Theresa May on London attacks: Enough is Enough

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by New Era

Will that apply to other religious courts as well?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/a...ion-in-the-us/

This is getting ridiculous. Terrorism is a tactical strategy, not part of any religion or even ideology. It's a tactic for those without a military to inflict damage against their foe. You want terrorism to end, let people in their own countries decide their own cultural and social standards. If you truly believe we are a sectarian country, then make it abundantly clear to all citizens that religious courts are null and void in our society. No exceptions. Period. Build the wall... of separation between church and state and penalize anyone who tries otherwise.

Except the problem is, in the radical's minds EVERYONE that is a non believer is their foe. How else do you explain a native UK born man with Libyan origins bombing his hometown? Please explain how "letting countries decide their own cultural and social standards" would have stopped that.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, and in absence of the abolition of freedom of religion and the essentially impossible elimination of every religion on earth, what option would you prefer?

A bunch of Christians and Muslims running around believing in medieval punishments?

Or a bunch of progressive Christians and Muslims running around believing that, considering their age, it's probably ok not to interpret the texts verbatim, and instead live your life off the positive guidance it can provide.

Calling option number 2 just as bad is stupid. It might still be worse than being a virtuous atheist, but outside of that it is pretty clearly a massive improvement over taking the texts and following them verbatim.

Education. Education of women particularly. The problem with religion is they allow those in a position of power to control the minds of progressives or fundamentals. It needs to start somewhere doesn't it? We cant just throw our arms in the air and say, well damn, this particular segment are moderates and be happy with that? Eventually a progressive will read more into the version than a moderate might and begin preaching hatred. The cycle perpetuates itself.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The bolded part is the problem, isn't it? If it is left to interpretation then it should be banned outright.

There's obviously no way to ban support for something, so I'm not sure what you're even suggesting here?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The common words in both are backwards rules. They exist, tenets of both religions have a significant population that believe in them and they continue to preach and indoctrinate.

Its interesting how Judaism's doctrine is based solely on the old testament yet they run a liberal democracy in their country. There is some pretty oppressive #### in that testament against women and "gentiles".

[Matata]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

She was a beautiful person and will be sorely missed.

My gf used to work with her in homeless outreach, it's so crazy to think about it.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Itse

There's obviously no way to ban support for something, so I'm not sure what you're even suggesting here?

Again the key is education. We have to start somewhere right? Banning the use of Sharia in western society is a start with educational components attached and ensuring that any Imam who uses or utilizes this form of law in Canada or the western world be prosecuted.
The fact that we are afraid to stand up to this or any other backwards form of theistic law is simply ridiculous and spineless.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Its interesting how Judaism's doctrine is based solely on the old testament yet they run a liberal democracy in their country. There is some pretty oppressive #### in that testament against women and "gentiles".

well in Israel, New York and Toronto there are many neighborhoods/groups of strict Jewish sects that beg to differ. They just dont blow people up in concerts, they send missiles and take land that isnt legally theirs.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Again the key is education. We have to start somewhere right? Banning the use of Sharia in western society is a start with educational components attached and ensuring that any Imam who uses or utilizes this form of law in Canada or the western world be prosecuted.

You clearly have no idea what sharia is or what sharia courts are, or that those two are not even remotely the same thing.

You can't ban "the use of Sharia" any more than you can ban "the use of ten commandments".

I think it's also sufficiently explained in this very thread why you can't just "ban" sharia courts without blatantly infringing on freedom of religion.

Besides, trying to stomp out religious minorities with government action has historically always worked out just great.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Education. Education of women particularly. The problem with religion is they allow those in a position of power to control the minds of progressives or fundamentals. It needs to start somewhere doesn't it? We cant just throw our arms in the air and say, well damn, this particular segment are moderates and be happy with that? Eventually a progressive will read more into the version than a moderate might and begin preaching hatred. The cycle perpetuates itself.

