It is apparent to me that you do not understand the nature of freedom and how it works for a principled people. It is not, as you claim, based on anarchy. It does presuppose, however, that people will have adopted principles which include concepts of good and evil, concepts of good character and its development, and have a natural propensity for civil behavior. These types of peoples derive from a voluntarily accepted religious background, and have a common culture. The government is not tasked with forcing religious beliefs or culture upon these free people, it is tasked with protecting their freedoms. Deviant behaviors which invade other people's freedoms are punished as being uncivil, not for being heretical to any ideology (other than "freedom" if you consider that an ideology as you seem to).
Over time and cycles of prosperity, the unity of the cultural values both strengthened and now has weakened to a dangerous degree. This was understood from the beginning and free people have known that they must be vigilant and protect their freedoms from assault, both from within and without the culture and nation. Our freedoms are under internal assault directly by new forms of Marxism which have metastasized and spread into the system of governing and education.
Freedom is fragile when cultures and subcultures do not want other people to have freedom, they want to impose their own ideology on everyone without exception. This mentality comes from a form of presumptive personal superiority to other people, and the assumption of the "right" and "necessity" to run other people's lives. This is the basis of immorality found in totalitarian behaviors and ideology. It is bolstered by false moral principles, the violation of which is heresy, and this is as true of western Leftists as it is of Islam - which is why western Leftist love and fear Islam simultaneously. Both are overtly enemies of free people and their right to pursue truth without interference from elitist, dogmatists with false morals.
With that, let's proceed to the ongoing conversation:
Dragon Fang says,
”If we look at it from that perspective secularism is a religion, in which the leader makes rules based on an ideology stated in te constitution, and these rules are subjected on the citizens, and the officials are required to pledge their allegiance to that ideology.
It is as simple as that; your system is equally totalitarian if not more.”
And that is not the case, is it? The constitution guarantees freedoms; political leaders are sworn to uphold those freedoms. Laws are secondary to freedoms, in that if a law is unfair or contradictory to freedoms, it can be changed through civilized procedures.
Islamic law guarantees death or barbaric lashings etc. for disobedience and heretical thought, forcing the ideology onto everyone. As you have said before, freedom does not exist, because humans cannot be trusted to make correct decisions. This is top-down dictation of designated allowed behaviors and controlled thought and that, not freedom, is totalitarianism. There is no recourse for unfair, dictated laws of Allah received by revelation. You do not deny the totalitarian nature of Islam, you merely try to assert a false Tu Quoque as a defense; that's a logic fallacy.
You are corrupting the meaning of “totalitarian” by claiming that laws which apply to all people of a nation which must guarantee freedom are “totalitarian”. The “ideology” of individual freedom is the polar opposite from the ideology of “total concentration of power in governing by forced ideology”, i.e. totalitarianism, and you either are ignoring that or refusing to acknowledge it; either way it is false to claim otherwise.
Your concept that freedom is bad and must be quashed is what will lead to destructive war in the future; it is the same concept held by the Axis powers of WWII. It underlies the nations captive to Communism.
”"You might wish it to be a red herring, but it is not; [...]"
Ahh... Your point was that I am trying to enforce Islam in the US or something like that.
Your system is intolerant toward absolutes; the same thing you complain about. Again, your constitution is enforced on US citizens, therefore the US is a dictatorship? An Islamic nation could be a republic for all you know.”
You must think me to be quite ignorant; it actually is insulting to a degree. Of course Islamic countries can be republics, so long as the elected leaders bow to the will of the Imam du jour. That is why Iran is stable (insane, but stable) while Iraq is not stable: Iran’s top elected leaders obey their religious leaders; Iraq’s leaders are trying to be secular but cannot succeed due to the sectarian nature of their populace; Iraq has no specific religious leader to obey and who actually controls the Muslim factions.
”"Every totalitarian dictatorship does this. [...]"
