Heartland

EmmaPeelWannaBe wrote:Ah yes, separation of church and state. That's cute. Wish it was true in the US.

... or in Germany, where some are steadily calling for a (of course fully hypocritical) Christian "Leitkultur" ... ...

Still, I'm sure it's much worse in the US with daily praying and religious channels on TV and stuff ... ...

While this debate is enraging and worthwhile, it isn't even the true issue.

My two cents: Hell yes, the Muslim ban is an outrage and we are talking about previously vetted and approved green card holders having their rights stepped back due to their religion. We're further blocking those in dire need based in their religion. This is so contrary to the foundations of America that we don't even have a country to defend if we accept this. We should just rename ourselves "scared pussies" and be done with it.

But that really isn't the issue. trump has been tweeting, making declarations, and otherwise dividing the left and the right to such an extent that no one is seeking truth anymore. He wants blind followers and he wants polarization. He's running this like a hostile takeover, not like a diplomatic endeavor. Both sides are playing right into his hands and these arguments are valid, but they aren't focusing on the biggest threats. Bans can be repealed and the fine points can be debated. In the meantime, he's getting confirmation on a cabinet that should strike fear into everyone's soul. That is the real news of the week. And we’re fighting with each other rather than objecting.

(I get quickly frustrated with the religious arguments, anyway, as I feel less like rooting for humanity's continued existence when we start talking about religion.)

Let’s quit talking about the nature of Islam and just agree on fundamentals. Do we accept non-violent refugees? Yes. Do we uphold the constitution? Yes? Do we oppose terrorism? Yes. Whether these positions make us anti-trump’s regime or anti-immigration depends on the facts before us. Please leave room in your minds for your opinions to change depending on new evidence. As long as we can all do that, we are all on the same side.

But the question was, should we get out of the US? Personally, I've been wanting out for decades, so I'd normally be glad of the excuse. Today, however, I want to stay and fight. I would actually much prefer to stay in the US and fight than to stay in the US and not fight. If, however, you seek peace, then I’d get out. (And please tell me how peace and doing the same thing every day is fulfilling. )

Sarah

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: Do you see Christianity for what it is, based on the behaviours of extremists (the LRA, perhaps), paedophile priests, and men in funny hats telling the poor and hungry that curbing their reproductive habits is an offence in the sight of god, or do you (quite reasonably) conclude that a faith cannot be judged by the tiny fraction (by some estimates, around 0.006%) of its adherents who commit atrocities?.

I've been an atheist from a pretty early age on, and since then have been harrassed by Christians many times because of that, so I have no particularly positive image of Christianity as a whole either. But... at least the core message of Christianity (despite of all its fantastical nonsense) is a positive one. Love thy enemy, etc. It's founder wasn't a maniacal warlord bent on pillaging, conquering, and murdering detractors. That's the major difference between Christianity and Islam. The second difference is, Christianity tends to stay out of state affairs, in principle. "Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to god what is god's" has been interpreted as a basic principle for separating church and state. There is absolutely nothing like that in Islam. Islam is a political as much as a religious ideology, and it seeks worldly domination through a global caliphate.

Weird - my reading of the bible (and, it seems, the interpretation that most American politicians seem to have) is that Christianity's core messages are of vengeance (an eye for an eye), heteronormativity, the persecution of non-christians, and the involvement of the faith in every walk of life up to and especially including government.

Islam, on the other hand, is not all that interested in global expansion. Consider that the Moors ran most of Spain for 700 years (and managed not to persecute the other religions who were there at the time) and didn't seek to expand their empire beyond the Pyrenees. You'd think that Saudi (a Sunni state, and one of the more extremist ends of that spectrum) hasn't sought to invade Oman or the UAE, even though they adhere to different faiths. Nor did Syria (Alawite), Iran (Shia), Iraq (bit of both), in order to found a global caliphate. Neither has Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Indonesia (if you don't count East Timor) - Pakistan has no intention of invading India, regardless of the spoutings of whichever tin-pot military muppet they have in power.

