What is it with Radical Muslims and beheadings?

[dianaiad]

Just a wee 'point of order', if I may:

We Muslims hold a communal prayer, known as Jumu'ah, every Friday. Saturday is just a normal day. Of course, your neighbour might well decide to put her feet up every Saturday, but this is not a religious (Islamic) obligation. I do as much most Saturdays....much to the chagrin of my wife....a Catholic.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, so in our system basically all religions must conform to the law, no matter what each religion might say

Pretty much, yes. I am very much a 'fan' of the separation of church and state; the state should stay OUT of religious beliefs and practices, and there should be no state religion. Freedom of religion is, in the US constitution, not only the FIRST right mentioned, it's the only one mentioned twice. THEN comes freedom of speech and assembly. These rights mean nothing if the people we don't like also can't worship, speak and assemble freely.

On the other hand, religious people need to obey secular law.

Either that, attempt to change the law if it is discriminatory against them specifically, or unfair, or be willing to face the consequences....including jail time and/or other punishment. Terrorism, however, is not one of the appropriate choices.

For instance, a law that forces a member of a religious community to wear a big yellow star on their sleeves would be a law that ALL people should oppose, as would a law that forbade a woman from wearing a hijab or burka if she wanted to.

Or...a law stating that polygamy is illegal...BECAUSE a certain group practices it. (and no, I am not, and never have been, a polygamist, just for the sake of information).

 

[amorphous_constellation]

On the other hand, religious people need to obey secular law.

Right, so a question is, is it really separation of religion and state, or does this mean that all religion conforms somewhat tacitly to the state. Because isn't that really what's going on here. A lot of religions might think they have the truth, and so they want to spread it, but they must conform to the higher law of the state, EDIT: and only be able to spread it with serious caveats. So it seems like it's been state over religion instead of state separated from religion, right?

 

[dianaiad]

Right, so a question is, is it really separation of religion and state, or does this mean that all religion conforms somewhat tacitly to the state. Because isn't that really what's going on here. A lot of religions might think they have the truth, and so they want to spread it, but they must conform to the higher law of the state, and not do it. So it seems like it's been state over religion instead of state separate from religion, right?

Where is it illegal in the USA to 'evangelize,' or be missionaries?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Where is it illegal in the USA to 'evangelize,' or be missionaries?

Well, because before america, what did it mean to evangelize? It probably had something more to with being forcible about the truth, which ultimately american evangelizers cannot do. And ultimately, they can't evangelize the written law, (which is basically 'the state') which is ultimately contrary to their truth in principle, because the written law tacitly declares that anyone who claims to have the truth doesn't actually have it

 

[McBell]

Well, because before america, what did it mean to evangelize? It probably had something more to with being forcible about the truth, which ultimately american evangelizers cannot do. And ultimately, they can't evangelize the written law, (which is basically 'the state') which is ultimately contrary to their truth in principle, because the written law tacitly declares that anyone who claims to have the truth doesn't actually have it

You did not answer the question.
Please present the Code for evangelizing being illegal.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You did not answer the question.
Please present the Code for evangelizing being illegal.

I guess what I meant is, that ultimately, the American system took the bite out of whatever evangelizing could have meant. So much so that I had mused about it as I had, as I live so freely so as to not take a preacher of anything seriously. I never had to, and may take that for granted. If you think about what it really historically might have meant to convert outsiders, 'freedom of religion' seems like it drives a wedge into all of that. So as I said, you cannot merely 'spread the truth' without serious caveats, because freedom of religion means freedom from what another would merely tell you is absolute truth. If a "truth" had the unbounded freedom to spread, would it not often make others see it, as by nature of itself, it sees what is outside of it as falsity? Ultimately, I'm just trying to understand what dianaiad said with 'religious people must obey secular law,' it seemed that remark was kind of a hangnail. And surely it must mean something significant. You guys surely realize that my post was mostly a question itself

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'd rather have my limbs amputated and bandaged in salt wraps, and dumped off in the arctic, than have my head sawed off by a low life idealogue.

