Can no one stop this???

[DuncanONeil]

Problem may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions of the validity of a woman's testimony in court. In court a woman's testimony is worth half a much as that of a man. (Qur'an 2:282) This has further been restricted to cases involving, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales. In cases of sexual misbehavior four male witnesses are required, and they must have seen the act take place. (Qur'an 24:13) It is believed that 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are in fact there for the crime of being a victim of rape.

Actually, the system penalizes female victims rather than male perpetrators. In virtually any crime involving men and women, the women are automatically presumed guilty of something.

But let's face it: any religion/government which requires women to be covered from head to toe because a man might lose control if he sees some skin is just sick to start with. If the men have so little self-control, why not force them to wear steel chastity harnesses. Then it won't matter if they can't keep themselves under control.

Or here's a radical concept: PUNISH the men who lose control, until all of the men understand that they'd damned well better learn some self control!

Bah! All of these misogynists ought to be required to spend a year being treated just as they treat women. Let them see how it feels.

[Thorne]

Problem may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions of the validity of a woman's testimony in court. In court a woman's testimony is worth half a much as that of a man. (Qur'an 2:282) This has further been restricted to cases involving, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales. In cases of sexual misbehavior four male witnesses are required, and they must have seen the act take place. (Qur'an 24:13) It is believed that 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are in fact there for the crime of being a victim of rape.

And this is what happens when you let religion control civil law. Basing modern legal systems on 1400 year old (or 2000 year old, or 6000 year old) religious fantasies can only bring problems.

And this is the kind of thing the right wing religious nuts (c.f., Sarah Palin) want to bring to the US. Of course, they call it 'Christianity'.

[DuncanONeil]

Except that Christianity does not require the laws listed in the Bible be installed as the laws of the nation. In fact Christians require no law be that of the Bible, though there is the belief that the values and morals expressed by Christ should be closely held by the authors and arbiters of the laws that are created and ajudicated. That is not to say the laws should institute morality but that they should be protective. The most basic of laws, against theft and murder are rooted in morals and values. Morals and values transcend religion.

And this is what happens when you let religion control civil law. Basing modern legal systems on 1400 year old (or 2000 year old, or 6000 year old) religious fantasies can only bring problems.

And this is the kind of thing the right wing religious nuts (c.f., Sarah Palin) want to bring to the US. Of course, they call it 'Christianity'.

[Thorne]

The most basic of laws, against theft and murder are rooted in morals and values. Morals and values transcend religion.

Which is a very good reason for keeping religion, ANY religion, out of the legal process.

In fact Christians require no law be that of the Bible

A good thing, since Biblical law is capricious and archaic and downright scary! Slavery is legal, so is killing your enemies, and forget about women's rights!

though there is the belief that the values and morals expressed by Christ should be closely held by the authors and arbiters of the laws that are created and ajudicated.

And what of the "values and morals" of Muhammad, or Buddha, or any of literally hundreds of other revered demi-gods? Why should Christ be selected as the primary arbiter of "values and morals"?

[DuncanONeil]

Which is a very good reason for keeping religion, ANY religion, out of the legal process.

In the US the fight is to try to remove any inkling of the existence of christianity. But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

A good thing, since Biblical law is capricious and archaic and downright scary! Slavery is legal, so is killing your enemies, and forget about women's rights!

In the Bible the nature of the system to follow changes drastically between the two major sections. In that called the New Testament the nature of God and the mandates to the people is to be kind and helpful to all.
The other major religion in question with regard to laws also has a book divided in two sections. But a major difference is that the vengeful nature of the book actual can be seen to increase rather than ameliorate. So the choice is a benevolent system that does not seek to intrude, or one that essentially DEMANDS that its religious law must apply to all and that law is less than benevolent.

And what of the "values and morals" of Muhammad, or Buddha, or any of literally hundreds of other revered demi-gods? Why should Christ be selected as the primary arbiter of "values and morals"?

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents. The language I use tends to be the one most familiar to me.

[Thorne]

In the US the fight is to try to remove any inkling of the existence of christianity. But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

This is rather ingenuous, don't you think? The fight is not to expunge Christianity, but to separate it from the government and education systems. While it's true that many Christians are moderate and tolerant, some of the more fundamentalist sects are desperately trying to establish some form of theocratic system. In Texas the school board is attempting to reinterpret history in a more "conservative" tone and attempting to force creationism into science classes, to teach "the controversy". Throughout the US these fundies are rambling on about the Christian values of the founding fathers, when in fact those founding fathers, while deists in most cases, where frequently anti-Christian and almost universally against any form of state sponsored religion. And there is no controversy over origins. The Bible is a fiction. Evolution is a proven fact, something which can be studied and cataloged, proven beyond reasonable doubt. (The mechanisms of evolution are still being debated, yes, but not the fact.)

But more in keeping with the topic of this thread, these same fundamentalists are forcing religious interpretations on so many aspects of our lives that it's impossible to get around them. They want, for example, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, because that's how they view it, and that's how they claim their Bible views it. And because the idea of two men, or two women, having sexual relations is disgusting to them. Yet in truth, marriage is more of an economic issue than a sexual one. It is quite possible to have a secure, happy household without any sexual activity at all. The fundies can't see that, though. And their own Bible (Old Testament) actually does endorse polygamy, though only between a single man and many wives. I think the idea of a single woman wanting to marry more than one man would make their heads explode.

But they want to control all aspects of family life, from raising children to having sexual relations, all within their own warped framework of reality. And any who would violate their reality must be punished according to their idea of "justice".

There's a reason why they are beginning to be referred to as, "The American Taliban".

