Help
self-redacted for the moment.
UK and the Law.
#41
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 281
- Joined: 2006-November-12
Posted 2008-February-13, 14:56
I constantly try and "Esc-wq!" to finish and post webforum replies.
Aaron
Aaron
#42
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2008-February-13, 14:57
hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 02:42 PM, said:
TimG, on Feb 13 2008, 10:33 PM, said:
My knowledge of Sharia Law does not go far beyond the information in this thread, which is to say it is severely limited. But, I have read a bit of Bernard Lewis's The Muslim Discovery of Europe which gives me some knowledge of how Muslims interacted with the Western World centuries ago. My impression is that Muslims seldom attempted to impose their views or religions on the Western peoples they met and lived amongst. Admittedly, some of this was due to a Muslim belief that the Westerners that they met were not worthy of being converted.
At any rate, it would seem to me that Westerners have been far more zealous (and brutal) in their attempts to convert the locals.
At any rate, it would seem to me that Westerners have been far more zealous (and brutal) in their attempts to convert the locals.
Muslim's consider Christians and Jews to be "People of the Book" and generally did not force conversion or practice indiscriminate slaughter.
However, there was typically institutional discrimination against non-muslims, particularly with respect to taxation policy and ability to build/repair churches.
"They did not force conversion or practice indiscriminate slaughter. " So they were discriminating in their slaughter?
I have no interest whatsoever in whether someone regards me as "by the book" or "not by the book" except, if being "not by the book" (probably the case) means that I have to be killed, that would concern me. Especially if the Archbishop thinks that since it is part of someone's religious beliefs we should accept it.
This whole thing sounds nuts. Regardless of the particular faith, I don't think much of arguments that go "Oh, it's OK for him to stone his wife, kill people who aren't by the book, no problem, it's his religion".
Religious leaders often have an exaggerated view of their own importance and I think we would all be better off if we told the lot of them to take a flying leap. Apparently, in the case of the Archbishop, there is considerable support for doing just that.
Ken
#43
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-February-13, 14:59
finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 02:56 PM, said:
self-redacted for the moment.
well done just before I quoted you with a sarcastic reply
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#44
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-13, 15:27
kenberg, on Feb 13 2008, 11:57 PM, said:
"They did not force conversion or practice indiscriminate slaughter. " So they were discriminating in their slaughter?
You can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs... More to the point, by definition military expansion is going to involve some use of force.
By the standards of their time, the Arabs and the Turks were more than reasonable. For example, the famous expression "Kill them all, God will know his own" didn't originate in the Middle East...
Alderaan delenda est
#45
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 281
- Joined: 2006-November-12
Posted 2008-February-13, 15:29
cherdano, on Feb 13 2008, 03:59 PM, said:
finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 02:56 PM, said:
self-redacted for the moment.
well done just before I quoted you with a sarcastic reply
Well, to have a meta conversation, my original comment did say that it was "totally off-topic" and it didn't assert anything as fact. I merely said "I could see..." etc.
But at the time I opened the thread there was far less serious conversation going on. I didn't get around to my random off-topic comment until long after, and when I posted it there was all this debate. It seemed even more unwarranted by then.
It's too bad you can't just completely delete the last comment if it's yours.
I constantly try and "Esc-wq!" to finish and post webforum replies.
Aaron
Aaron
#46
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,994
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2008-February-13, 15:30
In response to a post by Mike777, to the effect that countries with lots of immigration tend to be more religious than those without: I frankly don't understand how you come to that opinion. The US, a country of immigrants, is admittedly close to being a theocracy, and certainly a nation in which one has no chance of being elected President without ostentious protestations of a Christian faith (one of the main problems facing Romney was that there was a huge proportion of voters who said they'd never vote for a Mormon, coupled with or based upon a concern that Mormonism isn't actually Christian at all).
But Canada, which is as diverse ethnically and culturally as the US, is far less religious. And the Muslim countries seem bye and large not to be centres of ethnic migration: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... countries where, if one discounts the guest workers of Saudi Arabia, are not nor have been recently, hotbeds of immigration. Look at France, with a large immigrant population: on the whole, religious belief seems to be losing ground in that nation, etc.
As for the AB comments, I do think, after reading his statement (thx to the poster), that the reaction may be a little overblown, but I did find his comments disturbing. In particular, he described sharia law as based on 'revealed' knowledge or rules.
This, of course, is at the very heart of religion: the acceptance of statements made by other humans for their own selfish purposes as being divinely 'revealed'.
