|
Post by fixit on May 28, 2015 4:31:15 GMT -5
The limits are not know until tested in court. It seems the US has greater religious freedom than BC. The United States allows Pastafarians to wear colanders for their driver’s licence photos.Come on, that's not religious freedom. That's stupidity. In some cases, the photo is allowed simply because no rules are being broken. But in other cases, you're correct: a religious exemption to the rules is granted. Doesn't make that right. You should only be able to exercise such exemptions if you belong to a bona fide religion ... that is, subject to some kind of test or definition. If you Google "legal definition of religion" followed by a country name, you get a lot of stuff, but more than I have time to read. It seems that Canada does have a stronger test for what constitutes a religion than the USA does. A lot of religious beliefs are crazy. Defining a religion is difficult. Frankly I think getting around in a burqa is no less ridiculous than getting around wearing a spaghetti strainer.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2015 5:45:17 GMT -5
Come on, that's not religious freedom. That's stupidity. In some cases, the photo is allowed simply because no rules are being broken. But in other cases, you're correct: a religious exemption to the rules is granted. Doesn't make that right. You should only be able to exercise such exemptions if you belong to a bona fide religion ... that is, subject to some kind of test or definition. If you Google "legal definition of religion" followed by a country name, you get a lot of stuff, but more than I have time to read. It seems that Canada does have a stronger test for what constitutes a religion than the USA does. A lot of religious beliefs are crazy. Defining a religion is difficult. Frankly I think getting around in a burqa is no less ridiculous than getting around wearing a spaghetti strainer. BTW, the "come on" was directed at the FSM people not at you. Yes it is difficult but the Constitutional provisions were based on respect for people's genuine and deeply felt beliefs, not something you make up on a whim or for convenience sake. I.e. My religious belief is against paying taxes. Yes, that has been tried also. But I do agree that the burqa is an absurdity, one of many in the religious world. One of my friends argues that humanity has not done well by religion in general and it's hard to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 28, 2015 10:21:29 GMT -5
I think that becomes clear when you watch what xna posted on the What is Atheism thread. What religion has done by each month. It's endless the harm religion can do when it is in the hands of fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 28, 2015 13:08:19 GMT -5
I think that becomes clear when you watch what xna posted on the What is Atheism thread. What religion has done by each month. It's endless the harm religion can do when it is in the hands of fanatics. I can understand why religious people die for their cause when it buys them something of value in the hereafter. But why do people die for their political beliefs e.g. communism or fascism? Is it altruistic - they're willing to die to make the world what they see as a better place? The Muslim jihadi has a pretty big incentive to sacrifice for his cause:
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 28, 2015 14:36:45 GMT -5
I think that becomes clear when you watch what xna posted on the What is Atheism thread. What religion has done by each month. It's endless the harm religion can do when it is in the hands of fanatics. I can understand why religious people die for their cause when it buys them something of value in the hereafter. But why do people die for their political beliefs e.g. communism or fascism? Is it altruistic - they're willing to die to make the world what they see as a better place? The Muslim jihadi has a pretty big incentive to sacrifice for his cause: Usually in communism or fascism it's the upper levels that dictate and the underlings do not die for a cause but because of the leaders sacrificing them for their cause. In religion the fanatics no matter whether they are leaders or not will die for their cause and kill others for their cause too. The common person is ready to kill in the name of their God in religion. Did you watch what xna posted? People take a sacred book and decide how to interpret it and daily these interpretations are hurting or killing someone. That is the dark side of religions world wide. If these people didn't have religion motivating them to do harm to themselves and others, would they not do these kinds of things, or are the just preconditioned to find something else to believe in that would justify the harm they do. Who knows. I don't that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 21, 2015 15:30:48 GMT -5
It's heartening to see pushback from Muslims against jihadi atrocities.
There's a civil war going on within the Islamic faith. It's like the civil war within the Christian faith around the enlightenment and renaissance.
Muslims who stand against extremists are doing so at the risk of their lives, and Western society should show support for them.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 21, 2015 15:59:50 GMT -5
It's heartening to see pushback from Muslims against jihadi atrocities. There's a civil war going on within the Islamic faith. It's like the civil war within the Christian faith around the enlightenment and renaissance. Muslims who stand against extremists are doing so at the risk of their lives, and Western society should show support for them. From what I have read, ISIS is fundamental Islam. Like many Christians, many Muslims don't know what manor of inhumanities are held up as godly acts in their holy books. I am happy to see these Muslims pushing back against evil in the name of their god. I would like to see Muslims have a reformation toward tolerance or better yet, just abandon their god belief, and embrace a more humanistic worldview. The other side of Islam. ISIS' children soldiers - trained to kill and die.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 21, 2015 20:30:36 GMT -5
The religious of all persuasions should regard islam as a control and learn that this religion shares the basic principles of all beliefs: the worship of unevidenced supernatural deity(ies).
