Islamists win 70% of seats in Egypt's "democratic" election.. Well, there goes any chance of democracy now.. Great job Egypt!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16665748

I can see why the U.S and other western allies backed the dictators, atleast they were secular and they kept the islamic extremists in line and were against them.

This was expected after the uprisings. Expect islamic extremists governements in Libya and other countries.

have you seen how many seats in our country are "Christian"?

or are you seriously surprised that islamists had favour in a predominantly islamic country?

Lol white wolf, you are being a big silly.

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ...ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state". wiki

We have Christian MPs, but they aren't trying to overturn the constitution and replace it with the Bible.

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ...ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community.

That doesn't make them "islamist extremists" as docterAntiMoislim put it. That's orthodox Islam. Whether you like it or not, the Quran is not a just a moral code, it's a complete way of life. It's just that islamaphobes like him shit nuggets and assume extremism whenever they hear Islam and governance. Whether you agree or not with separation of "church" and state that's different story.

1.Overthrow dictator to have democracy
2.Elect islamist extremist party who is against democracy.
3.?????
4. PROFIT

That's the exact same democracy you preach though isn't it? or is it no longer democracy because you don't agree with the party in power? That's not called democracy that's hypocrisy, dickchoke.

islamism

Another sensationalist label to add to the list. Well done, islamaphobe.

If this "islamism" is an extreme ideology then you might as well say the entire religion of Islam is an extreme ideology because governance by a legal code existed from the time of the prophet Muhammad1400 years ago and throughout the different periods of the Islamic Empires.

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ...ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state". wiki

so a political party made it clear what they wanted to install as policy which was already been followed by 80% of the population?

you lot understand what democracy is right?

at least the morals are based in a book that anyone can pick up and read, its limited in scope by the same book.

OUR government just picks low hanging fruit on whatevers publicly negative at the time, which is entirely swayed by mass media.

I'd prefer a religious textbook dictating policy then the ACA in all honesty. I'd prefer neither but that's never going to happen.

so a political party made it clear what they wanted to install as policy which was already been followed by 80% of the population?

you lot understand what democracy is right?

at least the morals are based in a book that anyone can pick up and read, its limited in scope by the same book.

OUR government just picks low hanging fruit on whatevers publicly negative at the time, which is entirely swayed by mass media.

I'd prefer a religious textbook dictating policy then the ACA in all honesty. I'd prefer neither but that's never going to happen.

shit son, you're finally starting to make some sense! see what happens when you take my side and disagree with hoggy? (be prepared to be gang banged by the Atheists in Arms and other assholes alike, but that's half the fun of it).

Whether you like it or not, it was a book written by a few dudes a very long (and very very different) time ago. Which should have little to no bearing or influence on how people interact and live in a modern society

In your opinion. But that's ok I realise the fact that you're a human being and you're entitled to voice what you believe.

if they were elected via a democratic system, that is democracy. i think you are letting your anti-muslim agenda get ahead of itself, doctormoist.

if the muslims remove the democracy and turn it into a theocracy like iran, then i think we can be concerned.

Got any examples of where it's used in a modern sense and is able to break free from being trapped in ancient legal systems simply due to unfortunately being attached to a religion?

This is a story from Indonesia which I saw yesterday, Atheist faces jail after Facebook remark. I am an atheist, don't tell me that I shouldn't be batshit unhappy with religious people and their governments, because from my experience, and what I see elsewhere, it's more about maintaining the power of the cult and being able to keep their hands over their ears from criticism in the vast majority of cases.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

Got any examples of where it's used in a modern sense and is able to break free from being trapped in ancient legal systems simply due to unfortunately being attached to a religion?

The concept of Qiyas is used within a religions Islamic context, you can't simply dissociate it from it and use it and it's own, otherwise what's the point you might as well become secularist.

