Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Altai

Secularism = Political Atheism

Recommended Posts

On 31/03/2017 at 8:37 AM, Altai said:

Secular-Atheist people are owning public schools as like its not public but its only their owns. They are disturbed by and they think its "discrimination" when a student does not want attend some classes he/she dont like. 

The same secular-atheist people pukes hatred against religions and they dont think that its "discrimination" but its only "freedom of speech".  ^_^ how cute


SECULARISM = POLITICAL ATHEISM

"Religion" etymology 

Quote

religion (n.)

 

c. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re-"again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens"careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

[source from https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion]

The 'secular' concept is merely the ONLY expedient between differing views about nature outside of our capacity to all agree to with clear evidence of the source. We cannot prove what we are not empowered to disprove by definition. So when one holds a religious view that asserts a power one cannot prove nor disprove in some capacity outside of first 'believing' it to be true, it is too expectant of a system to rule over ALL people without some strong force. If your God is already sufficiently powerful to dictate concerns on Earth, it would do so without the need for some particular humans to form a system of rules that we are not defaulted to 'know' beyond our genetic nature upon birth. 

You cannot presume ANY system of religious view through politics without corruption of those ruling to dictate what the present ruler asserts is true simply for asserting that they are a vessel of God's will (given they are in nature's power of fortune to rule for whatever reason.) In other words, all that is required for ANY religion to rule is for the present one with the biggest gun to dictate that their fortune of power is itself PROOF that nature by God sanctioned them as the one who SHOULD be empowered. 

 

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout modern history, religion has served as a mechanism of social and political control. Even within mainly Christian societies, religion has served to support the aims of ruling classes and to suppress others. In diverse democratic societies, where there is no official religion even if one is dominant in the population, separation of church and state is crucial. The tendency of the large monotheistic religions is to promote sectarian chauvinism. Whether religion itself is right or wrong in its moral teachings is immaterial. From a practical point of view, religion has no productive role to play in the functioning of the modern democratic state. The separation of church and state is not an expression of atheism but rather is the foundation of  religious tolerance and actual freedom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/22/2018 at 12:56 PM, Scott Mayers said:

"Religion" etymology 

The 'secular' concept is merely the ONLY expedient between differing views about nature outside of our capacity to all agree to with clear evidence of the source. We cannot prove what we are not empowered to disprove by definition. So when one holds a religious view that asserts a power one cannot prove nor disprove in some capacity outside of first 'believing' it to be true, it is too expectant of a system to rule over ALL people without some strong force. If your God is already sufficiently powerful to dictate concerns on Earth, it would do so without the need for some particular humans to form a system of rules that we are not defaulted to 'know' beyond our genetic nature upon birth. 

You cannot presume ANY system of religious view through politics without corruption of those ruling to dictate what the present ruler asserts is true simply for asserting that they are a vessel of God's will (given they are in nature's power of fortune to rule for whatever reason.) In other words, all that is required for ANY religion to rule is for the present one with the biggest gun to dictate that their fortune of power is itself PROOF that nature by God sanctioned them as the one who SHOULD be empowered. 

 


You should visit my "Whether or not there is God" topic before making comments about this topic.

You can see there how atheists rejects information and logic when it does not fit with their interest. 

Atheist rejects the existence of God despite its scientifically proven, just because they dont like the idea. You guys are not honest people.

You can also visit my "What is homosexuality, a scientific fact or a perversion" topic in club named "DataVis". You can see there how atheists rejects the science because they dont like the results. 

If its proven that God is exist and its proven that the rules which is offered as God's rules are exactly belongs to God, this is the true thing to follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Altai said:

 


You should visit my "Whether or not there is God" topic before making comments about this topic.

You can see there how atheists rejects information and logic when it does not fit with their interest. 

Atheist rejects the existence of God despite its scientifically proven, just because they dont like the idea. You guys are not honest people.

You can also visit my "What is homosexuality, a scientific fact or a perversion" topic in club named "DataVis". You can see there how atheists rejects the science because they dont like the results. 

