By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - China has just banned the burqa in its biggest Muslim city

DanneSandin said:
Samus Aran said:
DanneSandin said:

Well, in all fairness I DO think there actually was more than one khalif at certain points in history. And contrary to what was first intended, the khalifs formed their own dynasties.

And there hasn't always been a clear cut line between state and church in Europe; tahat's one of the characteristics of the middle ages.

Of course, hence the text between brackets lol. I could write an entire thesis about the relation between state and church in Europe, but I don't have that much time to waste on a forum! :) 

And yes, there have been multiple khalifs at certain points in history, just like there have been multiple popes. That's all pretty much self implied though, it always happens to huge empires

Yeah, the whole dynamic of State and Religion is quite interesting. Do you know anything about how much Roman religion interfered in their politics? I think I heard something about it some time ago, but can't remember it.

Now Roman religion is definitely interesting... I would say those in power "abused" the religion for their own (political) needs. That's what pretty much always happened. 

It's a polytheistic religion that serves the state. Romans didn't fear their gods, the gods helped them through all sorts of deals. Take sacrifices for example: the gods got the useless stuff no one eats and the rest was distributed to the people who were present at the sacrifice. :) It's a very practical religion. There were even ceremonies where the gods of enemies were allowed into the Roman pantheon. 

There also was no canon: you could believe what you want to believe, as long as you follow the correct rituals! There are many different and conflicting myths. I'm sure many Romans didn't believe in all that nonsense. The only thing that matters was following the correct rituals! If you fuck up a ritual that will mean doom for the state! 

So, very practical and ritualistic religion. No one would kill you if you said Jupiter didn't exist... As long as you followed all the correct rituals... 



Around the Network
padib said:
DanneSandin said:

I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree =) None of the Abrahamic religions are all that peaceful actually. They all feature and legitimzes violance and slavery. What's WRONG with religion is their Holy Books, and Islam has the Hadiths on top of that

The Abrahamic religions are based on morality and principle before the eyes of a creator. All three of them.

The jews have a responsability before God to be faithful to his commandments (Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, ...) lest they suffer his wrath.

The christians are called to follow in the footsteps of their messiah (if someone hits your right cheek, give them the left cheek).

The muslims have a whole law prescribing them how to be fair to those around them.

There are aspects in the books of the respective three religions that could empower a psychotic person, but almost always to the detriment of the laws and moreal principles in the book itself.

Yes, I agree that these religions have SOME good qualities, but I would argue that those are also found around the world regardless of religion, and even WITHOUT religion. The Abrahamic God is a cruel one with little sense of Morale, in my eyes at least. One great example of this is the story or Sodomon and Gomora; Lot (the ONLY good recident in this city) gets a visit from two Angels, and a mob then gathers around his house wanting to rape these two fellas. Instead Lot offers his virgin daughter (or if it were two of them?) for the mob to rape. That's real classy. That's the morale of the Bible. And do you know what the punishment of leaving the Islamic faith is? Death. How neat. Great morale ;)

I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh and angry, that's absolutely not the case =) I just find these things interesting.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

I agree with the banning of a piece of clothing that hides ones identity- its a matter of security basically no matter what religion people fall into. This may sound harsh but if people travel to other people countries (especially china) they should be expected to comply to their thoughts and actions towards these issues. This sounds similar to what TONY ABOTT was planning to do in AUS where he wanted to ban the burqua in parliament house but couldn't because the greens called "racism" etc.

I am like no, it could be a man behind that piece of clothing with bombs or something strapped to him.



Samus Aran said:
DanneSandin said:

Yeah, the whole dynamic of State and Religion is quite interesting. Do you know anything about how much Roman religion interfered in their politics? I think I heard something about it some time ago, but can't remember it.

Now Roman religion is definitely interesting... I would say those in power "abused" the religion for their own (political) needs. That's what pretty much always happened. 

It's a polytheistic religion that serves the state. Romans didn't fear their gods, the gods helped them through all sorts of deals. Take sacrifices for example: the gods got the useless stuff no one eats and the rest was distributed to the people who were present at the sacrifice. :) It's a very practical religion. There were even ceremonies where the gods of enemies were allowed into the Roman pantheon. 

There also was no canon: you could believe what you want to believe, as long as you follow the correct rituals! There are many different and conflicting myths. I'm sure many Romans didn't believe in all that nonsense. The only thing that matters was following the correct rituals! If you fuck up a ritual that will mean doom for the state! 

