So what’s your point? If, say, some Christians decided to start stoning adulterers, why would that be any better or worse than molestations?
Congratulations! You have discovered my point. It is wrong to declare oneself a sworn enemy of an entire religion because of the actions of some extremist assholes.
And the answer to that question would also be a yes. Barbarism is barbarism, no matter the religious trappings involved.
lowbrass, I take your point. A bit of overstatement on my part, to be sure. Let’s amend that to all Islamic countries that enforce Islamic law like this, and anybody who believes that such a law and its enforcement is good, right or proper in any way,
Oh, well I guess it’s o.k. then. :rolleyes:
Okay, so you thought you’d quote me to make that point? Because when I posted
You thought I was saying, well what?
But…
(1) There are plenty of people in the Islamic world—some living under that particular form of Islamic Law, and some not—who disagree that this particular form of Islamic Law is true to the Islamic faith.
Remember, the OP said he was “the sworn enemy of Islam,” but not everyone within Islam, and not even all Islamic leaders, interpret the faith in the way that these particular Saudi justices do.
(2) On the Catholic Church, just where do you draw the line when deciding whether a particular act is “in accordance with…Church law or teaching”?
Sure, you are correct that nothing in the Catholic faith condones pedophilia and sexual assault. But how relevant is that distinction when the leaders of the church—the very people who are supposed to uphold and enforce the Church’s law and teaching—know about such behavior and cover it up or excuse it?
I’m not excusing the radical Muslims described in the OP, nor am i seeking to universally condemn Catholicism, but i think Miller’s comparison was not as irrelevant as some people are suggesting.
Edited to add:
And now that i’ve posted, i see that the OP has modified his stance on Islam to one that i can agree with.
It’s just too taxing to exclude this faction and that faction because this faction doesn’t do the 50 lashes, but this one does, and so on. It’s simply more efficient to hate 'em all.
Seriously though, IMO, a country ruled completely by religion is already a failure. Those lessons were learned too long ago to excuse the stupidity today.
Thanks to mhendo and lowbrass for making my point for me.
Forget Islam. It’s Saudi Arabia that’s fucked up.
The law of conditional implication holds: you can condemn Christianity without condemning Islam as well; but not so the other way around. If you condemn something about Islam, you must include a disclaimer condemning Christianity equally. My memory may fail me, but I don’t recall anyone in the Catholic abuse threads posting anything along the lines of, “What about how Islamic sects treat women!”.
This would be more correct if it read ‘in accordance with the principles of that religion as interpreted by some of its clergy and lawmakers.’
People who claim to have a few IQ points should never think it’s valid to condemn all persons of one group because of the actions of a minority of the people of that group.
How come she was beaded again?
Almost all societies/religions had laws way back when that in current society would be ridiculous, and as a result, removed them from the set of laws. Why did Islam never do this?
Uh, when you quoted me to make this point:
What did you think I was saying?
Question: Is this whipping the work of a few Muslim extremists, to which most of SA objects, or is this being carried out in accordance with Arabian law? The answer might give me a better basis on which to compare it with sexual abuse in the church.
Hmmmm…It’s been my experience that people who condemn all of Christianity for the actions of a few get pretty roundly criticized here as well.
You really aren’t very good at reading for context, are you?
In this country (the US, where the majority of board members post from, including the OP) there is very little blanket anti-Christian sentiment. When a Christian individual or organization does something horrible, it’s generally understood that the individual or organization does not represent Christianity as a whole. When it comes to non-Christian religions, however, there is a tendency towards the sort of sweeping generalization you see in the OP here: a bunch of evil fucks in one particular country carry out their own particular interpretation of Islamic law, and the OP declares himself “an enemy of Islam.” In this context, it’s entirely appropriate to make a comparison to the actions of a Christian group, so as to make the point that it is unfair to judge an entire religion (or all the members thereof) by the actions of a few extremists.
The Roman Catholic Church has never acknowledged wrongdoing in terms of moving known paedophile priests from parish to parish, failing to report known acts of paedophelia and encouraging the suppression of evidence by witnesses, or extending an apology for said acts to victims of convicted paedophile priests. In the case of Father Oliver O’Grady, the Church offered payment, in the form of a revokable annuity, to the priest if he doesn’t disclose actions by the Archdiocese. Given the widespread suppression of evidence and protection of known paedophiles which was only brought forth by investigations that were strongly resisted by Church officials, it is highly likely that efforts to suppress additional information and ongoing paedophile activity continue to occur.
That being said, it’s probably unfair to single out the Catholic Church in particular, since other Christian religious institutions (such as the Angelicans and Luthurans) have also shown indications of the same type of coverups among their ranks.
It may be unfair to smear all followers of Islam for the actions of extremists–one might as readily lay blame on Christians for the same type of acts, both in history and modern times–but even a cursory reading of the Qur’an indicates violent and misogynistic teachings. One can disclaim fundamentalist interpretations of any religion, but in the end if your faith is is based a book which suggests murdering people who don’t believe as you do is a high principle, or that a man who throws his virgin daughters out to a crowd in order to protect a couple of strangers is virtuous…well, I’m pretty suspicious of what the even the “interpreted” tenents of your religion are.
Stranger
What do you mean “Islam”? Islam is the religion. The SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT* enforced this law.
This thread is just dripping with ignorance.
*Who Bush considers our “eternal friends” :rolleyes:
Neither are you, because…
…I was talking about this board, not this country: thus, the reference to “Catholic abuse threads”. (Emphasis not in the original.)
Guess you never cracked open the bible, huh?