[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-May-09, 07:46, said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Scroll down to "Human rights". I believe Sharia is unconstitutional in America.

Try to understand what Sharia is and you will make more sense.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-09, 15:44, said:

Try to understand what Sharia is and you will make more sense.

I have no plans to become an expert on any form of law, but I did browse through the wiki reference cited. I particularly noted

Quote

Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion. Before executing the death penalty, sharia demands that the individual be offered one chance to return to Islam.[

As someone who went through the confirmation process into the Presbyterian church and who later, not all that much later, came to reject its claims, but who has not been made subject to the death penalty, this got my attention.. I understand that I have been condemned to hell, the minister made that clear, but for the moment all is well.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-09, 16:53, said:

I have no plans to become an expert on any form of law, but I did browse through the wiki reference cited. I particularly noted


As someone who went through the confirmation process into the Presbyterian church and who later, not all that much later, came to reject its claims, but who has not been made subject to the death penalty, this got my attention.. I understand that I have been condemned to hell, the minister made that clear, but for the moment all is well.

I'm not sure of your point, Ken. As you are aware, I'm sure, the Old Testament had these capital offenses:

Quote

Having homosexual intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13).

Committing adultery between a man and a woman (Leviticus 20:10–12, Deuteronomy 22:22).

Lying about virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).[4]

Being one of the majority of women who don’t bleed when losing their virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).[5]

Being the daughter of a priest and practicing prostitution (Leviticus 21:9).[6]

It is not what is written but how it is believed and administered that counts.

[gwnn]

Wherever there are Leviticus+Deuteronomy-based courts (whether with formal power or informal one + peer pressure), I will find it equally abhorrent and will oppose it. What is your point? "What about the Bible?" is not a get out of jail free card. And no, not saying that just the Old Testament is bad (the NT is better, but I also oppose applying it in legislation).

Yes, Sharia has many different interpretations, at least when it comes to what common people believe about it. The numbers change wildly between believers when you go from country to country. For example, corporal punishment for theft?

this and several following ones from:
http://www.pewforum....s-about-sharia/


I'm way too lazy to average this info, but let's call it ~50% with quartiles at 45 and 70?

Or stoning for adultery? Similar numbers.



Death for apostasy, an infamous one?



Note that these have been normalized to people who think it should be the law of the land (although there are many people who think it should only be applied to Muslims, an easy but not overwhelming majority in most countries:


About British Muslims:
https://www.theguard...lity-sharia-law

Quote

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.

(...)

Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent*. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

(* = 34% do not completely condemn people who took part in stoning adulterers and 21% do not condemn them at all).

There were some other, nicer numbers about British Muslims, such as:

Quote

Of those questioned, 88% said Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78% said they would like to integrate into British life on most things apart from Islamic schooling and some laws.

But for the moment we were talking about Sharia, just preempting the charge of quote-mining.

TL; DR: yes it has many interpretations of Sharia, but for most questions, out of people who favor introducing it, it's a question of spreads of 25%...75%. There are also many places where people are altogether opposed to introducing anything with the name Sharia.

To Zel: I'm sorry for being in my bubble again. I guess Pew and Channel 4 are also inside.

[StevenG]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-09, 16:53, said:

Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion. Before executing the death penalty, sharia demands that the individual be offered one chance to return to Islam.

So it's very like the EU, it seems.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-09, 21:49, said:

I'm not sure of your point, Ken. As you are aware, I'm sure, the Old Testament had these capital offenses:

Well, I remember things such as "Thy Lord thy God is a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me" but I don't recall any death sentence for simply walking away. I suppose it might well be there somewhere.

But I am prepared to agree that it all depends on what people mean when they advocate Sharia. The U.S. has some odd features. If you poll people, many are religious. But exactly what this means is not so clear. My father believed in God in the sense that if you asked "Do you believe in God?" he would answer "Yes". And he went to church from time to time. But that was about it. He would have been opposed to anyone casting the first stone, regardless of whether the person was without sin. But I never heard him quote the Bible, or even quote our minister, on this or on anything. And so it is with many. I can still come close to reciting The Apostle's Creed from memory, so if my life is at stake from someone who is out to execute formerly Christian unbelievers, I might survive. It's like the Gettysburg Address. When you are 10, you memorize what you are told to memorize. But while I know a fair number of people who would, if asked, describe themselves as religious, most of them spend little time thinking about it.

What's my point? Oh, I don't know. Maybe this: What does it mean to advocate for Sharia law? If a person wants to pray, he does not need my permission regardless of his choice of gods. So just what is it that the Sharia advocate wants to do that he cannot now do? I could be condemned to eternal damnation for leaving the Presbyterian church, this required no change in our laws. I could not be shot or whipped for this choice. And I would oppose any change in the laws that would allow this to happen. To anyone, of any religion. So just what is being advocated?