Now, it is true that various extremist groups (like Daesh) have proclaimed their desire for a global caliphate. There isn't one person in that group stupid enough to think that it would ever be achievable, any more than Nasrallah thinks that he can make Israel vanish, the IRA believes that it will ever unify Ireland, or that ETA thinks that the Basque country will be independent. It suits their cause to have this as a battle cry, because "dying for a global caliphate" is more romantic than "dying of dysentery in a desert" but not even the Islamic leaders of old thought that this was ever an ideal worth striving for. The Koran actually forbids going to war with anyone who isn't actively oppressing you, and very clearly says that while you may kill anyone who does threaten your life (and offers qualifications for what that threat has to look like) everyone else - women, children, people not directly involved in fighting - are to be protected and defended, even at the risk of your own life. Indeed, the Koran puts forth the idea that non-muslims should be treated as children are treated - their lack of faith, far from stemming from wickedness, comes instead from ignorance of the Word. Further, the Koran is absolutely clear on the point that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all equal in the eyes of the lord, since they are all People Of The Book, and that Abraham, Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed are all equally holy, since they are all prophets of the lord. Sadly, neither judaism nor christianity seem to keen to advance the same recognition to each other, nor to Islam. Indeed. Christianity has been quite keen on driving muslims out of some places and jews out of others, so I'm not sure where your idea that it stays out of state affairs comes from. Propaganda, maybe?

EvilBastard wrote:

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: Do you see Christianity for what it is, based on the behaviours of extremists (the LRA, perhaps), paedophile priests, and men in funny hats telling the poor and hungry that curbing their reproductive habits is an offence in the sight of god, or do you (quite reasonably) conclude that a faith cannot be judged by the tiny fraction (by some estimates, around 0.006%) of its adherents who commit atrocities?.

I've been an atheist from a pretty early age on, and since then have been harrassed by Christians many times because of that, so I have no particularly positive image of Christianity as a whole either. But... at least the core message of Christianity (despite of all its fantastical nonsense) is a positive one. Love thy enemy, etc. It's founder wasn't a maniacal warlord bent on pillaging, conquering, and murdering detractors. That's the major difference between Christianity and Islam. The second difference is, Christianity tends to stay out of state affairs, in principle. "Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to god what is god's" has been interpreted as a basic principle for separating church and state. There is absolutely nothing like that in Islam. Islam is a political as much as a religious ideology, and it seeks worldly domination through a global caliphate.

Weird - my reading of the bible (and, it seems, the interpretation that most American politicians seem to have) is that Christianity's core messages are of vengeance (an eye for an eye), heteronormativity, the persecution of non-christians, and the involvement of the faith in every walk of life up to and especially including government.

Two minor points:

1. When "an eye for an eye" is introduced, it is actually a vast improvement on what human beings have been doing prior ("If Cain is avenged sevenfold, I will be avenged seventy-seven fold").

2. The entire point of Christianity is forgiveness. It is a religion of inward transformation rather than divine law (i.e., it differs from both Judaism and Islam in that it is not concerned with a code of laws). In the New Testament, there is one political statement, and one only: give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. Theocracy is, simply put, un-Christian. Christianity becomes political because Rome needs a universal religion for a universal empire - but this is a corruption. Christianity is important in the American Founding (and subsequently) because, as Locke argues (i.e., in The Reasonableness of Christianity), it largely teaches the same thing as the natural law.

EvilBastard wrote:Consider that the Moors ran most of Spain for 700 years (and managed not to persecute the other religions who were there at the time) and didn't seek to expand their empire beyond the Pyrenees.

You must be joking. Yes, they were allowing Christians and Jews to stay alive -- as subjugated second-grade jizya-paying citizens because they needed them to keep their caliphate running. Someone has to do the work, after all. At the same time, they went on pillaging&plundering excursions into the Spanish mainland, raiding Christian villages for gold and slaves. The myth of a multi-cultural utopia in Islamic Andalusia is just that - a propaganda myth.