Islamic jihad is to our present time what the crusades were to the Middle Ages. Scientific progress, including the ability to source information at the click of a finger, leaves little excuse to be duped by nonsensical claims.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 21, 2015 21:13:18 GMT -5
It's heartening to see pushback from Muslims against jihadi atrocities. There's a civil war going on within the Islamic faith. It's like the civil war within the Christian faith around the enlightenment and renaissance. Muslims who stand against extremists are doing so at the risk of their lives, and Western society should show support for them. From what I have read, ISIS is fundamental Islam. Like many Christians, many Muslims don't know what manor of inhumanities are held up as godly acts in their holy books. I am happy to see these Muslims pushing back against evil in the name of their god. I would like to see Muslims have a reformation toward tolerance or better yet, just abandon their god belief, and embrace a more humanistic worldview. The other side of Islam. ISIS' children soldiers - trained to kill and die. Thanks for that. I think it's a disgrace to the civilised world that terrorists have been allowed to take territory and set up brainwashing camps. Westerners don't want war, but inaction over the last few years has enabled a cancer to spread. The longer the civilised world procrastinates, the harder it will be to eradicate political Islam. There's an old proverb that reminds us of the importance of fixing a problem sooner rather than later. For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the knight was lost, for want of a knight the battle was lost, for want of a battle the kingdom was lost. So a kingdom was lost—all for want of a nail.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 22, 2015 12:08:39 GMT -5
I think that becomes clear when you watch what xna posted on the What is Atheism thread. What religion has done by each month. It's endless the harm religion can do when it is in the hands of fanatics. I can understand why religious people die for their cause when it buys them something of value in the hereafter. But why do people die for their political beliefs e.g. communism or fascism? Is it altruistic - they're willing to die to make the world what they see as a better place? The Muslim jihadi has a pretty big incentive to sacrifice for his cause: Virgin what? sheep, hippopotamus, weta?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 22, 2015 13:11:24 GMT -5
I can understand why religious people die for their cause when it buys them something of value in the hereafter. But why do people die for their political beliefs e.g. communism or fascism? Is it altruistic - they're willing to die to make the world what they see as a better place? The Muslim jihadi has a pretty big incentive to sacrifice for his cause: Seven rewards Muslim suicide bombers in particular believe they will reap huge rewards for eternity in return for their act of sacrifice. All will know by heart the details of the Seven Rewards that come to those who volunteer. First among those rewards is the forgiveness of all sins. Second, the young suicide bomber can expect to see his place in paradise reserved for him. Third, he will be "crowned with glory" with a holy stone, the Yaqutah while in paradise, he will have 72 of the most beautiful virgins as his wives. Fifth, he will be spared the suffering of the grave, and sixth, he will be spared the horror of the Day of Judgment. Finally, the successful suicide bomber will have places reserved in paradise for 70 members of his family. With these firm beliefs in mind, it is no wonder reports of past attacks centre on the bomber, moments before he fulfils his destiny, smiling as he goes to his death. In 1983, 241 American servicemen were killed when a lone suicide martyr drove a truckload of explosives into a Marine compound in Beirut. "All I remember is that the guy was smiling," said one survivor. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-179112/Dont-dismiss-suicide-bombers-madmen.htmlVirgin what? sheep, hippopotamus, weta? I struggle to understand the mindset of these people at the best of times, and I sure can't imagine they would scatter their own body parts in order to marry 72 of the most beautiful virgin wetas. Are virgin wetas beautiful?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 22, 2015 13:14:19 GMT -5
Virgin what? sheep, hippopotamus, weta? I struggle to understand the mindset of these people at the best of times, and I sure can't imagine they would scatter their own body parts in order to marry 72 of the most beautiful virgin wetas. Are virgin wetas beautiful? What a lovely weta
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 22, 2015 13:20:57 GMT -5
Today on my facebook page there was two posts about the Muslim terrorist issue.There is normally one or two of these a week. One from an ex professing person. Both said that Europe should close it's doors and Muslims should go home. This is saying that Europe is for white Christian people only. If that is the case then can these people tell me the logic behind going to the Americas, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Asian countries, the Polynesian islands and taking over, subjagating the people, murdering them, stealing their land. Imposing their way and religion. What is right about that and what is wrong about the Muslims coming to Europe?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 22, 2015 13:30:48 GMT -5