[jogs]

 barmar, on 2017-May-07, 16:15, said:

I suspect that most people who are concerned about Sharia Law invading our country don't even know what it consists of. They just associate it with Islam, and conflate it with the ideals of radical groups like ISIS.

I believe Sharia Law would be human right abuses and misogyny under Western law. Also ISIS is not radical. It is the true Islam. The 7th century Islam.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-10, 07:00, said:

Well, I remember things such as "Thy Lord thy God is a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me" but I don't recall any death sentence for simply walking away. I suppose it might well be there somewhere.

But I am prepared to agree that it all depends on what people mean when they advocate Sharia. The U.S. has some odd features. If you poll people, many are religious. But exactly what this means is not so clear. My father believed in God in the sense that if you asked "Do you believe in God?" he would answer "Yes". And he went to church from time to time. But that was about it. He would have been opposed to anyone casting the first stone, regardless of whether the person was without sin. But I never heard him quote the Bible, or even quote our minister, on this or on anything. And so it is with many. I can still come close to reciting The Apostle's Creed from memory, so if my life is at stake from someone who is out to execute formerly Christian unbelievers, I might survive. It's like the Gettysburg Address. When you are 10, you memorize what you are told to memorize. But while I know a fair number of people who would, if asked, describe themselves as religious, most of them spend little time thinking about it.

What's my point? Oh, I don't know. Maybe this: What does it mean to advocate for Sharia law? If a person wants to pray, he does not need my permission regardless of his choice of gods. So just what is it that the Sharia advocate wants to do that he cannot now do? I could be condemned to eternal damnation for leaving the Presbyterian church, this required no change in our laws. I could not be shot or whipped for this choice. And I would oppose any change in the laws that would allow this to happen. To anyone, of any religion. So just what is being advocated?

I have actually thought about this quite a bit. My opinion - and I can certainly be offbase and wrongheaded here - is that much of what we fear about Islam is a manifestation of a foreign culture rather than a foreign religion with this proviso: in many areas of the world religion and culture are difficult to distinguish from one another.

If you ask most people in the U.S., they will describe our culture as based on Christian values without realizing the history or the diversity of such values. Cultural mores change slowly over centuries rather than years - education usually gives them a push. My belief is that in many parts of the world Islam is viewed from a cultural viewpoint similarly to Christianity during the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Church lost much of its political power and had to modify its positions to retain moral power - as usual driven by outside influences.

I in no way support Islam or any other religion but I do feel Islam and Sharia are castigated for the wrong reasons - that Islam is another cultural-based religion that happens to be practiced in parts of the world where cultures and mores are centuries behind those in the modern mechanized Western world.

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-May-10, 07:33, said:

Also ISIS is not radical. It is the true Islam.

Ah, the inverted True Scotsman fallacy.

[billw55]

 jogs, on 2017-May-10, 07:33, said:

I believe Sharia Law would be human right abuses and misogyny under Western law.

Probably so. Do you think Sharia is unique in this respect? There are nontrivial Christian sects in the USA that forbid women from wearing pants. Also, in varying cases, no birth control and no divorce. Exorcisms involving beatings are less common but do happen.

Yes, safe to say I fear Christian theocracy and Sharia equally. I treasure the first amendment beyond price. I hope it survives.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-10, 07:00, said:

What's my point? Oh, I don't know. Maybe this: What does it mean to advocate for Sharia law? If a person wants to pray, he does not need my permission regardless of his choice of gods. So just what is it that the Sharia advocate wants to do that he cannot now do? I could be condemned to eternal damnation for leaving the Presbyterian church, this required no change in our laws. I could not be shot or whipped for this choice. And I would oppose any change in the laws that would allow this to happen. To anyone, of any religion. So just what is being advocated?

I think that's the problem -- people who are against Sharia Law don't really understand what they're against. No one has ever proposed that Sharia Law would take precedence over the Constitution or civil laws. So an apostate cannot legally be killed, adulteresses can't be stoned, etc. despite what the Koran says.

But that's what Islamaphobes seem to be concerned against -- they think that somehow Sharia Law will be adopted and thus human rights abuses would become legal, even mandatory.

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-May-10, 07:33, said:

I believe Sharia Law would be human right abuses and misogyny under Western law. Also ISIS is not radical. It is the true Islam. The 7th century Islam.

Statements such as this one just do not survive the most basic inspection. Is the true Christianity that of the Crusades? Of the Inquisition? Institutions adapt over time if they want to stay relevant in the world. Islam has adapted just as Christianity has. There is no reason to think of modern muslims as being any less "true" in relation to the 7th century than of modern Christians being any less "true" compared to their Middle Age equivalents.

Indeed one can follow the same logic for practically any institution. Are the police not "true" because they do not use the same methods as Peelers? Are modern scientists less true because they are using other techniques than the earliest of the field? Armies are not made up of "true" soldiers any more because they generally do not need to look their opponents directly in the eye before lopping a limb off. Try to put your prejudices aside and come back to the real world, if only for the purposes of debate on this site.

