• diprount_tomato
    link
    English
    51 year ago

    That’s like making a fire that doesn’t burn. And no, it’s closer to fascism than to a theocracy

    • @Candelestine
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.

      And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.

      • diprount_tomato
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.

        Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.

        And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?

        • @Candelestine
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          I was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn’t accomplish much. I don’t perceive Islam itself to be the problem.

          I admit I don’t fully understand what you’re specifically trying to say though.

          • diprount_tomato
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them

            • @Candelestine
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?

              • diprount_tomato
                link
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Because it’s basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur’an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.

                • @Candelestine
                  link
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it’s similar to how we don’t negotiate with terrorists imo.

                  Personally I’m against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it’s not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.

                  There’s always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don’t want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.

                  We’re literally shooting ourselves in the foot.

            • Addv4
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.

              • diprount_tomato
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Oh don’t even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught