Secular Fundamentalists vs Religious Fundamentalists - 2

[TheGreatDeciever55]

its also funny because a child can go into a school in France---take off their turban---and put it back on afterwards----its a matter of their conveneince though-----the religious belief sikhs hold IS THAT THEY CANNOT CUT THEIR HAIR----so you fool---this is NOT BEING INFRINGED UPON!!!! the Turban is a conveneint invention and not necessary to the sikh rleigion----it is a cultural icon also used to denote respect and nobility---but no scripture insists upon its wearing--your so wrong its painful

[TheGreatDeciever55]

keep in mind that Secular nations are run by people who do not always stick to secular ideology----thats why you have religious bannings---not because of secularism----but because of peoples and organizations own agendas---but regardless...you can wear a turban anywhere in france so long as its not a government run facility (and most actually do allow it too) where such apparel can conceal weapons---like hats or trench coats---you dont see nudist getting upset about no shirt no shoes no service

[TheGreatDeciever55]

the issue is whether or not these bans are a result of FUNDAMENTAL SECULARISM----if religous apparel is being banned---then the banning is ANTI secular---because part of secularism ideology is that religion and its apparel cannot be banned---hence any banning of religious apparel is ANTI-SECULARIST....see the funny thing is--I KNEW you were incredible unknowledgable about ACTUAL secularism so i did you the benefit of informing you---and then you accuse me of lack of knowledge? Bite me you prick

[TheGreatDeciever55]

to elaborate EVEN further->this is a actually a case of religious people being upset that secularism prevents their relgion from being fully authorative---NOT becuase it prevents it from existent or being (reasonably) expressed---it only makes it so their (mainly supersticious) beliefs are halted from affecting our governments---so naturally the religious side claims its predjudice against them to give them a foot hold on the argument---but real secularists know this to be a logical fallacy

[Funkifized]

@TheGreatDeciever55 if you can't access the links, just google "french secularism laicite turbans" or something replace "turban" with some other religious apparel. or maybe search "Singapore school girls tudung". i think i shall forget about replying you any further. you show an incredible lack of knowledge in this area and it's not worth debating anymore.

[TheGreatDeciever55]

...excuse me? i said no secular nation prohibts the wearing of religious apparel---your references are to PUBLIC SCHOOLS----everywhere else in France you can wear whatever the hell you want----not only is the ban being appealed, but in most schools in france YOU CANT EVEN WEAR HATS---its a dresscode issue---not a religious one---but SINCE it has religious connotations...it has become a religious issue...incredible lack of knowledge?--i know this intimitely---this is NOT the cause of secularism

[TheGreatDeciever55]

to truely be a secular fundamentalist you must believe that you cannot use religious doctrine/belief to affect law and force people into your religious thinking---AND you must also believe that you cannot use anti-religious belief to force people into an athiest way of thinking----to elaborate further--the reason religious fundamenalists get all up in arms againt secularism is because they believe their god is law---NOT because secularism prevents the worship or expression of said God

[TheGreatDeciever55]

---->>unless it involves murder or other generalized criminal activity---besides America does not possess a Syariah court (thank "God") Malaysia does but it isnt in any sense secular just because it possess a constitution....aswell polygamy is also seen as criminal (although this is actually being debated right now in the supreme court) in that its viewed as abusive to women---some people think it violates civil rights but some people dont---hence secularism allows open discussion and decision

[Funkifized]

@TheGreatDeciever55 hku.hk/sociodep/bbf/BBF%20Read­ings%20W9/W9%20TheSikhTurban.p­df , concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.ph­p?org_id=1551&kb_header_id=700­1

Please do your research.

