When Does it Become Okay to Kill, to Satisfy Your Religious or Cultural Needs?

Well, I am a muslim. Though I don't live according to sharia law (because neither my home country, Indonesia, nor my current place of living, Germany, is using sharia law), I respect some Islamic law. Means, I have no problem with people who choose to live by that law. In Islam, people are obliged to live by Quran, not by other laws. There are other Islamic laws, like hadist and sharia, but those are after adaptation and interpretation by Islamic scholars. As they are adapted and interpreted, they are subjective.

p.s.: ok, I'll lougout, it's, omg, 2 AM already

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never said that only the West uses bombs. I did say that in the West much of our cruelty is done by proxy - so people have this strange idea that we are not cruel. Of course other countries bomb, though few come close to our firepower and none has bombed anyone like the US bombed Vietnam. You see a graphic video on Youtube where people are in the same room with someone and being cruel and think 'we don't do things like that'. Well, good chance we do, though probably not along gender lines, but certainly along nationality/ethnic group lines - our recent rendition practices. But more important we do it, as I said, via proxy. Via armies, via bombs, via economic warfare. To use youtube for analysis of cruelty is distorting, but reassuring to people who think the problems are always maniacs in other countries.

We have the luxury to be cruel at a distance. Others manage to afford this luxury sometimes also. Many of the poorer groups have to convince some sap to strap the bombs on their own bodies.

Further I mentioned CLUSTER BOMBS. I don't know if you know what they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No more or no less than any other. Sharia itself means government by consensus and I could for example, say that the US government is based on sharia because it was devised on the Quranic principle that all human beings have inalienable rights from their creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Law_of_the_United_States

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Christian Broadcasting Network is obviously the best place to get unbiased news...

 

Nay SAM, that states that there are similarities in how Americans interpret the Constitution and how muslims interpret the Quran. It then makes a leap toward that idea the the Constitution contains similarities with liberalist principles that are found in MANY different creeds that have existed throughout history, islam being one of them. Nowhere does it definitively state the constitution is based on the Quran. That is wishful thinking on the part of sharia-adhering apologists who seek to excuse their ignoble ways by actively searching for a remote link to a noble document.

Does Sharia actually follow through on its meaning though? Are the women in Saudi Arabi or Pakistan volunteering to be held to a different standard of public behavior than men are held to? Or is it really just "government by the male consensus?"

 

When women living in Saudi Arabi are raped and then convicted and sentenced to lashes as a criminal, I think it is jealous "government by the male consensus'.

 

I'm sure a lot of Sharia Law could be found in many ancient cultures. In Rome a Citizen could kill his slave for pretty much any reason. He could also kill his wife for cheating on him. I'm sure many women were murdered off by the husbands in Classical Greece. Many English monarchs were polygamous.

 

Under Hitler the Catholics wanted to rule the world and kill those who did not go along, starting with the Jews and then others as he found them. It isn't right, unless a common law has been broken like murdering someone or other serious crime was committed, for people to kill others just because of their religious beliefs. But there are countries who are using religions to meat out punishment to others and I avoid visiting such places. I do not think it is a good thing but that is my opinion so I must respect, even though I dislike it, the way others use religions to serve as the judiciary of that country.

 

It has been demonstrated again an again that religiouse people have lower IQ's. That is why we separate religion and state..Maybe we atheists should start culling the dumb so that we can return to peace, love, understanding, and acceptance again.

We should never accept human rights violations. Down with religion it is the greatest evil mankind knows.

 

WillNever, okay, so what's your point? I saw the video. My opinion remains.

 

are Wiccans atheists?

 

I don't think there is a better authority than God Himself. We could ask Him point blank but since that isn't happening then perhaps we could study His modus operandi. So if you can extrapolate from that what you know of God and His killing sprees then you will be close to discovering why God kills. Should our reason for killing be different or should it be modeled after God's?

 

She wasn't convicted for being raped was she.... At least keep things in context.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay, is there anything wrong with a law that victimizes the victim a second time, regardless of gender?

 

Read it again, he never said that. She was convicted, it's only you assuming he meant rape.

 

But different religions have different beliefs of their god's modus operandi. Why should you religious needs supercede the lives and beliefs of others?

 

You're the only one who thinks that the conviction was dependent on gender... both would be convicted for the same thing.

Secondly if the law was broken then that is illegal.. unfortunately the one breaking the law also became a victim... She was tried for her law breaking... unfortunate?

Suppose that she did not get raped and did not become a victim- was it then okay to be tried for that?

You're simply saying that you have to be sympathetic to a criminal as long as s/he became the victim in a series of events.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No doubt in my mind the law in question was designed toward women.

A woman receiving 90 lashes punishment because she was in a car with a guy forcing her to meet his demands (her blackmailer) is unreasonable, making her a victim twice.

 

Obviously the law was made that way.... it has nothing to do with your bias.... I agree 100%. And obviously an innocent person is never convicted in the western judicial system, ever... Their ways are just. I agree 100%

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The administrating of Justice is fallible because men are imperfect. The O.J. Simpson murder trial ended with the world shaking its head, recognizing the injustice. IMO, nothing is 100%.