I don't follow, you aren't making sense. In the absence of progressives, how do you propose progress is introduced? Because progressive Muslims are the ones introducing progress (surprise!) to Islam. Progressives are the reason you're seeing tons of educated Muslim women in the West (this is not a starting point, pick something that hasn't already been happening for decades), and progressives are who will eventually bring the majority of Islam world wide into the 21st century.

Ranting against progressive Muslims who are trying to dispel violence and hatred from their religion? That doesn't make any sense.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't follow, you aren't making sense. In the absence of progressives, how do you propose progress is introduced? Because progressive Muslims are the ones introducing progress (surprise!) to Islam. Progressives are the reason you're seeing tons of educated Muslim women in the West (this is not a starting point, pick something that hasn't already been happening for decades), and progressives are who will eventually bring the majority of Islam world wide into the 21st century.

Ranting against progressive Muslims who are trying to dispel violence and hatred from their religion? That doesn't make any sense.

Seems like you are the one ranting Pepsi. I was simply suggesting that we need to educate and eradicate Sharia in western society. If you seriously believe that Christians live by the ten commandments I suggest you go read them again. Its education, and Christian theology is on a serious decline in western nations. As far as progressive Muslims go, I see far more Muslim women today wearing full burqa's than I ever saw growing up. Is that progressive?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Itse

You clearly have no idea what sharia is or what sharia courts are, or that those two are not even remotely the same thing.

You can't ban "the use of Sharia" any more than you can ban "the use of ten commandments".

I think it's also sufficiently explained in this very thread why you can't just "ban" sharia courts without blatantly infringing on freedom of religion.

Besides, trying to stomp out religious minorities with government action has historically always worked out just great.

We do force them to comply with western law though. You can't enforce any ruling that goes against our legal code. The grey area is finding a moral equivalent to "The Path" in western society. Our Charter of Rights seems fairly ineffective in making sure the less extreme examples of "moderate" religious nonsense is kept in check. Progressive religious practice is still pretty f'ed up by most secular standards.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Seems like you are the one ranting Pepsi. I was simply suggesting that we need to educate and eradicate Sharia in western society. If you seriously believe that Christians live by the ten commandments I suggest you go read them again. Its education, and Christian theology is on a serious decline in western nations. As far as progressive Muslims go, I see far more Muslim women today wearing full burqa's than I ever saw growing up. Is that progressive?

Your suggestion was education as a starting point, which is plainly nonsense because Muslims being educated (yes, even the women) is not remotely new or revolutionary.

You don't understand Sharia, or the Ten Commandments apparently, as all Christian lives are based on the spirit of them (just as all Muslim lives are based on the spirit of Sharia). If you seriously believe otherwise, tell me exactly what you think Christians use for their moral compass, or why they're Christian at all.

It's great that you're basing your interpretation of progressive Islam on "I see burqas" but you should probably factor in things like: in the 1970s there were less than 100K Muslims in Canada, in the 80s that number doubled, and today that number is over 1 million. How many burkas are you seeing? I think I've seen less than 5 in my entire life, at most. It's not uncommon to see the hijab/head scarf, but I know a lot of Muslim women who are educated, strong women that wear it with pride. Some progressive Muslims view it as a negative symbol, but they often simply don't wear it in that case.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, and in absence of the abolition of freedom of religion and the essentially impossible elimination of every religion on earth, what option would you prefer?

Pretty obviously the one where religious people act in ways that, while they might be silly and superstitious, don't hurt anyone or impinge upon the rights guaranteed by a secular democracy. So, yeah, a la carte religion is clearly the preferred version.

Even there, though, you have to understand that Islam makes that more difficult than many other religions for two main reasons. First, the text of the Quran is held to have been dictated verbatim by Gabriel to Muhammad, such that the words therein are the literal transcription of the word of God. It's not "the gospel according to", it's His word, period, leaving less room for interpretation. Second, Muhammad himself, who is supposedly a perfect Muslim and God's chosen prophet, was not the sort of guy we'd want to live next to in the 21st century.

So those reformers and moderates have a tough job to win the war of ideas within their faith, and could really use some support. To that end, it'd be nice if the rest of us could not whitewash the prescriptions that exist in Sharia.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You are aware that there is not a single practicing Muslim that doesn't adhere to Sharia, correct? "Progressive" or otherwise, if you're Muslim, you adhere to Sharia in some form.

