Question for Secularists

[Omar del Sur]

Which civilizations exactly were built on secularism?

you look at the rise of basically every civilization ever.... they are religious, they start out religious then in some cases they later become secular as they decline.... you may see secularism after the civilization already is built up or is in the process of decline.... but I don't know which civilizations were actually built on secularism.... you men- can you imagine going out to battle at the beginning of building a civilization... you grab your weapon, mount your house.... the other side are unapologetic religious warriors who want to build a religious empire.... and you are charging on your horse under the banner of secular liberal democracy with feminism, lbgt, etc....

look at the US soldiers versus their Afghan opponents... the US military had so many advantages and they still couldn't win....

can you imagine how butchered an army and civilization with that kind of liberal ideology would have been in ancient times? suppose the technology is equal, there are none of the technological advantages... one side is fighting for God, the other side is fighting for liberal political correct ideology.... even with all the US army's advantages, the armed forces of political correctness couldn't win- so imagine if they didn't even have those advantages.....

secularism and pc ideology- all of that is luxury ideology for civilizations in decline.... it is an ideology for declining civilization, not for civilizations that are actually in the process of rising....

secular pc ideology is not going to turn third world populations into europeans.... look at how South Africa was the first African country to accept same-sex "marriage" and is probably one of if not the most liberal country in Africa.... all this liberal pc stuff and look how it's worked out for South Africa.....

 

[Lord]

This pure comedy
Lost few brain cells but it was worth it

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

The start of a civilization doesn't mean that it is prosperous, it is in fact (at the beginning)usually backward, relies on agriculture and poor.
However, there are some events that can either make a civilization strong or weaker, in Europe's case secularism made it stronger.

secularism and pc ideology- all of that is luxury ideology for civilizations in decline.... it is an ideology for declining civilization, not for civilizations that are actually in the process of rising....

Nations do not become secularist as they decline, during the 19th century Europe was secular, it started the century while actually being poorer than China and third world countries but at the end of the century, for the first time in the last 1000 years a Western country became richer than China (Which was the richest country for the last 2000 years).

can you imagine going out to battle at the beginning of building a civilization... you grab your weapon, mount your house.... the other side are unapologetic religious warriors who want to build a religious empire.... and you are charging on your horse under the banner of secular liberal democracy with feminism, lbgt, etc....

Secularism doesn't come with lgbt, feminism etc..., France was secular since the late 1700's but accepted lgbtq rights during the 2000's almost 300 years later and it gave women the right to vote 200 years after the 1700's. So secularism isn't tied to left leaning policies.

look at the US soldiers versus their Afghan opponents... the US military had so many advantages and they still couldn't win....

So what if the US couldn't beat a few militias in Afghanistan? Compare the 2 countries, 99.999% of people would rather live in the US than in Afghanistan where some girls can't even go to school and get threatened just because they don't wear hijab.

can you imagine how butchered an army and civilization with that kind of liberal ideology would have been in ancient times? suppose the technology is equal, there are none of the technological advantages... one side is fighting for God, the other side is fighting for liberal political correct ideology.... even with all the US army's advantages, the armed forces of political correctness couldn't win- so imagine if they didn't even have those advantages.....

Uhhm... didn't secular Empires invade the religious muslim countries? They fought for god but they still got humiliated, enslaved and colonized.

secular pc ideology is not going to turn third world populations into europeans.... look at how South Africa was the first African country to accept same-sex "marriage" and is probably one of if not the most liberal country in Africa.... all this liberal pc stuff and look how it's worked out for South Africa.....

Worked out better than Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria etc...
Secularism alone do not make people richer but statistically secular countries are better than countries which have religious policies.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This pure comedy
Lost few brain cells but it was worth it

this is pure ad hominem
if you have some irrefutable counterargument then I'd like to know it

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Odayga_Jabuuti I think you have made some interesting points. @Lord take a look at his post and take notes.

@Odayga I didn't read your post but I plan to read it

 

[Omar del Sur]

The start of a civilization doesn't mean that it is prosperous, it is in fact (at the beginning)usually backward, relies on agriculture and poor.
However, there are some events that can either make a civilization strong or weaker, in Europe's case secularism made it stronger.



Nations do not become secularist as they decline, during the 19th century Europe was secular, it started the century while actually being poorer than China and third world countries but at the end of the century, for the first time in the last 1000 years a Western country became richer than China (Which was the richest country for the last 2000 years).



Secularism doesn't come with lgbt, feminism etc..., France was secular since the late 1700's but accepted lgbtq rights during the 2000's almost 300 years later and it gave women the right to vote 200 years after the 1700's. So secularism isn't tied to left leaning policies.



