• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Organ donation

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
jamaesi said:
You gave me a religious book that says that stoning should happen. I asked for a religion. Trust me, there is a difference. Now, back to the hard part. Name me a religion that believes that you should stone someone to death. Or are you saying that the religions that use the bible all believe that you should stone people to death because it is what god wants? As far as I recall, I haven't heard many news stories that involve a religious person stoning another to death because their religion told them to. Maybe because a cult told them to, but not because of the religion. =)

So in short, you still didn't answer the question.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Ryan2065 said:
You gave me a religious book that says that stoning should happen. I asked for a religion. Trust me, there is a difference. Now, back to the hard part. Name me a religion that believes that you should stone someone to death. Or are you saying that the religions that use the bible all believe that you should stone people to death because it is what god wants? As far as I recall, I haven't heard many news stories that involve a religious person stoning another to death because their religion told them to. Maybe because a cult told them to, but not because of the religion. =)

So in short, you still didn't answer the question.
Hi Ryan;
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00000868.html
LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) - When her time to die comes, convicted adulteress Amina Lawal will be buried up to her neck in sand. When only her head remains exposed, those watching will be invited to throw stones until the 30-year-old single mother is dead.

"As they throw, they will be calling 'God is great," court official Ibrahim Abdullahi says, outlining procedure for the first in a sudden string of executions by stoning in Nigeria's Islamic northern states.

Lawal and others of a growing number of men and women on Nigeria's Shariah death row have emerged as pawns in a political battle for power in Nigeria — one that high-ranking civil and religious figures feel has gotten out of control.

The rush in Nigeria's north to impose the harshest possible sentences under Islamic law — newly adopted by a dozen states — has laid bare the split between Nigeria's predominantly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south.

The death sentences have become an act of defiance by northern leaders against President Olusegun Obasanjo, whom they accuse of neglect, and against the south as a whole, where Nigeria's economic power lies.

Southerners accuse the rulers of the mainly Muslim north of manipulating Islam to divide voters along religious lines — and to distract the people from their state governments' poor performance since military rule ended in Nigeria three years ago.

On Aug. 22, a Shariah appeal court upheld Lawal's death by stoning sentence for having sex outside of marriage. She gave birth more than nine months after divorcing. The father was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The court postponed her execution to 2004 so she can wean her daughter. But with each day Wasila grows older, Lawal's life grows shorter.

Clutching Wasila, Lawal broke down in tears as a judge announced to a cheering courtroom that the death sentence stood. Outside the court, she clung to her lawyer — terrified under the misapprehension that the sentence was to be carried out on the spot.

"She knew if she stayed close to me they wouldn't stone her," her lawyer, Hauwa Ibrahim, explained.

Lawal remains in hiding, out of her lawyers' fear that someone might try to execute the judgment before her next appeal is considered Sept. 25.

Abdullahi said if Lawal is stoned, authorities will make sure it is a spectacle. "They will find a place that is open. So people can come and see it done. So others can see what she has done," he said.

In the past month, four people in northern Nigeria have filed appeals against stoning death sentences: Lawal, a man convicted of raping a 9-year-old girl and a couple sentenced for adultery. But no one has been stoned to death yet in Nigeria.

Lawal's case provoked an international outcry. Government and human rights groups around the world have urged Obasanjo's government to intercede. The president has said he doesn't believe the sentence will be carried out — but will weep for Lawal if it is.

Attorney General Kanu Agabi says government lawyers will assist with Lawal's appeal, but less than two weeks before her next court date, her lawyers say they have not been contacted by his ministry. Obasanjo's government has made no open move to block the sentence.

The European Parliament's women's rights committee has called for a boycott of the Miss World ( news - web sites) pageant set for Nov. 30 in Nigeria's capital, Abuja. France and Belgium have already said they are withdrawing their pageant contestants.

But northern state governments say international protests will not make them overturn the death sentences — because they are only accountable to God.

"The Muslim has the Quran as his first constitution," said Usman Zakari Dutse, the government spokesman for Jigawa state, where the child rapist has been sentenced to death by stoning. "We don't care what international organizations say."

Worldwide, however, few Islamic countries still practice stoning — even if it remains on the books. Two people were stoned to death in Iran last year. A man was stoned for raping and killing his daughter in 2000 in Yemen. In Afghanistan ( news - web sites), under the Taliban, adulterous couples were often killed together.

Massoud Shadjareh, head of the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission, is urging Muslim intellectuals to speak out against the stoning sentences to prevent what he calls an inhumane brand of Islamic law from taking root in Nigeria.

"Shariah has been translated to be harsh, extreme treatment — it isn't," he said.

Amputations and stonings are supposed to be a last resort for Islamic societies that have eradicated poverty and corruption, Shadjareh argued — citing two conditions that are far from being met in Nigeria, on the edge of the Sahara Desert.

Even Shariah officials in Lawal's state have expressed doubts about whether the state is executing Islamic law correctly.

"Under normal circumstances they are not supposed to do that. Adultery is not an offense against the state," said Dalhat S. Abubakar, chief registrar for the Katsina Shariah Court of Appeal.

However, Abdullahi, the court's spokesman, said the state has no intention of abandoning its case against the single mother.

Many see the Shariah courts' activism as part of attempts to discredit Obasanjo, and to secure Muslim voters' loyalty ahead of next year's general elections.

And many in Nigeria's predominantly Christian south blame Obasanjo for not telling Shariah courts three years ago that amputations and stonings were illegal under the federal constitution.

"Obasanjo thought it would just fizzle out," said Innocent Chukwuma, director of the Lagos-based Center for Law Enforcement Education. "He is in a difficult position now where intervening will look like he's clamping down on the north."

