|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 7:59:32 GMT
Absolutely wrong Zany and where Hitlers doctrine and military previously got it wrong”Got mitt uns”if there is a god he is with no one clearly. There is no place for religion being before the good of this country and it’s people since the majority here are not Muslim,this though is not a reason to say as you put it hate Muslims but to accept adherence to that faith above the best interests of the majority has nothing to do with hate but self preservation. In a democratic country people should be freely allowed to practice there Religion If you think about it, this can't be a principle - it has to be contingent on the religion. The notion of freedom of religion came out of societies dominated by Christianity and was created with Christians in mind. That's not to say that it can't be workable with any other religion, but it is quite likely it isn't workable with some. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 8:03:29 GMT
I've already made that point And what has them 49n Country's got to do with Democracy in this Country .Are you going to answer my question or not if you don't I want anewer yours Well if I need to explain that I’m really wasting my time, but I’ll try again can you see how the lack of functioning democracies in the Muslim world and western society make the two incompatible if as Zany maintains they can put their religion before country. So do you only apply this restriction to Muslims? Are Jews to be allowed to put god before Israel? How many non functioning Muslim majority countries are non functioning because of Islam? How many Muslims living in the West sign up to the extreme versions you see in these non functioning countries. How many Christians living in the West sign up to the extreme versions you see in the Lord's Resistance Army? Do you see the problem with branding everyone with the same extreme label. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 8:04:56 GMT
Absolutely wrong Zany and where Hitlers doctrine and military previously got it wrong”Got mitt uns”if there is a god he is with no one clearly. There is no place for religion being before the good of this country and it’s people since the majority here are not Muslim,this though is not a reason to say as you put it hate Muslims but to accept adherence to that faith above the best interests of the majority has nothing to do with hate but self preservation. I think you'd have a hard job persuading any believer that their god comes second to their country. That's a good point, I'm not a religious man, but my nan made a good attempt to bring me up to be a good Catholic boy, if she had succeeded I'm not sure I would have prioritised my country before my immortal soul. Then again I can't think of an instance in my day to day life where I would have to. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 8:09:38 GMT
In a democratic country people should be freely allowed to practice there Religion If you think about it, this can't be a principle - it has to be contingent on the religion. The notion of freedom of religion came out of societies dominated by Christianity and was created with Christians in mind. Freedom of religious practice that is selective isn't freedom of religious practice. And even if you ignore the moral and ethical considerations how are you going to enforce it from a practical perspective? You can't kill an idea with legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 5, 2024 8:12:10 GMT
Let's just take this back to Dan's question put towards Zany, which was:
He said no.
The question I'd then be asking considering Zany doesn't believe the owe their 'first' loyalty to Britain is:
Do Muslims in Britain owe loyalty to Britain?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 8:16:04 GMT
I think you'd have a hard job persuading any believer that their god comes second to their country. That's a good point, I'm not a religious man, but my nan made a good attempt to bring me up to be a good Catholic boy, if she had succeeded I'm not sure I would have prioritised my country before my immortal soul. T hen again I can't think of an instance in my day to day life where I would have to.Exactly. There need be no conflict unless you believe some extremist view of your religion. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 8:17:30 GMT
Let's just take this back to Dan's question put towards Zany, which was: He said no. The question I'd then be asking considering Zany doesn't believe the owe their 'first' loyalty to Britain is: Do Muslims in Britain owe loyalty to Britain? Yes, but you can be loyal to more than thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 8:17:38 GMT
If you think about it, this can't be a principle - it has to be contingent on the religion. The notion of freedom of religion came out of societies dominated by Christianity and was created with Christians in mind. Freedom of religious practice that is selective isn't freedom of religious practice. And even if you ignore the moral and ethical considerations how are you going to enforce it from a practical perspective? You can't kill an idea with legislation. There is no moral or ethical consideration. 'Freedom of religion' is, in the way you seem to mean it, a misnomer. There can't be an absolute principle of freedom of religion. 'Freedom of religion' can only exist stably between compatible religions. The idea came out of Christian dominated societies and was instituted with Christians in mind. I don't think you can apply this to Islam and Muslims, hence its relative absence in the middle east |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 5, 2024 8:25:00 GMT
Let's just take this back to Dan's question put towards Zany, which was: He said no. The question I'd then be asking considering Zany doesn't believe the owe their 'first' loyalty to Britain is: Do Muslims in Britain owe loyalty to Britain? Yes, but you can be loyal to more than thing. So if two loyalties conflict, as for example and as we have seen before, Muslim people spitting on UK soldiers returning from the ME. You're okay with that? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 8:29:03 GMT