Being645 wrote:

EmmaPeelWannaBe wrote:Ah yes, separation of church and state. That's cute. Wish it was true in the US.

... or in Germany, where some are steadily calling for a (of course fully hypocritical) Christian "Leitkultur" ... ...

Still, I'm sure it's much worse in the US with daily praying and religious channels on TV and stuff ... ...

Ireland is a case in point where the influence of church on state has been pervasive in healthcare, education, legislation and public policy, and where the legacy of it's now diminished influence can nonetheless be seen.

sultan2075 wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:

nowayjose wrote: I've been an atheist from a pretty early age on, and since then have been harrassed by Christians many times because of that, so I have no particularly positive image of Christianity as a whole either. But... at least the core message of Christianity (despite of all its fantastical nonsense) is a positive one. Love thy enemy, etc. It's founder wasn't a maniacal warlord bent on pillaging, conquering, and murdering detractors. That's the major difference between Christianity and Islam. The second difference is, Christianity tends to stay out of state affairs, in principle. "Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to god what is god's" has been interpreted as a basic principle for separating church and state. There is absolutely nothing like that in Islam. Islam is a political as much as a religious ideology, and it seeks worldly domination through a global caliphate.

Weird - my reading of the bible (and, it seems, the interpretation that most American politicians seem to have) is that Christianity's core messages are of vengeance (an eye for an eye), heteronormativity, the persecution of non-christians, and the involvement of the faith in every walk of life up to and especially including government.

Two minor points:

1. When "an eye for an eye" is introduced, it is actually a vast improvement on what human beings have been doing prior ("If Cain is avenged sevenfold, I will be avenged seventy-seven fold").

2. The entire point of Christianity is forgiveness. It is a religion of inward transformation rather than divine law (i.e., it differs from both Judaism and Islam in that it is not concerned with a code of laws). In the New Testament, there is one political statement, and one only: give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's. Theocracy is, simply put, un-Christian. Christianity becomes political because Rome needs a universal religion for a universal empire - but this is a corruption. Christianity is important in the American Founding (and subsequently) because, as Locke argues (i.e., in The Reasonableness of Christianity), it largely teaches the same thing as the natural law.

Always interesting when people talk about Christianity, and the focus seems to be resolutely on the New Testament, the Happy Clappy Hippy Jesus years, rather than on the Old one, which we might refer to as Ozzy n'Halford World Domination Tour. Now, I'm happy if you pick one or the other. But whichever one you pick, or both, you have to play the whole album, not just the hits. You don't want the OT? Fine - so you'll be ok without the 10 commandments, the foundation of Israel, the heteronormativity, the persecution of non-Christians, the whole "garden of eden and we're all sinners" stuff, right? Cuz that's not what I'm hearing from the people over here who wrap themselves in the cross. I'd be fine if people spent more time on the "I am love - he who liveth in love liveth in me" instead of the "a man who lieth with a man as with a woman shall be put to death by stoning". The one would rather seem to cancel out the other, don't you see?
"Natural Law"? And what is that when it's at home? Pop out into nature, see what natural law actually looks like. Here's a clue: ain't nothing out there rendering s**t unto anything except themselves. What, there's lions willingly sharing their kill with hyenas out of the goodness of their hearts, is there? What bollocks. Locke abhored atheism and urged governments not to permit it. If, as Locke contends, the bible is in agreement with human reason, it's likely because humans wrote the thing. Ya think?

EvilBastard wrote:
Always interesting when people talk about Christianity, and the focus seems to be resolutely on the New Testament, the Happy Clappy Hippy Jesus years, rather than on the Old one, which we might refer to as Ozzy n'Halford World Domination Tour. Now, I'm happy if you pick one or the other. But whichever one you pick, or both, you have to play the whole album, not just the hits. You don't want the OT? Fine - so you'll be ok without the 10 commandments, the foundation of Israel, the heteronormativity, the persecution of non-Christians, the whole "garden of eden and we're all sinners" stuff, right? Cuz that's not what I'm hearing from the people over here who wrap themselves in the cross. I'd be fine if people spent more time on the "I am love - he who liveth in love liveth in me" instead of the "a man who lieth with a man as with a woman shall be put to death by stoning". The one would rather seem to cancel out the other, don't you see?