Even one top northern official who publicly embraces Shariah, privately says most Northern government officials are against it but had to adopt Shariah for their own political survival.

"Shariah was being kept sacred. It was like a nuclear bomb," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Once the bomb went off, everyone was pressured to bring in Shariah."
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
jamaesi said:
Attacking religion would be saying I think that it should be banned and that all the followers are dummyheads- or did I say that without saying that since I seem to say things without saying.
You said, the following...
jamaesi said:
I find that terribly immature- they're DEAD. They don't need to be buried with their organs- or even at all. There are people who are dying because of these selfish views.
Here you are attacking someones beliefs and calling them "selfish views." Your statement was that someone who does not donate their organs has a selfish view. So everyone whose religion dictates that they shouldn't donate their organs has a selfish view. That is how you attacked the peoples religion, it was an indirect attack, not a direct attack.

jamaesi said:
Nice throwing necrophilia into.. a topic not on necrophilia. Hmm. If you want to debate that, do start up another thread.
I was merely pointing out that you had not considered all the possibilities when you said...
jamaesi said:
I don´t think the dead really care what is done to them seeing as they´re dead and all. XP
Jamaesi said:
I think it would be nice if all people would donate their organs and I think it's selfish for people to not to- but I'm not running around trying to make this law because I know not everyone would agree. I might wish for it sometimes, but I know it's not practical.
That is a very nice view. I do agree that all should donate their organs, but I can respect those that make the decision not to due to religious reasons. This is all I ask from the people here. You know, instead of getting responses saying that they are selfish and immature.

Jamaesi said:
We also have free speech.
Your point? I am wondering where I tried to infringe on your right to free speech? If there was a time I am sorry, otherwise this is a useless statement.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Ohh, tricky michel. I forgot to keep the "in America" part in my second post. I am looking for in America, since the origional argument was for in America. We are argueing the law in america that states that we shall not have any law that takes away someones religious rights. I argued that in America if there was a religion that believed murder was good they would be allowed to commit murder as long as they only killed other members of their religion. Otherwise they would be forcing their views on other people. In the article you showed me, there is a religion that still believes in stoning to death, AND the government gives them the religious freedom to stone to death their own members. From what I can tell your article does nothing but support my argument.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
When we're arguing that slowly killing people is good as long as they're of the same faith, I'm going to have to bow out, because it's just gotten too insane for me.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Jensa said:
When we're arguing that slowly killing people is good as long as they're of the same faith, I'm going to have to bow out, because it's just gotten too insane for me.
I think I shall do the same.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Jensa said:
When we're arguing that slowly killing people is good as long as they're of the same faith, I'm going to have to bow out, because it's just gotten too insane for me.
People don't, nor should they, have an obligation to help total strangers. That should be their own decision. Of course I would hope that people would help anybody they could, but it's definitely not the states job to force people to help others in this regard
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Jensa said:
When we're arguing that slowly killing people is good as long as they're of the same faith, I'm going to have to bow out, because it's just gotten too insane for me.
Please do not try to insult me. I never said this nor did I even imply this (Unless of course if you believe all laws = good, then by that logic it would be like me saying it was good).

The argument is currently on organ donations and if a law made to make mandatory organ donations would be constitutional or not. I am restating this so we can stay on topic...

Your argument that murder is against the law so it is against religious principles is bogus. You are currently attempting to get away from the argument by trying your best to insult me and hope I will not continue down this line of debate because your argument is very flawed. My argument was that stoning was not accepted by any religions that are currently in the united states. You quoted scripture that said stoning was ok. So I asked you to tell me what religion follows that verse of scripture. You then reply by saying that the argument has turned to "people killing people of the same faith is good" and bowed out of the argument.

So if you are going to continue the argument/discussion please continue to do so, I was enjoying it greatly. But please refrain from trying to insult me.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
People don't, nor should they, have an obligation to help total strangers. That should be their own decision. Of course I would hope that people would help anybody they could, but it's definitely not the states job to force people to help others in this regard
Actually in Hawaii they do. When I went to hawaii I was told that because I had CPR certification I would be required to help anyone that I could that needed CPR. If they died and it was found I could do something, I could be charged with a crime and thrown in jail.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Ryan2065 said:
Actually in Hawaii they do. When I went to hawaii I was told that because I had CPR certification I would be required to help anyone that I could that needed CPR. If they died and it was found I could do something, I could be charged with a crime and thrown in jail.
:eek: Wow, that's harsh.
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
You gave me a religious book that says that stoning should happen. I asked for a religion. Trust me, there is a difference.
So if a religious book said that it wasn't okay to donate organs- then it's just a religious book and who cares, right?

Then it should be mandatory to people to donate organs at death by your logic there.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I just heard a sad story related to organ donating.
In a neighboring town (true story and location), a girl needed a kidney transplant. It was going to cost 100,000 UDS. She couldn't afford, and a church took up donations and did as much as they could to help raise the money. End the end, they couldn't come up with the money in time, and the girl died.
Why is it we give organs for free, but they cost so much? Why is it organs usually come from the middle and lower classes as a free gift, yet only the upper class can afford them, unless the other two classes have insurance?
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
jamaesi said:
So if a religious book said that it wasn't okay to donate organs- then it's just a religious book and who cares, right?
So are you really saying that all who follow the bible believe that they should stone people to death and actively do it? I had asked for a religion that believes one should stone people to death that is in the United States. You gave me bible passages that talks about stoning people to death, then when I say I wanted a religion and not a passage you say they are the same thing.

I'll never understand why people keep argueing when they have no case... There are no religions in the United States that believe in stoning people to death. Why try to argue that there are? Just move on and stay on topic =P
 
Top