Freedom of religious practice that is selective isn't freedom of religious practice. And even if you ignore the moral and ethical considerations how are you going to enforce it from a practical perspective? You can't kill an idea with legislation. There is no moral or ethical consideration. 'Freedom of religion' is, in the way you seem to mean it, a misnomer. There can't be an absolute principle of freedom of religion. 'Freedom of religion' can only exist stably between compatible religions. The idea came out of Christian dominated societies and was instituted with Christians in mind. I don't think you can apply this to Islam and Muslims, hence its relative absence in the middle east Most religions (Islam included) have adapted to non believers, they all say that non believers are to be left for God to deal with. There are always extremists. Would you like the UK to turn towards the sort of intolerance you describe in these other countries? It was not until 1979 the Catholic church formally declared the Inquisition was wrong. Our own bigotry is not that old. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 5, 2024 8:32:09 GMT
Yes, but you can be loyal to more than thing. So if two loyalties conflict, as for example and as we have seen before, Muslim people spitting on UK soldiers returning from the ME. You're okay with that? Well obviously I'm not OK with anyone spitting on anyone. But I would be OK with Muslims protesting. I would be ok with any Brit protesting the actions of their government. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 5, 2024 8:36:19 GMT
In a democratic country people should be freely allowed to practice there Religion If you think about it, this can't be a principle - it has to be contingent on the religion. The notion of freedom of religion came out of societies dominated by Christianity and was created with Christians in mind. That's not to say that it can't be workable with any other religion, but it is quite likely it isn't workable with some. Did it? or did come about by the constraints placed on followers of a religion? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 5, 2024 8:38:28 GMT
Well if I need to explain that I’m really wasting my time, but I’ll try again can you see how the lack of functioning democracies in the Muslim world and western society make the two incompatible if as Zany maintains they can put their religion before country. So do you only apply this restriction to Muslims? Are Jews to be allowed to put god before Israel? How many non functioning Muslim majority countries are non functioning because of Islam? How many Muslims living in the West sign up to the extreme versions you see in these non functioning countries. How many Christians living in the West sign up to the extreme versions you see in the Lord's Resistance Army? Do you see the problem with branding everyone with the same extreme label. What are you talking about? Jews can do as they like in Israel as regards their choices as can Muslims in theirs but can you tell me how many functioning democracies are in the Muslim world and if they are not why Islam has nothing to do with that. Im not branding anyone I’m telling you that if people wish to live here they must put country before religion and adhere to the mores of the host country,what’s wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 5, 2024 8:44:07 GMT
Freedom of religious practice that is selective isn't freedom of religious practice. And even if you ignore the moral and ethical considerations how are you going to enforce it from a practical perspective? You can't kill an idea with legislation. There is no moral or ethical consideration. 'Freedom of religion' is, in the way you seem to mean it, a misnomer. There can't be an absolute principle of freedom of religion. 'Freedom of religion' can only exist stably between compatible religions. The idea came out of Christian dominated societies and was instituted with Christians in mind. I don't think you can apply this to Islam and Muslims, hence its relative absence in the middle east Freedom of religious practice would have to be subject to the law of the land. From what I've seen the vast majority of Muslims, and followers of all other faiths seem to practice their religion and obey the laws of the land without any problems. Of course there are some that don't and they should be prosecuted but I don't think it makes their religion incompatible. There are some right wing extremists who have broken the law in following their ideology, I don't think that makes right wing political views incompatible with our way of life, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 5, 2024 8:45:59 GMT
There is no moral or ethical consideration. 'Freedom of religion' is, in the way you seem to mean it, a misnomer. There can't be an absolute principle of freedom of religion. 'Freedom of religion' can only exist stably between compatible religions. The idea came out of Christian dominated societies and was instituted with Christians in mind. I don't think you can apply this to Islam and Muslims, hence its relative absence in the middle east Most religions (Islam included) have adapted to non believers, they all say that non believers are to be left for God to deal with. There are always extremists. Would you like the UK to turn towards the sort of intolerance you describe in these other countries? It was not until 1979 the Catholic church formally declared the Inquisition was wrong. Our own bigotry is not that old. I'm talking about the general case - ie to argue against the notion that Christians (or atheists) should be forced to live with Muslims everywhere and (somehow) this is a moral principle. Of course, you, detecting a criticism of Islam, immediately start your wet, hand-wringing act and try to pretend that Islam is really Christianity. Freedom of religion never really took off in the Muslim world and there are pretty obvious reasons why it still hasn't. Major parts of the religion stipulate the death penalty for rejecting the religion and other major parts of the religion insist on a theocracy. These notions are not stably integrate-able into 'freedom of religion' and are central to large parts of islam. |
|