This is equivocation. All Muslims adhere to some aspects of it. As discussed, the progressive ones just ignore the bits about when it's okay to beat up your wife.

The path to peace isn't eliminating Islam. Christianity didn't find relative peace by eliminating it. The path is holding up the more liberal, virtuous interpretations and celebrating the progressives who preach it.

Absolutely true. You're not going to get 1.6 billion people to apostasize. Most of us would settle for a world where the ones who do apostasize aren't hacked to death with machetes for doing so.

Plenty of religious texts say some pretty insane things, so let's celebrate those that interpret the teaching in a modern liberal fashion and use religion for good, not throw out blanket bans and start shaming those people.

Yes, this is basically what I said, with the caveat that it doesn't help those people to ignore the insane things those religious texts say and act like they don't exist, or like they're not motivating insane behaviour.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Harris on CNN, he's spot on as usual

This video is like five years old now. Please stop digging.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your suggestion was education as a starting point, which is plainly nonsense because Muslims being educated (yes, even the women) is not remotely new or revolutionary.

Er, no. I mean, in some places of course, certainly in Canada. But in places where the vast majority of conservative muslims live this isn't a given by any stretch. Education in those societies is hugely important. Why do you think Malala Yousafzai is so celebrated?

Some progressive Muslims view it as a negative symbol, but they often simply don't wear it in that case.

Many people do, because at its core it is a symbol of purity culture and effectively represents the demonization of women's sexuality. But that's a hamburger hill in this context.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your suggestion was education as a starting point, which is plainly nonsense because Muslims being educated (yes, even the women) is not remotely new or revolutionary.

You don't understand Sharia, or the Ten Commandments apparently, as all Christian lives are based on the spirit of them (just as all Muslim lives are based on the spirit of Sharia). If you seriously believe otherwise, tell me exactly what you think Christians use for their moral compass, or why they're Christian at all.

It's great that you're basing your interpretation of progressive Islam on "I see burqas" but you should probably factor in things like: in the 1970s there were less than 100K Muslims in Canada, in the 80s that number doubled, and today that number is over 1 million. How many burkas are you seeing? I think I've seen less than 5 in my entire life, at most. It's not uncommon to see the hijab/head scarf, but I know a lot of Muslim women who are educated, strong women that wear it with pride. Some progressive Muslims view it as a negative symbol, but they often simply don't wear it in that case.

I understand things far better than you assume I do. Again, and I don't want to beat this to death, if you believe that Christians or Muslims live their lives based on the tenets of the bible or the Quran and not what they are "told" to believe by their local Priests, clergy or Imams based on "their definition of the particular tome they preach", then I have a bridge to sell you.
Most people are far to busy in their daily lives to actually read, understand and practice what they have read, leaving that to the leaders of the various theistic practice they follow. Thus the term, a flock of sheep.
Quite frankly the vast majority of atheists are those who have taken the time to read and understand those books.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cheese

if you believe that Christians or Muslims live their lives based on the tenets of the bible or the Quran and not what they are "told" to believe by their local Priests, clergy or Imams based on "their definition of the particular tome they preach", then I have a bridge to sell you.

Most people are far to busy in their daily lives to actually read, understand and practice what they have read, leaving that to the leaders of the various theistic practice they follow. Thus the term, a flock of sheep.
Quite frankly the vast majority of atheists are those who have taken the time to read and understand those books.

While I generally agree with those points, I fail to see what exactly are you suggesting we do about it? You can't force people to be interested in this stuff, and it's not like priests/imams are currently discouraging people to read the holy texts.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Itse

While I generally agree with those points, I fail to see what exactly are you suggesting we do about it? You can't force people to be interested in this stuff, and it's not like priests/imams are currently discouraging people to read the holy texts.

