Is Shariah law really such an awful thing?

Post Reply New Topic

Of course. He obeyed a court order. No crime was committed.

Doesn't make him less of a d*ck.

Only a non American like you would post this nonsense.

America's Founding Fathers wrote seperation of Church and State into our Constitution. After two centuries your doom scenario has not happened here in the US. In fact almost the exact opposite thing has happened:In European countries like Britain that have a government sanctioned official religion there has been an almost total collapse of the faith. In contrast in the US where we fight for seperation of church and state we have the most religious and most churchgoing population in the industrialized world.

Those folks who push for the keeping the seperation in America are usually an alliance between secular folks and the religious who have a common interest in opposing government imposing a particular religion. Americans who want to maintain seperation of church and state often have quite opposing views, and dont necessarily have one particular creed that they are "trying to push".

The first thinker in human history to ever suggest the weird idea that church should sometimes be separated from state was the guy who said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's".He was a guy named Jesus Christ.

I just mentioned this in another thread, I think it was the world wars that killed Christianity in Europe. The US was not devastated to the same degree and kept that afterglow longer.



It isn't so much a theocracy that I want, more a recognition that not all religions are equal and a certain religion and state of mind played an enormous role in both our histories and it should be privileged.



I know. That doesn't mean Caesar should be blind to religion or pretend that certain religions if they reach critical mass won't tear up your precious constitution.

There are many who express thoughts similar to Mikah who don't really give a damn about Christianity. His enthusiasm for "Christianity" is more akin to Anders Breivik's "cultural christianity" -- another vehicle for his intense aversion the the expansion of Islam and the alien culture brought by Muslims to the West.

For the most part, they have as much interest in the actual beliefs of Christianity as that fraud who spoke recently about his love for the "two Corinthians." None of this "love your neighbor, love your enemy, turn the other cheek," crap for them -- let alone "You must not exploit a foreign resident or oppress him, since you were foreigners in the land of Egypt." None of that soft, loser stuff for them.

They are more keen on the spirit of the ethnic cleansing under Joshua... but never mind all the obedience to God stuff that goes along with the command to kill everything in the Canaanite villages that breathes, that pisses against the wall, etc.

They certainly have no belief at all in the idea that "all things work together for the good"

Christianity lost it's strength in the West because it was so successful and central for so long. During those centuries the institutions that grew up around it became socially oppressive and claimed authority to reveal truths about subjects they simply did not have knowledge about.

Christian institutions were proven to be wrong about many testable facts and to have few or no useful answers to many less testable, tangible issues that might have been their areas of strength had they not been so deeply involved in supporting the entrenched oligarchs that ruled their societies. Islam has identical problems and will gain no pruchase in the West.

My prophecy: As the fabulous myth of militant jihadist supremacy is revealed to be a hollow bag of cruelty and empty promises, the current enthusiasm for it will die and a primarily atheist agnosticism will become the fastest growing belief among the descendants of Muslim immigrants to the West.

In the end, engaging reality is more satisfying than pretending to believe.

^ A bit of a slur, but not entirely without truth. I don't believe in a coming godless age of enlightened self interest, I don't believe Man as a species can prosper without abstract ideals and external untouchable authority. If that is the case, then I pick a Western Christian tradition. The worst in the world, except for all the others. Religion, socially conservative values and all the rest WAS the great evolutionary step forward for human civilisation.

Fanciful I'm afraid, the Muslim world is heading in a more theocratic direction. The decline of our civilisation is not a paragraph in a history book, it is right in our faces in full HD quality. All leaders have to do is play these scenes to the worried masses. This is what happens when you ditch God, this is what happens when you liberate women, this is what happens when people are free from X, Y or Z. Rigid social conservatism is coming back one way or another, either we rediscover it (something that has not happened ever in human history) or it will be imposed on us by another, if we even survive as a recognisable entity.

and also in a more irreligious direction, as we speak. as usual, i think a distinction must be made here. there's culture, and there's politics. politics radicalize culture, which is then exploited by politics. politicians are nothing without an enemy. false dichotomies are what they thrive on

- why again are we a theocracy?
- to fight the great satan of the west
- oh okay. but why does it matter here in the east?
- because we have atheists among us
- ohhh okay. that makes sense. and they eat babies, right?
- exactly
- i see. well, in that case, i'm willing to give away my freedom. i don't want any atheists eating my babies
- and taken away your freedom shall be
- why, thank you