Today on my facebook page there was two posts about the Muslim terrorist issue.There is normally one or two of these a week. One from an ex professing person. Both said that Europe should close it's doors and Muslims should go home. This is saying that Europe is for white Christian people only. If that is the case then can these people tell me the logic behind going to the Americas, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Asian countries, the Polynesian islands and taking over, subjagating the people, murdering them, stealing their land. Imposing their way and religion. What is right about that and what is wrong about the Muslims coming to Europe? I think Syria was better off under French rule than France would be under Syrian rule.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 22, 2015 13:49:46 GMT -5
Why would France want to rule Syria?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 22, 2015 23:01:15 GMT -5
Why would France want to rule Syria? France had a League of Nations mandate from 1920 until they withdrew in 1946.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 22, 2015 23:08:35 GMT -5
Today on my facebook page there was two posts about the Muslim terrorist issue.There is normally one or two of these a week. One from an ex professing person. Both said that Europe should close it's doors and Muslims should go home. This is saying that Europe is for white Christian people only. If that is the case then can these people tell me the logic behind going to the Americas, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Asian countries, the Polynesian islands and taking over, subjagating the people, murdering them, stealing their land. Imposing their way and religion. What is right about that and what is wrong about the Muslims coming to Europe? I think Syria was better off under French rule than France would be under Syrian rule. Syria was better off for "Westerners" when it was ruled by France.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 23, 2015 0:17:44 GMT -5
Why would France want to rule Syria? France had a League of Nations mandate from 1920 until they withdrew in 1946. Fixit, you are quite right and the area was divvied up amongst the wetsren powers after WW1 afterthe previous big banana, Turkey got ousted. But what gives France or any other country the right to run a country thousands of kilometres away and why would they want to?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 23, 2015 0:26:27 GMT -5
Why would France want to rule Syria? France had a League of Nations mandate from 1920 until they withdrew in 1946. In Vietnam the Japanese ousted the French in the 1930's but once WW2 was over the French came back expecting to take over again. The Vietnamese people did not think too much of this and fought for their country. They used whatever means possible including the aid of Communist China. France left but the USA and friends did not like the look of Communism and waged war against Ho Chi Minh. The USA did not do very well either and were in turn kicked out. Vietnam is now run by Vietnamese people. (except for a bunch of Canadians interfering in a wee church) Both Ho Chi Minh and Mao tse Tung were supplied weapons and other aid by the Allies during WW2 to use against the Japanese. Such is the twists of politics. The prize was not only the running of a country but the natural resources, in this case rubber and oil. It's greed that drives countries to interfere, there is nothing noble about it at all.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 23, 2015 2:51:52 GMT -5
Why would France want to rule Syria? Only to save its people from killing one another, and from sending millions of refugees into Europe, and from running training camps to send thousands of suicide bombers to attack Western civilians. I don't expect you to understand that. The civilised world had the power to prevent most of the destruction in Syria, but lacked the will to do so. www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/74332891/Inside-the-ruins-of-the-Syrian-town-of-Kobane
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 23, 2015 4:15:07 GMT -5
They were not killing each other in 1920 which is the point in time I was directing my question at. Maybe I should have made myself clearer.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2015 15:07:35 GMT -5
Why would France want to rule Syria? Only to save its people from killing one another, and from sending millions of refugees into Europe, and from running training camps to send thousands of suicide bombers to attack Western civilians. I don't expect you to understand that.The civilised world had the power to prevent most of the destruction in Syria, but lacked the will to do so. www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/74332891/Inside-the-ruins-of-the-Syrian-town-of-Kobane The "civilized" world, more often than not, hid their real motives under paternalistic "reasons" for ruling other countries. That multitude of the "civilized" world's "motives" are now coming home to roost.
That isn't so difficult to understand if the "civilized " world would admit to themselves their past "sins."
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 23, 2015 21:15:56 GMT -5
History reveals that islam and christianity used violence to spread their word. Mohammed was a successful warlord. Islam does not require any excuses for its' jihadists, as their prophet and directives contained within the qu'ran justify the actions of terrorism in the name of allah. The west, colonialism and racism are being used as 'scapegoats'. This is an important article penned by a muslim:
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 23, 2015 22:23:40 GMT -5
The "civilized" world, more often than not, hid their real motives under paternalistic "reasons" for ruling other countries. That multitude of the "civilized" world's "motives" are now coming home to roost.
