Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wait. What? Who is being shamed and censured? And for what?Yeah, which is why I suggested a need for contextualization that is sensitive to the cultural paradigm that dominates our culture, i.e. emphasizing the elements that are important to people dealing with shame and social censure.
Blasphemy laws are not permissible under the 1st amendment. Period. UK doesn't have that restriction. They have a state church with its own legal protections.Most are somewhere between stage 1 and stage 2. We already see blasphemy laws starting to be enforced in the UK covertly...won't be long until Islam has a privileged status there, and then they'll start pressing towards stage 3.
Imagining gas where there is none does nobody any good. Christians having to tolerate other faiths is a good lesson.
This isn't about "tolerating other faiths", this is about recognizing a persistently beligerant "faith" that has been engaged in a campaign for totalitarian control for 1400 years, following a basic pattern set out by the originator of that faith where when small and powerless the preaching focuses on peaceful cohabitation, then when large enough to be successful agitators seeking a special status through blasphemy laws and other preferential treatment, to finally seeking outright dominance and reducing all others to a 2nd class dhimmi status that allows for all manner of abuse. To reduce it to an issue of tolerance is incredibly myopic, and likely ignorant of the history of Islam both in its inception and over the course of its existence.Please illuminate them for me? In your own words if you could?
Did your friend Mr. Screwtape write on politics?I wasn't doing "ah-pollock-jetticks," Hans. Just because someone drops a name like C.S. Lewis in their sentence doesn't necessarily imply a 'defense for the Christian faith' is being presented. But you have my sympathy, though; I can understand your confusion.
Shame and censure is the mode of social control that is becoming dominant as hierarchical authority is being replaced with peer-based social dynamics.Wait. What? Who is being shamed and censured? And for what?
Can you quote me on that?And you claim that is the sole and entire driver of Demcratic policy.
1st amendment protection is a protection, but whether it will hold is questionable particularly with increased rhetoric about "Islamophobia"Blasphemy laws are not permissible under the 1st amendment. Period. UK doesn't have that restriction. They have a state church with its own legal protections.
Don't you mean 500 years?This isn't about "tolerating other faiths", this is about recognizing a persistently beligerant "faith" that has been engaged in a campaign for totalitarian control for 1400 years,
Oh, I see--you were talking about Islam.following a basic pattern set out by the originator of that faith where when small and powerless the preaching focuses on peaceful cohabitation, then when large enough to be successful agitators seeking a special status through blasphemy laws and other preferential treatment, to finally seeking outright dominance and reducing all others to a 2nd class dhimmi status that allows for all manner of abuse. To reduce it to an issue of tolerance is incredibly myopic, and likely ignorant of the history of Islam both in its inception and over the course of its existence.
A rhetoric you seem to be reinforcing.1st amendment protection is a protection, but whether it will hold is questionable particularly with increased rhetoric about "Islamophobia"
Haha...very funny. Though Protestant beligerantism is certainly problematic, but its a different sort of beligerance from that exemplified by islam. One will write scathing letters and call you a heretic, the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.Don't you mean 500 years?
Oh, I see--you were talking about Islam.
That's not really a solution, nor is religion a purely private matter. Religious folks have every right to make their convictions a matter of public discourse as any secular individual, and the separation between church and state is not a license for the state to run roughshod and suppress religious sentiment by relegating it to private convictions.A rhetoric you seem to be reinforcing.
The solution is to be aggressively secular in government and leave religion to its proper, private realm. What we need is some sort of wall... a wall of separation ... a separation between religion and government. Let the people believe on their own a their private beliefs. (I liked it better when people minded their own business and kept their religions to themselves.)
Yes, Christians don't do that kind of thing much any more.Haha...very funny. Though Protestant beligerantism is certainly problematic, but its a different sort of beligerance from that exemplified by islam. One will write scathing letters and call you a heretic, the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.
Outside of Michael Severus, it's never really been an issue in Protestantism. And while there have been instances in the broader church, those were exceptions rather than a general rule. Whereas in Islam it appears to be fairly SOP, especially among those who are most informed about the life of the "prophet" and full of zeal to emulate it.Yes, Christians don't do that kind of thing much any more.
They do have that right, and exercise it continuously.That's not really a solution, nor is religion a purely private matter. Religious folks have every right to make their convictions a matter of public discourse as any secular individual,
It is a private conviction. All religion is a private conviction.and the separation between church and state is not a license for the state to run roughshod and suppress religious sentiment by relegating it to private convictions.
As is proper.They do have that right, and exercise it continuously.
All convictions are private convictions, but that doesn't mean they can be relegated to private concerns. Particularly when we're dealing with totalizing beliefs that speak to every aspect of human life.It is a private conviction. All religion is a private conviction.
Actually, the Quran does not allow the execution of those who won't convert. Some forms of Islam allow it for apostasy, but there is not universal agreement about it.Outside of Michael Severus, it's never really been an issue in Protestantism. And while there have been instances in the broader church, those were exceptions rather than a general rule. Whereas in Islam it appears to be fairly SOP, especially among those who are most informed about the life of the "prophet" and full of zeal to emulate it.
Properly understood, it absolutely does. But that takes engagement with Islamic scholarship and the Sunnah material, where it is clear that Muhammad used the threat of conversion or death against the people of Mecca when he overthrew the city. And forms that deny death for apostasy are the exception, whereas it is the prescriptive punishment by pretty much all mainline divisions(sunni, shia, sufi)Actually, the Quran does not allow the execution of those who won't convert. Some forms of Islam allow it for apostasy, but there is not universal agreement about it.
I think you mean that those concerns are being dismissed as objective concerns.As is proper.
All convictions are private convictions, but that doesn't mean they can be relegated to private concerns. Particularly when we're dealing with totalizing beliefs that speak to every aspect of human life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?