So what if the US couldn't beat a few militias in Afghanistan? Compare the 2 countries, 99.999% of people would rather live in the US than in Afghanistan where some girls can't even go to school and get threatened just because they don't wear hijab.




Uhhm... didn't secular Empires invade the religious muslim countries? They fought for god but they still got humiliated, enslaved and colonized.



Worked out better than Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria etc...
Secularism alone do not make people richer but statistically secular countries are better than countries which have religious policies.

either have a secular government or the US will bomb you or sinister international forces will try to control or overthrow you does not = secularism being a better system


the fact is that secularism has been forced on people by international conspiratorial forces such as freemasonry and also by Western imperialism...

secularism being forced on populations due to an elite agenda is not evidence that secularism is a superior system

 

[Omar del Sur]

"With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why it is indespensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear of minds out of the GOYIM the very principle of Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs."

-Protocols of the Elders of Zion

 

[Lord]

this is pure ad hominem
if you have some irrefutable counterargument then I'd like to know it

You got me of guard @Odayga_Jabuuti got this covered the only thing I should is looking at America as a high moral ground for secularism is not it.

Your end goals seems worse to me than secularism tbh

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

either have a secular government or the US will bomb you or sinister international forces will try to control or overthrow you does not = secularism being a better system

Not really, the US invaded Iraq even though it was a secular country.
America is also allied with Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates which are countries rules by Sharia Law, so no the US doesn't force secularism on countries however it encourages the belief that Secularism is better.

the fact is that secularism has been forced on people by international conspiratorial forces such as freemasonry and also by Western imperialism...

secularism being forced on populations due to an elite agenda is not evidence that secularism is a superior system

Now you are just making conspiracy theories, nobody is forcing secularism.
All countries are secular except some muslim countries and Vatican.
If you said that the US enforces capitalism by force I would have agreed but believe me the US doesn't care if your country is secular or not.
However, human rights condemn acts of discrimination and violence. A lot of muslim countries are anti women rights, jails women for not wearing hijab, treat non muslims as 2nd class citizens (a christian and a jew can never expect to become the leader of a middle eastern country while it is possible in a Western country by law), slavery is still practiced in muslim countries.
You got all that and some people try to justify that by telling other people that this is what their religion tells them to do.

And Please don't quote this book, it's a highly racist book full of conspiracy theories that was mady in Tsar Russia. Hitler was inspired by this book when he was writing Mein Kampf. It's proven that this book is full of bullshit.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Not really, the US invaded Iraq even though it was a secular country.
America is also allied with Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates which are countries rules by Sharia Law, so no the US doesn't force secularism on countries however it encourages the belief that Secularism is better.



Now you are just making conspiracy theories, nobody is forcing secularism.
All countries are secular except some muslim countries and Vatican.
If you said that the US enforces capitalism by force I would have agreed but believe me the US doesn't care if your country is secular or not.
However, human rights condemn acts of discrimination and violence. A lot of muslim countries are anti women rights, jails women for not wearing hijab, treat non muslims as 2nd class citizens (a christian and a jew can never expect to become the leader of a middle eastern country while it is possible in a Western country by law), slavery is still practiced in muslim countries.
You got all that and some people try to justify that by telling other people that this is what their religion tells them to do.

And Please don't quote this book, it's a highly racist book full of conspiracy theories that was mady in Tsar Russia. Hitler was inspired by this book when he was writing Mein Kampf. It's proven that this book is full of bullshit.

believe you, the US doesn't force secularism on others? Iraq was secular?

if you think the US hasn't pushed secularism on other countries, you don't know the history of US foreign policy....

and it's not just the US... it's also international Freemasonry.... many countries have had secularism pushed on them by Masonic forces....

also the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an excellent book that is full of truth

EDIT: US btw was created by Masonry and has pushed a Masonic agenda throughout its history so the US and masonry aren't really all that separate

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

@Omar del Sur

Yes Iraq was secular.

Then give me some examples of the US forcing secularism on other nations.

You never give me examples, you're just saying some vague stuff.
And the book you are talking about as I already told you is a conspiracy book full of racism.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur

Yes Iraq was secular.

Then give me some examples of the US forcing secularism on other nations.

You never give me examples, you're just saying some vague stuff.
And the book you are talking about as I already told you is a conspiracy book full of racism.

As far as Iraq- Iraq was NOT secular. Saddam become more religious in the nineties. He was mixing Ba'athism with religion.

US forcing secularism. The US seeks to force its model on the entire world. If someone doesn't know basic elements of US foreign policy, they're the one who doesn't know.

Protocols of Zion was an extremely accurate book. And show what racism was in the book? Where is the book racism?

