Explaining Sharia Law

[eyeball]

It will? Not in 1400 years it hasn't. Maybe wait another 1400 years, is that what you're saying? See if anything happens?

Don't be silly, it's quite obvious modernization was taking hold in Iran and Iraq and would have continued doing so and spread from there had we not gone in and buggered everything up.

But yeah there's no way to know how long it will take for the region to recover now. I think it will be generations myself but the sooner we get out the sooner it can start happening.

They might be able to speed up that process with reparations and compensation from us but I guess we'd have to grow an ethical backbone or surrender before that ever happens.

It is entirely possible that people have become so embittered that peace is now impossible. Which probably suits radical extremists like yourself just fine...You have the world you want.

[Michael Hardner]

It will? Not in 1400 years it hasn't. Maybe wait another 1400 years, is that what you're saying? See if anything happens?

So 1400 years is the cutoff but 1200 is ok ? Or 1300 ? Or ... ?

[Mighty AC]

It can easily be reconciled if people understand the basis of religion is to provide a moral framework for living, not to follow the ancient literal admonishments to violence for unbelievers, sinners and so on.

That's a big if....and I don't agree with the moral framework part either. It would be great if people didn't take scripture to be the actual word of some supreme being, but many do. Most of us know that religions don't even provide a moral framework either. Religious morals have been forcibly shaped by secular society into what they are now. You are right that those who are less committed to the scripture, as written, are less of a problem.

Aside from the BS religious aspect I believe the group dynamic, support, camaraderie, etc. leads individuals to do more good than they would on their own.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

Most of us know that religions don't even provide a moral framework either.

How so ? What religion doesn't put forward a moral framework ?

[Argus]

It can easily be reconciled if people understand the basis of religion is to provide a moral framework for living, not to follow the ancient literal admonishments to violence for unbelievers, sinners and so on.

And why would you say this is the 'correct' manner for following a religion when numerous Muslim religious leaders and judges say otherwise? The tenets of Islam are not suggestions or parables, they are absolute requirements and the literal word of God according to all Muslim scholars I am aware of.

[Argus]

How so ? What religion doesn't put forward a moral framework ?

The difference is that Islam does not merely put forward a moral framework but establishes a system of government, how it should operate, and what rules of law must be applied, along with the penalties for violating them.

None of which have changed in 1400 years. Nor is there any effort underway in the Muslim world to change them.

[Argus]

So 1400 years is the cutoff but 1200 is ok ? Or 1300 ? Or ... ?

Now is the cutoff point. Don't ask me to respect your religious social views when they literally come from the 6th century. If a 6th century Frenchman or Englishman showed up on my street I'd soon judge him to be a barbarian and treat him accordingly. Why should I not do this with Muslims who believe in their fairy book's version of society?

[Michael Hardner]

And why would you say this is the 'correct' manner for following a religion when numerous Muslim religious leaders and judges say otherwise?

It's my opinion, is all. There are Christians, too, who put forward Leviticus and say gays should be stoned, even in Canada. They're just humans and are letting their hatred misinterpret the message for them.

None of which have changed in 1400 years. Nor is there any effort underway in the Muslim world to change them.

The "Muslim world" isn't our world, though. These are just more relativistic comments to compare the bad parts of one faith with the good parts of another, and to make us feel better about ourselves. I, for one, don't.

[Michael Hardner]

Now is the cutoff point. Don't ask me to respect your religious social views when they literally come from the 6th century. If a 6th century Frenchman or Englishman showed up on my street I'd soon judge him to be a barbarian and treat him accordingly. Why should I not do this with Muslims who believe in their fairy book's version of society?

It would be much easier if you quoted all my posts in one post and respond. I tried to do that above.

As for your post here, it's just more of the same.

[Argus]

Don't be silly, it's quite obvious modernization was taking hold in Iran and Iraq and would have continued doing so and spread from there had we not gone in and buggered everything up.

What evidence did you have of this 'modernization'? Iran was flirting with socialism in the same way most of the middle east did at the time, including Egypt, but let's not forget it was the Shah's efforts at modernization which really infuriated the mullahs and brought about his downfall. He wanted to do away with the chador, for example, and allow women more rights. Thus I recall huge masses of black-clad women in chadors screaming "Death to the Shah!"

Iraq was merely a brutal thug of a dictator who kept the mullahs in line because he knew they would be the source of moves to oust him, as they were in Iran. Your lumpen leftist belief of the utopia the world would e if only it weren't for the evil capitalist white people has never had any supporting evidence behind it.

It is entirely possible that people have become so embittered that peace is now impossible. Which probably suits radical extremists like yourself just fine...You have the world you want.

Well if that's a world where the crazy religious freaks are kept away from me despite the best efforts of earnestly ignorant lefties to embrace them as brothers and accomodate their brutal social views I'm all for it.

[Argus]

It's my opinion, is all. There are Christians, too, who put forward Leviticus and say gays should be stoned, even in Canada. They're just humans and are letting their hatred misinterpret the message for them.