If God said something, then, until God changes his mind, that's it: no dispute is possible, and it would literally be heresy for a legislative body to try to amend the rules. Such a system is the antithesis of a democratic way of life.
Furthermore, while I can understand the argument for saying that members of a religious group should be able to agree to submit to otherwise non-binding determinations by a religious court, that presupposes that the voluntary nature of the submission is truly voluntary.
Years ago, there was concern in the US (in particular) about cults, accused of brainwashing their acolytes. Some parents kidnapped their children and 'de-programmed' them. The Mormons indoctrinate their children in extremely powerful ways, such that few ever break free of the church.
Raise a young girl in a strictly muslim belief and she will almost always accept the genital mutilation, if that forms part of the belief of that sect. She will gladly accept her role as a lesser human than the males in her circle, and so on.
Is it therefore 'correct' that a country such as the UK, or France, or Canada, permit this type of brainwashing? Permit religious fanatics to deprive individuals of what are inherent rights for non-believers, just because they are given control of the children?
Factor out the pretence that these people are guided by a god, and much of their conduct towards their children and (usually) women becomes clear for what it is: a holdover to modes of conduct that are at odd with western views of the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, and equality of rights.
If we believe in our values, we cannot, as societies, tolerate, let alone advocate, the presence of groups who deny their members the right, the opportunity, to share those values. There is no point in BEING a society unless it is to afford protection to those within that society who are in need of it.
That begs a lot of questions, such as how most western countries fall far short of actually being what they claim to be, but just because we fail in some areas doesn't mean we have to stop trying in others.
But Canada, which is as diverse ethnically and culturally as the US, is far less religious. And the Muslim countries seem bye and large not to be centres of ethnic migration: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... countries where, if one discounts the guest workers of Saudi Arabia, are not nor have been recently, hotbeds of immigration. Look at France, with a large immigrant population: on the whole, religious belief seems to be losing ground in that nation, etc.
As for the AB comments, I do think, after reading his statement (thx to the poster), that the reaction may be a little overblown, but I did find his comments disturbing. In particular, he described sharia law as based on 'revealed' knowledge or rules.
This, of course, is at the very heart of religion: the acceptance of statements made by other humans for their own selfish purposes as being divinely 'revealed'.
If God said something, then, until God changes his mind, that's it: no dispute is possible, and it would literally be heresy for a legislative body to try to amend the rules. Such a system is the antithesis of a democratic way of life.
Furthermore, while I can understand the argument for saying that members of a religious group should be able to agree to submit to otherwise non-binding determinations by a religious court, that presupposes that the voluntary nature of the submission is truly voluntary.
Years ago, there was concern in the US (in particular) about cults, accused of brainwashing their acolytes. Some parents kidnapped their children and 'de-programmed' them. The Mormons indoctrinate their children in extremely powerful ways, such that few ever break free of the church.
Raise a young girl in a strictly muslim belief and she will almost always accept the genital mutilation, if that forms part of the belief of that sect. She will gladly accept her role as a lesser human than the males in her circle, and so on.
Is it therefore 'correct' that a country such as the UK, or France, or Canada, permit this type of brainwashing? Permit religious fanatics to deprive individuals of what are inherent rights for non-believers, just because they are given control of the children?
Factor out the pretence that these people are guided by a god, and much of their conduct towards their children and (usually) women becomes clear for what it is: a holdover to modes of conduct that are at odd with western views of the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, and equality of rights.
If we believe in our values, we cannot, as societies, tolerate, let alone advocate, the presence of groups who deny their members the right, the opportunity, to share those values. There is no point in BEING a society unless it is to afford protection to those within that society who are in need of it.
That begs a lot of questions, such as how most western countries fall far short of actually being what they claim to be, but just because we fail in some areas doesn't mean we have to stop trying in others.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#47
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2008-February-13, 15:46
As usual agree 200% with Mikeh.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#48
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,358
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-February-13, 15:48
mikeh, on Feb 13 2008, 04:30 PM, said:
In response to a post by Mike777, to the effect that countries with lots of immigration tend to be more religious than those without: I frankly don't understand how you come to that opinion. The US, a country of immigrants, is admittedly close to being a theocracy, and certainly a nation in which one has no chance of being elected President without ostentious protestations of a Christian faith (one of the main problems facing Romney was that there was a huge proportion of voters who said they'd never vote for a Mormon, coupled with or based upon a concern that Mormonism isn't actually Christian at all).
