StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:However it got there, here it is, and that's a different story.

I think the point you're missing is that Christianity never really changed (see Falwell). It merely got watered down by secular humanism. Secular humanism could do the same to Islam if given a chance, but that would imply visionary leaders in some of those Islamic countries.

Iraq's government is secular.

Durran Korr wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I think the point you're missing is that Christianity never really changed (see Falwell). It merely got watered down by secular humanism. Secular humanism could do the same to Islam if given a chance, but that would imply visionary leaders in some of those Islamic countries.

Iraq's government is secular.

OK, that's the first half of "secular humanism". When do they plan to start respecting human rights?

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote: MAINSTREAM Islam, today, is where Christianity was 1000 years ago. Intolerant, hateful, savage, and VIOLENTLY EXPANTIONISTIC.

Intolerance, hatred and paranoia are certainly core aspects of mainstream Islam but to call them savage and violent expansionists is probably going a bit far. The biggest problem with mainstream Islam is not violent expansionism down to the last man but rather its implicit support of the 5% lunatic fringe who are violently expansionist. The mainstream refuses to recognize and deal with the fringe. Worse still, the mainstream radicalizes when someone else steps in to eradicate the fringe elements.

Islam as a whole will remain a threat to the smooth operation of western civilization until we either wipe all of them out or the Islam-belt (N. Africa east to Indonesia) modernizes from within, secularizes, and comes to realize that violently insane shitheads shouldn't be supported just because they happen to be fellow Muslims.

At the moment, however, it is very difficult to find any redeeming qualities whatsoever in a cultural movement whos only contributions to global affairs in the past 18 months is a combined total of 4,000+ murders comitted in the name of Allah.

Enlightenment wrote:Islam as a whole will remain a threat to the smooth operation of western civilization until we either wipe all of them out or the Islam-belt (N. Africa east to Indonesia) modernizes from within, secularizes, and comes to realize that violently insane shitheads shouldn't be supported just because they happen to be fellow Muslims.

I can say that without hypocrisy, as an atheist.

But can moderate Christians say that without hypocrisy, particularly if they support states like Israel? What's the difference between moderate Muslims quietly supporting Muslim violent expansionists and moderate Judeo-Christians quietly supporting Judeo-Christian violent expansionists?

Frankly, from the perspective of a non-religious person, this looks from the outside like just another fucking holy war. Judeo-Christians against Muslims: the Grudge Match, complete with trash-talking. See it on Pay-Per-View.

Secular humanism and Islam does work, look at Turkey (and by the by I am Greek, so for me to show Turkey in a good light means alot), it's secularism is guaranteed by the military. It's an applicant for the EU (has been since the 70's) and a member of NATO. Also Iran had a good secular democracy going, until the government at the time decided to not sell oil at favourable prices to the US, was subsequently overthrown by the US, who istilled the Shah, which was overthrown by the Islamic fundies and is now a part of the 'Axis of Evil'.

Aint the world a funny place?

Crown wrote:Secular humanism and Islam does work, look at Turkey (and by the by I am Greek, so for me to show Turkey in a good light means alot), it's secularism is guaranteed by the military. It's an applicant for the EU (has been since the 70's) and a member of NATO. Also Iran had a good secular democracy going, until the government at the time decided to not sell oil at favourable prices to the US, was subsequently overthrown by the US, who istilled the Shah, which was overthrown by the Islamic fundies and is now a part of the 'Axis of Evil'.

Aint the world a funny place?

A greek Aussie who lives in Melbourne? Say it ain't so!

Crown wrote:Secular humanism and Islam does work, look at Turkey (and by the by I am Greek, so for me to show Turkey in a good light means alot), it's secularism is guaranteed by the military. It's an applicant for the EU (has been since the 70's) and a member of NATO. Also Iran had a good secular democracy going, until the government at the time decided to not sell oil at favourable prices to the US, was subsequently overthrown by the US, who istilled the Shah, which was overthrown by the Islamic fundies and is now a part of the 'Axis of Evil'.

Aint the world a funny place?

Tunisia and Algeria are also definitely secular Muslim States. Tunisia can be called the model Secular Arab State, really. Of course they're both dictatorships.

Really, though, Turkey does have the full concepts of secular humanism, though they have developed slowly and painfully. It is a functional democracy, and this has been proven just recently - Though the army still has an influence in politics, it has no longer resorted to coups to defend Atatürk's revolution.

The legacy of Atatürk is the greatest in the Muslim world, he stands as that figure that proved that an Islamic country could be secularized, and eventually reach secular humanism, and I think of him as one of the greatest men to live in the 20th century, second only to Winston Churchill, for that accomplishment - For the force that he turned aside was indeed incredible.

That's also why I fear for the Muslim world and think such extreme measures may be necessary to win. Men (In an Islamic society a woman with his attributes would never have a chance to exercise them after all) like Atatürk don't come along often, and we don't have the time to waste waiting for such incredible changes to be wrought at the hands of incredible men in each Muslim Nation-State while, in the meanwhile, the most rabid forms of fanaticism spread.

Vympel wrote:A greek Aussie who lives in Melbourne? Say it ain't so!

Third largest populous city of Greeks after Athens and Thesseloniki!

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Tunisia and Algeria are also definitely secular Muslim States. Tunisia can be called the model Secular Arab State, really. Of course they're both dictatorships.

Really, though, Turkey does have the full concepts of secular humanism, though they have developed slowly and painfully. It is a functional democracy, and this has been proven just recently - Though the army still has an influence in politics, it has no longer resorted to coups to defend Atatürk's revolution.

