If Mort Divine ruled the world

lmao @ you accusing anyone else here of being dumb when you simply cant even put together what you read. You're the biggest nitwit on this forum ... by a good wide margin too if i might add.

just face the facts. Burber Boy crushed/killed/destroyed you.
 
I thought I was the biggest nitwit on this forum? I suppose his rankings change depending on who he's triggered by in the moment.

@HamburgerBoy Indonesia is entirely secular? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just one of many examples:
The MPR approved changes to the Constitution that mandated that the Government increase "faith and piety" in education. This decision, seen as a compromise to satisfy Islamist parties, set the scene for a controversial education bill signed into law in July 2003.
 
i cannot believe you are this dumb. i had no idea TB had two accounts

Great argument faggot.

I thought I was the biggest nitwit on this forum? I suppose his rankings change depending on who he's triggered by in the moment.

@HamburgerBoy Indonesia is entirely secular? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just one of many examples:

"Entirely", probably not, but they have a constitutional government that by and large lets religious minorities do their own thing. Owing to relative independence from the West, they've been able to gradually modernize on their own terms. Without any details on the law you've mentioned it's hard to say how significant that is; the United States currently has many states which have tried for years to force religious teaching in public schools, that doesn't mean we're not a secular nation.
 
... you've clearly hit him with the kill shot and chased him away already. No need to keep pounding on the poor little guy.

1703700-kknd1cover.jpg
 
Nearly so to the point that to say otherwise would be getting into pointless semantics.

I disagree. Secularism means, in a free society, that people have the freedom to try to implement religious laws, but the system is so that they won't succeed. Indonesia clearly do not fit this description. Also it is well known that Christians and atheists are marginalised in Indonesia.
 
Secularism means, in a free society, that people have the freedom to try to implement religious laws, but the system is so that they won't succeed.

This is peculiar, no? If it's a free society, then its governmental organization can't foreclose certain political measures--because that wouldn't be a free society. Free societies are, paradoxically, infinitely perfectible and infinitely corruptible. If a society is unyieldingly secular, then certain freedoms are structurally restricted, such as the freedom to institute religious law; and maybe that isn't such a bad thing.
 
I would consider restrictions on religious power (eg separation of church and state) to be freedom, because it doesn't stop religious people from practicing but it also ensures that non-religious/alternate faiths aren't governed by other people's religion.
 
I don't get it because there are plenty of "walking man" silhouettes that could be considered either sex. Like

Pedestrian-Crossing-Sign-K-6534.gif


If it wasn't for bathroom signs, what about this screams "male"? No hair, no visible clothes, maybe the chest is slightly larger than the waist implying a V-shaped male body shape but I don't exactly expect them to give it a big set of tits. It's just a unisex cartoon of a person.
 
I would consider restrictions on religious power (eg separation of church and state) to be freedom, because it doesn't stop religious people from practicing but it also ensures that non-religious/alternate faiths aren't governed by other people's religion.

I would consider it the expansion of freedom too, but some people wouldn't. And I found your phrase "the system is so that they won't succeed" to be a bit of a conundrum in terms of freedom-of-action. You're saying that as long as people are free to try to institute religious laws, then they still have freedom, even if the system precludes their success; but this is a problematic claim. Someone can make the argument that because their success is precluded from the outset--i.e. that success is constitutively foreclosed--then they actually don't have the freedom to institute these laws at all.

The freedom to do something entails the possibility of it actually being accomplished, not of attempts whose futility is predetermined.

Even in openly "free" societies there must be organizational limits; not everyone will feel free. It's a utopian fantasy. This is why so many Christians in America believe they're being persecuted because of reproductive rights and Islamic tolerance.