Ayaan Hirsi Ali , Atheist, Feminist Activist

[Jack Weber]

The idea is to offer other alternatives....other ideologies. Hirsi Ali may have singled out and endorsed Christianity....but that doesn't mean other ideologies aren't welcome to give it a shot.

What about Islam proselytizing in our society....and converting people like Casius Clay into becoming Muhammad Ali....why is that okay? You mean they can proselytyze here and other religion cannot?

Why do they have the voice....and we don't? Is there something wrong with this or what???

Is that your definition of democracy?

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom to choose!

Offering alternatives emphasize the freedom of expression!

This exercise emphasize the freedom of religion!

It should be noted that Clay's conversion to Islam was under the auspices of the Nation of Islam,not necessarily Islam itself.The Nation of Islam is a Black Supremecist group that uses Islam to spread its message.

It also should be noted that the time period of Clay's conversion was a time of awakening Black conciousness in society that had previously been ignored...

Edited September 21, 2010 by Jack Weber

[betsy]

It should be noted that Clay's conversion to Islam was under the auspices of the Nation of Islam,not necessarily Islam itself.The Nation of Islam is a Black Supremecist group that uses Islam to spread its message.

It also should be noted that the time period of Clay's conversion was a time of awakening Black conciousness in society that had previously been ignored...

What Melanie doesn't see is that the only reason I brought up Casius Clay (and also provided a link that features other converts to Islam)....was to point out the glaring double standard to her definition of DEMOCRACY.

Melanie makes too much out of nothing really....regarding proselytizing in Muslim communities to TRY to convert Muslims (like as if we are going to do it by force), whereas Islam is allowed to do it.

You don't see anything wrong about proselytizing....but MElanie and company does...otherwise we wouldn't be butting heads!

Melanie dances around and writes about the feelings of Hirsi Ali about people who believe in God. Who cares!

It's not relevant!

Yet she refused to answer a simple question: does she oppose or support the NYC mosque being built near Ground Zero. She gives a song-and-dance squirming around it....well, it's relevant!

MOSQUES ARE BEING BUILT EVERYWHERE WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES.....EVEN IN PLACES THAT OFFENDS...WITH TOTAL DISREGARD IT SEEMS WHETHER THEY DO OFFEND OR NOT!

I would bet that Melanie support the building of this mosque. I bet one of her strong reason will be RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND FREEDOM!

She says in defense "Well Casius Clay was not involved in any terrorist act!" What baloney rebutt!

Is that the point? No. As usual....the going around, anywhere and everywhere....except to the point!

That's why Tareq Fath and company are admonishing society and government...."this is not the time to be politically correct!" And I agree. We've got a serious problem with home-grown terrorists! So, get serious! Never mind the cockamamee nonsense of the never ending merry-go-round that's just pure drivel!

FOCUS!

Melanie epitomizes what Hirsi Ali was talking about: The West is more engrossed on being defensive. To avoid at all cost...to even go out of one's way to the extent of suppressing democratic rights of others....so as not to be accused of being an Islamophobe! Melanie also demonstrate what Hirsi Ali was saying....confused liberal psyche

All you guys have to do is go back to the very beginning of this thread and follow the flow of discussion....you'll see who's muddying the waters and distorting their opinion as they go along.

Edited September 21, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

What Melanie doesn't see is that the only reason I brought up Casius Clay (and also provided a link that features other converts to Islam)....was to point out the glaring double standard to her definition of DEMOCRACY.

Melanie makes too much out of nothing really....regarding proselytizing in Muslim communities to TRY to convert Muslims (like as if we are going to do it by force), whereas Islam is allowed to do it.

You don't see anything wrong about proselytizing....but MElanie and company does...otherwise we wouldn't be butting heads!

Melanie dances around and writes about the feelings of Hirsi Ali about people who believe in God. Who cares!

It's not relevant!

Yet she refused to answer a simple question: does she oppose or support the NYC mosque being built near Ground Zero. She gives a song-and-dance squirming around it....well, it's relevant!

MOSQUES ARE BEING BUILT EVERYWHERE WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES.....EVEN IN PLACES THAT OFFENDS...WITH TOTAL DISREGARD IT SEEMS WHETHER THEY DO OFFEND OR NOT!