Again, the entire point of Christianity is forgiveness of sin. The Old Law is completed in Christ. That's the entire point. If we take the two Testaments together, what we see is the following (startlingly oversimplified) series of events:

1. Creation. God gives human beings one rule. They disobey. God seems disappointed with human beings.
2. Cain & Abel: Cain kills Abel. Lies about it to God and fears punishment from men, thereby implicitly admitting that reason alone should have been enough to tell him not to do this. God seems disappointed with human beings.
3. Cain's descendants do much wickedness. God seems disappointed with human beings, and waxes sorely pissed. God drowns the lot of 'em, and in essence reboots the world, and gives the Noahide commandments. This is more guidance and advice than he is previously given.
4. Exodus. Moses. Plagues. The Ten Commandments (three more than He gave Noah! He's realizing we're not quite able to work this stuff out on our own, even though we should be able to do so). God seems disappointed with human beings.
5. Leviticus: 613 more laws! God still seems disappointed with human beings.
6. God: "Wow, you people are hopeless. All these laws and you still get it wrong. Fine. I'll take your punishment for you, you dumb gits" - hence, the Incarnation.

Again, the whole point is forgiveness of sins, and recognition of human frailty.

EvilBastard wrote: "Natural Law"? And what is that when it's at home? Pop out into nature, see what natural law actually looks like. Here's a clue: ain't nothing out there rendering s**t unto anything except themselves. What, there's lions willingly sharing their kill with hyenas out of the goodness of their hearts, is there? What bollocks. Locke abhored atheism and urged governments not to permit it. If, as Locke contends, the bible is in agreement with human reason, it's likely because humans wrote the thing. Ya think?

Intentionally to not, this is a straw man. What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with what thinkers like Cicero, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, etc., mean by natural law. Additionally, Locke did not necessarily abhor atheism - he abhorred public atheism, which is not the same thing. And as he makes clear in a number of places, the chief reason he rejected public atheism was that it undermined the most effective means of teaching the majority of people their moral duties (i.e., religion). One might consider the Seneca quote previously posted.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a separate thread, as we seem to have digressed from the issue at hand. Which was largely this.

God does seem to have done an awful lot of smiting alongside his forgiveness though, doesn't he? The entire world (leaving it to be populated by the products of incest, presumably), followed by everyone in Sodom & Gomorrah apart from Mr & Mrs Lot (and she got hers later), Jericho apart from one hooker, not to mention Job ("Hey, Satan - let's have a giggle with this bloke. BOOM! Boils! I'm a prankster god!" Along the way he seems right alongside with people not forgiving each other, enforced marriage, slavery, domestic abuse, and kings committing adultery. This is all a good read on the beach, very Harold Robbins, but presumably the publishers thought it was getting a little dark so Deus ex Machina'd the thing and put out a sequel that bears no relationship whatsoever to book 1. They got one of the original writers back in to do the "But dad!" "I don't care, son - you've got to die for them. Sorry, but that's just the way it goes" bit (I'll be honest, I totally didn't see that coming), and then towards the end when they had to kill everyone off they got him back again for the Revelation, the final showdown, everyone dies and god implausibly enough triumphs even though it was clear that satan was totally winning in the human souls count. Boom, I'm god, so I win, and now I'm going to make it so that no-one else can play ever again.

Honestly, if you worked in publishing and someone came along with this, you'd laugh them out of the office. But call it "religion" and you can't print enough of the thing. Some people will buy anything, I guess.