[blackshoe]

If a religious group wants to observe certain "laws" within that group, subject to the non-agression principle (NAP), I have no problem with that. If they want to impose their views, through the force of government, on people outside their group, I oppose that with all my being. Also under the NAP, if a person wants to leave a religion or religious group, the religion or group has no say in the matter.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2017-May-10, 09:53, said:

If a religious group wants to observe certain "laws" within that group, subject to the non-agression principle (NAP), I have no problem with that. If they want to impose their views, through the force of government, on people outside their group, I oppose that with all my being. Also under the NAP, if a person wants to leave a religion or religious group, the religion or group has no say in the matter.

Do you have a problem with national holidays being lined up with religious festivals such as Easter and Christmas? That is a form of the government imposing religion on the people. As for the group having no say in a person leaving, you might want to tell that to former scientologists who have been harassed after leaving. What you say is fine in theory but the practice can end up being quite different.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2017-May-10, 08:57, said:

I think that's the problem -- people who are against Sharia Law don't really understand what they're against. No one has ever proposed that Sharia Law would take precedence over the Constitution or civil laws. So an apostate cannot legally be killed, adulteresses can't be stoned, etc. despite what the Koran says.

But that's what Islamaphobes seem to be concerned against -- they think that somehow Sharia Law will be adopted and thus human rights abuses would become legal, even mandatory.

A couple of moths ago I listened to a short talk from a Tulsa Imam who said that part of Sharia is abiding by the laws of the country - so violating U.S. law for a Muslim living in the U.S. would also violate Sharia. I have no other verification to determine if what was said was accurate, but I grant the speaker had more knowledge than I on the matter.

[Winstonm]

And, in the meantime, Donald Trump fires James Comey, FBI Director, who was in charge of the investigation into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia, then the White House comes out and says, It's time to put the Russia investigation behind us, and we are expected to believe the two are unrelated?

These guys are not the brightest lights ever to occupy the WH.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-May-10, 08:57, said:

I think that's the problem -- people who are against Sharia Law don't really understand what they're against. No one has ever proposed that Sharia Law would take precedence over the Constitution or civil laws. So an apostate cannot legally be killed, adulteresses can't be stoned, etc. despite what the Koran says.

But that's what Islamaphobes seem to be concerned against -- they think that somehow Sharia Law will be adopted and thus human rights abuses would become legal, even mandatory.

But then where are we? I am more than willing to admit my ignorance here. If Sharia law is not to be cast into civil law then why does it matter what I think at all? You earlier mentioned Kosher and I said, among other things, that I really don't know what is involved. And why should I? From my early years when fiends were picked up by bus to got to Hebrew school I have had a casual interest, but ultimately nobody would consider asking me for any deep thoughts on the matter, much less my approval.

I don't know much about Sharia law because I never saw any reason why I should. If someone proposes that some aspects of Sharia law is to take precedence over US law, then I must be concerned. If nobody is making such a proposal then why should I take an interest in a matter that has no legal force? If a Catholic couple hopes that their eldest son will become a priest, this would not be my hope but it is also none of my business.

Maybe there is nothing at all to discuss here about Sharia law. That would suit me fine.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-10, 14:44, said:

But then where are we? I am more than willing to admit my ignorance here. If Sharia law is not to be cast into civil law then why does it matter what I think at all? You earlier mentioned Kosher and I said, among other things, that I really don't know what is involved. And why should I? From my early years when fiends were picked up by bus to got to Hebrew school I have had a casual interest, but ultimately nobody would consider asking me for any deep thoughts on the matter, much less my approval.

I don't know much about Sharia law because I never saw any reason why I should. If someone proposes that some aspects of Sharia law is to take precedence over US law, then I must be concerned. If nobody is making such a proposal then why should I take an interest in a matter that has no legal force? If a Catholic couple hopes that their eldest son will become a priest, this would not be my hope but it is also none of my business.

Maybe there is nothing at all to discuss here about Sharia law. That would suit me fine.

You are mistakihng Islamaphobes (including Trump and his minions) as reasonable people.

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-10, 14:16, said:

And, in the meantime, Donald Trump fires James Comey, FBI Director, who was in charge of the investigation into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia, then the White House comes out and says, It's time to put the Russia investigation behind us, and we are expected to believe the two are unrelated?

These guys are not the brightest lights ever to occupy the WH.

Thank you. Was totally wondering why people are involved in an interminable discussion about Sharia law when this sh1t is going on.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-May-10, 10:17, said:

Do you have a problem with national holidays being lined up with religious festivals such as Easter and Christmas? That is a form of the government imposing religion on the people.

Nonsense.

 Zelandakh, on 2017-May-10, 10:17, said:

As for the group having no say in a person leaving, you might want to tell that to former scientologists who have been harassed after leaving. What you say is fine in theory but the practice can end up being quite different.

If organized Scientology harasses people who have left that group, that is first a violation of the NAP and second, illegal under US laws.