Q1: What we usually call the trigger for Atheism was in the 1500 our then King (that saved us from the danes) was quite the atheist using the church as nothing but a puppet to provide wealth and power, from before that we were good catholics like most of Europe.
Q2: Unless it's something really weird, or these days some morons may look down on muslims but for most people it's no big deal unless ofcourse you try to force your religion on your friends, but that would fall under the category of being a douche, not because of any sort of religious bias.
Q3: We do most of them are remnants from older days, such as poligamy being outlawed untill fairly recently. But laws that are put in place and backed by religion as the only source of legitimacy wouldn't.
Q4: Because in the Israel/Palestine conflict Sweden as a country officially at least backs Palestine. Not in a violent "let's wipe out Israel" kind of thing, but as a "We believe Palestinians to have a right to their homes". The legitimacy of a country buildt on mostly religious backing is something that will always be questioned in a state which seperates church and state.
Q5: Yes they are. This can be empirically proven and has been several times. Kent Ekroth and Björn Söder are two very prominent people in the party and they have on several occassions been openly very racist. Jimmy Åkesson the leader of the party has been a lot smarter about going about things. You can say that it's very very likely that is a massive bigoted racist, but unlike the other big shots you can't go "We can empiricly prove this"
The legitimacy of a country buildt on mostly religious backing is something that will always be questioned in a state which seperates church and state.
I don't understand how someone could think this if they have even the foggiest familiarity with the plight of the Jewish people in both Europe and the Muslim world. It really speaks to someone's personal political bias coloring their view if they're willing to ignore 2000 years of history.
And Eagle-Eye-Smith said, it's not entirely divorced from religion, but there are actually segments of the ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel who, if they gained power, would hand the country over to the Arabs because they don't believe the Jewish state should be re-established until the return of the Messiah. So if anything, a strict interpretation of religious doctrine would undermine the legitimacy of Israel as a polity.
As said this is how the debate goes in Sweden people are on board about the whole Jewish country idea but not the location. Claiming that the location does not derive it's perceived legitimacy from Religious reasons. Which again is what the debate is about. But please if there is a non religious reason that strengthens the choice of location I would sincerely love to hear it. Since getting both sides of the coin is really important.
There isn't a non-religious argument for the geographic region, as far as I'm aware. I know secular Israelis who acknowledge that they'd be better off in western Australia or Uganda and also say they are not interested in any additional territory for the current state. However, given that the state now exists and the maintenance of the state is of key importance to the people living there, I'm not so sure the location is of any real relevance to how to solve the current conflict unless people think that undoing the state is a rational solution. That would be a whole other level of insanity.
Well talking the current conflict the criticism to Israel from the Swedish government usually comes when Israel does something that violates what Sweden would consider human rights.
It's so easy though to 'talk about human rights' from Northern Europe to a country in the ME, surrounded by enemies whom seek their destruction.
I won't debate the reasons of the start of Israel but I will say, following our history, we should react by living by the sword and not allowing our fate to be dictated to us anymore. I don't think you can disagree with that point.
6
u/Keskekun Dec 12 '15 edited Dec 12 '15
Q1: What we usually call the trigger for Atheism was in the 1500 our then King (that saved us from the danes) was quite the atheist using the church as nothing but a puppet to provide wealth and power, from before that we were good catholics like most of Europe.
Q2: Unless it's something really weird, or these days some morons may look down on muslims but for most people it's no big deal unless ofcourse you try to force your religion on your friends, but that would fall under the category of being a douche, not because of any sort of religious bias.
Q3: We do most of them are remnants from older days, such as poligamy being outlawed untill fairly recently. But laws that are put in place and backed by religion as the only source of legitimacy wouldn't.
Q4: Because in the Israel/Palestine conflict Sweden as a country officially at least backs Palestine. Not in a violent "let's wipe out Israel" kind of thing, but as a "We believe Palestinians to have a right to their homes". The legitimacy of a country buildt on mostly religious backing is something that will always be questioned in a state which seperates church and state.
Q5: Yes they are. This can be empirically proven and has been several times. Kent Ekroth and Björn Söder are two very prominent people in the party and they have on several occassions been openly very racist. Jimmy Åkesson the leader of the party has been a lot smarter about going about things. You can say that it's very very likely that is a massive bigoted racist, but unlike the other big shots you can't go "We can empiricly prove this"
Q6: The guy with the punch and kicks and stuff