But Canada, which is as diverse ethnically and culturally as the US, is far less religious. And the Muslim countries seem bye and large not to be centres of ethnic migration: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... countries where, if one discounts the guest workers of Saudi Arabia, are not nor have been recently, hotbeds of immigration. Look at France, with a large immigrant population: on the whole, religious belief seems to be losing ground in that nation, etc.
As for the AB comments, I do think, after reading his statement (thx to the poster), that the reaction may be a little overblown, but I did find his comments disturbing. In particular, he described sharia law as based on 'revealed' knowledge or rules.
This, of course, is at the very heart of religion: the acceptance of statements made by other humans for their own selfish purposes as being divinely 'revealed'.
If God said something, then, until God changes his mind, that's it: no dispute is possible, and it would literally be heresy for a legislative body to try to amend the rules. Such a system is the antithesis of a democratic way of life.
Furthermore, while I can understand the argument for saying that members of a religious group should be able to agree to submit to otherwise non-binding determinations by a religious court, that presupposes that the voluntary nature of the submission is truly voluntary.
Years ago, there was concern in the US (in particular) about cults, accused of brainwashing their acolytes. Some parents kidnapped their children and 'de-programmed' them. The Mormons indoctrinate their children in extremely powerful ways, such that few ever break free of the church.
Raise a young girl in a strictly muslim belief and she will almost always accept the genital mutilation, if that forms part of the belief of that sect. She will gladly accept her role as a lesser human than the males in her circle, and so on.
Is it therefore 'correct' that a country such as the UK, or France, or Canada, permit this type of brainwashing? Permit religious fanatics to deprive individuals of what are inherent rights for non-believers, just because they are given control of the children?
Factor out the pretence that these people are guided by a god, and much of their conduct towards their children and (usually) women becomes clear for what it is: a holdover to modes of conduct that are at odd with western views of the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, and equality of rights.
If we believe in our values, we cannot, as societies, tolerate, let alone advocate, the presence of groups who deny their members the right, the opportunity, to share those values. There is no point in BEING a society unless it is to afford protection to those within that society who are in need of it.
That begs a lot of questions, such as how most western countries fall far short of actually being what they claim to be, but just because we fail in some areas doesn't mean we have to stop trying in others.
But Canada, which is as diverse ethnically and culturally as the US, is far less religious. And the Muslim countries seem bye and large not to be centres of ethnic migration: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... countries where, if one discounts the guest workers of Saudi Arabia, are not nor have been recently, hotbeds of immigration. Look at France, with a large immigrant population: on the whole, religious belief seems to be losing ground in that nation, etc.
As for the AB comments, I do think, after reading his statement (thx to the poster), that the reaction may be a little overblown, but I did find his comments disturbing. In particular, he described sharia law as based on 'revealed' knowledge or rules.
This, of course, is at the very heart of religion: the acceptance of statements made by other humans for their own selfish purposes as being divinely 'revealed'.
If God said something, then, until God changes his mind, that's it: no dispute is possible, and it would literally be heresy for a legislative body to try to amend the rules. Such a system is the antithesis of a democratic way of life.
Furthermore, while I can understand the argument for saying that members of a religious group should be able to agree to submit to otherwise non-binding determinations by a religious court, that presupposes that the voluntary nature of the submission is truly voluntary.
Years ago, there was concern in the US (in particular) about cults, accused of brainwashing their acolytes. Some parents kidnapped their children and 'de-programmed' them. The Mormons indoctrinate their children in extremely powerful ways, such that few ever break free of the church.
Raise a young girl in a strictly muslim belief and she will almost always accept the genital mutilation, if that forms part of the belief of that sect. She will gladly accept her role as a lesser human than the males in her circle, and so on.
Is it therefore 'correct' that a country such as the UK, or France, or Canada, permit this type of brainwashing? Permit religious fanatics to deprive individuals of what are inherent rights for non-believers, just because they are given control of the children?
Factor out the pretence that these people are guided by a god, and much of their conduct towards their children and (usually) women becomes clear for what it is: a holdover to modes of conduct that are at odd with western views of the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, and equality of rights.
If we believe in our values, we cannot, as societies, tolerate, let alone advocate, the presence of groups who deny their members the right, the opportunity, to share those values. There is no point in BEING a society unless it is to afford protection to those within that society who are in need of it.
That begs a lot of questions, such as how most western countries fall far short of actually being what they claim to be, but just because we fail in some areas doesn't mean we have to stop trying in others.
I used Saudi Arabia in my example. It seems to me that Saudia is more religious the more immigrants it has and becomes more secular the less it has.