Which is fine if you like that sort of thing. Seems like an odd thing to base an immigration policy on, though. For people who are rational, I mean - people who see society as something governed by laws which are written down, and which have been measured against the foundation stone of that society, agonised and pored over by learned jurists, refined and honed to address precisely the issue that it needs to without splashback. Y'know, laws - the thing under which all of the people in that society are supposed to be equal. Something lacking in hubris, one would hope, rather than a case of "Wrong place wrong time, buddy - I'm smiting you. Sozbags."

If you want to change the basis of law in the US, then absolutely, go right ahead. Until then, effectively saying "These people believe the same fairy tale I do, so they're ok, but those people believe a different one so they're bad dudes," (the president's words, not mine) is, well, illegal. As in, not on. As in, in violation of your oath of office. I don't know who you work for, but my employer would throw me out if I violated my terms of employment (and probably call the SEC to have me roundly thrashed into the bargain).

To paraphrase Nixon, "It's not illegal when the president does it." Yeah, it is.

nowayjose wrote:It's founder wasn't a maniacal warlord bent on pillaging, conquering, and murdering detractors.

Right.

Matthew 10:34-35 wrote:Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

nowayjose wrote:Christianity tends to stay out of state affairs, in principle.

That betrays a staggering ignorance of the last two millennia of European history.

nowayjose wrote:

markfiend wrote: The Muslim ban is being applauded by the Daily Stormer, InfoStormer, VDare, David Duke of the KKK, and various other of the cesspits of the internet. I hope you're happy with the company you keep.

Cheap. I don't accuse you of falling in line with the IS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

Yeah, no, because those groups are an your side. Trump's Muslim Ban is probably the best recruiting tool Jihadis have had recently.

EvilBastard wrote: The issue is not whether citizens of these countries are allowed to visit the US without a visa, or whether those citizens could apply for visas. The issue is that, having applied for a visa, and having been granted one based on investigations conducted by the State Department, they are then denied entry into the country, in some cases being detained without access to counsel or forcibly put on planes returning to their countries of origin.

Denying entry into the US of A can happen to every Visa country citizens. People can be stopped for any reason, without any help. It's discretionary
power granted to oficer of border force. I heard the stories few times, yet never from direct source of such action. It's kinda humiliating, and that happened long time before, has nothing with this or another POTUS.

markfiend wrote:

nowayjose wrote:It's founder wasn't a maniacal warlord bent on pillaging, conquering, and murdering detractors.

Right.

Matthew 10:34-35 wrote:Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

nowayjose wrote:Christianity tends to stay out of state affairs, in principle.

That betrays a staggering ignorance of the last two millennia of European history.

The point of Matthew 10:34-35 depends on what is subsequently said in 10:36-39. Context matters. The "sword" is metaphorical. Start at 10:33 and the context is even clearer.

Matthew 10:33-39 wrote: But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."

The same point is made in Luke 12:51 - Christ says he will bring "division." The passage in Matthew is not about literal violence. It is about turning away from worldly attachments and the discord that will be consequent upon such turning away.

Also, I think that the most important words in nowayjose's comment above are "in principle." It's uncharitable to ignore that. One can recognize a principle without simultaneously assuming or claiming that it has been put into practice. By ignoring that important qualifier you are responding to a statement that nowayjose is not actually making, and probably does not believe.

Well, I guess it's not debatable that even a relatively peaceful ideology can be turned into an excuse to exert violence, even if often that is purely psychological (just consider the brainwashing that many cults do). However, I think it is a lot harder to interpret an inherently violent ideology in a peaceful way. And even if you manage to establish a peaceful interpretation as the mainstream, you'll always have the risk of adherents going radical, that is, reverting to the (violent) roots of the ideology, thinking they are the "true" believers, who are closer to the original, unadultered message.

sultan2075 wrote:

Matthew 10:33-39 wrote:But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."

The same point is made in Luke 12:51 - Christ says he will bring "division." The passage in Matthew is not about literal violence. It is about turning away from worldly attachments and the discord that will be consequent upon such turning away.