I would bet that Melanie support the building of this mosque. I bet one of her strong reason will be RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND FREEDOM!

She says in defense "Well Casius Clay was not involved in any terrorist act!" What baloney rebutt!

Is that the point? No. As usual....the going around, anywhere and everywhere....except to the point!

That's why Tareq Fath and company are admonishing society and government...."this is not the time to be politically correct!" And I agree. We've got a serious problem with home-grown terrorists! So, get serious! Never mind the cockamamee nonsense of the never ending merry-go-round that just pure drivel!

FOCUS!

Melanie epitomizes what Hirsi Ali was talking about: The West is more engrossed on being defensive. To avoid at all cost...to even go out of one's way to the extent of suppressing democratic rights of others....so as not to be accused of being an Islamophobe! Melanie also demonstrate what Hirsi Ali was saying....confused liberal psyche

All you guys have to do is go back to the very beginning of this thread and follow the flow of discussion....you'll see who's muddying the waters and distorting their opinion as they go along.

Furthermore, going to Bloodyminded's concern over Afghanistan....how do we teach other countries all about democracy when this confused liberal psyche doesn't even know about the true meaning of democracy.

Or worse, they do know the meaning and yet they're willing to compromise and throw it away.

So what's the message you give? Democracy ain't worth anything but spit! It means nothing!

Edited September 21, 2010 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Betsy, you are still avoiding questions.

[ToadBrother]

Furthermore, going to Bloodyminded's concern over Afghanistan....how do we teach other countries all about democracy when this confused liberal psyche doesn't even know about the true meaning of democracy.

Oh do tell, what is the true meaning of democracy?

[Melanie_]

Wow, Betsy, take a minute to wipe the spittle off your computer! You are frothing at the mouth.

You really aren't taking the time to read or understand what is being said to you. I'm going to try one more time, using point form and very small words so you can follow along.

1. I did not defend Muslims trying to convert Christians. In fact, I clearly stated I would prefer that no one tried to push their religion on anyone else. No one needs a Sky Daddy telling them what to do. What I objected to was your statement that the government should get involved in promoting one religion over another.

2. You are the one who brought Ayaan Hirsi Ali's religion into the debate. You included her religious views in the title of the thread, and in the opening post. To me, that signals that you want to talk about her views on religion, so my comments on her religious views are in line with this thread.

3. You want my view on the mosque in NYC. You've made an assumption about what my position might be, even though I haven't stated anything one way or another. Well, if I am moved to join in the discussion on the other thread, I will, but I'm not discussing it here. You are just trying to deflect this thread, because you can see your original view wasn't very well thought out.

[betsy]

Melanie, first let me explain about this one.

Oh, the many, many ways of muddying the water on this thread....

What is it about this liberal thinking and way of reasoning....this seeming inability to focus....this joy-riding off-topic with their silly little selfish whinings on their own faith (like as if the world revolves around it)...the high drama and hysterics....

...what more, what is this penchant for twisting and squirming about...this obsession with going around and round the bush, anywhere and everywhere....except to the real point of a discussion?

My statement above was not wholly about you....it's more of a general observation on this thread.

And no, you didn't do any high-drama or given in to hysterics. I should've made that clear.

Wow, Betsy, take a minute to wipe the spittle off your computer! You are frothing at the mouth.

Felt good though. Like having a good sneeze!

You really aren't taking the time to read or understand what is being said to you. I'm going to try one more time, using point form and very small words so you can follow along.

Well I could say the same thing about you! Why'd you think I ended up "frothing at the mouth?"

1. I did not defend Muslims trying to convert Christians. In fact, I clearly stated I would prefer that no one tried to push their religion on anyone else. No one needs a Sky Daddy telling them what to do.

See? Personal belief/faith is being forced into this discussion....I've said several times that this discussion is about Hirsi Ali's suggestion to fight against radicalization/jihadists! A possible solution to our growing problem with home-grown terrorists!

What I objected to was your statement that the government should get involved in promoting one religion over another.

But we are not talking about your everyday scenario here. This is about the global problem on radical terrorists! Why shouldn't the government get involved if this is a solution to the problem?