The legacy of Atatürk is the greatest in the Muslim world, he stands as that figure that proved that an Islamic country could be secularized, and eventually reach secular humanism, and I think of him as one of the greatest men to live in the 20th century, second only to Winston Churchill, for that accomplishment - For the force that he turned aside was indeed incredible.

That's also why I fear for the Muslim world and think such extreme measures may be necessary to win. Men (In an Islamic society a woman with his attributes would never have a chance to exercise them after all) like Atatürk don't come along often, and we don't have the time to waste waiting for such incredible changes to be wrought at the hands of incredible men in each Muslim Nation-State while, in the meanwhile, the most rabid forms of fanaticism spread.

Ataturk, was one of the greatest men of this century. He saved the modern state of Turkey from the Greeks, French, English and Russians after WWI. Turkis women in particular owe him a dept that's inmeasureable. IIRC Turkish women were the first to be given the right to vote in the world! And they didn't have to struggle for this right, Ataturk gave it to them freely. That's why I don't support this notion of Islam = evil, or Islam = Christianity 1000 years ago, because the reverse is also true. During the height of the Isalmic empire the standard of living of the average Islamic person was by far higher than the average European! They unfortunatel (for the most part) failed to become secular, and that's what held them back.

Darth Wong wrote: What's the difference between moderate Muslims quietly supporting Muslim violent expansionists and moderate Judeo-Christians quietly supporting Judeo-Christian violent expansionists?

About the same difference between six and half-a-dozen. That is to say, none at all.

Although for the sake of playing devil's advocate, Israeli state terrorism is almost entirely confined to a small geographic area while Islamist terrorism is global and effects a lot more people. But even this difference is just a matter of scale.

Frankly, from the perspective of a non-religious person, this looks from the outside like just another fucking holy war. Judeo-Christians against Muslims: the Grudge Match, complete with trash-talking. See it on Pay-Per-View.

Certainly that's the way it's viewed on the Muslim/terrorist side of the fence. They regard the west as Christian and/or Zionist rather than secular. As far as Islam is concerned the terrorist groups are simply waging holy war against followers of the wrong gods.

Crown wrote:Secular humanism and Islam does work, look at Turkey (and by the by I am Greek, so for me to show Turkey in a good light means alot), it's secularism is guaranteed by the military.

Don't speak too quickly here. Take a look at which party is leading in the Turkish election polls at the moment.

I know, but in the end the military has always intervened to stop a fundie government from ruling Turkey. Turkey's military actually protects it's citizens rights, whether or not they want them to.

Enlightenment wrote:

Crown wrote:Secular humanism and Islam does work, look at Turkey (and by the by I am Greek, so for me to show Turkey in a good light means alot), it's secularism is guaranteed by the military.

Don't speak too quickly here. Take a look at which party is leading in the Turkish election polls at the moment.

Turkey is in the midst of a huge economic crisis, you know. They may not be voting religion - They may like the economic policies of the Islamist parties more than those the secular parties.

Umm, Crown, Turkish women weren't the first in the world allowed to vote. New Zealand was first in the world to grant women the right to vote, in 1902 or 1903, and Finland did the same in 1906. Could be the Turks were in third place, but not higher than that.

[nationalistic grumble]damn New Zealanders beat us to it by a couple of measly years, and may they suffer the pox for upstaging us... *continues muttering*[/nationalistic grumble]

Edi

Thanks for the correction Edi.

Edi wrote:Umm, Crown, Turkish women weren't the first in the world allowed to vote. New Zealand was first in the world to grant women the right to vote, in 1902 or 1903, and Finland did the same in 1906. Could be the Turks were in third place, but not higher than that.

[nationalistic grumble]damn New Zealanders beat us to it by a couple of measly years, and may they suffer the pox for upstaging us... *continues muttering*[/nationalistic grumble]

Edi

"The Female Suffrage Act of 1895" in South Australia Colony was the first that allowed women the vote. However, they couldn't vote in the national elections, when Australia was unified in a single body, until after they could in New Zealand.

Women weren't given the right to vote in Turkey until 1934; a relative newcomer to the concept, but well after pretty much most other European countries. Not, however, France, Switzerland, Belgium, or Portugal, all of which were western European nations which didn't have female suffrage and wouldn't for a long while in some cases.

Okay, I'll give the Aussies the credit they deserve for allowing female suffrage in local elections earlier than us, but they still lose out in this race. I don't know about NZ, if they had that earlier as well. We went the whole distance in one go in 1906. When did Australian women get universal suffrage?

Edi

Edi wrote:Okay, I'll give the Aussies the credit they deserve for allowing female suffrage in local elections earlier than us, but they still lose out in this race. I don't know about NZ, if they had that earlier as well. We went the whole distance in one go in 1906. When did Australian women get universal suffrage?

Edi

Well, South Australian women did get universal suffrage in 1895. The thing is that South Australia then became part of Australia after that, and Australia as a whole didnt have female suffrage when it first came into being as a country (Or, more properly before the Statute of Westminster, Commonwealth). So the first national elections that Australian women participated in were in 1903.

Conversely, some of the other Australian states didn't get around to granting women the vote until after the national government did. The last holdout gave in during 1908, Victoria IIRC.

So it was a rather splotchy implementation, but South Australia can claim the first honours. Of course, they were a government of HM the Queen, so maybe you guys win as an independent and in fact sovereign nation with full control over its own affairs. But that may be splitting things a bit too closely. OTOH, a lot of national pride is like that.. *grins*

P.S. I'll have a reply to your post in the other thread in which we've conversed by sometime... Later today.

Bump for kheegan