Political Test: Where do you stand?

[Neptune]

@Dillinger @Armstrong @ZYXW @Ayush @hinduguy @KingMamba93 @Secur @Slav Defence and the others... What do you say?

"You are a liberal Cosmopolitan.
4 percent of the test
participators are in the same
category and 84 percent are
more extremist than you."

BTW Whatta fuvck does "anthropocentric" and "cosmopolitan" mean ? ? ?

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger @Armstrong @ZYXW @Ayush @hinduguy @KingMamba93 and the others... What do you say?

"You are a liberal Cosmopolitan.
4 percent of the test
participators are in the same
category and 84 percent are
more extremist than you."

BTW Whatta fuvck does "anthropocentric" and "cosmopolitan" mean ? ? ?

Cosmopolitan:- Familiar with and at ease with many different cultures and countries.

Anthropocentric:- Regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, esp. as opposed to God or animals.

 

[Secur]

BTW Whatta fuvck does "anthropocentric" and "cosmopolitan" mean ? ? ?

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to."
"I don't much care where –"
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go.”

Alice In Wonderland

 

[livingdead]

I don't think it does for it lets its conceived objectivity & impartiality become an impediment to any political discourse that may involve any paradigm with a religious parentage.

I find that the best example out there is perhaps the American model in that it, though, dubbed as being Secular is perhaps Pluralistic & not Secular in the purest sense of the word. I wish that something similar were to be followed in Pakistan.

Give me some example of such states, which you think rejects a moral value or law simply because it came from religion. Vast majority of nation states do not discriminate where their morality or law comes from.

 

[Armstrong]

@Neptune - Cosmopolitan literally means 'Cosmetic-Politician' in that your views are fake like a shot of botox ! Whereas Anthropocentric literally comes from 'Ant-throw-a- centric-rope' referring to the precision in one's political views that you're logic is as precise as an ant throwing a centric rope cowboy style & bringing down a bull !

Give me some example of such states, which you think rejects a moral value or law simply because it came from religion. Vast majority of nation states do not discriminate where there morality or law comes from.

Every State in the West if a Muslim were talking about the Shariah Law being Institutionalized despite being, legally, an equal citizen of the State ! Any other law being institutionalized in Muslim countries even if the Non-Muslim is legally an equal citizen of the State.

 

[livingdead]

@Neptune - Cosmopolitan literally means 'Cosmetic-Politician' in that your views are fake like a shot of botox ! Whereas Anthropocentric literally comes from 'Ant-throw-a- centric-rope' referring to the precision in one's political views that you're logic is as precise as an ant throwing a centric rope cowboy style & bringing down a bull !



Every State in the West if a Muslim were talking about the Shariah Law being Institutionalized despite being, legally, an equal citizen of the State ! Any other law being institutionalized in Muslim countries even if the Non-Muslim is legally an equal citizen of the State.

If sharia laws are good, they should be accepted and institutionalized for everybody. So is hindu law, druid law, matrix law, or whatever your belief system is.
Do you have any specific country in mind which 'rejected' sharia law because it is from a religion?

 

[Neptune]

Well unfortunately I think this test is based on Western people.
Noone can know me better than I know. my reality is;

25% Cosmopolitan
25% Secular
15% Visionary
3% Anarchistic
20% Capitalistic
7% Militaristic
5% Pacifist

 

[Armstrong]

If sharia laws are good, they should be accepted and institutionalized for everybody. So is hindu law, druid law, matrix law, or whatever your belief system is.
Do you have any specific country in mind which 'rejected' sharia law because it is from a religion?

Which Western Country ever treated it as a 'legal paradigm' & gave the Muslims the right to present their opinion as a possible viable alternative without sounding 'Doomsday Scenarios' for Western Civilization ?

Take the example of Turkey or France where any law of a religious nature would be struck down by the Constitutional Courts of that country because Secularism means a Separation of Religion & State.

 

[Neptune]

The ACCA guy's right. In Turkey, you can live your religion however you want. But if you try to mix your religion inside politics, state; you'll get sentenced. In my opinion, everybody is free to live his religion as long as it respects other religions and keeps it away from the law, state and politics.