Actually, that was more along the lines of: We don't have alcohol promoted and sold publicly, and then punish people for doing stupid stuff while drunk.”
Actually you punish women for driving while female, female being a genetic trait over which they had no control.
”"Yes, reins of terror do work that way. [...]"
Are the deterrents effective (save life, money, etc.)? Then we have given our sympathies to potential victims their due.
The lashes are more like symbolic taps, meant for humiliation not pain. I'd take them any day over water boarding, but I digress. Response below.”
The flogging of a Saudi critic of authority has been delayed in order to allow his wounds to heal more properly before the next round of 100. He is sentenced to 1,000 lashes, which assuredly are NOT "symbolic taps", and to call them that is an apparently purposeful untruth to cover for the insidious, barbaric reality.
I see. It is the effectiveness of a deterrent that matters. The most effective deterrent being beheading of course, since it is immediate, costs nothing, stops that offender permanently, terrifies others. It is interesting that you defend such punitive governmental barbarism and terror as the cure for Islamic behavior problems. That certainly is happening in North Africa, Syria, Iraq, etc., etc. It is an obvious trait of Islam.
I doubt that lashes are symbolic taps; that would be a stupid approach to “effective deterrents”, compared to death for being raped for example. I’ve seen photos of those who have been lashed; I suppose that would be symbolic exposed meat and blood?
”If the Quran is from God, and since God his orders are always manifestation of his perfection and maximum justice, mercy, wisdom, etc. they are objectively good.
However, since your morality is not objective, it is subjective (law of excluded middle). So here is the air-tight paradox-exposing, morality-destroying question: Is the morality of Islam equally valid due the subjective nature of your morality?”
I’m sorry if the following offends you, but it must be said: that is absurd. The term “objective” does not mean that revelation is automatically valid truth. People claim revelation all the time; their claims are internal to themselves, therefore, that sort of claim is purely and completely subjective without a shred of objective quality, and cannot be validated as truth. An Objective Truth is one that every reasoning person can see to be the case purely because it cannot be rationally be denied (it is incorrigibly the case and it is irrational to deny it); the opposite of such a truth would be an absurdity. Islam does not qualify as “objective truth”, nor does any religion.
Further, your claim that “excluded middle” is the western ideology is bizarre; excluded middle is the second of Aristotle’s First Principles of Thought, which the Islamists preserved throughout the early part of the first millennium AD. If Islam rejects that, it is news to me, especially considering that Islam is more black and white than any western religion or philosophy short of Marxism.
So your question has no meaning since it is based on false presuppositions in its premises. However, let’s take a look at the logical consequences you derive, anyway.
”1- Was your principled freedom righteous because the declaration said it is, or did the deceleration call them benevolent because they were benevolent before the declaration? Did the declaration give birth to the rights, or did it simply express them?”
Personal freedom to choose an ideology is an obviously righteous principle, except that it is not obvious to those who demand the contrary “right” to control others' very thoughts (totalitarian, dictators). This is the reason that your thinking and mine are polar opposites: you think that you have the right to control what I think and do, whereas I think that I have the right to control what I think and do, all by myself and without interference from you or anyone else. Further, what you think and do is of no concern to me, up until you assert your supposed “right” to control me and my thoughts and actions. I will defend myself from that, as would you defend yourself; self defense is a human right... except under totalitarianism. (Another difference between freedom and Islam/totalitarianism).
Also, your received opinion of your deity is that you are imbued with the righteous powers of superiority, and must control what I think and do. That makes you, under your own opinion, a self-righteous aggressor on me.
”2- Every person who is skeptical of some or all of the declarations have the intellectual right to be given evidence that they are declarations that he/she should believe in. If there are logical arguments to be made in favor of these declarations to convince a rational person, it wouldn't matter whether some people don't believe in them. However, for some elites or 'intellectual' state that people should believe in them because they are written in a piece of paper is irrational.”
