun, you don't fully understand my system. Under my system, you are FREE to worship your Allah in any way you choose. The beauty of it is that I am not tied to it in any way. I know that makes you unhappy but that is the ONLY way we can coexist. Label it in any way you want, but for you and I to coexist, that MUST be the way (no way around it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Actually it IS an argument, and it is THE argument. Attitudes are a reflection of the environment and system one is brought up in. Do you really think that Wahabist-Salafist terrorism is not a reflection of the environment and SYSTEM these people are brought up in ? Because that is what your argument would entail if you extend it to other parts of the world, be they secular or not (the idea is that people are a product of the system, be it secular or religious). American foreign policy cannot be viewed separately from the American system or the American mode of thinking. Policies are a reflection of interests, interests are a reflection of the things that a society values and the means it thinks are justified for the achievement of those ends. American foreign policy is a reflection of the rotten nature of American society and system. Just like Saudi Arabian foreign policy is a reflection of the rotten nature of Saudi society and system. You talk about not being tied to MY God, and yet, you expect me to be tied to yours (secularism). In the end you are not advocating the doing away with all systems (which is the only thing that would save you from being a hypocrite) but are advocating one system over another. A dogmatic system, too. That is what secularism is: it is a dogma. Yes, we can co-exist peacefully. But not under secularism. Because secularism will strip both of us - whether we like it or not - of our attachment to morality (to one degree or another) and to God (it seems it has done so already to you). It will also strip me of my freedoms, and if I have a wife, my wife's freedom to wear a Hijab, or my child's freedom to wear Hijab in school, or my freedom to go to Friday prayer, and so on. And when I say we cannot co-exist peacefully I do not mean I would be the one doing the harm, but rather, the majority of the society against the minority. Morality is not dependent of a god. Morality is what makes god a paradox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 By the way, I categorically reject the notion that morality is somehow tied to religion and God. If you think morality is tied to religion, we have a whole another thread to start. Actually, I would argue that Religion is immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hahah Domino is teh Win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hahah Domino is teh Win Always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Sassun, you don't fully understand my system. Under my system, you are FREE to worship your Allah in any way you choose. The beauty of it is that I am not tied to it in any way. I know that makes you unhappy but that is the ONLY way we can coexist. Label it in any way you want, but for you and I to coexist, that MUST be the way (no way around it). And why is that so ? Because you refuse to live in a system that is based on any other principle. That is the only reason. And that does not say anything about the possibility and reality of peaceful co-existence in a non-secular system. It only says something about your unwillingness to do so. That's about it. Anyway, I do not mind living in a state that separates religion from state, but secularism - where is has been practiced/applied - is not merely that. It has been manipulated to serve other ends. Secularism should not dictate on someone what not to wear in the same way as you are criticizing non-secular Iran for e.g. of imposing what to wear. There is no difference, is there? The only difference is that you claim you are all about free will and freedom of choice, when you are not. So who is being hypocritical here? What about the azhan? Should Church bells be forbidden from tolling in Iran, because the azhan are not allowed in your secular, enlightened, civilized world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Sassun, I find it kind of rediculously funny and absurd, that you are basically saying I am "forcing" my way of life on you by "rejecting" that which you believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Actually it IS an argument, and it is THE argument. Attitudes are a reflection of the environment and system one is brought up in. Do you really think that Wahabist-Salafist terrorism is not a reflection of the environment and SYSTEM these people are brought up in ? Because that is what your argument would entail if you extend it to other parts of the world, be they secular or not (the idea is that people are a product of the system, be it secular or religious). American foreign policy cannot be viewed separately from the American system or the American mode of thinking. Policies are a reflection of interests, interests are a reflection of the things that a society values and the means it thinks are justified for the achievement of those ends. American foreign policy is a reflection of the rotten nature of American society and system. Just like Saudi Arabian foreign policy is a reflection of the rotten nature of Saudi society and system. First of all, that is no argument. To state such a thing shows your ignorance of American history and Constitutional Law. You may as well stop this discussion and stick to things you know, such as Islam. But don't pretend to know about American History and the U.S. Constitution. The "people are product of their system" canard is only true to a very limited point, otherwise it is nothing more than a Marxian strawman. You are ignorant of U.S. history and the Constitution, as well as the intent of the Framers. You have neither read the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, or have had a class in Constitutional Law. Please don't speak about this issue which you do not even have an inkling of. Current U.S. policy, especially toward the Middle East is not a reflection of the Constitution nor the intent of the Framers. This policy has been in effect as Sip said, over the last 50 years, after World War II, and the establishment of the Bretton Woods system, and the establishment of the trading of oil in dollars. Yes, we can co-exist peacefully. But not under secularism. Because secularism will strip both of us - whether we like it or not - of our attachment to morality (to one degree or another) and to God (it seems it has done so already to you). It will also strip me of my freedoms, and if I have a wife, my wife's freedom to wear a Hijab, or my child's freedom to wear Hijab in school, or my freedom to go to Friday prayer, and so on. Wow, so you actually propose establishing a theocratic state huh? You cannot simply live with your own religion and letting others live as they please? You do realize this doesn't help you from people who attribute Islam with violence and forcing their lifestyle on others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Wow, so you actually propose establishing a theocratic state huh? You cannot simply live with your own religion and letting others live as they please? You do realize this doesn't help you from people who attribute Islam with violence and forcing their lifestyle on others. No - read my previous reply. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 And why is that so ? Because you refuse to live in a system that is based on any other principle. That is the only reason. And that does not say anything about the possibility and reality of peaceful co-existence in a non-secular system. It only says something about your unwillingness to do so. That's about it. Anyway, I do not mind living in a state that separates religion from state, but secularism - where is has been practiced/applied - is not merely that. It has been manipulated to serve other ends. Secularism should not dictate on someone what not to wear in the same way as you are criticizing non-secular Iran for e.g. of imposing what to wear. There is no difference, is there? The only difference is that you claim you are all about free will and freedom of choice, when you are not. So who is being hypocritical here? What about the azhan? Should Church bells be forbidden from tolling in Iran, because the azhan are not allowed in your secular, enlightened, civilized world? Freedom of choice presupposes there is a choice made. Being born and being brainwashed to believe something IS not to make a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 The "people are product of their system" canard is only true to a very limited point, otherwise it is nothing more than a Marxian strawman. Half your reply is based on pointing out what I do not know rather than actually addressing the point itself. The other half is what I have quoted here. And that, surely you are aware, is no "reply". The Bretton Woods system was the foundation of your beloved economic liberalism and its purpose was the doing away of the economic nationalism that characterized the pre-WWII period! The petrodollar recycling came much later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Freedom of choice presupposes there is a choice made. Being born and being brainwashed to believe something IS not to make a choice. Assuming that in a secular state I would be living in a 'free' society and attending 'secular' schooling subject to the curricula of the secular state system rather than receiving religious education, where does brainwashing come in ? And are you saying that all women who wear the Hijab are actually brainwashed into doing so, or forced to ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Sassun, I find it kind of rediculously funny and absurd, that you are basically saying I am "forcing" my way of life on you by "rejecting" that which you believe. Where did I say that Sip ? It's not about rejecting what I believe in, but rather, about forcing me to adopt the lifestyle that you think is appropriate, under the banner of 'secularism'. Secularism is not about not abstaining from drinking. It is not about women not wearing the Hijab. It is not about not going to Friday prayer or being allowed to have the azhan. You agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Where did I say that Sip ? It's not about rejecting what I believe in, but rather, about forcing me to adopt the lifestyle that you think is appropriate, under the banner of 'secularism'.... There you said it again! You are saying that I am "forcing you to adopt my lifestyle" since my lifestyle doesn't include ME accepting your Islam :lol2::lol2: Edited June 12, 2007 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Half your reply is based on pointing out what I do not know rather than actually addressing the point itself. The other half is what I have quoted here. And that, surely you are aware, is no "reply". The Bretton Woods system was the foundation of your beloved economic liberalism and its purpose was the doing away of the economic nationalism that characterized the pre-WWII period! The petrodollar recycling came much later. But you don't realize the policy toward the Middle East shifted as a result of these things. That is the point. And the most crucial point of how U.S. foreign policy was hijacked, was the State of Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 There you said it again! You are saying that I am "forcing you to adopt my lifestyle" since my lifestyle doesn't include ME accepting your Islam :lol2::lol2: This is hilarious. Funniest thread thus far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 There you said it again! You are saying that I am "forcing you to adopt my lifestyle" since my lifestyle doesn't include accepting your Islam :lol2::lol2: How is my (future) wife's choice to wear the Hijab , or the idea of having the azhan (the Muslim call to prayer for those who do not know what I am talking about) , related to your acceptance of Islam ? Are you conditioning my wife's individual/personal freedom to wear or not to wear the Hijab on your acceptance of Islam ? That is not very "secular", is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 But you don't realize the policy toward the Middle East shifted as a result of these things. That is the point. And the most crucial point of how U.S. foreign policy was hijacked, was the State of Israel. The Bretton Woods was a conscious choice on the part of USA. That it brought about a whole set of different and often unintended results, as well as crises, is another issue altogether, which is not related to this thread ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Sassun I have no problem with your wife wearing Hijab. But if you stick your head out at 6AM in the morning and start screaming Ashadua Anna bla blah, I reserve the right to sitck my head out and scream "shut the *** up". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassun Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) And as for what YOU think or accept, Sip, that is of no importance to me, as long as you keep your views as merely views and do not make it part of any policy that will impact my life as a (hypothetical) citizen of the same country. This is what secularism is about. It is very simple, but I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand my words. Edited June 12, 2007 by Sassun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.