There are crazy people everywhere. But you'll notice gays are marring and getting pensions, so their numbers are pretty darn small over here. Over there, if they tried to hold a gay rights parade the entire local community would show up with rocks, torches and oil, and you know it.

The "Muslim world" isn't our world, though. These are just more relativistic comments to compare the bad parts of one faith with the good parts of another, and to make us feel better about ourselves. I, for one, don't.

You don't feel good you're not a barbarian? I much prefer being civilized to being a barbarian myself. But you're right, it's not our world, as long as they stay over there and leave mine the hell alone.

[Argus]

It would be much easier if you quoted all my posts in one post and respond. I tried to do that above.

I DID quote all your post. Don't blame me for its brevity and lack of depth.

[Michael Hardner]

But you'll notice gays are marring and getting pensions, so their numbers are pretty darn small over here.

"Over here" ... by using that you tacitly accept that geography is a factor, which undermines your bulk grouping of Muslims from Indonesia to Albania to Turkey to the U.K. to Canada.

Over there, if they tried to hold a gay rights parade the entire local community would show up with rocks, torches and oil, and you know it.

So... we chased gays off the streets and beat them, like, 30 or 40 years ago. Does that make us so much better really ?

You don't feel good you're not a barbarian? I much prefer being civilized to being a barbarian myself. But you're right, it's not our world, as long as they stay over there and leave mine the hell alone.

I feel great, but if I celebrate that then I will do it in positive ways, such as at a Pride Parade or on Canada Day, not in a way that points out all the ways plays like Pakistan are not as progressive as we are. It's an aesthetic thing, I suppose. It makes me feel that people are actually insecure about our culture.

Well if that's a world where the crazy religious freaks are kept away from me despite the best efforts of earnestly ignorant lefties to embrace them as brothers and accomodate their brutal social views I'm all for it.

That's a pretty big strawman to bring in here...

[eyeball]

What evidence did you have of this 'modernization'? Iran was flirting with socialism in the same way most of the middle east did at the time, including Egypt,

The whole freakin' planet was flirting with socialism Argus. That's your evidence right there. Iran was even flirting with democracy until we came along and turned it's crib into a deathbed.

Sorry but you were also blubbering something about evil and capitalism. You mean there's even more?

[bush_cheney2004]

The whole freakin' planet was flirting with socialism Argus. That's your evidence right there. Iran was even flirting with democracy until we came along and turned it's crib into a deathbed.

Sorry...what's so special about "democracy" if "democracies" did such a thing in Iran ?

[eyeball]

Good question.

[Mighty AC]

How so ? What religion doesn't put forward a moral framework ?

I wasn't challenging the existence of frameworks, just the claim they are moral. We need to cherry pick and jump through hoops to get religious teachings to seem moral by the standards of today. Edited January 26, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

I wasn't challenging the existence of frameworks, just the claim they are moral.

Moral: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

[Mighty AC]

Moral: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

Are you then referring to the cherry picked versions of religious morality that have been shaped into something semi-positive by pressure from the secular world? As, the message one would derive from scriptures themselves is far from something that could be considered moral. That is speaking of Christian and Islamic scripture. I'm not familiar enough with the scripture of all religions...though I hear Jainism is quite humane and positive.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you then referring to the cherry picked versions of religious morality that have been shaped into something semi-positive by pressure from the secular world?

Are you unable to discuss anything on an objective level without casting it as right or wrong ? Do you realize that's the mark of a religious mindset ?

Let us, if you can, leave aside judgments such as "positive" or "negative". Religions constitute a set of world views, customs and moral rules by which its adherents are expected to live.

All I said is that religions put forward a moral framework, and six posts later we're still discussing that.

[Mighty AC]

All I said is that religions put forward a moral framework, and six posts later we're still discussing that.

All I'm saying is that framework has been heavily shaped and updated by secular society.

[Michael Hardner]

All I'm saying is that framework has been heavily shaped and updated by secular society.

Yes, understood.

[Mighty AC]

Great. Now, is there value in a religious moral framework if it conflicts with humanist ethics, derived from human well being?

[cybercoma]

The difference is that Islam does not merely put forward a moral framework but establishes a system of government, how it should operate, and what rules of law must be applied, along with the penalties for violating them.

None of which have changed in 1400 years. Nor is there any effort underway in the Muslim world to change them.

So does Christianity, but Christians mostly ignore those parts of the Bible just as the vast majority of Muslims ignore that part of the Quran.

[Mighty AC]

Let us, if you can, leave aside judgments such as "positive" or "negative". Religions constitute a set of world views, customs and moral rules by which its adherents are expected to live.

I find morality to be a compelling topic. The idea that a moral framework should be accepted simply because a culture or religion imposed it has always bothered me. 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris was an excellent read on this subject and now Michael Shermer has one as well. I really like Mike's work on skepticism and am looking forward to reading it. Here is Shermer interview conducted by Sam Harris: On Being Right about Right and Wrong