So i'll just ignore the latter part of that question and give you a a fundamental example anyway:

Qiyas is divided into 4 parts:

The original case, e.g Drinking Alcohol.
The new case: e.g. Drugs which contain Alcohol
The cause of the ruling: Intoxicating effects
The ruling: Prohibited

Because there were no prescription drugs at the time, the new case (taking prescription drugs containing alcohol) is measured against the original case (Alcohol consumption) for a common cause (Intoxicating effects) and a ruling is applied (Haram - Prohibited). There are certain conditions pertaining to each which i won't go into but that's the gist of it. But this stuff gets deep and not your average tom dick and mustafah can just start measuring stuff willy nilly. That's why an average degree at the University of Madina takes 6 years and there are scholars who do this stuff (among many other things) as a profession.

I am an atheist, don't tell me that I shouldn't be batshit unhappy with religious people and their governments

Why are you an atheist? I would have thought agnosticism would be the only logical choice for anybody with any doubts about this type of stuff. What unequivocal proof/s have you witnessed that overrides mere scepticism and leaves you %100 convinced?

Why are you an atheist? I would have thought agnosticism would be the only logical choice for anybody with any doubts about this type of stuff. What unequivocal proof/s have you witnessed that overrides mere scepticism and leaves you %100 convinced?

Are you claiming that the burden of proof falls to the skeptic?

No not at all - I just wanted to know what he had encountered personally to end up at his stance.

You didn't refer to yourself as that initially nerf! Bit of a difference yo. :p

It's a free world, feel free to do what you like! It's a little strange that you come back with that after I interpreted what you described yourself as literally though.

I was interested is all, I'm not an experienced religion debater yo. :)

I'm not an Islamaphobe, I hate all religions equally.

I would remind certain people that making multiple accounts is completely frowned upon; once confirmed the second account will be permanently banned.

The correct way to have bans, post limiters, and the like removed is to contact us and ask for it to be removed, preferably without being rude or bitchy.

thang kod finally someone did something about the retarded doctordouche/bonerfag accounts

thang kod finally someone did something about the retarded doctordouche/bonerfag accounts

I'm still here?

"Give everyone freedom to make their own choices! Oh, wait, they chose something I don't like; they're all assholes."

Please do not make any new threads; you can comment on existing ones but the flamebaiting is getting irritating.

Flame baiting? I simply made a thread to discuss this recent world event and to have a nice debate which is happening so far.

great another thread extolling the virtues of religion.

is there anything religion can't do ?

+1 for religion.

wow, people actually responded to this fuckwit seriously

I dont know of any other religious influenced countries that put their religion in the law like Iran & United Arab emitrates do.
I read some whacky shit people have to do to meet women in Iran simply because its illegal to approach them, or show any kind of intimacy in public.
Women *must* wear scarves in public for fear of being thrown in jail.

I respect people's beliefs, but if the laws of a religion are forced upon it's population it's unacceptable. Noone has a choice other than Islam in those countries.

Now Libya / Egypt will probably head in the same direction. Here i was hoping for progress.

if they were elected via a democratic system, that is democracy. i think you are letting your anti-muslim agenda get ahead of itself, doctormoist.

if the muslims remove the democracy and turn it into a theocracy like iran, then i think we can be concerned.

Pretty much this. AFAIK they've been elected via a democratic system.

Also Jc_23 you should read this. Pretty much sums up any questions you'll have in regards to atheism.

I'm still here?

i don't think your second account is though

I dont know of any other religious influenced countries that put their religion in the law like Iran & United Arab emirates do.

what about for the queen/royal family to run/own the military? their right to have the biggest guns is apparently given by "gods" authority. or are you OK with one of the largest armies in the world under the rule of someone who inherited the position with no real oversight?

If somebody goes through those intoxicating effects in order to live longer so they can provide for their family and spread the faith, shouldn't Allah be OK with that?

I would think that mental / spiritual purity is of higher value to Allah than your body? i might be wrong though?

Noone has a choice other than Islam in those countries.

your ignorance is showing again Vash,

although being an atheist in these countries will get you killed, being a christian is quite acceptable. 20% of their population is christian..

I call bullshit.

wanna ride your bike without a helmet? not wear a seat belt? how about getting to choose which cigarette you want to purchase? how about your rights to your own children if you're a male? what about national sovereignty? what about the boat people? what about gambling machines? what about not being able to wash your car with water you have to pay for anyway? what about confiscating someones $10,000+ property over a relatively minor moving violation? what about what Julian Assange being publicly declared as illegal behavior even though he broke no laws and was from a sovereign country.