If its proven that God is exist and its proven that the rules which is offered as God's rules are exactly belongs to God, this is the true thing to follow. 

My background is strong in 'formal logic'. I'm actually working on a theory that deals with logic and science.

"Atheism" is the actual prior state of all minds BEFORE theistic beliefs get forced upon children. The word is unfortunately a negative reclaim against those going against the natural default by imposing theistic beliefs. It is like the word, "Anti-American" which would not exist if what is "American" did not exist. But if one is "Anti-American" it would not mean that being American is the prior natural and necessary state of people beforehand.

"Theism" is also "Deism" by different spellings of the same origin: 'beliefs regarding what occurs upon death'. That 'dei' was from both the word die and from the meaning of two, because of those interpreting a second life after death. So a "theist" is at least one who believes that a second nature exists (outside of our own). It would not be harmful to consider other than that specific peoples of all times have acted to DICTATE what this 'second nature' is and do so by force upon others with the risk of violence against those who dare to deny these people's arrogant power when in authority. That you should declare some 'science' about this means that you believe there is some means NOW (in this life) that we can prove not only what exists outside of life here and now but that you can rule out ALL OTHER people's claims about their own theistic claims. 

I will check your other thread but do not believe that I can even waste my time if you won't even read past a short sentence. So only if YOU are willing to take on this challenge with the depth involved with me, how do I even have a chance to prove nor disprove anything with you? I'm not going to respect you by expending energy to understand you if you won't respect me in  the same way. So let me know if this is even something you are willing to try. I'm very prepared!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2018 at 5:30 PM, Scott Mayers said:

My background is strong in 'formal logic'. I'm actually working on a theory that deals with logic and science.

"Atheism" is the actual prior state of all minds BEFORE theistic beliefs get forced upon children. The word is unfortunately a negative reclaim against those going against the natural default by imposing theistic beliefs. It is like the word, "Anti-American" which would not exist if what is "American" did not exist. But if one is "Anti-American" it would not mean that being American is the prior natural and necessary state of people beforehand.

"Theism" is also "Deism" by different spellings of the same origin: 'beliefs regarding what occurs upon death'. That 'dei' was from both the word die and from the meaning of two, because of those interpreting a second life after death. So a "theist" is at least one who believes that a second nature exists (outside of our own). It would not be harmful to consider other than that specific peoples of all times have acted to DICTATE what this 'second nature' is and do so by force upon others with the risk of violence against those who dare to deny these people's arrogant power when in authority. That you should declare some 'science' about this means that you believe there is some means NOW (in this life) that we can prove not only what exists outside of life here and now but that you can rule out ALL OTHER people's claims about their own theistic claims. 

I will check your other thread but do not believe that I can even waste my time if you won't even read past a short sentence. So only if YOU are willing to take on this challenge with the depth involved with me, how do I even have a chance to prove nor disprove anything with you? I'm not going to respect you by expending energy to understand you if you won't respect me in  the same way. So let me know if this is even something you are willing to try. I'm very prepared!


I wont read long posts. I cant waste my time with that. If you have a logical explanation, you can do that with only a few sentences. People makes long speeches usually when they dont have an idea what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Altai said:


I wont read long posts. I cant waste my time with that. If you have a logical explanation, you can do that with only a few sentences. People makes long speeches usually when they dont have an idea what they are talking about.

You mean you can't understand me but prefer to excuse your own weakness as my problem. Would you prefer that I just draw a simple picture of Mohammad for you? Would idol symbols be sufficient for you? Is this what your 'prophet' really intended after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Turkey (or at least the Republic of Turkey, after 1920's-ish) have a long history of secularism? Very Islamic country, but also a secular one. Ataturk, if I am correctly informed, banned wearing of the hijab by women in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 12:43 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Turkey (or at least the Republic of Turkey, after 1920's-ish) have a long history of secularism? Very Islamic country, but also a secular one. Ataturk, if I am correctly informed, banned wearing of the hijab by women in public.