That isn't so difficult to understand if the "civilized " world would admit to themselves their past "sins."
How would that stop the thousands of suicidal religious fanatics who are trained to attack civilians in you neighborhood sometime soon? Obama tried to kiss and make up with the Islamic world at Cairo June 4, 2009... You be the judge of whether it has worked.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2015 23:17:02 GMT -5
The "civilized" world, more often than not, hid their real motives under paternalistic "reasons" for ruling other countries. That multitude of the "civilized" world's "motives" are now coming home to roost.
That isn't so difficult to understand if the "civilized " world would admit to themselves their past "sins."
How would that stop the thousands of suicidal religious fanatics who are trained to attack civilians in you neighborhood sometime soon? Obama tried to kiss and make up with the Islamic world at Cairo June 4, 2009... You be the judge of whether it has worked. The thing is that many people refuse to acknowledge their own culpability for what is happening.
How do we stop what is happening now? Good question. Maybe you can come up with a solution.
The series called Indian Summers just finished last Sunday. It shows very well how the British treated the Indians as they "colonized" "civilized" them.
Time & time again, so-called "civilized" (your word) Western developed countries invaded underdeveloped countries in the near east & Africa bringing those countries "civilization" along with the Christian religion. (of course)
They even had a word to in an attempt to justify their actions. They called it 'The White Man's Burden.'
Some burden! It wasn't the British white men carrying the Indian men around in posh chairs!
Time & time again, the "Western" civilized world did this!
You think that you can do better than Obama? You want a quick, effortless solution for the consequences of our own "sins?"
Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 24, 2015 0:54:52 GMT -5
You think that you can do better than Obama? You want a quick, effortless solution for the consequences of our own "sins?" Good luck. Millions of immigrants have streamed into stable countries because we've got a few things figured out that the unstable countries haven't. It has little to do with the "consequences of our own sins". The Islamic world is fighting civil wars between secular rule and theocracy, and between Sunni and Shiite. Most of the people being raped, tortured and killed are Muslims. Secular democracy is hated because it stands in the way of folks getting what they want. A couple of questions we should ask: 1. Do we have a moral duty to support the enlightenment in unstable countries, and protect innocent people from tyranny? 2. Is it better to fight in foreign lands those who choose to be our enemies, or should we wait until they've brainwashed and trained thousands of fanatics to attack civilians in our own countries?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 24, 2015 1:36:49 GMT -5
In answer to question 1 Fixit the answer is no. Look at Syria for instance prior to the civil war and look at it now. There is a choice between dictatorship, no matter how unsavoury and chaos which is what there is today. Iraq had a nasty sod called Saddam Hussein in power and the country was relatively stable. Now there is chaos. The west can never achieve western style democracy in these countries and perhaps that is not the intention. What may have been the intention was the installation of another dictator who was pro USA and western world who would sell them cheap oil. The wars in the Middle East are nothing to do with morals and everything to do with cheap oil and making money. After digesting that lot the answer to question two is obvious. Let a nasty sod like the Syrian president or the likes of Hussein (bit late for him, someone stretched his neck) rule their respective countries. Since the Korean war can you give me one instance where the USA has been able to achieve a nice tidy environment and it is still the same today?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 24, 2015 2:09:57 GMT -5
In answer to question 1 Fixit the answer is no. Look at Syria for instance prior to the civil war and look at it now. There is a choice between dictatorship, no matter how unsavoury and chaos which is what there is today. Iraq had a nasty sod called Saddam Hussein in power and the country was relatively stable. Now there is chaos. The west can never achieve western style democracy in these countries and perhaps that is not the intention. What may have been the intention was the installation of another dictator who was pro USA and western world who would sell them cheap oil. The wars in the Middle East are nothing to do with morals and everything to do with cheap oil and making money. After digesting that lot the answer to question two is obvious. Let a nasty sod like the Syrian president or the likes of Hussein (bit late for him, someone stretched his neck) rule their respective countries. Since the Korean war can you give me one instance where the USA has been able to achieve a nice tidy environment and it is still the same today? What makes Middle Easterners incapable or undeserving of secular democracy? If the Iraq war was about oil, why do you think the US didn't get the oil?
|
|