Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Not so much for that, more so for the redistribution of good morals.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
First thing - what is meant by "the lowest"??
The ones at the bottom of the economic scale. I'm surprised you have to ask.
People are capable of creating sensible societies without religion. Religion ruins societies.
Wrong. Here in the UK we are officially a Christian country, yet have accepted minority religions co-existing alongside the main one. You are making sweeping statements based on lack of evidence. Also, would you call Russia a shining example of a secular country?? Russia is a kleptocracy. Do you prefer that?
Really?? How would the U.K. Be different if there was no Christianity?????
Well, in my opinion, I think being a Christian country balks against extremist parties from arising. We have an opposition party here in the UK which is very leftist, almost Marxist some would say, but only as a balance against extreme right-wing regimes, which probably arises out of a strongly liberal streak, dating back to at least after WW2. I think a lot of liberalism is based on Christian values, even if not all liberal people believe in God. Our Queen is the head of state and as such represents the official religion, which is Christian and I think this wields great influence sine the Queen and royal family are still very much respected and held in awe. We provide generous amounts of foreign aid and provide sanctuary for many people who are in danger of their lives in their own country. Of there's The National Health Service, which is free at point of use and we have free education etc. So this all stems from a basic Christian approach, at least from Christian values, and if this country decided to become a state without an official religion I don't think things would change that much because holding Christian values does not mean you have to attend church or pray to God but in the way you treat your highest and lowest citizens.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
I mean we assist anyone who has come on hard times with social benefits and health care, regardless of ability to pay and do not oppress anyone who is poor.
Right-o. Pardon me while I vomit.
Since the person who started this rubbish thread made the following comments also, let me make my final comments on this thread: “Well, for example, more conservative dress for women, more control over explicit sexual content, more discipline for our children, less commercialization on the media, more control over overtly sexual concerts, etc. A ban on excessively violent video games, etc. More religious teaching in the Islamic tradition." If I see any worthy comment in response to my comments, I will start a new thread to respond.
‘more conservative dress for women’
My Comment: Not worth discussing in a congress of intelligent human beings.
‘more control over explicit sexual content’, ‘more discipline for our children’, ‘less commercialization on the media’, ‘more control over overtly sexual concerts’
My Comment: Worth discussing.
‘A ban on excessively violent video games’
My Comment: Should be seriously discussed.
‘More religious teaching in the Islamic tradition.’
My Comments: Leave the civilized world, and go to an Islamic jungle. The world should cut down all religions and progressively get rid of all religious teachings/traditions. Education should foster free thinking and inquiry.
Good ideas. See if you can get the ball rolling with Congress and the general population. There is apparently much discussion going on among the population on these topics already. Let us know if you have any success.
I'm wondering why you don't think modest dress in public isn't worth discussing. I'm not suggesting that women wear the full Burqa or even any kind of veil but don't you think that women flaunting themselves in public is in bad taste and just doing themselves down by presenting themselves as sex-objects? But then, many women seem to want to do as they please without the concomitant of taking any responsibility in our liberalized western milieu.
Just like men do as they please, including expecting women to dress as some of them, such as you, decide. You have a perfect right to discuss what modest dress in public is. Nobody will stop you. What "flaunting themselves in public" means is not defined or agreed upon by the general public. Whether it's in bad taste is also a matter of opinion. Whether women are presenting themselves as sex objects is also not agreed upon. What you see as "flaunting themselves in public" or "presenting themselves as sex objects" is not how a lot of other people see it.
All humans want to do as they please, including you, incidentally--but you want the rest of the world to do as YOU dictate. What "taking responsibility" is and whether we live in a "liberalized westerm milieu," whatever that's supposed to mean, is also a matter of opinion. You have apparently decided what YOU think proper dress for women is, what resenting oneself as a sex object amounts to,
and what taking responsibility in a "liberalized western milieu" is, and you want to impose your standards on everyone else, even those who disagree with you. Other people have their own standards. Why should yours be accepted as the right thing to do? What gives you or anyone the right to set standards for anyone else in a democracy?
Lois
Women think they are free to choose how they look but many women and girls are daily exposed to images found in magazines, movies, posters, etc. that portray women as sex objects and the 'normal' way to look. The trouble with many women is that they want to dress in a way that appeals to their vanity but are in denial about how they look to other people, especially some men, who are titillated by the panoply of fashion and cosmetic products designed to stir up sexual excitement. But you would deny this of course because it does not suit your way of life and would probably argue it is men's problem, not women's, which just goes to show how much you and many other women are in denial. If you were born a Muslim woman you would probably not dress in the way you do and don't tell me Muslim women are oppressed because many prefer to dress the way they do based on their belief-system.
"Prefer"?
Yep, they embrace the wisdom of Islam.
They're forced into it. If, as you claim, American women are completely influenced by the media, etc., to the point that they can't decide for themselves, then Islamic women are, by the same token, completely influenced by Islam--or someone else's idea of what Islam is, and they can't decide for themselves. Men are no different, incidentally.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Not so much for that, more so for the redistribution of good morals.
YOUR idea of good morals.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
First thing - what is meant by "the lowest"??
The ones at the bottom of the economic scale. I'm surprised you have to ask.