Turkey has a secular constitution for more than 90 years. That means the state doesn’t have a religion and it has the same tolerance and respect for all beliefs, officially.

Wearing hijab/scarf/turban (whatever you call it) is optional in Turkey just like other secular states such as UK, USA, France, Canada etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that secularism is more political agnosticism, than atheism. Finally it doesn't matter what it is, but it matters what it makes. Secularism offered civil peace in many societies that experienced civil war, religiously-motivated civil war. Altai maybe is a Muslim turk, so he has right to have a critical point of view of secularism, as islam and extraeuropean judaism do not separate the politics from religion. But one having read the story of the 30-yrs-war in "Germany", or the European history of civil and interstatal religiously-motivated wars, cannot but accept more easily the "dictatorship" of secularism. There is no perfect political setup or ideology. Somehow any political configuration or model makes some people feel deprived of (what they think are) their "rights". One can see the political measure in Quebec or in France as oppresive. But fact is that many enjoy the freedoms guaranted by these very measures... Especially some young women forced by their families and entourage to put the scarf on their heads. The freedom is very sweet, and adictivelly sweet, you cannot deny that once you really tasted freedom and luckily also have some brain, to such extent that too many liberty-inebriated forget to do what humans are yet supposed to do if they are to survive as a species, i.e. make the effort to have babies. The unsecularised societies didn't forget that essential thing, and as such secularism is a sentenced-to-death ideology as are the societies that adopt it. Deservedly.  

Edited by зорька

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 4:14 PM, зорька said:

I would say that secularism is more political agnosticism, than atheism. Finally it doesn't matter what it is, but it matters what it makes. Secularism offered civil peace in many societies that experienced civil war, religiously-motivated civil war. Altai maybe is a Muslim turk, so he has right to have a critical point of view of secularism, as islam and extraeuropean judaism do not separate the politics from religion. But one having read the story of the 30-yrs-war in "Germany", or the European history of civil and interstatal religiously-motivated wars, cannot but accept more easily the "dictatorship" of secularism. There is no perfect political setup or ideology. Somehow any political configuration or model makes some people feel deprived of (what they think are) their "rights". One can see the political measure in Quebec or in France as oppresive. But fact is that many enjoy the freedoms guaranted by these very measures... Especially some young women forced by their families and entourage to put the scarf on their heads. The freedom is very sweet, and adictivelly sweet, you cannot deny that once you really tasted freedom and luckily also have some brain, to such extent that too many liberty-inebriated forget to do what humans are yet supposed to do if they are to survive as a species, i.e. make the effort to have babies. The unsecularised societies didn't forget that essential thing, and as such secularism is a sentenced-to-death ideology as are the societies that adopt it. Deservedly.  

A government is just a management system that at least should appeal to each member UNLESS the power of that government uses FORCE to impose their arrogant religious beliefs upon others. No country is actually free from the religiously devout powers of influence because unlike the independent beliefs of individuals, the believers collect as 'cults' in some form. This means they have power to influence their 'moral' beliefs beyond the mere function of secular activities. 

To me, the only function of government is to serve both the individual and the whole but NOT those groups in between except where they relate to sincere inherent factors that prevent a fair distribution of power. AND, I don't mean those groups that appear secular but are intrinsically religious, such as a distinction between sex versus gender, or attributing coinciding logical distinctions, like 'poverty', to some genetic association to some specific culture, as if the problem of poverty were about 'cultural discrimination or genocide'

The 'secular' concern you think is 'bad' is actually religious beliefs that are hidden by altering the excuses of a religious belief as THOUGH it were secular and neutral. These tactics are used to hide the cause of the real problem, redirect it to a relatively simpler type AND with a way that ISOLATES those who disagree. This is where some law about favoring a genetically linked group, like the 'aboriginal native related peoples of ancestors who lived here before settlement' to be treated as though each of these people OWN some essence of their ancestors good qualities (minus the bad) so that the real problem, poverty, get treated as though poverty itself is just a symptom of cultural discrimination. This 'favoring' disfavors those not considered native officially who ARE in identical impoverished conditions by the ABSENCE of equal laws applicable to the class, "impoverished". Then, this gets used to ISOLATE those poor who get favored from those poor who lack it and successfully prevents the whole class from having power collectively.