 

[livingdead]

Which Western Country ever treated it as a 'legal paradigm' & gave the Muslims the right to present their opinion as a possible viable alternative without sounding 'Doomsday Scenarios' for Western Civilization ?

Take the example of Turkey or France where any law of a religious nature would be struck down by the Constitutional Courts of that country because Secularism means a Separation of Religion & State.

Its funny you chose france and turkey as example because they are the only one that meet your narrow criteria where as vast majority do not bother where their morality comes from.
Specifically about france, kindly give an example of a law which has been struck down by court because it was of religious origin.
My guess will be that the law itself is not a sound one and is not fit for purpose in france.

The doomsday scenario is a post 9/11 construct. And its not due to secularism, but islamophobia.

In case of India, USA or UK, secularism acts against islamophobia not favours it.

 

[KingMamba]

The ACCA guy's right. In Turkey, you can live your religion however you want. But if you try to mix your religion inside politics, state; you'll get sentenced. In my opinion, everybody is free to live his religion as long as it respects other religions and keeps it away from the law, state and politics.

How about state law that is used to beat on a religion?

 

[Armstrong]

Its funny you chose france and turkey as example because they are the only one that meet your narrow criteria where as vast majority do not bother where their morality comes from.
Specifically about france, kindly give an example of a law which has been struck down by court because it was of religious origin.
My guess will be that the law itself is not a sound one and is not fit for purpose in france.

The doomsday scenario is a post 9/11 construct. And its not due to secularism, but islamophobia.

In case of India, USA or UK, secularism acts against islamophobia not favours it.

Its not about a narrow criteria or otherwise, its about the very nature of Secularism in that it does not allow Religion & Politics to mix even Religious Paradigms at that !

If I, sitting in New Delhi or London, would have the right to table a resolution in the Parliament that comes specifically from the Shariah & that whether it gets institutionalized or not is contingent not upon its nature but the number of votes it gets, than that country would not be a Secular State but a Pluralistic State just as the United States is otherwise the workings & the ideology would be self-contradictory.

 

[Neptune]

How about state law that is used to beat on a religion?

i request Wings to run away... If it doesn't keeps religion and state away from each other. Of course I'd say a NO.

 

[livingdead]

Its not about a narrow criteria or otherwise, its about the very nature of Secularism in that it does not allow Religion & Politics to mix even Religious Paradigms at that !

If I, sitting in New Delhi or London, would have the right to table a resolution in the Parliament that comes specifically from the Shariah & that whether it gets institutionalized or not is contingent not upon its nature but the number of votes it gets, than that country would not be a Secular State but a Pluralistic State just as the United States is otherwise the workings & the ideology would be self-contradictory.

No, it is not, many of secular laws have origin in religious laws. Am sure some of them must be agreeing with sharia already. Secularism just refuses to treat sharia as 'special', its at same pedestral as law influenced by buddist thought, or laws written by me.

I might believe in my tribal laws and customs, but its unlikely that it will be included in state law in India. I am free to try though, but nobody will give a fcuk if I say my tribal ojha said it.

One can bring it as private member's bill though.

 

[Armstrong]

No, it is not, many of secular laws have origin in religious laws. Am sure some of them must be agreeing with sharia already. Secularism just refuses to treat sharia as 'special', its at same pedestral as law influenced by buddist thought, laws written by me.

Not quite what you're talking about is Pluralism; I do suggest that you read Holyokes's original work on Secularism !

If I can table a resolution in the Parliament of a Secular State that is taken from the Shariah than that State, in question, is not a Secular State but a Pluralistic State; Pluralism - Each Opinion is given the same weightage, Secularism - Separation of Religion & at that Religious Laws & other Paradigms from the State.

In fact in the strictest sense of the word even having Personal Laws goes against the classical definition of Secularism ! They are both, as I said earlier, taken to be synonymous with each other when they are not.

At any rate if I can, sitting in London, make a case for the Shariah or Islamic Finance being Institutionalized than one may call it Pengunism for all that matters....what I desire is done !