- why again are we a capitalist oligarchy?
- to fight the great red menace of the east / the great terrorist menace of the east
- oh okay...

if you want to promote something that the people don't really want, or that the people would never want if they really understood what they're voting for (which is what politicians almost always do), you name an enemy, and you preach that the only solution against that enemy is the personal interest that you want to promote, without actually explaining what you're promoting (and systematically sidestepping the question), while one thing typically has nothing to do with the other

there's something right and there's something wrong with that. what's right about it is that the state is not supposed to tell people what to do with their lives. it's only supposed to tell people what not to do, which is much easier to agree upon, while enabling and supporting other parts and elements of society that actually give you purpose and direction. it's a common ground, not the be-all-end-all of society. so "a common enemy" is actually what it's supposed to be about. it's supposed to be devoid of real substance. it's supposed to be a hard shell for a dynamic system complemented by other things that evolve organically along with the society being governed. that's what genuine authority means

and what's wrong with it is that it's not how it's marketed, and it's not what people think they're voting for. and what they're voting for in reality is a self-serving system. when the state promotes itself as something other than a shell, it becomes a shell for one thing to the exclusion of most everything else. it's a kind of authority that tells you with words that it represents you, but, with actions, it tells you "i don't work for you and i don't represent you. you represent me and you work for me". then some people say "no, that's not the role of the state, it's the role of 'the market'". again: distraction. "power to the state" or "power to corporations" is a moot question, because they're not separate in reality. it doesn't matter if the government interferes with the market or not, because "the market" is already behind the government anyway

when people take the overarching authority of the state as a fact of nature, that's when these questions arise. because then the domains of state and religion (and economy and whatnot) overlap with each other, and instead of complementing each other, they compete. or they pretend to be competing, when in fact they're one and the same. distraction. and then there'll also be the people claiming that the government has no rightful authority, as if it's the only alternative. which in turn is also fuel for those who want to defend the overarching authority of the state. and so on and on

tl;dr: radicalization = polarization = evil. prosperity happens when each sphere of society minds its own business and doesn't try to engulf other spheres. when people can talk before shooting or being shot

What's wrong with liberating women? As I recall, it's the Islamists who tell us women are supposed to be wrapped up like mummies, not allowed to speak in public, and are to be kept under lock-and-key at home unless they have a male escort.
And people "free from X, Y or Z?" What is that in reference to?

I should have put it in quotes, sorry, it was meant to be the (hypothetical future) leaders preaching about the decline of the West.

All leaders have to do is play these scenes to the worried masses.
"This is what happens when you ditch God"
"This is what happens when you liberate women"
"This is what happens when people are free from X, Y or Z."

Rigid social conservatism is coming back one way or another, either we rediscover it (something that has not happened ever in human history) or it will be imposed on us by another, if we even survive as a recognisable entity.

More like “when people freely choose what to believe or not and no tyrant manages to impose any particular belief system or lack thereof on them”, “when women decide to be free and there aren’t enough male chauvinists determined and powerful enough to ensure they continue to be treated like livestock or pets” and “when people aren’t subjected by me; therefore, since someone else might take away your freedom, I’ll preëmptively take it away myself”.

As such things have always been in history...the decline of our civilization if that occurs will be a page in history books. No civilization is guaranteed to live forever. Perhaps this really is the decline of our civilization, but it's happened before, why should our civilization be any different. Because 'this is the bestest country in the world' doesn't mean it's infallible, Romans thought they had the best society/country before their civilization collapsed.

I think if the guy was real he's respectable....word says he also might have used cannabis oil in some of the cases where he cured people of terrible ailments. And I am one of those people you see around wearing rather satanic metal t-shirts.

if you're not an emperor or aspiring emperor yourself, caring about empires is most unwise

jesus was an anti-bureaucracy reformist. a rather mentally-unstable one as it seems, but the basic principles he defended seem rather sound to me. whether or not he intended to found a new universal movement seems unclear to me. my guess is he didn't, and he just really cared a lot about what he preached. crucifixion was a rather common punishment back then. so maybe he didn't even intend to be seen as a unique martyr. maybe just one martyr, for that one social cause he cared about. after all, he was executed for his political obstinacy, not for heresy

Last edited by anagram on 13 Aug 2016, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

State and Church have been successfully kept apart in the U.S. because no one religion and its church will tolerate another religion and its church for trying to seize power. It is the selfish interest of each church group that assures separation of government and religion.

Just see what happens in game of thrones when Cersi allows a certain religious element certain power....doesn't go so well.