Religion is the non-provable justification for morally embedded laws to both conserve those self-segregating groups in power AND to the collective self-segregated groups who ONLY AGREE to consolidate 'democratically' where the group itself IS treated a the minimal individual. 

I think our system here is a theocracy pretending to be 'democratic' with the intent to mislead us into thinking this means the individual when it is always to SELECT groups. Our left-wing, centrist and right-wing governments here are all 'conservative' but just differs on WHICH cult or cults are in power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 1:14 AM, зорька said:

I would say that secularism is more political agnosticism, than atheism.  


Secularism is political atheism, because any person who claims of being secular will reject science if science supports the existence of God. 

If democracy and secularism was trully applied, all the democrats and seculars would believe in God. I have a topic in this forum which was started to talk about existence of God. You can see there people who claims of being democratic and secular rejects science when they dont like the resulsts and they also abuse name of "science" to seem like cool people around. 

The existence of God is  a mathematical fact. This is another topic to share info.

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Altai said:


Secularism is political atheism, because any person who claims of being secular will reject science if science supports the existence of God. 

If democracy and secularism was trully applied, all the democrats and seculars would believe in God. I have a topic in this forum which was started to talk about existence of God. You can see there people who claims of being democratic and secular rejects science when they dont like the resulsts and they also abuse name of "science" to seem like cool people around. 

The existence of God is  a mathematical fact. This is another topic to share info.

You couldn't compete with me on this question. I'm an expert on logic and could run circles around you on this presumption until you couldn't NOT not be religious. "Secular" is just a word that means 'secondary to' SPECIFIC beliefs, regardless of what they are. As such, the means of a government to be 'secular' means the intent to manage is NOT to dictate one's particular beliefs about what is or is not 'moral' or 'just' in society but to be FAIR to ALL people's beliefs by looking at ONLY those common beliefs. ONLY an intolerant system that DICTATES what is or is not moral through some person(s) claiming to be the select authoritarians of God's actual opinion proves uninterested in the actual PEOPLE it represents but want (and needs) to CONTROL the thoughts of them. Thus, imposing the claim that they and they alone KNOW the true God, they are attempting to just BEG that they should be obeyed without question.

If a 'god' is superior, it doesn't need those like you to TELL us what Nature is without evidence. If it is so powerful, it can do this without religious authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 5:13 PM, Altai said:


Secularism is political atheism, because any person who claims of being secular will reject science if science supports the existence of God. 

If democracy and secularism was trully applied, all the democrats and seculars would believe in God. I have a topic in this forum which was started to talk about existence of God. You can see there people who claims of being democratic and secular rejects science when they dont like the resulsts and they also abuse name of "science" to seem like cool people around. 

The existence of God is  a mathematical fact. This is another topic to share info.

No, secularism is also practiced by religious people. You are mixing up the concepts. Secularism is very useful in a context of multifaith societies. It allows the people of different religions to setup a neutral state sharing common rules and rights no matter what is your belief. Each religions have their rules and values and sometimes they can be contradictory. So in a securalism state, everyone must comply to the rules setup by the people. while in a religious context (churches, mosques, etc...), it's the rules of their respective god.

Science dfinitely does not support the existence of God. If you attempted to demonstrate that in the forum, please show me where. :)  God exists for their believers based on the faith and writings they evaluated good enough but, it is not, a scientific proof. You don't get to decide if the assertion or observation is a scientif proof or not. It does not work like that. But I will wait to see what you consider proof before developing more on that. Especially if you think the maths can proof the existence of God. I heard Chuck Norris can divide by zero, so why not! lol

I wonder if you understand the difference between atheist and agnostics. The Atheists consider that since the existence of God can't be proven, therefore, there can't be a god. While the Agnostics rather say that we can't prove the existence, or non-existence of god, therefore, God is irrelevent. Their concerns are rather the anthropology and the systems the humans need to use.