Oh, I thought you meant the most loathed. Wall st banksters
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Not so much for that, more so for the redistribution of good morals.
not following your right wing ideology here and it does nothing to address poverty
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Not so much for that, more so for the redistribution of good morals.
not following your right wing ideology here and it does nothing to address poverty
Well, really, this thread is about the Islamic way of looking at life and what we can learn from that rather than dealing with poverty.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Not so much for that, more so for the redistribution of good morals.
YOUR idea of good morals.
Yes, which is based on the mess we find ourselves in today.
Since the person who started this rubbish thread made the following comments also, let me make my final comments on this thread: “Well, for example, more conservative dress for women, more control over explicit sexual content, more discipline for our children, less commercialization on the media, more control over overtly sexual concerts, etc. A ban on excessively violent video games, etc. More religious teaching in the Islamic tradition." If I see any worthy comment in response to my comments, I will start a new thread to respond.
‘more conservative dress for women’
My Comment: Not worth discussing in a congress of intelligent human beings.
‘more control over explicit sexual content’, ‘more discipline for our children’, ‘less commercialization on the media’, ‘more control over overtly sexual concerts’
My Comment: Worth discussing.
‘A ban on excessively violent video games’
My Comment: Should be seriously discussed.
‘More religious teaching in the Islamic tradition.’
My Comments: Leave the civilized world, and go to an Islamic jungle. The world should cut down all religions and progressively get rid of all religious teachings/traditions. Education should foster free thinking and inquiry.
Good ideas. See if you can get the ball rolling with Congress and the general population. There is apparently much discussion going on among the population on these topics already. Let us know if you have any success.
I'm wondering why you don't think modest dress in public isn't worth discussing. I'm not suggesting that women wear the full Burqa or even any kind of veil but don't you think that women flaunting themselves in public is in bad taste and just doing themselves down by presenting themselves as sex-objects? But then, many women seem to want to do as they please without the concomitant of taking any responsibility in our liberalized western milieu.
Just like men do as they please, including expecting women to dress as some of them, such as you, decide. You have a perfect right to discuss what modest dress in public is. Nobody will stop you. What "flaunting themselves in public" means is not defined or agreed upon by the general public. Whether it's in bad taste is also a matter of opinion. Whether women are presenting themselves as sex objects is also not agreed upon. What you see as "flaunting themselves in public" or "presenting themselves as sex objects" is not how a lot of other people see it.
All humans want to do as they please, including you, incidentally--but you want the rest of the world to do as YOU dictate. What "taking responsibility" is and whether we live in a "liberalized westerm milieu," whatever that's supposed to mean, is also a matter of opinion. You have apparently decided what YOU think proper dress for women is, what resenting oneself as a sex object amounts to,
and what taking responsibility in a "liberalized western milieu" is, and you want to impose your standards on everyone else, even those who disagree with you. Other people have their own standards. Why should yours be accepted as the right thing to do? What gives you or anyone the right to set standards for anyone else in a democracy?
Lois
Women think they are free to choose how they look but many women and girls are daily exposed to images found in magazines, movies, posters, etc. that portray women as sex objects and the 'normal' way to look. The trouble with many women is that they want to dress in a way that appeals to their vanity but are in denial about how they look to other people, especially some men, who are titillated by the panoply of fashion and cosmetic products designed to stir up sexual excitement. But you would deny this of course because it does not suit your way of life and would probably argue it is men's problem, not women's, which just goes to show how much you and many other women are in denial. If you were born a Muslim woman you would probably not dress in the way you do and don't tell me Muslim women are oppressed because many prefer to dress the way they do based on their belief-system.
"Prefer"?
Yep, they embrace the wisdom of Islam.
They're forced into it. If, as you claim, American women are completely influenced by the media, etc., to the point that they can't decide for themselves, then Islamic women are, by the same token, completely influenced by Islam--or someone else's idea of what Islam is, and they can't decide for themselves. Men are no different, incidentally.
Oh sure, you have to teach people from birth how to live, but viewing Islam from an independent perspective allows you to see how correct it is. I wasn't born into the Islamic faith but I can see its merits. In the west people have been telling women how oppressed they have been in the pass, which is untrue BTW, and caused great discontent. It's all a matter of what you are made to believe.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
Exactly.
Doesn't this contradict your right wing ideology??
Your're calling me right-wing yet I feel I'm standing up for good versus evil. Labels can be so divisive.
But you are all for the redistribution of wealth upwards
Not so much for that, more so for the redistribution of good morals.
not following your right wing ideology here and it does nothing to address poverty
Well, really, this thread is about the Islamic way of looking at life and what we can learn from that rather than dealing with poverty.
A non sequitur Webplodder. Please explain how morals play a part in helping the " lowest" in society.
Can clarify what you mean by how you treat your highest and lowest citizens?
How's about treating the lowest,
seeing and treating "them" as fellow humans who have fallen on hard times, for anyone or more of a myriad of reasons.
vs.
Seeing "them" as leeches to society to be discarded and ignored.
"Them"
There but for the grace of providence go I. :kiss:
First thing - what is meant by "the lowest"??
The ones at the bottom of the economic scale. I'm surprised you have to ask.
Oh, I thought you meant the most loathed. Wall st banksters
Yes, there is moral bankruptcy, too. I should have included that. Not all people at the bottom are without funds.