BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-26-2015, 06:58 PM   #133
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
711
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Well since you brought it up...
  1. Does Tony2009 Law include punishments?
  2. Is it based upon the Koran?
  3. Does it separate church and state?
  4. Does it cover Apostacy (people who leave the faith) with a punishment of stoning?
  5. Does it advocate for neighborhoods where it trumps US law?
  1. No
  2. No
  3. No
  4. No, I don't stone people who disagree with me or who disobey the rules of my domain.
  5. No -- it only trumps U.S. law within the context I described in the post to which you replied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
This from Wikipedias definition:
Most Muslim-majority countries
incorporate sharia at some level in their legal framework, with many calling it the highest law or the source of law of the land in their constitution.[116][117] Most use sharia for personal law (marriage, divorce, domestic violence, child support, family law, inheritance and such matters).[118][119] Elements of sharia are present, to varying extents, in the criminal justice system of many Muslim-majority countries.[12] Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania apply the code predominantly or entirely.[12][120]

Most Muslim-majority countries with sharia-prescribed hudud punishments in their legal code, do not prescribe it routinely and use other punishments instead.[116][121] The harshest sharia penalties such as stoning, beheading and the death penalty are enforced with varying levels of consistency.[122]

Since 1970s, most Muslim-majority countries have faced vociferous demands from their religious groups and political parties for immediate adoption of sharia as the sole, or at least primary legal framework.[123] Some moderates and liberal scholars within these Muslim countries have argued for limited expansion of sharia.[124]

With the growing muslim immigrant communities in Europe, there have been reports in some media of "no-go zones" being established where sharia law reigns supreme.[125][126] However, there is no evidence of the existence of "no-go zones", and these allegations are sourced from anti-immigrant groups falsely equating low-income neighborhoods predominantly inhabited by immigrants as "no-go zones."[127][128]
Red (and the rest too):
Yes, those things are so. Were the context of this discussion oriented around our views on the application of Sharia Law in countries where Muslims are the primary residents, I'd have different thoughts to express. However, Sharia Law and is uses, proscriptions and punishments in countries having Islamic rule isn't the context of the discussion we've been having.

We are talking about Muslims in U.S. Now U.S. Muslims either (1) immigrated to U.S. or (2) were born in U.S. Either way, there is an overarching set of laws -- U.S. civil and criminal codes -- that, when parties are involved in a dispute, either optionally or necessarily takes precedence over all other laws. Whether the parties to a dispute may exercise the option depends on the nature of the alleged infraction. The Muslims who immigrated to U.S. know that U.S. secular law is the highest law in the land, but they also can invoke it or not in certain situations, just as you or I can.

Why is the geographic context relevant? Well, for one thing, the Muslims who've immigrated to U.S. didn't need to leave their home country in the first place*, and they certainly didn't have to choose U.S. as their destination. Many of them are skilled and well educated people who, if they wanted to live under Sharia law, could choose to go to a prosperous Islamic country. But that's not the choice they made. They could also have gone to a country that's heading into a major growth phase of its development and that has a dearth of skilled workers. But that's also not the choice they made. They chose to immigrate to U.S., and when they did so, they were well aware that Sharia Law isn't the law of the land in U.S. So regardless of how those Muslims answer a poll question, the reality is that the respondents are well aware that Sharia Law doesn't supersede secular law in U.S., and the constraints and benefits of that verity is what they signed up for when they decided to emigrate.

* Note:
An exception might be those who arrive as refugees, but even in that case, they are fleeing a system that "doesn't work for them." Accordingly, it makes sense to infer that whatever their thinking of Sharia Law, they aren't entirely satisfied with it as the set of rules that govern their lives. I don't know the proportion of Muslim refugees who receive citizenship relative to the percentage who receive it on other bases. (http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/gree...rd-eligibility and http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/othe...get-green-card)

Green:
The idea that a theist grants primacy to what he considers God's Law should not be unfamiliar to you, even as you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" as much. Some Christians feel the same way about scriptural laws as some Muslims feel about Sharia Law. Consider the KY Clerk who has asserted that God's Law supersedes the Constitution. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08...us-laws-audio/) Regardless of whether one agrees with the Clerk's interpretation of the Bible, one would expect the Clerk to have uniform principles and thus apply God's Law at every opportunity. Does that Clerk deny documents to people who can reasonably be seen or expected to violate any number of other laws in the Bible, or does she "get over it?"

