What does being a liberal mean?

[VCheng]

Alright, let's put religion aside for a minute.

Which country with the laws that you find ideal, that those be taken up in Pakistan? It's all fine with liberal mantra but in practicality what laws and copy which country?

Pakistan has to figure out its own ways to deal with the issues it faces. What other countries do works only for them in their own countries. As long as Pakistan chooses to mix matters of State with matters of religion, it will remain stuck in its present quagmire of its own making. The decision to continue imposing a religion by using the powers of the State is for it, and it alone, to make.


==================

Please read the OP here too:

https://defence.pk/threads/erdogan-about-secularism.478120/#post-9209061

“If the faith of all religious groups in this country is guaranteed in the constitution, and the state’s equal distance to all religious groups is a foundation, why do you need to emphasize Islam? If I can live my faith as a Muslim the way I want to, the issue is over. If a Christian can live his/her Christianity, if a Jew can live his/her Jewishness or an atheist can live his/her atheism, the issue is also over for them.”

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan

If you decide collectively to become a secular state - please - don't take Turkey as a role model, where secularism was deliberately abused by our Kemalist elites as an 'antireligious' tool to oppress the religious classes of our society. It will backfire. Don't follow our path blindly. Learn from our failures and be a trustworthy secular state and socially conservative society (my ideal). Liberalism ≠ secularism. You don't have to abandon your identity, religion, traditions and culture. You can decide which parts of your public affairs should be secularized and which parts shouldn't be.

Like I said several times before, secularism and Islam don't contradict each other necessarily. With regard to Turkey you shouldn't forget that the Kemalists never in the history of our republic won a free and democratic election overwhelmingly; they never had reached the absolute majority. That is the reason why our Kemalistic military staged several coups against civilian governments in the past. They weren't capable of winning a free and democratic election in the first place because ordinary people simply didn't trust them.

And even as a secular and democratic person I have to admit that a misapplication of secularism can lead to an outcome that is diametrically opposed to the original ideas of secularism. This happened in Turkey to some extent.

But secularism does not mean that Pakistanis have to be gay like certain people claimed. This is ridiculous. You don't have to consume alcohol, you don't have to eat pork, you don't have to party if you don't want to. Secularism is simply an social concept of free choice.

 

[Verve]

Pakistan has to figure out its own ways to deal with the issues it faces. What other countries do works only for them in their own countries. As long as Pakistan chooses to mix matters of State with matters of religion, it will remain stuck in its present quagmire of its own making. The decision to continue imposing a religion by using the powers of the State is for it, and it alone, to make.


==================

Please read the OP here too:

https://defence.pk/threads/erdogan-about-secularism.478120/#post-9209061

So there is no such ideal liberal state system that liberals like you can think of yet you want a liberal Pakistan!

That's like saying 'Pakistan should have liberal laws but I have absolutely nothing to suggest what laws those should be and will continue bashing the current laws irrespectively'.

Well done! Preacher who has no idea how to actually implement what he's preaching. "Pakistan should be liberal but I don't know what laws that liberal Pakistan should have". Hahahaha.

Keep at it.

 

[VCheng]

So there is no such ideal liberal state system that liberals like you can think of yet you want a liberal Pakistan!

That's like saying 'Pakistan should have liberal laws but I have absolutely nothing to suggest what laws those should be and will continue bashing the current laws irrespectively'.

Well done! Preacher who has no idea how to actually implement what he's preaching. "Pakistan should be liberal but I don't know what laws that liberal Pakistan should have". Hahahaha.

Keep at it.

Nothing of the sort.

I have clearly mentioned that Pakistan needs to separate matters of state from matters of religion.

Nothing could be more obvious than that. There is nothing liberal or conservative about that approach, mere logic and common sense. Once that basic step is agreed upon, the discussion on how to start doing it comes after.

 

[Verve]

Nothing of the sort.

I have clearly mentioned that Pakistan needs to separate matters of state from matters of religion.

Nothing could be more obvious than that. There is nothing liberal or conservative about that approach, mere logic and common sense. Once that basic step is agreed upon, the discussion on how to start doing it comes after.

Again.. need to do this, need to do that .. but what will that be in final shape, the answer 'i don't know, you guys decide, I'm just here to stir s*** up"

"logic and common sense" you say, but whose? Yours, bhensa's, Fascists (liberal and non) or the majority?

 

[MultaniGuy]

being liberal is the opposite of being conservative

 

[VCheng]

Again.. need to do this, need to do that .. but what will that be in final shape, the answer 'i don't know, you guys decide, I'm just here to stir s*** up"

"logic and common sense" you say, but whose? Yours, bhensa's, Fascists (liberal and non) or the majority?

