Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

It's not so much restraint as resignation at the tidal wave rushing to ruin.

Fundamentalist Muslims have been seeking to kill as many Americans as they can (Do we really need to reproduce the list?).

Fundamentalist Christians, as noxious as they may be, are not dedicating themselves to killing American infidels.

Christian terrorism? Please.

Match the numbers of what you consider to be Christian terrorism to that of the Islamists.

Let me preface the following by stating that any and all violent acts to advance a notion are, at least, morally questionable, and, most often, morally reprehensible.

Now, let's posit a scenario in which a group of people are oppressing and abusing another group because of their race or ethnicity.

(You have made it clear in this forum that you find such a thing particularly heinous)

The bigoted group decides that the best result is to lynch the members of the races or ethnicity they hate.

A crowd of racists move upon a family they hate with the intent of killing them and you have the opportunity to either throw a grenade amidst their group of pay someone to do so; thereby saving the innocent intended victims and righteously punishing the vile offenders.

What will you do?

So now consider someone who believes (with the same fierce passion as you possess regarding racism) that killing unborn children is a horrendous crime.

He or she feels they must stop abortions, even if it means throwing a grenade into an Abortion Clinic.

Insane extremists or righteous warrior?

Utter ARTshit

Which of the following happens more in the world?

A) A Christian is killed by a Muslim
B) A Muslim is killed by a Christian

Take the grand total of people killed by the most extreme of the extreme in Islam, and there are still way more Muslims dead from Christians. Are you aware of the death counts from our wars in a the middle-east?

So either you know the answer is B, or you want the answer to be A. Want to pretend that our military actions aren't religiously motivated?

A
R
T

But you would get the same effect fa if the Zoroastrian or Shinto religion was established in the US. And you might well get the reverse effect if Islamic states had the same facilities for killing Christians as Christian states do for killing Moslems.

In fact, bearing in mind that I think you are an evolutionist, you are actually singing the praises of Christianity for having developed such facilities better than any other religion.

Finn, you are not making any sense.

In your hypothetical you seem to be justifying terrorism because in the Christian anti-abortion case they sincerely believe that they are right. Of course you can justify any act of terrorism from KKK lynchings to 9/11 that way since all terrorists believe they are right.

The fact is that throwing a grenade into a clinic is an act of terrorism. Whether terrorism is the act of a "righteous warrior" I suppose is a matter of perspective.

Sure.


I don't view this in such sport terminology spendi.


Evolution doesn't require praise, nor does this fit such a situation to even consider such a thing. Again, it's not about sporting ideas such as winning. People killing people with increasing efficiency and indifference is not something to sing praise for. Evolution forms divisions via genesmanship, not by fairytales.

A
R
T

You're floundering fa.

I can agree with what you are saying. But you miss one important point. Sharia laws are binding on everyone while covenant marriage laws are basically nothing more than a contract freely entered into by both parties to the marriage. What is the big deal to you (or anyone else) if this contract is put in place for any particular marriage? After all, using the arguments put forth by same sex marriage advocates, what is the harm to you or your marriage if two people decide on a covenant marriage? This is what I'm not understanding how you can relate covenant marriage to Sharia laws.

Sharia law is only binding in those countries where it exists.

I did not mean it was binding everywhere. If you notice, I was pointing out the flaw in the comparison that Max was making. I certainly realize it is only binding in those countries where it exists as law. Sorry if I was not clear in my post.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove2.htm

The attempts to legalize covenant marriages are disturbing. Definitely look like attempts to move marriage back to the old Catholic rules.

Actually Sharia law doesn't really exist. It's just a set of regulations not a legal framework at all. The idea was that basically a set of ideals would enshrine law, but that law itself would change with time. What people now think of as Sharia, in countries like Saudi Arabia, is that they have taken a medieval legal system, and not updated or changed it in any meaningful way.

They have. Thy use axes Made in Sheffield. Fire slings made by British Aerospace. And bum wads made by Reed Int.

I will admit though that such things are not really meaningful in any meaningful way.

Sharia is like John Major's Back to Basics only without Edwina Currie.

But again I would ask, what is the big deal? Why is it disturbing to you? Covenant marriages, even where allowed by law, must still be agreed upon by the two parties involved. What is it to you if they choose to have a covenant marriage?

(Again, just so you know, I don't see why anyone would feel the need to have a covenant marriage. But I'm curious as to what the big deal is and why some on here seem to have a fear of it. Maybe fear is not the right word.)

I'd only just got that image out of my head. Thanks for nothing.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of fundamentalist Christians in the US.

They are all hyped up about how "Sharia law" is a big threat in the US and you can bet your life that if Muslims wanted Imams involved in legal proceeding they would would be near apoplectic. If you want to stick up for fundamentalist Christian explain to me how Sharia law is a threat in the US if it isn't something just like Covenant marriages.

It is the hypocrisy that really bothers me, not the specific policy.

First, let us get one thing straight. I don't think Sharia law is a threat in the US. And I'm not real sure that there is any widespread "fear" of it in the fundamentalist Christian churches either. Are there some who for whatever reason have preached a "fear" of it? Probably. That is the nature of just about anything that one group or another decides to rail against.

Second, as I stated before, a covenant marriage can only be performed if both partners agree to that type of marriage. In countries where Sharia laws are enforced, one has no choice but to adhere to the laws or face punishment. To break it down so you might understand it, a covenant marriage is a choice made by the parties involved while Sharia laws are imposed upon all.