While the passage in Matthew may not be about literal violence, the meaning is quite clear - until and unless you love Me above all other things and all people, you will go to hell (that's some olde-world forgiveness right there). If you die in your love for Me, you will be accepted into Heaven (no promises on virgins). Otherwise...yeah, better pack your asbestos shreddies, cuz you're going to need them.

If someone said this to his/her spouse we'd call it domestic abuse. But when a purportedly magic jew (David Thorne's description, not mine, but I think it's a cracker) says it we're bang alongside? Really? I've got to say I'm not wholly comfortable with this. Are you?

sultan2075 wrote:Also, I think that the most important words in nowayjose's comment above are "in principle." It's uncharitable to ignore that.

I'm not ignoring it at all. For at least a thousand years of (western) Christianity, a very-much-monolithic Roman Church did as much as it could to interfere with state affairs. If non-interference in state affairs is indeed a "principle" it's one that the church itself has steadfastly ignored.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:Also, I think that the most important words in nowayjose's comment above are "in principle." It's uncharitable to ignore that.

I'm not ignoring it at all. For at least a thousand years of (western) Christianity, a very-much-monolithic Roman Church did as much as it could to interfere with state affairs. If non-interference in state affairs is indeed a "principle" it's one that the church itself has steadfastly ignored.

"Ah," goes the argument, "the church is a function of man, and man is imperfect. The actions of man cannot be viewed as the actions of a faith. So when the church persecutes homosexuals, or fiddles with kids, this is a failure of the men of the church, not of the faith itself."

Unless you're dealing with islam, in which case someone who calls himself muslim is deemed to represent the whole congregation and faith.

Anyway, yes, Sally Yates. The full text of the White House press release regarding her sacking:

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,� said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

How utterly statesmanlike! It reads like a three-year-old's temper tantrum.

Source

EvilBastard wrote:Unless you're dealing with islam, in which case someone who calls himself muslim is deemed to represent the whole congregation and faith.

Well, I don't know. Consider a hypothetical religion called 'The Humble Disciples of Procrustes', whose god All-Same, as revealed by the prophet Procrustes, told them to saw off the legs of anyone who is taller than a certain length, and to stretch everyone who is smaller, and that this, all people being of exactly equal length is the core of all morality and indeed human existence, and that detractors shall be persecuted on earth and will be tortured in hell forever...

then if you believe in this s**t and say "I'm just a moderate/peaceful Procrustian!" you couldn't say you have nothing to do with people getting their limbs sawn off or stretched to death on the rack in the name of Procrustes!

nowayjose wrote:
then if you believe in this s**t and say "I'm just a moderate/peaceful Procrustian!" you couldn't say you have nothing to do with people getting their limbs sawn off or stretched to death on the rack in the name of Procrustes!

You are assuming that all 1.6 billion Procrustians are all identical in their ideology.

that is as absurd as saying all 1.6 billion Muslims are identical.

EmmaPeelWannaBe wrote:

nowayjose wrote:
then if you believe in this s**t and say "I'm just a moderate/peaceful Procrustian!" you couldn't say you have nothing to do with people getting their limbs sawn off or stretched to death on the rack in the name of Procrustes!

You are assuming that all 1.6 billion Procrustians are all identical in their ideology.

that is as absurd as saying all 1.6 billion Muslims are identical.

You have the 5 Pillars, to which every muslim adheres to some extent: charity, belief, worship, pilgrimage, and fasting. The problem I think comes in the belief part. There are those (approx 99.004% of the faithful) who read the koran's instructions (don't drink alcohol, don't eat pork, etc.) and view them from the perspective of "All of these are good rules to live by, and ways in which I can guide my life." They view them in toto, as part of the greater engine of belief.