You have the feeling secularism is an atheism's political tool because it suits their denial of the existence of god, but that is a coincidence. It also serves the need for religious people to have a neutral state in a multifaith society. They won't stop to beleive in their god because of that. Secularism is no threat to beleivers. It is an obstacle for the religious extremists that want to force their beleifs upon the others though.

The religion is a system to serve the beleivers' spirituality in first place. But for others, it is more than that. It is also a life style and a set of values and rules on how to behave in society. The beleivers are also not standardized. There are deep beleivers that do everything they are being told by religious ahtorities, and other more liberals that keep a distance from that, without second guessing their beleifs. Secularism is a good tool to prevent the encroachment between the state and the religions. The state does not interfere in people's spirituality and the religion do not interfere in the application of the rules of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Benz said:

No, secularism is also practiced by religious people. You are mixing up the concepts. Secularism is very useful in a context of multifaith societies. It allows the people of different religions to setup a neutral state sharing common rules and rights no matter what is your belief.......


Sorry as I said before, I cant read these long posts, this is soo boring. Still I will try to read but I dont promise this time. I will open an information base soon, you can share your idea together sources there and we and other people in the World would not have to discuss the same things again and again and again forever. We need to progress in idea.


 

 

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 12:26 PM, Altai said:


Sorry as I said before, I cant read these long posts, this is soo boring. Still I will try to read but I dont promise this time. I will open an information base soon, you can share your idea together sources there and we and other people in the World would not have to discuss the same things again and again and again forever. We need to progress in idea.
 

When people take the time  to give you a substential answer, it is because they think you are worth it. If you say you won't read because you think it is too long when it is only 20 lines, you will lose the interest of people to debate with you. This is an adult forum, not a smalltalk chatroom between teanagers. Take your time to read, other wise people won't bother to reply to you after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Benz said:

When people take the time  to give you a substential answer, it is because they think you are worth it. If you say you won't read because you think it is too long when it is only 20 lines, you will lose the interest of people to debate with you. This is an adult forum, not a smalltalk chatroom between teanagers. Take your time to read, other wise people won't bother to reply to you after. 

Altai is not interested in rational discussion that competes against his/her worldview. (S)he should stick to Twitter but possibly gets flagged for being a potential recruiter. It appears that (s)he MAY be multiple writers too. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Benz said:

When people take the time  to give you a substential answer, it is because they think you are worth it. If you say you won't read because you think it is too long when it is only 20 lines, you will lose the interest of people to debate with you. This is an adult forum, not a smalltalk chatroom between teanagers. Take your time to read, other wise people won't bother to reply to you after. 

This is my personality and I cant change my personality to make people happy. Its like too much food to eat in my plate. I dont like it. I just want a bit food and if I still feel hungry I will take more but I dont want a food mountain in my table, it simply disgust me and cause me to lose all my interests and appetite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 11:37 PM, Benz said:

No, secularism is also practiced by religious people. You are mixing up the concepts. Secularism is very useful in a context of multifaith societies. It allows the people of different religions to setup a neutral state sharing common rules and rights no matter what is your belief. Each religions have their rules and values and sometimes they can be contradictory. So in a securalism state, everyone must comply to the rules setup by the people. while in a religious context (churches, mosques, etc...), it's the rules of their respective god.

Nah you are talking about ancient secularism, not today's understanding of secularism. While it was first appeared claiming not treating people different based on their religious background, today it complately turns into forcing religious people to be atheists. It was first appeared to secure rights of religious people, it turns into attacking religious people's rights.

Science dfinitely does not support the existence of God. If you attempted to demonstrate that in the forum, please show me where.  God exists for their believers based on the faith and writings they evaluated good enough but, it is not, a scientific proof. You don't get to decide if the assertion or observation is a scientif proof or not. It does not work like that. But I will wait to see what you consider proof before developing more on that. Especially if you think the maths can proof the existence of God. I heard Chuck Norris can divide by zero, so why not! lol



This is not the subject of this forum. I have another topic for that. 



I wonder if you understand the difference between atheist and agnostics. The Atheists consider that since the existence of God can't be proven, therefore, there can't be a god. While the Agnostics rather say that we can't prove the existence, or non-existence of god, therefore, God is irrelevent. Their concerns are rather the anthropology and the systems the humans need to use.



This question should be asked to atheists. While the word a-theist was first appeared to oppose theistic ideas, so while have nothing directly with defending non-existence of a creator power, today big part of them maybe all of them defends and believes non existence of such a power. So atheist is just another religion.

You have the feeling secularism is an atheism's political tool because it suits their denial of the existence of god, but that is a coincidence. It also serves the need for religious people to have a neutral state in a multifaith society. They won't stop to beleive in their god because of that. Secularism is no threat to beleivers. It is an obstacle for the religious extremists that want to force their beleifs upon the others though.



No, I have explained it in the first qoute of this post. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Altai said:

This is my personality and I cant change my personality to make people happy. Its like too much food to eat in my plate. I dont like it. I just want a bit food and if I still feel hungry I will take more but I dont want a food mountain in my table, it simply disgust me and cause me to lose all my interests and appetite.

My happiness is not related to your capacity to follow a conversation. Thanks to care about it. haha! Short lines are not interesting for us in a political forum. Like Scott says, It's better to hang in the twitter sphere then.

Nah you are talking about ancient secularism, not today's understanding of secularism. While it was first appeared claiming not treating people different based on their religious background, today it complately turns into forcing religious people to be atheists. It was first appeared to secure rights of religious people, it turns into attacking religious people's rights.

What you call "ancient" secularism, is the one that is still applied in most country using it. Where is located that "new" one and how does it attack religious rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benz said:

My happiness is not related to your capacity to follow a conversation. Thanks to care about it. haha! Short lines are not interesting for us in a political forum. Like Scott says, It's better to hang in the twitter sphere then.

Then you should stop complaning about my short answers and my neglect for long posts like national epics. Stop trying to change people. True information does not require long speeches. People with no information makes long speeches in general.

 

Quote

What you call "ancient" secularism, is the one that is still applied in most country using it. Where is located that "new" one and how does it attack religious rights?

 


France for example. How ironic.

 

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Altai said:

France for example. How ironic.

It is very ironic.  

The irony is that the obligation to wear headcoverings is not in the Quran, so therefore is not an infringement on anyone's rights.

French Laicitie is necessary because France refuses to let the French state be the conduit of religious demands and it has been primarily Islam who has demanded the state segregate swimming pools, ban pork from schools, and ban alcohol in predominantly Muslim areas, etc.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Altai said:

Then you should stop complaning about my short answers and my neglect for long posts like national epics. Stop trying to change people. True information does not require long speeches. People with no information makes long speeches in general.

France for example. How ironic.

No, ignorant people need long speech because of their lack of knowledge. But when ignorance is a choice, the long speeches are indeed useless. Do not worry about me, I will not strive on your case. :d

France is defintely NOT an example of what you state. Actually, most of the muslims in France do agree with their laws and measures. Only the indoctrinated or extremists are whining about it. That is ironic. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Benz said:

No, ignorant people need long speech because of their lack of knowledge. But when ignorance is a choice, the long speeches are indeed useless. Do not worry about me, I will not strive on your case. :d

France is defintely NOT an example of what you state. Actually, most of the muslims in France do agree with their laws and measures. Only the indoctrinated or extremists are whining about it. That is ironic. ;)


If you really dont know how France is a perfect example for what I mean or you just want to ignore it despite you know it, you are cleary an ignorant that need long speeches.

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...