So I take it that you are staunch supporter of the current situation in Pakistan where state imposition of religious law is a legal requirement? That goes against your earlier contention of the "domain" where religion ought to reside. Please clarify your views. Thanks.

 

[Verve]

So I take it that you are staunch supporter of the current situation in Pakistan where state imposition of religious law is a legal requirement? That goes against your earlier contention of the "domain" where religion ought to reside. Please clarify your views. Thanks.

Clever. Question me now when you can't answer the one you are asked, nice try to dodge it. I will answer this but you answer first. Let's be 'liberal' about it at least.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Live and let live and challenge norms (especially stupid and backward ones). A rebel.

My views tend to be very left and a bit of a rebel. At times, I've come to think of myself a Liberal.

 

[VCheng]

Clever. Question me now when you can't answer the one you are asked, nice try to dodge it. I will answer this but you answer first. Let's be 'liberal' about it at least.

As I said above, very clearly, religion belongs in the personal domain and must be kept separate from matters of state. To call such a logical approach as being liberal only display your intellectual dishonesty, nothing else.

As I have also said before, the lack of acceptance for diversity is the basic problem. When one becomes convinced that their own way of thinking and belief and life is the only way possible, then a zealot is created. By contrast, a liberal is one who remains willing to accept the fact that others have the same right to make choices for themselves as the liberal allows for their ownself.

The basic fear of such zealots is that if they do not have the state enforce their brand of views on everyone else, they will lose relevance, not realizing that such an approach dooms them to failure in winning the hearts of the very people they are trying to influence in following their religious views.

The evidence clearly shows that to be the case.

 

[Verve]

As I said above, very clearly, religion belongs in the personal domain and must be kept separate from matters of state. To call such a logical approach as being liberal only display your intellectual dishonesty, nothing else.

As I have also said before, the lack of acceptance for diversity is the basic problem. When one becomes convinced that their own way of thinking and belief and life is the only way possible, then a zealot is created. By contrast, a liberal is one who remains willing to accept the fact that others have the same right to make choices for themselves as the liberal allows for their ownself.

The basic fear of such zealots is that if they do not have the state enforce their brand of views on everyone else, they will lose relevance, not realizing that such an approach dooms them to failure in winning the hearts of the very people they are trying to influence in following their religious views.

The evidence clearly shows that to be the case.

It is foolish to think that everyone will be happy with all the laws. You favour democracy, is everyone always happy with what the majority in a democracy decides?

Again I ask, and you refuse to answer: whose logic and common sense?

 

[VCheng]

It is foolish to think that everyone will be happy with all the laws. You favour democracy, is everyone always happy with what the majority in a democracy decides?

Again I ask, and you refuse to answer: whose logic and common sense?

But do you support using the power of the state to enforce religious laws?

 

[Verve]

But do you support using the power of the state to enforce religious laws?

As I said, I will answer all your questions one at a time after you've answer the 'whose logic and common sense' question of mine. Need i reminder you that you stated logic and common sense.

 

[VCheng]

As I said, I will answer all your questions one at a time after you've answer the 'whose logic and common sense' question of mine. Need i reminder you that you brought logic and common sense.

So your answer is yes, but you are too ashamed to admit it. Typical.

Realize that enforcing a religion by force of the state by definition creates classes that make equal treatment of all citizenry a legal impossibility that only tears apart the country slowly and surely. Case in point is Pakistan itself. Once the minorities are killed off or silenced, the sects fight with each other for dominance.

 

[Verve]

So your answer is yes, but you are too ashamed to admit it. Typical.

Realize that enforcing a religion by force of the state by definition creates classes that make equal treatment of all citizenry a legal impossibility that only tears apart the country slowly and surely. Case in point is Pakistan itself. Once the minorities are killed off or silenced, the sects fight with each other for dominance.

Dodge and keep dodging Mr Elite Liberal!

1. You can't even have a proper discussion and call yourself a liberal!
2. You make blanket statements and then ask questions to justify those statements, never providing real substance.
3. You specialise in counter questioning instead of answering simple questions.
4. You are actually a Liberal Fascist who twists others words and meanings thereof only to ask your questions.

 

[VCheng]

Dodge and keep dodging Mr Elite Liberal!

1. You can even have a proper discussion and call yourself a liberal!
2. You make blanket statements and then ask questions to justify those statements, never providing real substance.
3. You specialise in counter questioning instead of answering simple questions.
4. You are actually a Liberal Fascist.

Please read my signature.

On topic, matters of state must be kept separate from matters of religion.