Then you get the tiny percentage that read the koran in microcosmic terms, and interpret each instruction separate and distinct from all the others. One of the best examples is the matter of inheritance - the instruction is that a daughter's share of her father's estate should be 1/3rd that of her brother's. If you read this on its own, the inference by extension is that a girl's worth only 1/3rd of a boy's, and you can then use that premise to inform lots of behaviours (like not allowing girls to go to school, because the education that they receive will only be a third as valuable).

But if you read it in the context of the whole, it's clear that the message is, as the son you are responsible for looking after your sister. Therefore, let the son receive 1/3rd of his father's estate for himself (i.e. the same share that his sister gets) and another 1/3rd so that he may provide for his sister (food, shelter, clothing, dowry, etc.). At the time that this was written this was a really important rule to have, so that a man's daughters were not left starving and penniless, without any means of support and no prospect of finding a husband to look after them. Remember that in most of the world at that time women had absolutely no right to inherit anything. So you might view Islam as being extremely progressive in its thinking for the period that the koran was written.

Times have changed, and the interpretation of this law (by the 99.004%) has changed along with them. Even the framer of the US constitution recognised that amendments would be needed to accommodate evolutions with society - votes for women and black people, for example, the right to free speech, the bearing of arms, and the not to incriminate yourself. For the 99.004% there is no conflict between their faith and the society that they live in, for the most part. They are free to worship, pray, eat, and do all of the things that mark them as Muslim. They're not particularly into evangelism - I've never had a muslim knock on my door and ask if I'd be interested in hearing the message of the koran. As a non-muslim I've never felt threatened when I've walked down the street in Cairo, in Damascus, in Tehran, in Amman, in Marrakech. I don't feel that people are looking at me thinking, "filthy dirty infidel". Most of them time people aren't looking at me at all - but they're thinking pretty much what I'm thinking: "mustn't forget to pick up cat food on the way home...must check on Johnny's homework tonight, his grades are slipping...I wonder if Ali had a good day at his new job...must buy a birthday card for mum...we're low on milk, put it on the shopping list" - you know, the sh*t that we all deal with because that's what being human is about. Bottom line is that most people are so wrapped up in their own lives that giving 2 short ones about the faith that someone else professes occupies the same rung on their Things I Give A Shi*t About Ladder as whether Noel Edmonds will ever appear on TV again. Concern over someone else's faith is certainly unlikely to make them one day decide that instead of picking up a tin of Whiskas and a pint of skim they'll stop by Uncle Omar's Booms-r-Us, strap on 50lbs of C4 and go vapourise the audience at the local multiplex - that's simply not how humans operate.

It's absolutely true that you can radicalise someone - you can fill their heads with nonsense about how their parents and friends aren't real muslims, how the only way to find fulfillment in life is martyrdom, that hijacking a plane or shooting up a nightclub or driving a truck into a crowd, is What God Wants. You can convince some people of anything - that black people are inferior, that jews are subhuman, that albinos are witches, that homosexuals are in league with satan, that contraception is morally wrong and that we're better off out of Europe than in it. You don't need religion to do this - you just need enough people who are troubled, adrift, rudderless, ill-informed, or just plain stupid, and you can have your jihad. Really, it's not at all difficult to arrange. What is less troubling about humanity is that it is only a tiny tiny fraction of humans who actually go off and do really stupid sh*t - very few young white men actually walk into mosques, churches, high schools and cinemas and open fire, very few young black men shoot each other on the streets of the Bronx, very few muslims drive trucks into people watching fireworks, very few people who oppose abortion shoot doctors. And stupid sh*t is no respecter of religion - you really don't need religion to do stupid sh*t, you just need...well, to be stupid.

So maybe we should ban stupid people - how about that?

EvilBastard wrote:[
It's absolutely true that you can radicalise someone - you can fill their heads with nonsense about how their parents and friends aren't real muslims, how the only way to find fulfillment in life is martyrdom, that hijacking a plane or shooting up a nightclub or driving a truck into a crowd, is What God Wants.

