Reza

Separation of church and state means the US state can’t establish or sanction an official state religious institution (like the Church of England). Whether individual laws or lawmakers are inspired by Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Chomsky, Ann Coulter, the New Testament, the Quran, or any other source has no relation to that, and doesn’t equate to official state endorsement of any institution. Every law or policy has to be based on some philosophical backdrop. Being from a religious source (ie Christian) is not inherently less valid than any other source, constitutionally speaking. The distinctions of validity are only on the basis of individual or social bias, and that’s the basis of public debate. The civil recognition of marriage is obviously a product of Christian society, which people can oppose, but invoking separation of church and state can’t be used as an argument against that. A government marriage document is not a state recognition of any particular church or institution, or creating a “Church of America”.

I agree with this statement. Simply because it will increase political polarization and distract public attention away from more serious issues, of which there are many. After decades of the status quo, and the political exploitation of it by all sides, you wonder, why now?

This isn’t some abstract discourse, this is about a specific, practical subject. It would be better if people settle on a methodology, give a direct answer, own up to that answer, and lay it all out there for debate, so others can decide their material course of action. Or simply saying “I don’t know”. Throwing around broad contextual questions and outsourcing the hard work to others for extracting practical conclusions isn’t that helpful. This just sounds like someone not secure in his own methodology. Prove to me that answering any of your above questions on historical context is even a prerequisite at all for settling this issue.

There are millions of conservative Americans who aren’t any of these things. You’re just throwing around inflammatory terms to divide large sectors of the country who have a different view. That’s why the country is as polarized as it is. Then you probably shouldn’t have posted to begin with.

Do you have answers to these questions?

That’s an understatement.

Maybe it’s semantics, but I think “leaving the faith” is not always the best way to put it. People can be at a very low point, have serious doubts, have a very confusing or distant relationship with faith, but saying you have unequivocally left it altogether sounds very drastic.

I remember him as well. Great member of this community. He lived a long and valuable life. @Son of Placid Thank you for continuing to be in our community as well, and for sharing this news with us.

Very revealing.

It was just interesting to see Trudeau (and Canada generally) always giving statements on protests in other countries with measured, holier-than-thou language, but then when it reached home, they used the same harsh and dismissive tone towards “the peoples voice” they accuse other leaders of using.

If the few big contributors take a break or leave, we are impacted more severely. ShiaChat does not have endless content creating minions to fill in the gaps. We’re a mom and pop store, not Walmart. Whenever our heavy hitters come back, you see things spike up. It’s a natural cycle. For me personally, and for many years, whenever a big current event happens, ShiaChat is still one of the first places I go. There are people here I want to hear from before anyone else. And these occasions tend to be a high point in the cycle too. Also, this is such an exciting opportunity for anyone to become a big influential contributor. There’s an open lane for anyone. Where else can you get this much power and influence? Anywhere else you’re a drop in the bucket.

Those sites may be more widely known and accessible, but Shias are still a niche community in those places. The “discussions” there in terms of Shia matters/perspectives aren’t necessarily of great quality. What those sites do have is an extensive pool of content that non-Shias and non-Muslims provide, which can keep people engaged and distracted for longer periods of time. That endless feed is the draw in. ShiaChat cannot and shouldn’t compete with these platforms on that level, but have its own identity and its own draw in. There is a certain experience here that cannot be replicated on the big platforms, and we all know this.

The further geographic distance you look, the more options you will have, but you may have long distance barriers. Like education and families far apart. If you focus locally, you have fewer options but less logistical difficulties and better mechanisms of evaluating compatibility (in real life, not just online). If you live in certain cities of Canada (especially GTA but anywhere else too), you get the best of both worlds. In that case, wait it out. You may have the luxury of being “pickier” than others. You’re starting the search early enough. Even waiting one month may completely change your opportunities. And I’ll say the obvious, time isn’t as disadvantageous for men.

You made a general point that religion survives primarily in “insular” economies, and I asked a question using one counter example of a religion expanding and thriving through the opposite mechanism. Here’s another question: when religious texts have been translated into scores of world languages, how is that facilitated? And another: How does the concept of a “globalized” Mahdi fit into your premise?