According to Hirsi Ali, Saudi Arabia spends money on training Muslim leaders that are shipped back to the west! If a foreign government is getting financially involved to something that affects us....why should we tie our own government from helping?

2. You are the one who brought Ayaan Hirsi Ali's religion into the debate. You included her religious views in the title of the thread, and in the opening post. To me, that signals that you want to talk about her views on religion, so my comments on her religious views are in line with this thread.

Her religion and non-religion sort of defines her. She had a terrible experience as a Muslim....she understand the culture and the doctrine. That is why she wants society to question the Quran!

She is an Atheist now. Her suggestion to convert has nothing to do with her in-depth faith though.....it was given as a possible solution to radicalization.

If she meant to talk about her own religious views.....I think she would delve more to explain why she chose Atheism over other religion.

3. You want my view on the mosque in NYC. You've made an assumption about what my position might be, even though I haven't stated anything one way or another. Well, if I am moved to join in the discussion on the other thread, I will, but I'm not discussing it here. You are just trying to deflect this thread, because you can see your original view wasn't very well thought out.

I am not deflecting. Your strong reaction to her suggestion to proselytyze...plus your remark about proselytyzing being "undemocratic," not to mention your concern to offend the Muslim communities were the reasons I asked you that simple question about the NYC mosque: Do you oppose it or support it?

It is very relevant.

I still think you to be among its supporters....I'm left to fill in the blanks you see, taking the clues from your statements and reaction to this thread.

Anyway, it's up to you whether you want to set the record straight or not.

Edited September 23, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

You really aren't taking the time to read or understand what is being said to you. I'm going to try one more time, using point form and very small words so you can follow along.

2. You are the one who brought Ayaan Hirsi Ali's religion into the debate. You included her religious views in the title of the thread, and in the opening post. To me, that signals that you want to talk about her views on religion, so my comments on her religious views are in line with this thread.

Furthermore, just because the title "Atheist" was included in the title of the thread....it doesn't automatically mean that the topic is about her atheistic view. If you read and analyze just the title itself you'd find the description "Feminist Activist" also attached to it.

If you read and understand the introductory excerpt of her interview, you'd see that it's not about the discussion on her own religious views. Heck, the article's title alone sums up what the interview was all about!

If you read and understand the whole interview....you'd see that nowhere was there any mention about her own atheistic views. So your inclusion of Hirsi Ali's personal feelings and views about people who believe in a god is not relevant at all!

....And if you read and understand my other posts.....or just my replies to you alone, and the kind of reaction and replies this thread got from some - I stress the word "some" - ....you'd see why I talked about "the many, many ways of muddying this thread"....understand my ramblings about the liberal psyche's penchant for aimless wanderings....of beating and going round the bush....the seeming inability to focus.

Discussion is so painfully frustrating when one keeps trying to bring back someone who's prone to straying. At least I only "frothed" ......the computer is still intact.

[betsy]

deleted. double posting.

Edited September 24, 2010 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Hey Betsy, when are you going to answer some questions???

Or are you just avoiding things?

[Melanie_]

One thing I've always appreciated about you, Betsy, no matter how much we disagree (almost always!), is that you are a good sport.

But I still disagree (surprise!). When I read Hirsi Ali's book, Nomad, which is where these views are first stated, I found that she makes a very poor case for conversion of Muslims to Christianity. While she claims it is a viable alternative, everything she says about Islam, and the cohesion of culture, clan and religion, contradicts the idea that someone could simply convert and cope within a different society. She talks so much about the values of extended family, the clans, the sense of belonging to the group, and the sense of alienation that comes when you give up religion. She doesn't attempt to justify conversion on a theological level, just on a practical level, which I think is really disrespectful to both faiths. I may be an atheist, but I have enough respect for those who believe in a god to know religions can't simply be interchanged, discarding one and adopting another as the mood strikes.

edited for spelling

Edited September 24, 2010 by Melanie_

[ToadBrother]

One thing I've always appreciated about you, Betsy, no matter how much we disagree (almost always!), is that you are a good sport.