You probably think you are describing the freedoms of the west; in fact this statement illuminates the problem inherent in Islam, to wit:
a) Skepticism is fine, even encouraged, in a free society; it is not fine in a totalitarian society such as Islam.
b) If the skeptic chooses not to “believe” in freedom for other people, that belief is fine until it becomes an action of totalitarian nature against other people. It is not the case that freedom to reject freedom (i.e., non-coherent thought) is also free to abuse other people’s freedom (non-coherent actions).
c) For some elites or Imams to state that people MUST believe in them because they are written on a piece of paper (Qur’an, Hadith) is irrational. No one in a free society is forced to believe in anything; they can pursue truth to find what is actually true; they may not force an ideology on anyone else as does Islam.
”3- Are these declarations exhaustive, in which you can't add or detract from it, or is it possible to change or modify them?
If that is the case, did humanity finally create perfection from human effort?”
Of course they can be changed, and they have been 27 times by national consensus in the form of constitutional amendments. The thrust of the changes was to expand personal freedoms and to restrict governmental freedoms. The problem in the USA is that the government has deviated from the constitutional restrictions on its powers, and the Leftist courts have support those deviations. The necessity for protecting the principles of freedom from corruption by totalitarian infiltration is obvious, and is currently an issue in the USA. That does not invalidate freedom as a moral principle, it illuminates the need to protect it from conquest by immoral totalitarians.
”4- Why do you want these principles to be made universal?”
I do not. You have not read what I have written and you are making bad assumptions. I want to preserve the freedoms which the USA has historically had as a free nation of free men. If you want to live under thought control, it’s up to you… except that you cannot assert that on people here. And there are many in the rest of the world who also do not want Islamic thought and act control, either. They will fight for their own freedom from your totalitarian demands.
Because the USA has more resources than some of those freedom-lovers who are attacked by Islam and its brutalities, I do think that when it is requested to help preserve the freedoms of other groups or nations, that the USA should do so, just as we did in WWII (freeing France, Spain, Italy and much of north Africa as well as much of the Pacific from totalitarian subjugation). This has and will aggravate the totalitarians who wish total control over others. Such aggravation cannot be avoided, except by the totalitarians leaving others alone.
Since you believe in your form of totalitarian subjugation, you will not find that to be favorable or even moral, according to your own ideology of total conquest in pursuit of the global caliphate. That is where we conflict, and you should expect it. You cannot argue freedom lovers into giving you control over them, unless they are insane.
”Please show me that the morality you are advocating is not enforced consequentialism.”
That is interesting coming from a totalitarian, where the consequence of heresy justifies any possible means whatsoever, from mere ravaging and destruction to mass murder.
However, it is possible to say that to survive the onslaught of totalitarian, barbarian, genocidal hordes, that the consequence, survival, pragmatically justifies the means to defend oneself, whatever that requires. And that is the definition of tactic, or consequentialism; consequentialism is not a moral position, it is the pragmatic decision to do what is necessary, for a given objective. The issue becomes that of the morality of both the consequence and the means. For Islam, the objective of total conquest of human thought and action is not moral unless one believes that the deity is too weak and the ideology too weak to be accepted voluntarily on the basis of its own truth, and therefore must be FORCED onto people, not by the diety but by violent people. That is a corrupt morality, from a weak deity and a weak ideology. Plus it is fully consequentialist in that it projects all possible actions regardless of brutality as being "moral" while it is being pursued. (jihad).
”You seem to be under the impression that: More freedom = Better. That is fallacious; so the best system is anarchy? On what basis do you limit freedom?”
Freedom to choose one’s own path and to accept the natural consequences is not fallacious. There is no logic fallacy involved. Nor is there anarchy, as you assume in your black and white thinking. A principled people do not live in anarchy. They do have rules for civil behavior which respects individual freedoms and fair treatment.
