Alternative Movement for Individual Freedoms

M

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
People are starting to Call the Bluff

Monotheist religions suggest that they are tolerant, that's a really big branding hook and center peace of their sales pitch (I personally think they teach bigotry).
When they do manage to claw their way to the top and preside over people at an institutional level - they maintain they support liberty and freedom (I personally think it's all about social control).

Well, if these religions are so tolerant and so supportive of individuals freedoms - Why should 100 death threats come to this man who wants to eat food?
It's his afterlife isn't it?
If he decides it's all bullshit or decides not eating is bullshit, then so be it. But, then, that would be a crack wouldn't be?

Religions don't like cracks. They fill them - usually violently and with blood.


Anyway, it's good to see people are standing up for their personal freedoms and non-religious beliefs.
Each little tiny step moves these people forwards, slowly pulling the docile and deluded into modernity.

A Moroccan man campaigning to change the law banning eating in public during the Muslim Ramadan fast says he has received 100 death threats this week. Radi Omar denied that his group was anti-Islam. "We are in favour of individual freedom," he told the BBC.
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
Anyway, it's good to see people are standing up for their personal freedoms and non-religious beliefs.
Each little tiny step moves these people forwards, slowly pulling the docile and deluded into modernity.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the price of any freedom is high. I applaud this guy's efforts and hope like hell it doesn't get him killed.

I was just thinking about religious immigrants, especially those who move to countries where such things as uttering death threats are serious enough to get one arrested. Moving to a country where certain religious customs are consider offences of the law further erodes a religion's authority or control. Religion is very strong when localized but spread it around and that strength starts to wane.
 
Every other week I read something about Muslims living Theocratic countries demanding change - and the freedom to live a superstitious free life (if one so chooses).
 
Lmao. Who did he receive those death threats from government officials or people that knew him. If people that knew him, obviously he is an imbecile and should be put to death.
 
-ND- said:
Lmao. Who did he receive those death threats from government officials or people that knew him. If people that knew him, obviously he is an imbecile and should be put to death.
Click to expand...
LOL... when I read your post it's like I hear GW Bush's voice...

"Osama, obviously he is an imbecile and should be put to death! Right Cheney.. heh heh... yuck yuck yuck..."

:p

You could email him and ask him yourself. Barring that, The answer is obvious - Religious wankers .... of course.
 
"...denied that his group was anti-Islam. "We are in favour of individual freedom," he told the BBC "

Grrr! This drives me mad! What does that mean? That's so ridiculous, I don't even know how to handle it. 'Individual freedom' in a religion? And in Islam? In any of the three?
The whole main idea of all religions IS to banish any kind of individualism. I've never met any 'individual' who lives exactly according to the religious laws in my entire life? Have you? Islam has certain rules, it's written in a book. It tells you how to eat, shit, mate, sleep, fight,live and die. And that's it. There is no space for 'reform', 'individual freedom'. If you are a muslim, you do what the book says and what's formed out of it. That's it. There isn't any other way, this way or that. That's the claim.

The idea that there could be anything forward in any of those systems, I don't know, is 'naive' the right word? Or am I allowed to say 'right down imbecilic'!
 
I think he's suggesting people have more secular based individual freedoms backed by the State. If no one lives exactly as their religion says they should - shouldn't everyone be free to choose which religious rules they will adhere to and which they will not?
 
Michael said:
People are starting to Call the Bluff

Monotheist religions suggest that they are tolerant, that's a really big branding hook and center peace of their sales pitch (I personally think they teach bigotry).
When they do manage to claw their way to the top and preside over people at an institutional level - they maintain they support liberty and freedom (I personally think it's all about social control).

Well, if these religions are so tolerant and so supportive of individuals freedoms - Why should 100 death threats come to this man who wants to eat food?
It's his afterlife isn't it?
If he decides it's all bullshit or decides not eating is bullshit, then so be it. But, then, that would be a crack wouldn't be?

Religions don't like cracks. They fill them - usually violently and with blood.


Anyway, it's good to see people are standing up for their personal freedoms and non-religious beliefs.
Each little tiny step moves these people forwards, slowly pulling the docile and deluded into modernity.

A Moroccan man campaigning to change the law banning eating in public during the Muslim Ramadan fast says he has received 100 death threats this week. Radi Omar denied that his group was anti-Islam. "We are in favour of individual freedom," he told the BBC.
Click to expand...
and by golly if monotheism can't float the boat in Morocco, it can't anywhere ....

