I can't stand the bull**** about 'Shari'a' anymore

[Elok]

I really don't care about other things but abortion. That is certainly a religious matter, and has an effect on both voters and elected.

Well, thank you for your bald assertion. I'll be ready to continue the discussion when you get around to backing it up.

Are you seriously saying that those elected doesn't mean what they are elected on ?

Well, that's not what I'm saying, but yes, that's quite frequently true. At least in America. Very few pols actually go after the deficit, to continue with that example, because doing so would involve battling a ton of entrenched interests and/or taking the axe to sacred cows. But since a lot of people claim to care about the deficit, they'll talk up a storm when they're making the rounds. Similarly, politicians will readily pledge support for unions, minorities, or any number of other interests, only to abandon them when they prove politically inconvenient. The Christian Right is hardly an exception--SCOTUS is effectively sitting on the abortion issue, so there's little that can be done at the Federal level. That doesn't stop our distinguished statesmen from using the issue to drum up support. But they'll abandon pro-life interests in a heartbeat if it's politically expedient.

But all that is beside the point. Read carefully: "American voters don't like atheists" =/= "American laws are based on religion." The two are entirely different statements. You can argue that the first might imply the second--although, generally speaking, it doesn't, and there are a number of robust mechanisms in place to discourage such a thing. The First Amendment, for one. However, the two statements are NOT synonymous. I do not contest the former. I do contest the latter.

[Elok]

I'm a bit curious - where did I make a fault ?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be obnoxious or like, just want to learn. If you ever tries to write in a foreign language, perhaps danish, I certainly will give all support possible

I won't even consider it a problem if you have had four-five glasses of wine when you try.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was ragging on you. I meant to simply agree that the statement was not grammatically correct; your English in general is quite good for a non-native. A cleaner version would go (assuming I understand what you were trying to say), "Oh, so you say you're religious, but aren't serious about it?" or "Oh, so you believe in religious laws, but not in a serious way?" But the meaning of either isn't entirely clear to me. Do you mean that he's a hypocrite somehow? Or that he's just joking about supporting theocracy?

[BlackCat]

Well, thank you for your bald assertion. I'll be ready to continue the discussion when you get around to backing it up.

Uhmn, it was you that invented new subjects to deflect my arguments, so I really don't see that I have any problems.

But all that is beside the point. Read carefully: "American voters don't like atheists" =/= "American laws are based on religion." The two are entirely different statements. You can argue that the first might imply the second--although, generally speaking, it doesn't, and there are a number of robust mechanisms in place to discourage such a thing. The First Amendment, for one. However, the two statements are NOT synonymous. I do not contest the former. I do contest the latter.

You clearly don't understand it. It's not the fact that american voters doesn't like atheists that make american government religious - it's because they elect religious people that the legislation is religious based.

[Elok]

Uhmn, it was you that invented new subjects to deflect my arguments, so I really don't see that I have any problems.

What new subjects?

You clearly don't understand it. It's not the fact that american voters doesn't like atheists that make american government religious - it's because they elect religious people that the legislation is religious based.

Disliking atheists and liking the religious are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, what you're saying is irrelevant. Suppose I said, "all the laws in your country are biased towards the Danish blue cheese industry. And I can prove it--almost every member of the Danish parliament is on record as liking Danish blue cheese!" Would that strike you as a compelling argument? Because that sounds a lot like what you're saying now.

[Egbert]

I really don't care about other things but abortion. That is certainly a religious matter, and has an effect on both voters and elected.

I don't think abortion has to be about religion. I am not even remotely religious but I do have a view on abortion.

[Nikolai]

IT Jihad? Is that like the Butlerian Jihad, or just something that happens at alqaeda.com?

Sorry, I often mix up the letters in this word. It should be ijtihad. Ijtihad is the process of making independent judgement on the legal sources of Islam, that being the Quran and the Hadiths. This was how Sharia came into being, but by the 10th century it was decided upon in the Muslim world that the gates of ijtihad was closed and after this it was all about taqlid. Taqlid means imitation, that being imitation of the first results of ijtihad. As such, new situations must be made to fit old interpretations. Sharia as it was by the 10th century was the final one. Later, in the 19th century, this was challenged, but still today ijtihad being opened up is a controversial opinion is much of Islam.

[Docfeelgood]

What about homosexual marriage? This law can only be made because of religious law. IMHO

[Heresson]

I haven't investigated into the matter of stoning, but, from what I can gather from islamic sites:
1) it is in the sunna, which is common for all legal schools
2) according to the sunna, it was in the Qur'an. Muhammad forgot the exact writing of these verses, so they were not included in the written version of Qur'an, but their meaning is still part of the Qur'an.
To sum it up: stoning for adultery in case of married people is in sunna and, according to it, it is part of the Holy Book as well. And supported by the authority of the second caliph.

In case of unmarried people, it is whipping 100 times.

So it IS perfectly OK to say that stoning is a part of shari'a. And even if some respected scholar will rule some other punishment for zina, for whatever reason, than it will be possible not to stone; but stoning would still be possible.
Anyway, the differences between legal schools (at lease sunni ones) aren't big, one can easily talk about one islamic law.

[germanos]

Christianity says nothing about abortion either. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not have an abortion"?

Quite the contrary: http://bible.cc/hosea/13-16.htm

[Dinner]

The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

Ahh, what a loving God.

[Nikolai]

While I love religion discussion, couldn't we keep to the topic at hand and leave the Christianity discussion in the other thread?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well if you read the next chapter, Hosea 14 (and also Judges FWIW), God is merely saying that since Isreal has turned away from God, God will not give divine protection to them and without that divine protection they will be overrun (as they were constantly in the Judges period).

[Kidlicious]

Christianity says nothing about abortion either. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not have an abortion"?

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't say anything about it. It would be ridiculous to read the Bible and come to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't say that abortion is a sin.

Religious Law