When people are allowed to search earnestly and honestly for actual truth they are much more likely to find it than to have "revealed dogma" jammed down their throats. You will not agree, probably, because jamming your brand of supposed “truth” down people’s throats is a fundamental premise of Islam. And yet how can one accept it as actual truth rather than the totalitarian narrative which must be accepted on pain of death? For Islamists, that doesn’t matter because the consequence – enforced worship no matter how dishonest out of fear – is deemed to justify the means: that is true consequentialism in the absence of moral means or objectives. Why would a deity settle for that?
Freedom is limited, to answer your question, by limiting the incursion of one person on another, and the state upon individuals, except for the state intervening, not to prevent the incursion of one person on another, but to react to such incursions. And the state is to defend the nation from incursion by totalitarian invasion in order to preserve individual freedoms.
”I guess we are in the same page:
Secularist constitution = No contradicting Islamic policies.
Islamic constitution = No contradicting Secular policies.”
I am unable to garner any meaning from this set of equivalencies.
”Also, what democracy? The thing never was never effective or fully applied, and will fail miserably with a larger population. The US is a republic. "Democracy" is a word used by demagogues to get people to vote for them.”
A republic is merely a democracy via representation. Nothing demagogic about it. The differentiation is purely trivial.
”I believe I was fully transparent about my intolerance toward falsehood. Second of all, I stated that tolerance is relative depending on the behavior under question.
So you are intolerant toward intolerance of dissent because of dissent? Less self-refuting statements please.”
The entire concept of “tolerance” as an absolute principle is bathed in contradiction. Total tolerance is not a western principle. It is a Marxist pseudo-principle. Any actual moral principle both discriminates against immorality as acceptable for personal consumption, and it does not tolerate it in the personal behavior of the adherent if that person is not attempting to correct his own behavior. Without personal discrimination and intolerance (in the sense given) there is no morality involved.
Which is why Islam invokes a false sense of morality: it is necessary to feign moral acceptance if one does not accept the moral premises. Thus dishonesty in morality is concealed by the necessity of not getting beheaded. This is not moral, either for the enforcers or the enforced.
”That is how things work: Someone who believes in absolutes will take over those who don't believe in absolutes (those who advocate homosexuality do believe in absolutes, even if their belief has no rational basis). So how exactly are you going to prevent them without being totalitarian yourself?”
Again, defense of freedom is not totalitarian. The Allies of WWII engaged the totalitarians with considerable uncomfortable counter violence; that did not make them totalitarian. Not in the least. The Allies returned the countries to the people who rightfully owned them. Those countries went on to peacefully become prosperous representative democracies. The remaining totalitarians remained in poverty as their people were subjugated and not motivated (Russia, China). Only as their people gained more freedom have they gained more prosperity.
When the internal fight against immorality is lost to peaceful means, the totalitarians within the USA will force the rest of us into a combat type war, a second civil war. Both sides stand to lose, because the opportunity for outside invasion will be great.
Wars of liberation are not totalitarian when actual liberation is the objective and not total control of thoughts and actions of the losers.
”There are dozens of non-morally neutral things humanbeings are not equal at, and they are definitely not materially equal. Treating everyone with absolute equality makes absolutely no sense. If some people are born with or develop wings, the only way to achieve equality is to either find some way to prevent wings from ever growing in future generations, or to clip them. Likewise, the beautiful needs to be scarred, the athlete needs to be crippled, the intelligent must be dumbed down, etc.”
Except for the fair treatment of people (repecting their free autonomy), in the rest of this we are in complete agreement. It seems to apply more to Islam than to free western culture.
”"That is again, completely false. Western culture is heavily based in Aristotelian logic, [...]"
Then please present a deductive argument, and explain how Western culture is: 1- not based on whims, 2- Believes in objective morality and can find it.
You might as well say that math is the source of morality; sure you can use math to help you not-steal, but you'll never get an equation that says "stealing is wrong", and even if you could there is no reason to follow it.”