You say "racism," what people think of is way different than what they will read if they actually study the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Protocols barely has anything to do with race. It's simply describing a blueprint for the NWO and it mentions Zionists.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Qur'an etched in Saddam Hussein's blood

Qur'an etched in Saddam Hussein's blood poses dilemma for Iraq leaders

As country debates whether to destroy everything connected to former dictator, Shia-led regime remains sensitive about relics

www.theguardian.com

I don't know what part of secularism is having the Quran written in your blood

 

[Odayga_Jabuuti]

Saddam Hussein acted like he was more religious because the iraqis were becoming religious, because of poverty which was caused by international sanctions after Saddam invaded Koweit.
But Iraq was always secular.

Usually if you are capitalist and you trade while using US dollars in international trades, the US doesn't have any problem in how you rule the country. The problem is usually with human rights group.

Elder of Zion is an antisemitic book made in Russia during the Pogroms to justify it.
Hitler later used this book to justify his massacres. It's a conspiracy theory made to vilify other human beings. I'm not going to argue about that when people who actually studied the book said that it's one of the worst book that was ever published. You cannot deny that, I doubt you read the whole book but if you actually read the book and agree with it then you should check your own bias.

 

[Nilotic]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a Tsarist fabrication.

The Jews are generally organised and intelligent, but they're not this monolithic, sinister and all powerful group you make them out to be; it makes sense for them to be prominent in the media -- in light of the role that the use of propaganda played in anti-Semitic crimes, pogroms and genocide.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I just want to emphasize that the "decline of the West" theory isn't something I've made up but something that Spengler and numerous intellectuals discussed. It is not radical new idea that I've come up with that the Western civilization represents a civilization in decline. This does contradict the PC model that PC culture represents the height of civilization but numerous intellectuals have discussed the theory.

The Decline of the West - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Decline of the West (German: Der Untergang des Abendlandes), or more literally, The Downfall of the Occident, is a two-volume work by Oswald Spengler. The first volume, subtitled Form and Actuality, was published in the summer of 1918.[1] The second volume, subtitled Perspectives of World History, was published in 1922.[2] The definitive edition of both volumes was published in 1923.[3]

Spengler introduces his book as a "Copernican overturning" involving the rejection of the Eurocentric view of history, especially the division of history into the linear "ancient-medieval-modern" rubric.[4] According to Spengler, the meaningful units for history are not epochs but whole cultures which evolve as organisms. He recognizes at least eight high cultures: Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Mesoamerican (Mayan/Aztec), Classical (Greek/Roman), Arabian, and Western or European. Cultures have a lifespan of about a thousand years of flourishing, and a thousand years of decline. The final stage of each culture is, in his word use, a "civilization".

Spengler also presents the idea of Muslims, Jews and Christians, as well as their Persian and Semitic forebears, being "Magian"; Mediterranean cultures of antiquity such as Ancient Greece and Rome being "Apollonian"; and modern Westerners being "Faustian".

 

[Psychologist]

Which civilizations exactly were built on secularism?

you look at the rise of basically every civilization ever.... they are religious, they start out religious then in some cases they later become secular as they decline.... you may see secularism after the civilization already is built up or is in the process of decline.... but I don't know which civilizations were actually built on secularism.... you men- can you imagine going out to battle at the beginning of building a civilization... you grab your weapon, mount your house.... the other side are unapologetic religious warriors who want to build a religious empire.... and you are charging on your horse under the banner of secular liberal democracy with feminism, lbgt, etc....

look at the US soldiers versus their Afghan opponents... the US military had so many advantages and they still couldn't win....

can you imagine how butchered an army and civilization with that kind of liberal ideology would have been in ancient times? suppose the technology is equal, there are none of the technological advantages... one side is fighting for God, the other side is fighting for liberal political correct ideology.... even with all the US army's advantages, the armed forces of political correctness couldn't win- so imagine if they didn't even have those advantages.....

secularism and pc ideology- all of that is luxury ideology for civilizations in decline.... it is an ideology for declining civilization, not for civilizations that are actually in the process of rising....

secular pc ideology is not going to turn third world populations into europeans.... look at how South Africa was the first African country to accept same-sex "marriage" and is probably one of if not the most liberal country in Africa.... all this liberal pc stuff and look how it's worked out for South Africa.....

is this a joke? i will answer your question on the religion.

religion is a tool used by the rulers, how hard is it for you to understand this, look at empires and look how they use religion to win the voices of the people

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.-lucius Annaeus Seneca

 

[Periplus]

@Omar del Sur my humble advice is for you to read about Michel Aflaq for more context about the Ba'aath party and Secularism.

No argument, just some good-faith advice.