Do you really think all the boogieman that the government come up with really are important?

at least in Egypt if a female protester is stripped by police there is huge uproar. In this country no one cared simply because they are protesting about something unpopular.

This country disappoints me with how self righteous it is, while it supports with adoration the largest warmongering country of our generation.

last edited by Captain Lateral at 10:37:23 23/Jan/12

They retain the authority over the armed forces.

The British Armed Forces are the armed forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Also known as Her Majesty's Armed Forces and sometimes legally the Armed Forces of the Crown,[3] the British Armed Forces encompasses three professional uniformed services, the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force.
The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces is the British monarch, at present Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to whom members of the forces swear allegiance.Under British constitutional law, the armed forces are subordinate to the Crown

law is passed every 5 years to maintain a standing army within peace time, and parliament give instruction that are customarily followed, but this isn't written in law. the commander in chief of the armed forces is still the queen.

As head of state, Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.[48] Longstanding constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority in the office of Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[5] The Queen remains the "ultimate authority" of the military and retains the power to prevent its unconstitutional use.[49]

Source

so someone born into the position is in charge of making sure the army doesn't do anything "wrong".

last edited by Captain Lateral at 11:36:05 23/Jan/12

The Queen may have de jure command of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, but de facto command rests with the democratically elected government.

but de facto command rests

i'm glad you bought that up, lets look at the meaning of de-facto

In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established."

so in other words, at the pleasure of her Majesty.

the Australian army is the same in that authority over the armed forces is through the queens governor general. Australia differs in the fact that the governor general in Australia is chosen by parliament, not the queen. however i'm yet to see what would happen if the queen refused to accept the chosen governor general of Parliament. seeings though the title can only be given or removed on the queens authority.

I do not have the impression that the laws are un-rationalised kneejerks, or that courts genuinely treat them lightly.

when I said low hanging fruit I was more referring to things that are easy to use sway public opinion by demonizing a particular behavior or group of people (smoking/ gambling or boat people & "hoons" ). It's low hanging fruit because it has already been rationalized by the majority of people, regardless if its justified or not.

Like water rationing when the dams are full and releases were required. Like mandatory detention for refugees.

or that courts genuinely treat them lightly.

courts enforce laws, not write them.

if the Queen ever tried to order the army to do something - the Government would politely tell her to get fucked. How's that for defacto....

that's nice, but the royal army doesn't pledge allegiance to the government.

last edited by Captain Lateral at 12:51:09 23/Jan/12

The Majesty is only there at the pleasure of the people. Not the other way round, and the Royalty know it.

no, the royal family is sovereign to the country. that's why the are born into the position of authority, not elected or consented.

11 November 1975.

Australian constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister of the time, Gough Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor-General. The Australian senate had threatened to block the Government's budget by refusing to pass the associated appropriation bills. On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek the Governor-General's approval of the election, the Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter installed leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser in his place.

no power over the government at all :/

Then The Queen would dismiss the Government and a new Government would be formed.

Section 57 of the Constitution only applies where the Upper and Lower Houses are dysfunctional.

It exists to break a stalemate between the Houses, not for the Queen to throw down if someone pisses her off.

no guys

THE LETTER OF THE LAW SAYS..

realistically, they don't run anything. why the fuck would they want to these days anyway?

Section 57 of the Constitution only applies where the Upper and Lower Houses are dysfunctional.

It exists to break a stalemate between the Houses, not for the Queen to throw down if someone pisses her off..

Are you claiming the Queen cant dismiss the Government
or are you claiming she shouldnt ?

Moist's ultra-racist motivations are pretty clear given his previous postings, just to be clear I'm in no way endorsing his views, just picking at apparent holes in what other people have said subsequently.

> Mentions nothing about anyones race, ever.

> Get called Ultra-Racist

> Mentions nothing about anyones race, ever.

> Get called Ultra-Racist

Ulltraaa racist.