:rolleyes:
 
To be fair fundamental polytheism would be pretty much the same. It's just that monotheists are inherently intolerant of other peoples beliefs that are not like their own and this natural inclination towards an intolerance extends over to religious superstitions as well. Like eating food. I wonder if such a thing could occur in India?
 
Michael said:
To be fair fundamental polytheism would be pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

actually to be fair, fundamental anything (including liberal dogmatism)would be the same


It's just that monotheists are inherently intolerant of other peoples beliefs that are not like their own and this natural inclination towards an intolerance extends over to religious superstitions as well.
Click to expand...
tell me, would you describe your profuse atheistic posting as an example of tolerance?
 
lightgigantic said:
sure

but probably not like you imagine it to be

Muslim farmer sings Hindu bhakti song
Click to expand...
What did you think of:

"As I grew up, I realised I was not able to satiate my urge to sing devotional songs...Just to fulfil that urge I took up singing devotional songs when I reached 25," recalled Ali, who sings kirtans and also pens bhajans.

Ali had to face a lot of opposition from his family and community.

"My parents, relatives all opposed my decision... I expected strong reactions from them. It all continued for several months. However, during the period I managed to convince an aged Muslim cleric, whom my father respected a lot," he said.

"It was the cleric, who softened the stand of my father, who allowed me to sing devotional songs even though a number of relatives were still against the decision," he added.


Lucky his Imam wasn't a Monotheistic fundamentalist.
 
Michael said:
Every other week I read something about Muslims living Theocratic countries demanding change - and the freedom to live a superstitious free life (if one so chooses).
Click to expand...

Let us not forget the "freedom to enslave others", demanding that they bow down to one or another superstitious "god". Of course, said "god" has ordained that this is their right by birth, so who are we to interfere with their freedoms...

Oh, luv the irony here... :rolleyes:
 
Michael said:
A Moroccan man campaigning to change the law banning eating in public during the Muslim Ramadan fast says he has received 100 death threats this week. Radi Omar denied that his group was anti-Islam. "We are in favour of individual freedom," he told the BBC.
Click to expand...
For a huge percentage of muslims in the world today, being in favor of individual freedom is implicitly anti-islam, because islam is anti-individual freedom.
 
Not a big fan of the organized monotheisms Michael, but can I say that

The USA is not a big fan of freedom

because I burned a flag and received death threats

or was against the Iraq War and am a visiting student from France

and received death threats because "We saved your ass in WW2 and without us you'd be speaking German, so you should agree to bomb Iraq"

Can we go from the actions of a % and say that therefore it is a lie, whatever ideals the 'organization' claims to have?
 
Nationalism kind of acts as a surrogate for religious opium doesn't it? Islamic countries often combines the two - ie Caliphate.
 
Michael said:
Nationalism kind of acts as a surrogate for religious opium doesn't it? Islamic countries often combines the two - ie Caliphate.
Click to expand...
Not sure how into their leaders/nations the bulk of muslims are. The nations were cookie cut out, often, via European interests - I mean, the Ottomans did this also - and the leaders, well, they've had pretty sketchy agendas from pretty much everyone's perspective.

But my argument was basically: can one dismiss an organization - nation, company, business.....- because of what a small % does or says? What large organization will pass that test?

What if fascists looked at what a % of people in a democratic society said or did and said

see democracy is a farce

?

Let's say the fascist noted how many Americans said, at one point or another'

We should nuke them.
 
Doreen said:
Not sure how into their leaders/nations the bulk of muslims are. The nations were cookie cut out, often, via European interests - I mean, the Ottomans did this also - and the leaders, well, they've had pretty sketchy agendas from pretty much everyone's perspective.

But my argument was basically: can one dismiss an organization - nation, company, business.....- because of what a small % does or says? What large organization will pass that test?

What if fascists looked at what a % of people in a democratic society said or did and said

see democracy is a farce

?

Let's say the fascist noted how many Americans said, at one point or another'

We should nuke them.
Click to expand...
Unless they are looking to migrate, I'd say many are quite patriotic. So are a lot of Americans I meet living in AU (I'm an American too).


I'm still not exactly sure of your point about Democracy though? Fascists may have a point, but regardless of what they said, one has to ask: Is it true? I mean, are they making a valid point?
 
Michael said:
I'm still not exactly sure of your point about Democracy though? Fascists may have a point, but regardless of what they said, one has to ask: Is it true? I mean, are they making a valid point?
Click to expand...
If you think the argument in the OP is a valid one, then yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top