I would say the same thing for Canada but I have no facts. Again I suppose that the more immigrants Canada has the more religious it becomes and the less immigrants it has the more secular it becomes, over time.
My measurement would be as immigration increases in Canada does weekly service attendance increase or does the impact of religion on politics increase?
Lets look at the UK. I understand that as immigration has increased that weekly religious attendence has increased.
It would be interesting if the same were true in the Netherlands or France or Germany.
#49
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-13, 18:13
mike777, on Feb 14 2008, 12:48 AM, said:
I used Saudi Arabia in my example. It seems to me that Saudia is more religious the more immigrants it has and becomes more secular the less it has.
Do you have any valid statistics regarding
1. Religious intensity in Saudi Arabia?
2. The number of immigrants to Saudi Arabia?
3. The number of guest workers in Saudi Arabia?
or are you just making ***** up as usual...
Alderaan delenda est
#50
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,358
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-February-13, 18:23
If you were not so lazy, you could read my whole thread.
I said I had no proof, only the theory and I threw our a way to measure it.
And no I do not know how to find the evidence. If I did I would.
You are the stats geek, hopefully you can come up with some to improve the discussion with stuff other than insults.
In any event cheers and please stop with your continuing insults. Disagree with me is fine.
I said I had no proof, only the theory and I threw our a way to measure it.
And no I do not know how to find the evidence.
If I did I would. You are the stats geek, hopefully you can come up with some to improve the discussion with stuff other than insults.
In any event cheers and please stop with your continuing insults. Disagree with me is fine.
#51
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-13, 18:27
mike777, on Feb 14 2008, 03:23 AM, said:
If you were not so lazy, you could read my whole thread.
I said I had no proof, only the theory and I threw our a way to measure it.
I said I had no proof, only the theory and I threw our a way to measure it.
Maybe you're the one who needs to read their own post:
You stated the following
Quote
I would say the same thing for Canada but I have no facts. Again I suppose that the more immigrants Canada has the more religious it becomes and the less immigrants it has the more secular it becomes, over time.
This construction states that you have no facts about Canada, but implies a claim that you do have facts regarding Saudi Arabia
Alderaan delenda est
#52
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,358
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-February-14, 02:40
sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 02:46 AM, said:
Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion
I thought the benefits and the social cohesion are easily apparent.
If you want to spend all your time, money and energy fighting the will of the majority ok......if not......learn to go along.
If you have a family and want them to fight fight fight ok....Death/honor/ or Liberty.
If you want them to get along ok......
#53
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,358
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-February-14, 02:54
sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 03:52 AM, said:
Quote
I thought the benefits and the social cohesion are easily apparent.
apparently not to me, elaborate please
I did see rest of my post.
#54
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-14, 06:03
sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 10:46 AM, said:
Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion
You are framing the conversation the wrong way...
This is an argument about freedom of religion, not the advantages/disadvantages of Sharia Law.
Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that
1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary
2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures
the government should have no interest in an individual's decision to follow Sharia law.
Don't get me wrong... I'm incredibly skeptical about organized religion. I think that religious fundamentalist are a bunch of idiots. I think that its almost laughable that people believe in this stuff. However...
I get very worried when people start advocating that the government should discriminate against different religions. Moreover, I recognize that most of these religious groups thrive on persecution. They do best when they are united by an external foe...
I have enormous faith in the corrosive nature of modern secular humanist culture. Sit back and grab a brewski. It might take a few years, but the children and grand children of those immigrants will soon be doing the same.
Alderaan delenda est
#55
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2008-February-14, 06:56
hrothgar, on Feb 14 2008, 09:03 PM, said:
This is an argument about freedom of religion, not the advantages/disadvantages of Sharia Law.
Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that
1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary
2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures
the government should have no interest in an individuals decision to follow Sharia Law law.
Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that
1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary
2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures
the government should have no interest in an individuals decision to follow Sharia Law law.
In the same context you can discuss the advantages of the earth being a plate, it is just theoretical, no practical evidence.
There is no way that the Sharia is part of our culture if you want you two points to be taken into account:
1. I would claim that it is impossible to follow any given set of laws freely. If I am free to follow the laws or not, I have no laws ar all.
If you have laws, they must be there for anybody and there must be a something/someone who forces you to follow them. (Police, justice, your priest, parents, god, whatever.)
We may discuss if it is possible for most people to follow some ethics without the fear uf punishment if they don´t, but I am quite sure about the laws.