[TheGreatDeciever55]

in other words America cannot just allow anyone to infringe on other peoples potential safety just because the item or potentially dangerous event is deemed religious--because if so, then Jihad would be permitted in America (heavily comprised of fighting non-muslims) its a matter of when one persons right infringes upon others---so certain religious activities must be regulated or in extreme cases banned---but noone in any secular nation cannot enjoy their religious apparel/activity in private

[TheGreatDeciever55]

in short---secularism makes it so that not only can no law be passed that says you MUST be christian---it also prevents any law from being passed that says you CANT be christian---because secularims prevents the law from being influenced by the context of religous thought----and anti-thiesm (or atheism) are within the context of religious thought---> is this CLEAR?

[Funkifized]

@TheGreatDeciever55 if you can't wear turbans or tudungs in the public sphere, how is that supporting freedom of faith? you are not being clear at all because you only have one conception of secularism. think along a spectrum. to WHAT EXTENT should the state be separate from church? And do you really think the law is completely free from religious thought? Or that it should be? I'm agnostic myself but not even I would go so far as to say that is or should be the case.

[Funkifized]

@TheGreatDeciever55 If the law is completely divorced from religious thought, you won't have the syriah courts. you won't have legal exemptions for certain faith practices (e.g. polygamy). and more. go further and the state will actively impose an appearance of secularism in daily life. that's quite a recipe for disaster in a multi-religious society, isn't it? secularism is an IDEA (separation of religion and state). secular fundamentalism is at one extreme end of that idea. it's not the same.

[TheGreatDeciever55]

@Funkifized Well i thing we're cross communicating here----first of all no secular nation prohibits the wearing of religious apparel----except when there is major concerns with safety (issues brought to the supreme court---hence why we have it) for instance a kirpan (a Sikh dagger) has been expelled from public schools for obvious reason--Turbins i dont think have been banned in airports but i do remember hearing that many of them have policies to unwrap and check Turbins for weapons---cont-->

[TheGreatDeciever55]

plus i didnt say secular fundamentalism was a contradictive term---i said secularist fundamentalism VS religious fundamentalism was a contradictive TITLE---i dont mean to be rude...but clearly you couldnt even interpret the simple point i was making--and you blatantly miscontrued it....leaving you in an intellectual sink hole---secular fundamentalism exists-----it is the position that no government can be influenced by religious doctrine or ANTI-religious doctrine---it supports freedom of faith

[Funkifized]

@TheGreatDeciever55 sorry, no. perhaps i was a little confused but what you actually meant, but your idea of secular fundamentalism is quite strange. secular fundamentalism CAN go to the extent of being against religion - it's just how "secular" the state is. let's say you go to to the extent of being so secular that you entirely prevent the citizens from being allowed to have any sort of religious symbol in schools, in the public sphere. is that really neutral?

[TheGreatDeciever55]

Secular Fundamentalists vs Religious Fundamentalists ---this is a contradictive title-----a secular fundamentalist does NOT oppose religious fundamentalists---secularism is a NEUTRAL IDEOLOGY meaning it prevents the government from excercising laws that strengthen religion AND prevent religion---secularism prevents the government from eliminating religion ASWELL.......anti-thiesm vs thiesm makes more sense---secularism is actually beneficial to BOTH SIDES......*siiiigh*

[Funkifized]

@TheGreatDeciever55 i think you are quite mistaken as to what secularism actually means and how many different conceptions of secularism exist. Nothing can ever be "neutral" per se, because you eventually have to take a stand. Secular fundamentalism is not a contradictory term - take for example French secularism which is a called "laicite" which totally prevents their citizens from having any conspicuous displays of religion (e.g. wearing crosses). That is secular, but that is NOT neutral.

[TheGreatDeciever55]

The term was originally the French equivalent of the term laity (everyone who is not Catholic clergy) After the French Revolution the meaning changed and it came to mean keeping religion separate from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. This includes prohibitions on having a state religion as well as for the government to endorse any religious position, be it a religion or ATHEISM---the french banning of crosses was a law passed in 2004 mainly in public schools

[goodjmate]

Keep it sweet keep it simple... leave religion outta politics...