It appears to me that you could never “follow” life in western culture because you believe that freedom to pursue truth without dogmatic hindrance from your particular Ideology is immoral and must be eradicated.
Islam’s forced obedience:
IF [Some random person claims to have received revealed morality ], THEN [ I must follow it ] AND [ others who refuse to follow as I do must be killed ]Western religious freedom to accept truth:
IF [ truth exists ] AND [ it is the causal agent for natural existence ] THEN [ I can pursue it to its source ] AND [ meditate on and commune with the source of truth ] IFF [ I am free ]; ELSE [ I can wander freely and the deity, if any, will deal with me in its own time and manner ].The reason that you didn’t anticipate that syllogism’s might actually exist is likely because you accept dogma without reasoning, to be Islamic truth. Plus you also likely don’t use or understand deductive syllogisms as any sort of path to even physical truths, much less metaphysical truth.
”"Yes. No one is allowed to think thoughts which are not approved by the nomenklatura. [...]"
Of course they are allowed; spying is forbidden after all. However, Muslims prevent public immorality, and hence the spread of ideologies. You prefer quantity, and I prefer quality.”
By restricting yourself to a specific subjective, received dogma and eliminating all other rational paths as heresy, you have no comparative referent for “quality”. So that claim cannot be the case. Only by discriminating examination of all truth claims in an intellectually honest, rationally measured fashion can a truth claim be known to actually be the case. The Islamic intellect is killed by the dogmatic coffin into which it is forced. It is reduced to rationalizing around a presupposed truth, not finding what is actually true.
”"Given the Hamas cartoon just this week of a mountain of Jewish skulls your claims are falsified by facts, [...]"
Again, more redherrings rather than addressing my statement. I am just wondering; if you don't want people to discuss your culture, then why are you discussing, say, Saudi culture?”
First, it was Palestinian, not Saudi. If your Islam is not the same as the Islam of Saudis or the Islam of Palestinians or the Islam of Iranians or the Islam of Boko Haram, or the Islam of the Afghanis, then what qualifies you to claim “objective” morality? You cannot make that claim without denying the legitimacy of all other Islamic claims, thereby designating them as heretical and worthy of beheading by you. Your claim of certainty in your knowledge of your deity’s intended meaning implies a special contact with Allah specifically for you, and not for other Islamics who don’t share your particular religious claims. How do you account for your special contact and communication with the deity, unless you are another prophet, sent to interpret for the inconsistencies of Muhammad?
Now then, here is exactly what you said:
””If you see the epitome of freedom is choosing what to buy from the grocery store then that is the epitome of a simplistic view (Free to choose your DNA, school, teachers, etc? Free to not follow the laws of your country which were decided by someone else outside of your control?).
I am sure you will applaud your family members being drawn and published publicly; I think I'll settle with a culture that is based on respect and cooperation.””
You actually settle for a culture which is based on fear and suppression, not respect; Islam demeans women, considers men too morally weak to resist rape, and slaughters even its own Islamists as well as heretics around the world. Islamic families slaughter women who have been the victim of rape. You cannot make that claim - "a culture based on respect" - without creating laughter. Because it is not true and it most obviously is not true, and obviously you know it is not true but you say it anyway.
A culture based on respect allows individuals the freedom to exercise their own paths to the deity or away from the deity and the consequence of that is exercised by the deity, which has no need for barbaric interference from humans. That, and not Islam, is respect for the deity and respect for humans.
”Again, more redherrings rather than addressing my statement. I am just wondering; if you don't want people to discuss your culture, then why are you discussing, say, Saudi culture?”
Another complete absurdity: people discuss American culture every day of every year; you are so far out of touch that you don’t know anything about a free culture, where all, ALL, culture possibilities may be discussed freely, including Islam. There is no offense taken at this free practice by anyone but Muslims (and Marxists), who want all non-dogmatic information suppressed, and dogma to be forced on the people whether they want it or not.
Must I remind you, that is totalitarianism?