But I still disagree (surprise!). When I read Hirsi Ali's book, Nomad, which is where these views are first stated, I found that she makes a very poor case for conversion of Muslims to Christianity. While she claims it is a viable alternative, everything she says about Islam, and the cohesion of culture, clan and religion, contradicts the idea that someone could simply convert and cope within a different society. She talks so much about the values of extended family, the clans, the sense of belonging to the group, and the sense of alienation that comes when you give up religion. She doesn't attempt to justify conversion on a theological level, just on a practical level, which I think is really disrespectful to both faiths. I may be an atheist, but I have enough respect for those who believe in a god to know religions can't simply be interchanged, discarding one and adopting another as the mood strikes.

edited for spelling

The thing about forcible conversions is that they actually have to be forced, and by that I mean the classic way, with the sword. Having some tom-fool missionary going into a mosque and saying "I'm going to teach you all about Jesus Christ" is probably, at best, going to illicit some amusement, and at worst, having him tossed out the front door.

Peaceful conversions have only ever worked where the belief systems have already been in decline, or are sufficiently vague on any real specific theological points that the incoming religion just sort of fits in. That's how we all ended up with Christmas and Easter, wedding rings and the like, all remnants of the older pagan faiths still popping up. You will see this over and over again all over the world where Christian missionaries went in, the older beliefs co-mingled with the new.

I suspect what this lady is speaking to was the use of modern colonial powers, whether the Colonial Powers of the 15th to 19th centuries using religion, or the newer ones using political ideology (which in Communist and nationalist empires generally served the same purpose, if it wasn't outright united with national churches), to use missionaries to "soften up" local populations. I'd say the success was pretty mixed, so I wouldn't exactly call it a spectacular model.

Frankly I always thought the Romans had the right idea. They permitted everyone to pretty much worship whoever they wanted, providing they showed deference to the Emperor, whether worshipful, or as the case in Palestine, the Jews and Samaritans were even given dispensation from the religious aspects of Emperor veneration. Romans would just go around associating local deities with the Greco-Roman pantheon, and just sort of figured "Oh well, that's their name for Jove/Mars/Venus/whatever".

Of course Christianity, like the Aten cult of Egypt and Judaism before it, and Islam after it, was incredibly intolerant of other faiths. The monotheistic religions, politically speaking, cannot afford competition once they become dominant, and generally have as part of their creeds prohibitions against non-believers, or at least limitations on the conduct and activities of non-believers. Medieval Islam made some allowances for Jews and Christians, but they did not share the same rights as Muslims. Christianity at the same time was incredibly less tolerant.

What really ended all of this, most importantly the horrifying Thirty Years War, the first general European conflict and a terribly destructive one that depopulated Germany and set back its progress a couple of centuries, was the growing belief during the Enlightenment that what went on between a man and God was that man and God's own business. Notions of secularism, beginning in particular with Locke, that politics and religion all too often made a toxic brew that had terrible and long-reaching effects on society, began to come to the forefront, and as those ideas permeated, they had the two-fold effect of weakening both Protestant and Catholic dominance in the politics of the fast-evolving nation states and of creating more tolerance in the society. The US Bill of Rights, so much the creation of Jefferson and Madison, two of the greatest children of the Enlightenment, made the young nation into the first secular state in history, depriving the Federal government of any capacity to set up a national church or create religious tests.

What needs to happen in Islam is the Enlightenment, not for the Western countries to throw out the Enlightenment in some dangerous attempt to convert all the Muslims to Christianity.

[betsy]

deleted. double posting.

Edited September 24, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

She doesn't attempt to justify conversion on a theological level, just on a practical level, which I think is really disrespectful to both faiths. I may be an atheist, but I have enough respect for those who believe in a god to know religions can't simply be interchanged, discarding one and adopting another as the mood strikes.

I understand what you mean. But remember the reason she is doing this. And remember that she did not just say Christians should try to convert Muslims....she also said that Feminists and Humanists should get in on the act. That it is a concerted effort between all groups.

Actually the way I see it in my mind is that it's like a fair with competing booths!

Get the Youth Center there blasting those music young people love this days and doing all sorts of contests from dancing to rapping to skate boarding etc..,

Feminists offering coupons to answer a questionare....or a free make-over with free make-up kits....or free hair cuts etc, I know I'm just playing with the ideas in my head how to go about this.