So, very practical and ritualistic religion. No one would kill you if you said Jupiter didn't exist... As long as you followed all the correct rituals... 

Yes, this seems familiar! The more I hear of these ancient religions, the more I appreciate them actually. And yes, the nobilis would almost certainly abuse the religious power to gain political power, but it seems to me it was in such a manor that I would almost describe it as the reverse of what we have today. If that makes sense? :P

I guess that was one of the great things with ancient religion (and ultimately, its greatest weakness) it wasn't orginazed it the same way as christianity or islam.

Bolded: that also rings a bell! Very handy actually :P And if I remember correct, didn't erly christians adopt some of the rituals? That's why we have quite a few of them in catholicism?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

FightingSmile said:
I agree with the banning of a piece of clothing that hides ones identity- its a matter of security basically no matter what religion people fall into. This may sound harsh but if people travel to other people countries (especially china) they should be expected to comply to their thoughts and actions towards these issues. This sounds similar to what TONY ABOTT was planning to do in AUS where he wanted to ban the burqua in parliament house but couldn't because the greens called "racism" etc.

I am like no, it could be a man behind that piece of clothing with bombs or something strapped to him.

Yes, but wouldn't it make more sense to ban ALL face masking then, and not just the burqas?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network
DanneSandin said:

I would wager that most Scandinavian politicians are atheists today, and probably have been for quite some time, and we're doing quite well thank you =)

Well, they may be atheists but I think we both know that the state religion is actually political correctness. That's why a Christian preacher who denounces homosexuality runs the risk of prosecution for hate speech in Sweden while an imam who does the same is going to be left alone.



DanneSandin said:

Yes, I agree that these religions have SOME good qualities, but I would argue that those are also found around the world regardless of religion, and even WITHOUT religion. The Abrahamic God is a cruel one with little sense of Morale, in my eyes at least. One great example of this is the story or Sodomon and Gomora; Lot (the ONLY good recident in this city) gets a visit from two Angels, and a mob then gathers around his house wanting to rape these two fellas. Instead Lot offers his virgin daughter (or if it were two of them?) for the mob to rape. That's real classy. That's the morale of the Bible. And do you know what the punishment of leaving the Islamic faith is? Death. How neat. Great morale ;)

I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh and angry, that's absolutely not the case =) I just find these things interesting.

It's okay, you sound fine. I think that for every sick verse you will find a noble one.

As for Lot's action, I'm not willing to excuse it, and I'm not sure the bible excuses all actions that are described in it either. Lot may have been a righteous man, but so was David, and he took Uriah's wife in adultery with him, and had Uriah killed in the battlefield.

So being righteous doesn't excuse all one's actions, even if they are documented in the bible. Perhaps Lot's intention was noble but his actions were less. He may have intended to forbid a holy angel of God to be defiled, but perhaps his approach was wrong. It is difficult to judge since we don't know if there is a different offense between raping an angel and raping a human. It's a sick question, but let's remember that the central point of the story is that the people in that land were sexually perverted.



DanneSandin said:
FightingSmile said:
I agree with the banning of a piece of clothing that hides ones identity- its a matter of security basically no matter what religion people fall into. This may sound harsh but if people travel to other people countries (especially china) they should be expected to comply to their thoughts and actions towards these issues. This sounds similar to what TONY ABOTT was planning to do in AUS where he wanted to ban the burqua in parliament house but couldn't because the greens called "racism" etc.

I am like no, it could be a man behind that piece of clothing with bombs or something strapped to him.

Yes, but wouldn't it make more sense to ban ALL face masking then, and not just the burqas?

the problem is that burqas and niqabs are used as everyday clothing and refused to remove anywhere else than at home / as long as strangers are present



DanneSandin said:

Yes, this seems familiar! The more I hear of these ancient religions, the more I appreciate them actually. And yes, the nobilis would almost certainly abuse the religious power to gain political power, but it seems to me it was in such a manor that I would almost describe it as the reverse of what we have today. If that makes sense? :P

I guess that was one of the great things with ancient religion (and ultimately, its greatest weakness) it wasn't orginazed it the same way as christianity or islam.

Bolded: that also rings a bell! Very handy actually :P And if I remember correct, didn't erly christians adopt some of the rituals? That's why we have quite a few of them in catholicism?

Christmas for example. :p

The Christmas tree as well.



Ruler said:
well china is atheist so its fair imo


I'm pretty sure a country can't have a religion  :p



Ltd predictions by the time 9th Gen comes out

Ps4:110million

Xbox one :75 million( was 65) 

Wii u: 20 milliion