There are certainly other civil proceedings wherein she could stand her ground and cite God's Law, but she doesn't, does she? She has selective principles and practices whereby she makes a judgment call about to which law she'll adhere. Muslims in U.S. are no less capable and willing to make the same judgment call(s) if/when they must. I'm not commenting on the righteousness of having selective principles; I'm simply saying that if the KY Clerk can have them, so too can American Muslims, and they are no more or less able, or right/wrong, to do so.

Blue:
As noted earlier, how Sharia Law is applied in Islamically managed countries, and how individuals in those counties view, desire or oppose its application, has nothing to do with whether those same individuals, were they to become U.S. citizens/residents, view, desire, oppose, advocate for or acquiesce to its application in U.S. Moreover, as the Wiki description indicates, even in Islamically ruled countries, Sharia Law is applied as individuals deem appropriate. The Muslims in those countries exercise judgement and selectivity in applying Sharia Law just as we do here. What that tells us is that Muslims are not at all strangers to the idea of using judgment to apply laws and mete out punishments.

Purple:
Just an observation....What a non-sequitor paragraph for a writer to have placed immediately following the one you've shown before it. Did you "cut and paste" the content you opted to share from Wiki, or is that literally how those paragraphs appear? The explicit and implicit points of the fourth paragraph have nothing to do with the ones before. At best, they are connected only by their both mentioning Sharia Law. Birds and flying fish both have wings and can fly, but short of that they have little correspondence between them.

I am not blaming you for the oddity. I'm merely observing that the thoughts expressed in the two final paragraphs have no natural correlation to each other; there's a lot of "ground" between the ending and overall thoughts in the third paragraph and the thoughts found in the fourth one. It's rare that I see such abrupt transitions and disparate topics adjacent to one another (with no "warning" in between) in Wiki essays.

Conclusion:
Why is it that you tacitly deny the parallels between adherents of Christianity and those of Islam? Why do Muslim's expressions of their views re: Sharia Law disconcert you, yet the same expressions with regard to Biblical laws do not? Why do you tacitly assert that Muslims are incapable of the same sorts of judgmental and situational reasoning that Christians are? Why do you recognize that Christian extremist groups are the minority, yet fail to make the same recognition with regard to Muslims, instead viewing substantively all Muslims as being identical in all meaningful respects to the bellicose ones that are most often depicted on the nightly news? Has it occurred to you that with the glaring gaps in your expressed rationales, you paint yourself as a chauvinist?

Sincerely yours.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2015, 11:47 AM   #134
bbbbmw
Major General
2376
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Well since you brought it up...
  1. Does Tony2009 Law include punishments?
  2. Is it based upon the Koran?
  3. Does it separate church and state?
  4. Does it cover Apostacy (people who leave the faith) with a punishment of stoning?
  5. Does it advocate for neighborhoods where it trumps US law?
  1. No
  2. No
  3. No
  4. No, I don't stone people who disagree with me or who disobey the rules of my domain.
  5. No -- it only trumps U.S. law within the context I described in the post to which you replied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
This from Wikipedias definition:
Most Muslim-majority countries
incorporate sharia at some level in their legal framework, with many calling it the highest law or the source of law of the land in their constitution.[116][117] Most use sharia for personal law (marriage, divorce, domestic violence, child support, family law, inheritance and such matters).[118][119] Elements of sharia are present, to varying extents, in the criminal justice system of many Muslim-majority countries.[12] Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania apply the code predominantly or entirely.[12][120]