I am also reminded of the interviews with the people from Canadian Muslim Congress (Tareq Fatah). And these people have a real reason for their concern. They could almost see the writing on the wall as to what the consequences could be.

We have a real problem with growing home-grown terrorists, and all these folks are pointing their fingers at Imams inside the mosques.

Just imagine the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the small town USA. I've seen this in one of the news channel. There are protests in small town preventing any mosques from being built in their towns! And this is just about that mosque in NYC...near a site of a tragic incident several years ago! The feeling is still very raw! But just imagine how it galvanized to divide a nation, after all these years.

We are also still feeling it otherwise we wouldn't be having that topic on this forum.

Right now, there has been no successful attacks by home-grown terrorists on our soil....yet. Just take pause and imagine how the climate in Canada will be if there is one or two successful attack and it claimed the lives of many.

Imagine the climate of distrust! Of hate. That kind of climate can seriously lead to other unpleasant things.

It may seem a gesture of disrespect trying to dilute the message of hate by some Imams....counteracting propagandas (because let's face it....we are dealing with propaganda of hate in some of these mosques), by giving other alternative idealogies and distractions!

Respect will fly out the window in a climate of hate and distrust.

Edited September 25, 2010 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Is it possible that those that embrace atheism for polical reasons are the types of human beings that resent any law put forth by man or God? It seems that some of the atheist agenda is policial in nature..it is about control...believing in a God in any form forces the group or person to go into a state of higher mindedness..This action keeps individuals with a dictatorial personality from attempting to take the place of God and rule as a god..."In God we trust" - There was a reason for putting that on American money. It was a reminder that if you trust in money or mankind alone - it is bound to betray you and let you down..that money is not power - good character and honour are!

[ToadBrother]

Is it possible that those that embrace atheism for polical reasons are the types of human beings that resent any law put forth by man or God? It seems that some of the atheist agenda is policial in nature..it is about control...believing in a God in any form forces the group or person to go into a state of higher mindedness..This action keeps individuals with a dictatorial personality from attempting to take the place of God and rule as a god..."In God we trust" - There was a reason for putting that on American money. It was a reminder that if you trust in money or mankind alone - it is bound to betray you and let you down..that money is not power - good character and honour are!

Is it possible that you might want to actually ask an atheist this, instead of just making answers up?

As it is there have been enough tyrants acting in the name of God to pretty much make a lie of everything you said. Doesn't it bother you that you behave so unethically towards atheists? Do you have no morality, or are you the vile one, Oleg?

[Jack Weber]

Is it possible that you might want to actually ask an atheist this, instead of just making answers up?

As it is there have been enough tyrants acting in the name of God to pretty much make a lie of everything you said. Doesn't it bother you that you behave so unethically towards atheists? Do you have no morality, or are you the vile one, Oleg?

Intersting statement about the historical nature of tyrants an God...

Of course it brings up an interesting question I've brought up before...

Who is at fault for killing in the name of God????

God,or the evil tyrant using God as convenient cover to kill?

Edited September 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Melanie_]

Feminists offering coupons to answer a questionare....or a free make-over with free make-up kits....or free hair cuts etc, I know I'm just playing with the ideas in my head how to go about this.

Betsy, your understanding of Feminism is stunning. Coupons, make up and hair cuts aren't the first things that pop into my mind when I think about how feminists might go about representing themselves!

Although I don't see your plan as workable on many levels (how many devout Muslims do you think will show up at this Conversion Fair of yours?), the biggest problem I have with it is your suggestion that the government get involved in endorsing one religion over another. I know you think desperate times call for desperate measures, but I disagree. Once we start discarding the basic values of our society - individual choice, freedom of religion, seperation of church and state - we change the structure of our society.

Maybe the whole thing boils down to a difference in the way we understand democracy. I see it as meaning that each individual is equal to everyone else, and has the same opportunities, rights and freedoms as every other citizen of a country. A democratic society is built on the belief that its citizens are intelligent and free thinking, so government doesn't try to think for them or interfere in their choices, as long as these choices stay within the boundaries of the law.