Education via any means possible. As I mentioned previously freedom of information, primarily on the internet, has given the free world access to everything they need to make an educated response to anything that Christian theology tosses at its flock.
Unfortunately, that same method does not exist in most of the Muslim world.
See r/exmuslim in Reddit for example. And no I don't necessarily think Reddit is the best place to get info...just using it as a starting reference where Muslims post their stories.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Even there, though, you have to understand that Islam makes that more difficult than many other religions for two main reasons. First, the text of the Quran is held to have been dictated verbatim by Gabriel to Muhammad, such that the words therein are the literal transcription of the word of God. It's not "the gospel according to", it's His word, period, leaving less room for interpretation. Second, Muhammad himself, who is supposedly a perfect Muslim and God's chosen prophet, was not the sort of guy we'd want to live next to in the 21st century.

There's a third reason: The Koran lacks the Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's clause that has enabled Christians to accommodate their religion with secular authority and laws. For conservative Muslims, there's no question that when Sharia and a secular law comes into conflict, Sharia take precedence. And not just in matters of private conscience - in public policy, for all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim.

And this isn't withering away in the modern world. Support for Sharia law is growing in Muslim-majority countries. In 2001, in an effort to soothe separatist sentiment, the federal government of Indonesia allowed the Aceh province of Indonesia to adopt Sharia law. Now not only Muslims in the province, but non-Muslims as well, are publicly flogged for dating before marriage, drinking alcohol, or engaging in homosexual behaviour. There's growing appetite among Muslims in the rest of Indonesia to adopt Sharia. Indonesia, once held up as the model of moderate Islam, is becoming less and less secular. The trends are going the wrong way.

As Shariah Experiment Becomes a Model, Indonesia’s Secular Face Slips - New York Times

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There's a third reason: The Koran lacks the Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's clause that has enabled Christians to accommodate their religion with secular authority and laws. For conservative Muslims, there's no question that when Sharia and a secular law comes into conflict, Sharia take precedence. And not just in matters of private conscience - in public policy, for all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim.

And this isn't withering away in the modern world. Support for Sharia law is growing in Muslim-majority countries. In 2001, in an effort to soothe separatist sentiment, the federal government of Indonesia allowed the Aceh province of Indonesia to adopt Sharia law. Now not only Muslims in the province, but non-Muslims as well, are publicly flogged for dating before marriage, drinking alcohol, or engaging in homosexual behaviour. There's growing appetite among Muslims in the rest of Indonesia to adopt Sharia. Indonesia, once held up as the model of moderate Islam, is becoming less and less secular. The trends are going the wrong way.

As Shariah Experiment Becomes a Model, Indonesia’s Secular Face Slips - New York Times

Geez, that doesn't sound like a simple arbitration process amongst consenting parties.

[OMG!WTF!]

I think education is probably a good idea but for "us" not "them". I have no idea what goes on in a mosque other than the basic fifty fifty of media coverage. I've seen girls in this country excluded from participation in a public school sanctioned mosque because they are "dirty". And I've seen mosques with women leading the prayer callings. It's a weird dynamic and knowing more would help me figure things out. I don't believe most muslims are progressive enough for my values and beliefs but I don't think Christians are either. I'd have to see much more about what goes on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Long post.

I'm pretty sure we agree, if you want to keep up with the "there are bad parts of Islam too" thing you're not going to find someone who disagrees with you here, my post was just about what Sharia represents to the modern Muslim in response to the bigoted "evil! Perverse! Etc etc" posts. As in: it's not all bad. And it's nice if you know that but some people pretty clearly don't (and my original post wasn't directed at you anyways).

It might not seem fruitful to respond to hate like that, but I don't really mind. I was just surprised you called the progressive Muslim view of Sharia "shameful" and out of touch with reality. Considering Sharia is open to interpretation as a moral guide to life, it seems logical to me to condemn the violent, hateful interpretations while leaving plenty of room to celebrate and support those who push the peaceful, loving interpretation. I think that's the best situation we can hope for since it's the step that comes long before people start letting go of religion.

But if this is some "religion is bad so even good, progressive religious people are bad" then you can have at it and count me out of the conversation as "agree to disagree."