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents. The language I use tends to be the one most familiar to me.

I have the same problem. I grew up in a Catholic household. I'm far more familiar with that culture than with, say, Buddhism or Islam. That also makes me more aware of the abuses which Catholics, and Christians in general, try to get away with.

[DuncanONeil]

I disagree with a lot of what you say here. Especially with respect to the founders. Save one thing, that being the issue of a state religion. The major problem is that opponents of religion seem to see the mere existence of a Christian symbol is somehow forcing people to accept Christianity as their religion. But the same people see no problem with displays of symbols of other religions. Usually citing tolerance as the justification for display of non-Christian symbols. I find that particular set of positions as hypocritical.

This is rather ingenuous, don't you think? The fight is not to expunge Christianity, but to separate it from the government and education systems. While it's true that many Christians are moderate and tolerant, some of the more fundamentalist sects are desperately trying to establish some form of theocratic system. In Texas the school board is attempting to reinterpret history in a more "conservative" tone and attempting to force creationism into science classes, to teach "the controversy". Throughout the US these fundies are rambling on about the Christian values of the founding fathers, when in fact those founding fathers, while deists in most cases, where frequently anti-Christian and almost universally against any form of state sponsored religion. And there is no controversy over origins. The Bible is a fiction. Evolution is a proven fact, something which can be studied and cataloged, proven beyond reasonable doubt. (The mechanisms of evolution are still being debated, yes, but not the fact.)

But more in keeping with the topic of this thread, these same fundamentalists are forcing religious interpretations on so many aspects of our lives that it's impossible to get around them. They want, for example, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, because that's how they view it, and that's how they claim their Bible views it. And because the idea of two men, or two women, having sexual relations is disgusting to them. Yet in truth, marriage is more of an economic issue than a sexual one. It is quite possible to have a secure, happy household without any sexual activity at all. The fundies can't see that, though. And their own Bible (Old Testament) actually does endorse polygamy, though only between a single man and many wives. I think the idea of a single woman wanting to marry more than one man would make their heads explode.

But they want to control all aspects of family life, from raising children to having sexual relations, all within their own warped framework of reality. And any who would violate their reality must be punished according to their idea of "justice".

There's a reason why they are beginning to be referred to as, "The American Taliban".


I have the same problem. I grew up in a Catholic household. I'm far more familiar with that culture than with, say, Buddhism or Islam. That also makes me more aware of the abuses which Catholics, and Christians in general, try to get away with.

[thir]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;880367]But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

There were some judges who insisted on ruling according to the bible.
They should be fired.

[DuncanONeil]

Evidence please!

[QUOTE=thir;880507]

But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

There were some judges who insisted on ruling according to the bible.
They should be fired.

[leo9]

But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

Which Christians? Not these ones:
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.tldm.org/news7/judgeroymo...mmandments.htm

In the Bible the nature of the system to follow changes drastically between the two major sections. In that called the New Testament the nature of God and the mandates to the people is to be kind and helpful to all.
The other major religion in question with regard to laws also has a book divided in two sections. But a major difference is that the vengeful nature of the book actual can be seen to increase rather than ameliorate. So the choice is a benevolent system that does not seek to intrude, or one that essentially DEMANDS that its religious law must apply to all and that law is less than benevolent.

Which would be fine if it was the benevolent system that does not seek to intrude that people were trying to introduce to the law: but they invariably refer to the Old Testament, a document rather less liberal than the Quran (which does intersperse its bigotry with messages of peace and charity, unlike the OT.)

In any case, the whole point of the separation of church and state is to not have to choose which religion will dictate your laws: none of them should.

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents.

Only to the extent that any code of behaviour for a viable society has to start with such basics as "Don't kill our sort of people," "Don't steal within your own community," and that most popular religious commandment, "RESPECT AUTHORITY." Once you get beyond the self-evident, they go off in all directions. Honour your mother, don't listen to women, be a warrior, turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, high caste is far above low caste, I could go on all day.

It's true that spirituality is much the same whatever religion people reach it by, but spirituality is to religion as good behaviour is to law: one is what people feel from within, which is human nature, the other is the system imposed on them, which is different everywhere.

[DuncanONeil]

Which Christians? Not these ones:
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.tldm.org/news7/judgeroymo...mmandments.htm

Which would be fine if it was the benevolent system that does not seek to intrude that people were trying to introduce to the law: but they invariably refer to the Old Testament, a document rather less liberal than the Quran (which does intersperse its bigotry with messages of peace and charity, unlike the OT.)

Sorry but I must disagree. The vast majority of Christian theology comes from the New Testament, rather than the Old. Still there is no expressed intent to replace all other religions by force or duress, as there is in the other in the discussion.

In any case, the whole point of the separation of church and state is to not have to choose which religion will dictate your laws: none of them should.
Only to the extent that any code of behaviour for a viable society has to start with such basics as "Don't kill our sort of people," "Don't steal within your own community," and that most popular religious commandment, "RESPECT AUTHORITY." Once you get beyond the self-evident, they go off in all directions. Honour your mother, don't listen to women, be a warrior, turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, high caste is far above low caste, I could go on all day.

I wholeheartedly agree that no nation needs to be ruled by a set of religious laws. However when I speak of the major tenents I have morals and values in mind. The Christian book does not make a distinction between our kind and another kind when it comes to murder. There are religions that do make the distinction as you say, do not murder us. Them other people fine go right ahead.

It's true that spirituality is much the same whatever religion people reach it by, but spirituality is to religion as good behaviour is to law: one is what people feel from within, which is human nature, the other is the system imposed on them, which is different everywhere.