I read this & the first thing that sprang to mind was the cats in Red Dwarf who had a holy war between 2 factions over what colour hats their god wanted them to wear. Red or Blue?
After all the fighting, it turned out it was supposed to be green.

Pista wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:[
It's absolutely true that you can radicalise someone - you can fill their heads with nonsense about how their parents and friends aren't real muslims, how the only way to find fulfillment in life is martyrdom, that hijacking a plane or shooting up a nightclub or driving a truck into a crowd, is What God Wants.

I read this & the first thing that sprang to mind was the cats in Red Dwarf who had a holy war between 2 factions over what colour hats their god wanted them to wear. Red or Blue?
After all the fighting, it turned out it was supposed to be green.

Yep - that's pretty much every war since...well, since forever. We put a new coat of paint on it every so often, make it about god or freedom or security or racial supremacy or whatever, you know, whatever we can get people worked up about, but if you scratch the finish a bit it all comes down to hat colours in the end. Difficult to convince people to die for hat colours, though - unless, of course, you're a cat.

EvilBastard wrote: But if you read it in the context of the whole, it's clear that the message is, as the son you are responsible for looking after your sister. Therefore, let the son receive 1/3rd of his father's estate for himself (i.e. the same share that his sister gets) and another 1/3rd so that he may provide for his sister (food, shelter, clothing, dowry, etc.) ... So you might view Islam as being extremely progressive in its thinking for the period that the koran was written.
Times have changed, and the interpretation of this law (by the 99.004%) has changed along with them.

So... what percentage does the sister get today, under Sharia law?

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: But if you read it in the context of the whole, it's clear that the message is, as the son you are responsible for looking after your sister. Therefore, let the son receive 1/3rd of his father's estate for himself (i.e. the same share that his sister gets) and another 1/3rd so that he may provide for his sister (food, shelter, clothing, dowry, etc.) ... So you might view Islam as being extremely progressive in its thinking for the period that the koran was written.
Times have changed, and the interpretation of this law (by the 99.004%) has changed along with them.

So... what percentage does the sister get today, under Sharia law?

That really depends on what you mean by "Sharia law". It's a widely-used term, frequently by people who have heard it used as a by-word for religious extremism, and who parrot it with little understanding for what it is.
Sharia is god's divine law - it is interpreted by jurists who pronounce fatwas based on their interpretation of it. A fatwa is an opinion, not a ruling - you can consider this comparable to the US Supreme Court, whose function it is to interpret the constitution as it pertains to the question before the court. Just as every Supreme Court Justice interprets the constitution differently, so every jurist has a different interpretation of Sharia. To ask "what percentage does the sister get today, under Sharia law" is a bit meaningless - it depends on what the jurist who is asked to interpret it says. When people talk about imposing Sharia law they're generally referring to the imposition of fatwas written by fundamentalists.
Interpretation involves knowledge of the scripture itself, the haddiths, analytical reasoning, and the consensus of other jurists, just as the interpretation of the US Constitution does by SCOTUS.

NoWayJose wrote:So... what percentage does the sister get today, under Sharia law?

How long is a piece of string? If the father says "I shall split my estate equally among my 2 children," she gets 50%. If the father says "I shall split my estate equally among my 5 children," she gets 20%. Sharia is not necessarily a proactive legislature, any more than SCOTUS is. It is there to answer questions - if the father says "I don't know how to split my estate, how should I do it?" the mufti is likely to ask about the condition of his family - how many children, is he caring for elderly parents, how old is his wife, do his children have jobs, are any of them studying, etc. and on that basis formulate a fatwa that follows the spirit of the faith; which is to say, to ensure that none of his family are left homeless or destitute, unfairly advantaged over another. He will then discuss this with other jurists, who may propose tweaks or wholesale rewrites if they feel that the division is unfair - perhaps a child is in full-time education and needs to have more of the estate than her brother, who is a successful estate agent.

To understand sharia as a hard-and-fast set of laws and penalties - you are an infidel and therefore you must be stoned to death, for example - is to miss the point entirely.