[bloodyminded]

Oh do tell, what is the true meaning of democracy?

Yes, I'd like to know too, since my name was summoned...my "concern" about Afghanistan, evidently mine alone, seems to call my "democratic" credentials into question.

[bloodyminded]

What really ended all of this, most importantly the horrifying Thirty Years War, the first general European conflict and a terribly destructive one that depopulated Germany and set back its progress a couple of centuries, was the growing belief during the Enlightenment that what went on between a man and God was that man and God's own business.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;

The proper study of Mankind is Man.

--Alexander Pope 1733

[betsy]

Betsy, your understanding of Feminism is stunning. Coupons, make up and hair cuts aren't the first things that pop into my mind when I think about how feminists might go about representing themselves!

Well what can I say...that's what popped into mind. Mind you think of the newly-arrived immigrant Muslim woman.....feminists coming on too strongly right off bat with the "I-am-woman-hear-me-roar" message, the poor woman will most probably get a massive shock!

Melanie, how did Communist recruiters go about enticing college/university students and got them to listen to their ideologies?

There is a way....a method...and recruiters I bet go through training on how to go about it.

Although I don't see your plan as workable on many levels (how many devout Muslims do you think will show up at this Conversion Fair of yours?) the biggest problem I have with it is your suggestion that the government get involved in endorsing one religion over another.

Well the government don't have to help out any religion then in this endeavor, if that will cause too much a problem. Actually, from what I hear there is already a gungho group of Christian youth going about the multi-cultural communities of Toronto spreading the Word. From the smile on the Pastor's face when he informed the congregation of this....looks like it's getting some traction. I don't know though if these communities include Muslim communities.

But surely you've got no objection to the government helping out the feminist group....or the humanitarians....in this scenario??

I know you think desperate times call for desperate measures, but I disagree. Once we start discarding the basic values of our society - individual choice, freedom of religion, seperation of church and state - we change the structure of our society.

How are we discarding individual choice? Freedom of religion? You keep bringing that up....please explain why you say that? How? I don't see it.

Maybe the whole thing boils down to a difference in the way we understand democracy. I see it as meaning that each individual is equal to everyone else, and has the same opportunities, rights and freedoms as every other citizen of a country.

That's what I think of democracy too. Each individual is equal to everyone else, and has the same opportunities, rights and freedoms as every other citizen of this country.

So again, please explain why you think Hirsi Ali's suggestion will knock those down. How?

A democratic society is built on the belief that its citizens are intelligent and free thinking, so government doesn't try to think for them or interfere in their choices, as long as these choices stay within the boundaries of the law.

In an ideal world....yes. But reality these days prove that any special interest group with a powerful lobby group can actually think for you and make the choices for you....what they deem is right or healthy or safe for you.

Edited September 26, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, your understanding of Feminism is stunning. Coupons, make up and hair cuts aren't the first things that pop into my mind when I think about how feminists might go about representing themselves!

Coupons,make-up, haircuts....what I'd say average women can relate to. Lures. Bait. Enticements. Incentives.

That's why I likened Hirsi Ali's suggestion to businesses competing for a specific target market.

[wyly]

Intersting statement about the historical nature of tyrants an God...

Of course it brings up an interesting question I've brought up before...

Who is at fault for killing in the name of God????

God,or the evil tyrant using God as convenient cover to kill?

scary bible quotes that one must assume come directly from god...

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

even more scary bible quotes

Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

[ToadBrother]

In an ideal world....yes. But reality these days prove that any special interest group with a powerful lobby group can actually think for you and make the choices for you....what they deem is right or healthy or safe for you.

Not everyone is wide-eyed fanatic like you. Some of us can make up our own minds, and don't want the State telling us what to think.

All you're looking for is a way to make your particular religion the state religion. The Enlightenment was centuries ago, and yet it still angers people like you that your religion isn't given preference.

[The_Squid]

Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Even if I make double-time????

Bah... the bible is just a GUIDE.... it's not like anyone takes that stuff seriously... It's ok to pick and choose stuff out of the Bible that suits the church (or the individual) and ignore the rest if it is inconvenient.

Edited September 27, 2010 by The_Squid