Is that what they do? I was referring to a swift decollation with a sword as seeming to be no better, if not just a little better, than western methods that were variously in use. But if they are 'sawing' off heads, (and I don't know if that's what they are doing or not) that sounds just about almost as bad as other crude things one could imagine

 

[Cooky]

Is that what they do? I was referring to a swift decollation with a sword as seeming to be no better, if not just a little better, than western methods that were variously in use. But if they are 'sawing' off heads, (and I don't know if that's what they are doing or not) that sounds just about almost as bad as other crude things one could imagine

That's exactly what they're doing. They use serrated knives because it's easier to get through the bone. The serrated knives work like a hacksaw.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, because before america, what did it mean to evangelize? It probably had something more to with being forcible about the truth, which ultimately american evangelizers cannot do. And ultimately, they can't evangelize the written law, (which is basically 'the state') which is ultimately contrary to their truth in principle, because the written law tacitly declares that anyone who claims to have the truth doesn't actually have it

I'm a little confused here, but...basically I think you are moving goal posts. Or something.

The IDEA is that it doesn't matter what anybody USED to do. what should be is that the state should stay out of religion, and that there be no state religion to be imposed upon anybody.

"Evangalism' should be confined to words...and knocking on doors and pamphlets, but there should be no prohibition OF those things.

I was a missionary once. I went from door to door and knocked on them, and talked to many, many people. I still talk to many, many people. I passed out books, and pamphlets, and flyers....and anybody I spoke to could say 'no thanks' and I accepted that, along with slammed doors and rejection of all sorts.

All of this should be freely allowed, from anybody and any faith. Even....or especially...from those with whom we disagree.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

what should be is that the state should stay out of religion,

But don't you think that 'freedom of religion' seriously limits the excesses of any one religion, so much so that the state doesn't merely 'stay out of religion.' Anyway, that's enough going off topic for me on this thread...

 

[Shad]

Pretty much, yes. I am very much a 'fan' of the separation of church and state; the state should stay OUT of religious beliefs and practices, and there should be no state religion. Freedom of religion is, in the US constitution, not only the FIRST right mentioned, it's the only one mentioned twice. THEN comes freedom of speech and assembly. These rights mean nothing if the people we don't like also can't worship, speak and assemble freely.

Separation is about government telling people what to believe or using religion against the population as per anti-Catholic laws in the UK created since the Reformation lasting until 1950 or so. Some practices are illegal thus separation does not cover any/all practices.

 

[McBell]

I guess what I meant is, that ultimately, the American system took the bite out of whatever evangelizing could have meant. So much so that I had mused about it as I had, as I live so freely so as to not take a preacher of anything seriously. I never had to, and may take that for granted. If you think about what it really historically might have meant to convert outsiders, 'freedom of religion' seems like it drives a wedge into all of that. So as I said, you cannot merely 'spread the truth' without serious caveats, because freedom of religion means freedom from what another would merely tell you is absolute truth. If a "truth" had the unbounded freedom to spread, would it not often make others see it, as by nature of itself, it sees what is outside of it as falsity? Ultimately, I'm just trying to understand what dianaiad said with 'religious people must obey secular law,' it seemed that remark was kind of a hangnail. And surely it must mean something significant. You guys surely realize that my post was mostly a question itself

Except that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

 

[McBell]

what should be is that the state should stay out of religion

I am all for state staying out of religion.
But for that to happen, religion has to stay out of state.
Good luck with that.

 

[Niblo]

I stand corrected. Thanks.

You're very welcome, dianaiad. I wish you a great day, and the very happy New Year.

May the Exalted bless you and your family, and keep you close to Himself.

 

[England my lionheart]

Sept. 14, 2008

If Shariah courts have no power, why have them? England has been duped and has let the enemy into it's border and then gave them legal status.

Oh, yes, the Muslims thank you. They will be peaceful and nice to you. They can't believe their good fortune. Your little island will be Islamic.

Get your women measured for a burka now. Might save trouble later.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I thought I explained it,these courts are family disputes,nuisance neighbours etc,simple arbitration with no power to administer law.

 

[Niblo]

I thought I explained it,these courts are family disputes,nuisance neighbours etc,simple arbitration with no power to administer law.

Exactly. These bodies are best described as 'councils', since they are not recognised (by the State) as courts of law. As you know, they function under the Arbitration Act of 1996.

 

[Notanumber]

If these men are sent down, they will probably end up in a Sharia controlled prison.

Policeman among 16 charged with child sex offences

 

[ChristineM]

Well, you have sometimes claimed that you don't read my posts because they are too long.

However, 'freedom of religion' is something I mention ALL the time, and quite frequently in discussions with you.

Never mentioned on this thread in any post addressed to me

 

[England my lionheart]

Exactly. These bodies are best described as 'councils', since they are not recognised (by the State) as courts of law. As you know, they function under the Arbitration Act of 1996.

Exactly