I see no hypocrisy here at all. Why do you think it is hypocritical for me, as a Christian, to be willing to allow a man and woman to be married under whatever agreement they choose to make while at the same time not supporting Sharia laws? Give me a situation under Sharia law that we can specifically discuss my supposed hypocrisy if you wish. But otherwise, I just don't see it and think you are a bit confused on some aspects of covenant marriages.

(Again, just to be clear, I am no expert on covenant marriages either. I know only what I have read about them and that reading is limited, so I admit there is the possibility, however remote, that I am mistaken in my view. But I doubt it.)

But maxdan, you are picking on one form of Sharia, which means the way we do things. There's Media Sharia. It is self evident that Media Sharia is attempting to solve the sex problem, which is what we are really talking about, by having a system whereby the chaps on the production lines get a ticket for busting the rate and they can take it down to one of the "lagoons" where there is a rotating dart-board at which they throw a dart which tells the Lady IC which room key to hand over so they can collect on the rate busting. Pretty efficient I imagine with experts running it. Production lines roaring and the greeting lounge alive with gossip and nail polish applications conducted on plush recliners.

Sounds good I know but male cunning will undermine it I think. Although I suppose male cunning could be eradicated at school.

In Brave New World an application form had to be filled in. But Mr Huxley was very middle class. And very un-Christian. And his prediction about the number of helicopters in the sky is coming true.

Now I think Media Sharia is miles more powerful in both our countries than Christian Sharia and your comments on CS might be simply a device to distract attention from the onward march of MS, pun intended.

One cannot attack a tradition without the bother of offering an alternative. It's naff. Too easy. It's not really respectable. You need to make the case for no Christian Sharia in a dynamic situation. And I'll let you call the event in the room "marriage" if you wish.

The lagoon near the stadium on game day, on the day of rest, being called "The 7-Minute Marriage" and lit in garish red. A sign in the window reading "CLOSED DUE TO HEADACHES.

Yours is a pointless question.

I've not argued that Islamists are seeking to kill Christians. I suppose, for them, it's a happy coincidence when they do, but they are trying to kill Americans (and other Westerners when they can't make it through US defenses).

While all Christians are "infidels" to Muslims, not all "infidels" are Christian. An atheist is an infidel. You are an infidel.

I'm surprised that you consider the US to be a Christian nation. I'm afraid I can't agree with you there.

When the US goes to war against nations heavily populated by Muslims it is not Christians killing Muslims. It is Americans killing Afghanis and Americans killing Iraqis, and not solely because they are Afghanis or Iraqis.

When Islamists go to war against Americans and other Westerners it is people who quite obviously self-identify as Muslims killing Americans and other Westerners, solely because they are Americans, Westerners, or in proximity to members of the other two groups riding in a targeted bus or working in a targeted building.

This is not to try and make an argument that one sort of killing is morally superior to another, but this thread is about religious extremists, not war.

Your contention that our wars in the Middle East and Western Asia are religiously motivated is ridiculous. Offer some substance to the argument or you are just pretending.

There simply is no comparison between the toll of death and destruction resulting from Islamic extremism and that resulting from Christian extremism.

Once again, this is not a matter of one religion being superior to the other. It's a matter of the simple truth and as much as you and Max wish to establish an equivalency of scale between Muslim and Christian extremism, it doesn't fly.

To a very large degree, the Muslim nations of the Middle East, Northern Africa and Western Asia are are stuck in their cultural Dark Ages. During a similar period of Western culture, some pretty awful things were done in the name of Christianity, but the West has progressed to a fair degree of modernity.

Whereas practices like punishment rape, female genital mutilation, honor killing, stoning women accused of adultery and dropping walls on homosexuals take place in the cities, towns and villages throughout these Muslim nations, the shooting of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics are rare events in the West, and immediately attract criminal investigation and prosecution.

Show me the Christian equivalent of Sharia, and, more importantly, any Western country where there is a snow ball's chance in hell of institutionalizing it.

Let's stipulate that when a Christian extremist murders someone it is as heinous as when a Muslim extremists does the same. Let's also stipulate that when a Christian extremist bombs an abortion facility it is heinous as when a Muslim extremist bombs a Western embassy. Finally, let's stipulate that, if and when Christian extremists beat up gays it is as heinous as when Muslim extremists do the same.

Having so stipulated, there are a whole lot more gays being imprisoned and killed in Muslim nations then there are in Western or "Christian" nations. There are a whole lot more bombings perpetrated by Islamists than Christian extremists and there are vastly more people being killed by Muslim extremists than by Christian extremists.

The scope of the threat isn't remotely comparable, and yet you insist on trying to do so, and, even more incredibly, trying to suggest that Christian atrocities are more numerous than those of Islamists. You have even gone so far as to suggest that Christians (and not just the extreme variety) are killing more Muslims for religious reasons that Muslims are killing Christians.

You are addicted to some simpleminded ideology that compels you to defend what isn't part of the West against the West, and allows you to malign Christians (aka Westerners) all the while you decry the horror of American prejudice towards Muslims.

It's sad really. I once thought that such thinking was simply the folly of passionate youth, but A2K has proven otherwise.

Postscript: If "Christian" lunatics in Third World African countries are burning kids as witches, it only advances my point: It is the state of the culture that drives religious extremism, not the reverse.