World News
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
Turkey under the Kemalists is an example of a primarily Muslim nation at least attempting to build a liberal democracy.
Yes, building a liberal democracy by using military dictatorships. When you are trying to force something on people that dont want it(at least the majority), thats when you get Erdogan. It might suck for turks living in Western Turkey and in cities like Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara but the other half of turks have a majority.
And one of the fundamental principles of a democracy is that majority rules. You cant use the military to overthrow democratically elected governments just because you dont like their policy.
However, i agree with your point, there are plenty of turks who selfidentity as muslim and are ok with lgbtq, etc, just like there are christians. Though i never understood how that works. Like how can the Church of Sweden participate in Pride parades. At what point something stops being christianity and becomes a social club? In the Bible is clearly says that homosexuality is bad.
The Bible, at least the NT, also clearly says love all humanity including, no, especially the sinner. Hell the Bible says just about everything if you read the whole thing.
I mean this is what homophobes use when they say "hate the sin, love the sinner". You are still a sinner. And this isnt just some interpretation or parable, it clearly says it is an abomination. It's just silly.
Those people conveniently ignore the fact the Bible says all are sinners. It's always easier to judge others.
The New Testament says that homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Despite the attempts of some to downplay these verses, the Bible could not be clearer that homosexuality is a sin against God.
I didn't say it's not but...
Romans 5:8
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
And most importantly: Matthew 7:1-3
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
By rejecting the sinner and allowing yourself to feel hatred, judging them, you are committing the gravest sin. You imagine yourself to speak for God. To judge in His stead.
So you're saying it's contradicting itself?
No, I'm saying Jesus' teachings are intended as a guide for your own life, but He is very explicitly telling you not to use them to judge and condemn others.
These are both (the quotes I provided, Jesus's teachings) parts of the bible. They contradict each other. Ergo, as I said, the bible is contradicting itself.
If you want to filter the bible to be "just the teachings of Jesus" that's your prerogative, but the vast majority of Christians are not doing that, and the bible is provided and preached in it's full, unabridged format at churches across the world.
Fine if you want to be pedantic about it. It's a 2000 year old text, transcribed countless times. My point was never that the Bible is perfect but that if you want to follow it, it explicitly prohibits peolle using it to condemn others.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make here.
I made the point several comments ago, it hasn't changed. The point I made was that there are a ton of explicit homophobic teachings in the bible.
if you want to follow it, it explicitly prohibits peolle using it to condemn others.
As I said, this is not broadly agreed upon by a majority of Christians, yet you keep stating it like it is. I leave it to Christians to pick and choose the word of God much as they ever have but no one of them gets to call the shots on bible interpretation any more than another.
It's clear many Christians don't agree. They tend to cherry pick those parts of the Bible that appeal to them. If that's also the point you're trying to make then we're in agreement.
That fundamental principle of democracy also demands that minorities still have their rights protected.
Enforcing Islam on them isn't protecting their rights.
You want to practice fundamentalist Islam, you go do that, so long as you don't hurt anyone or try to force it on anyone else, but your majority rights to swing your fist end at my face.
That fundamental principle of democracy also demands that minorities still have their rights protected.
It depends on the democracy. Ancient Athens had democracy, yet women had basically no rights and slaves were a thing. In Sparta, which had 2 kings, greatly opposed democracy and a militaristic society(with abhorrent generational slavery), women had a lot more rights, were getting educated, etc. From Plutarch "quoting" Gorgo(Queen of Sparta, wife of Leonidas)
"Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?"
"Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Sparta
"Spartan women were famous in ancient Greece for having more freedom than women elsewhere in the Greek world. To contemporaries outside of Sparta, Spartan women had a reputation for promiscuity and controlling their husbands. Unlike their Athenian counterparts, Spartan women could legally own and inherit property and they were usually better educated."
Etymologically and historically, democracy just means that the people(majority) hold the power. The association of democracy with human rights, is a somewhat modern interpretation. If the people of Turkey or Egypt want their country to be an islamic country shouldnt they have that right?
I think it is complicated. And becomes even more complicated when you dont have freedom of movement between most countries(so people are basically doomed to exist where they are born). But i think preferring the military overthrow of a democratically elected government just because it doesnt align with your moral values, sets a very dangerous precedent that threatens the very core of democracy.
If Trump was elected, would you be in favor of a military intervention because he doesnt align with your moral values? Because this is exactly what many Trump fans were asking, after Trump lost the election. And once you start using military force to overthrow the elections, democracy is done.
force it on anyone else
We are forcing tons of things on people in democratic countries. Child education for example. While in the US, you can home "educate" your child, in most countries your child is required by law to attend a school. Raw milk is illegal in most countries. You are forced to pay health insurance(in countries other than the US). You are forced to wear clothes. You are forced to pay for state tv(except in the US) even if you never watch it.
Personal liberty is restricted. And you could argue that it is "for the greater good" but you could also use the same excuse for an islamic state that restricts homosexuality.
I'm sorry, none of what you said has any resemblance to a liberal democracy, all your examples are from classical times, none are post-rousseau/enlightenment.
The Mayans sacrificed people to their gods for "the greater good", that doesn't make them a better form of society.
You sound like you painted yourself into an unfortunate argument that you somehow want to paint yourself out of.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The message on the screens is accompanied by images of Vullnet Krasniqi, a well-known journalist at Nacionale, and the words "Press freedom ends with offense."
The call to join the protest said that the singer's performance had been incompatible with tradition and culture, was a threat to children and would lead to "degeneration."
When he asked some of the protesters what aspect of Peaches' performance posed a threat to children and what they meant by "degeneration," things turned ugly.
On another occasion, a journalist was brutally beaten for using a sarcastic tone in a Facebook post about an ultraconservative imam from Prizren who had been given a Mercedes as a retirement present by the members of his community.
Although radical Islam is not an immediate political threat in Kosovo, Xharra sees a dangerous phenomenon behind the campaign against Krasniqi.
By the time of publication, DW had received no answer to a request for a comment from a government spokesperson on the campaign against the journalist and Nacionale.
The original article contains 1,101 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!