”"Your use of “God” is false; Islam subjugates mankind into denial of free will, [...]"
Interesting that the Aramaic word for "God" is "Allah", and it was used by Christians and Jews hundreds of years before Islam. In fact, He is immensely more deserving of the Capital G than the god described in the bible.
Allah gave us a degree of free will; hence we can sin. What denial are you talking about?”
If you have free will, why do you force dogmatic behaviors which eliminate free will to choose to accept the deity, unless you as a human cannot allow people to exercise their free will and assume the responsibility for the consequences, consequences which a real deity would provide? The reason is obvious: Islam is not a voluntary ideology; it is forced by totalitarian dicates due to the perception that the deity is too weak to provide consequences and therefore needs Islamists to kill and maim for him/it.
”"This has to be the most rationally absurd statement possible to make, especially in the face of objective evidence. [...]"
I believe I was talking about Islamic societies, not bloody civil wars.
Perhaps you meant to address my last statement "only for the sake of stability..."?”
Either way, to claim that Islamic societies don’t force Islam onto minorities is absurd. And stability is not a moral reason, it is an excuse for doing so.
”"Ah. Reparations are necessary. [...]"
Reduction to absurdity; collective punishment based on guilt by association.
Of course, injustice toward certain blue-blooded whiteman classes are more worthy of attention than all other instances.”
Absolute BS. Your claim was this:
”I am OK with French telling French Muslims to get out of their land if France restores what colonism took from their grandparent's lands, and the streets built by their grandparents as cheap labor while living in ghettos are removed.”
You specifically demand a reparation for an historical offense. There is no second way to interpret your statement. I highlighted the hypocrisy involved with that. It was the belief in Islam that killed everyone in the WORLD TRADE towers INCLUDING MUSLIMS AND CITIZENS OF NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD. There is no logical absurdity involved as you claim; however: invoking whiteman is a racist slur. (and ill placed on your part, since you have no idea what race I am, what skin tone or ethnicity I might be). Under Islam, depending on the sect, I would be justified in producing any amount of violence to recompense for the slur. Under free speech there is no need and no impulse for that violence; it is understood for what it is and ignored; but the slur reflects on the source. That is a specific demonstration of the difference between Islam and the free ideologies of the west.
In fact, it is obviously more important to you to avenge historical offenses than to even recognize Islamic offenses. You have made that abundantly clear, by your deprecation of "whitemen". Your Islam is more righteous and therefore nothing else deserves consideration, only slurs.
This is why westerners realize full well the intolerance and self-righteous nature of Islam in any and all of its forms, regardless of whether IslamA kills IslamB and IslamC – all of Islam has the same self-righteous nature which is intolerant of even its own sub-Islams (probably especially them).
”"It seems contradictory; one sect claims one truth, [...]"
"There are multiple scientific and historical theories, and since they contradict each other then all of them are false!".
More incoherent statements.”
Of course I did not say that; you concluded yourself that from the evidence. And you obviously cannot address which of the obvious contradictions is, in fact, Truth as Muhammad received it. Further, you seem to acknowledge the stress of not knowing which is the case. This conundrum exists for you because there is no rational case within Islam that proves rationally that it and only it is True by virtue of its incorrigible validity (or else there would be no sectarian wars). So every sect claims sole possession of “truth” and the moral authority to declare all other sects to be heretical, and then to try to perform genocide on the heretics. It’s just the way Islam works.
Btw, quoting Islamic dogma is a no-starter; I have no reason to read it, having read the Qur'an and rejected it in light of its totalitarian and violent hatred which is applied to humans such as myself. I think that perhaps a summary of differences between Islamic and western ideology can be seen in what they each defend:
Western ideology defends and preserves the freedom from dictator oppression, starting with the despotism of King George and extending to all totalitarian encroachments.
Islam defends and preserves the divine obligation to oppress heretics using barbaric methods which are justified as holy.