2. If your surronding (Parents, relatives, friends etc) all follow the same codex, you will have a very hard way to find another codex usefull. Somebody else gave the example of asian women living abroad. They meet one way of living at home and see another in dayly life. It is very hard for them to overcome their old habbits and follow the rules of the western world. So, if the Sharia is a living codex in your enviroment, it will be very hard to take a clear view about the western culture and to life a western live.
3. Sharia laws simply DO violate common laws.
4. We had the discussion before: The western world and christianity deveopled "together". The western world is still a christian world. Our ethics are christian. (This does by no means say that these ethics are superior, nor that the christian churches are always the place for the mostl ethical behaviour).
But monoganism, monotheism did spread with christianity, so did the ten commitments of course too.
Equal rights are a baby of the french revolution but the lutherian church was a spearhead to spread these thoughts. You can compare the rights women have with the degree of lutherians in a community and find that there is an easy to find correlation.
The Sharia has its roots in a very different world. And people in these parts of the world may or may not follow this set of rules. I do not like them, because for me the Sharia is too harsh and does not give many thoughts about equal rights. The Sharia looks quite backwards from my limited knowledge.
But I cannot judge what is right for Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia or whoever wants these old set of rules to be the current law system. They may use it. But there is no place on our continent for this. It does not fit here.
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#56
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2008-February-14, 07:03
hrothgar, on Feb 14 2008, 01:03 PM, said:
sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 10:46 AM, said:
Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion
You are framing the conversation the wrong way...
This is an argument about freedom of religion, not the advantages/disadvantages of Sharia Law.
Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that
1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary
2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures
the government should have no interest in an individual's decision to follow Sharia Law law.
I'm not convinced. A "law" is, to me, something that is imposed upon people.
Then again, it's not clear to me what Williams said. Maybe he just meant that people have the freedom not to eat pigmeat. In that case it's no problem. But then he would hardly have said that Sharia will "become" part of British law, rather that it is and has been for a long time.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#57
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-14, 07:25
Codo, on Feb 14 2008, 03:56 PM, said:
3. Sharia laws simply DO violate common laws.
As I mentioned repeastedly, I believe that federal law should prevail in those examples where federal laws and sharia law come into conflict.
To me, the critical issue is not whether an individual is applying the traditions of Sharia, but rather, whether or not they are breaking a Federal statutue.
Alderaan delenda est
#58
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-14, 07:41
Codo, on Feb 14 2008, 03:56 PM, said:
4. We had the discussion before: The western world and christianity deveopled "together". The western world is still a christian world. Our ethics are christian. (This does by no means say that these ethics are superior, nor that the christian churches are always the place for the mostl ethical behaviour).
But monoganism, monotheism did spread with christianity, so did the ten commitments of course too.
The Sharia has its roots in a very different world. And people in these parts of the world may or may not follow this set of rules. I do not like them, because for me the Sharia is too harsh and does not give many thoughts about equal rights. The Sharia looks quite backwards from my limited knowledge.
But I cannot judge what is right for Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia or whoever wants these old set of rules to be the current law system. They may use it. But there is no place on our continent for this. It does not fit here.
But monoganism, monotheism did spread with christianity, so did the ten commitments of course too.
The Sharia has its roots in a very different world. And people in these parts of the world may or may not follow this set of rules. I do not like them, because for me the Sharia is too harsh and does not give many thoughts about equal rights. The Sharia looks quite backwards from my limited knowledge.
But I cannot judge what is right for Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia or whoever wants these old set of rules to be the current law system. They may use it. But there is no place on our continent for this. It does not fit here.
The irony of this all is that Islam is a monotheistic religion which follows the 10 commandments.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all incredibly closely related. They are all founded on the same books and religious traditions. At the core, all three religions are extremely nasty and incredibly misogynistic.
Alderaan delenda est
#59
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2008-February-14, 07:48
Richard, I have no clue what you are aiming at. Don't we all agree that it's not government's business if some people don't want to eat pigmeat? Don't we all agree that it is the government's business is some group breaks the law, whether or not they justify their behavior with reference to their religion?
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#60
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,725
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2008-February-14, 07:58
helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 04:48 PM, said:
Richard, I have no clue what you are aiming at. Don't we all agree that it's not government's business if some people don't want to eat pigmeat? Don't we all agree that it is the government's business is some group breaks the law, whether or not they justify their behavior with reference to their religion?
I am in complete agreement with these statements...
I expect that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be as well
Alderaan delenda est