Most Muslim-majority countries with sharia-prescribed hudud punishments in their legal code, do not prescribe it routinely and use other punishments instead.[116][121] The harshest sharia penalties such as stoning, beheading and the death penalty are enforced with varying levels of consistency.[122]

Since 1970s, most Muslim-majority countries have faced vociferous demands from their religious groups and political parties for immediate adoption of sharia as the sole, or at least primary legal framework.[123] Some moderates and liberal scholars within these Muslim countries have argued for limited expansion of sharia.[124]

With the growing muslim immigrant communities in Europe, there have been reports in some media of "no-go zones" being established where sharia law reigns supreme.[125][126] However, there is no evidence of the existence of "no-go zones", and these allegations are sourced from anti-immigrant groups falsely equating low-income neighborhoods predominantly inhabited by immigrants as "no-go zones."[127][128]
Red (and the rest too):
Yes, those things are so. Were the context of this discussion oriented around our views on the application of Sharia Law in countries where Muslims are the primary residents, I'd have different thoughts to express. However, Sharia Law and is uses, proscriptions and punishments in countries having Islamic rule isn't the context of the discussion we've been having.

We are talking about Muslims in U.S. Now U.S. Muslims either (1) immigrated to U.S. or (2) were born in U.S. Either way, there is an overarching set of laws -- U.S. civil and criminal codes -- that, when parties are involved in a dispute, either optionally or necessarily takes precedence over all other laws. Whether the parties to a dispute may exercise the option depends on the nature of the alleged infraction. The Muslims who immigrated to U.S. know that U.S. secular law is the highest law in the land, but they also can invoke it or not in certain situations, just as you or I can.

Why is the geographic context relevant? Well, for one thing, the Muslims who've immigrated to U.S. didn't need to leave their home country in the first place*, and they certainly didn't have to choose U.S. as their destination. Many of them are skilled and well educated people who, if they wanted to live under Sharia law, could choose to go to a prosperous Islamic country. But that's not the choice they made. They could also have gone to a country that's heading into a major growth phase of its development and that has a dearth of skilled workers. But that's also not the choice they made. They chose to immigrate to U.S., and when they did so, they were well aware that Sharia Law isn't the law of the land in U.S. So regardless of how those Muslims answer a poll question, the reality is that the respondents are well aware that Sharia Law doesn't supersede secular law in U.S., and the constraints and benefits of that verity is what they signed up for when they decided to emigrate.

* Note:
An exception might be those who arrive as refugees, but even in that case, they are fleeing a system that "doesn't work for them." Accordingly, it makes sense to infer that whatever their thinking of Sharia Law, they aren't entirely satisfied with it as the set of rules that govern their lives. I don't know the proportion of Muslim refugees who receive citizenship relative to the percentage who receive it on other bases. (http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/gree...rd-eligibility and http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/othe...get-green-card)

Green:
The idea that a theist grants primacy to what he considers God's Law should not be unfamiliar to you, even as you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" as much. Some Christians feel the same way about scriptural laws as some Muslims feel about Sharia Law. Consider the KY Clerk who has asserted that God's Law supersedes the Constitution. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08...us-laws-audio/) Regardless of whether one agrees with the Clerk's interpretation of the Bible, one would expect the Clerk to have uniform principles and thus apply God's Law at every opportunity. Does that Clerk deny documents to people who can reasonably be seen or expected to violate any number of other laws in the Bible, or does she "get over it?"

There are certainly other civil proceedings wherein she could stand her ground and cite God's Law, but she doesn't, does she? She has selective principles and practices whereby she makes a judgment call about to which law she'll adhere. Muslims in U.S. are no less capable and willing to make the same judgment call(s) if/when they must. I'm not commenting on the righteousness of having selective principles; I'm simply saying that if the KY Clerk can have them, so too can American Muslims, and they are no more or less able, or right/wrong, to do so.

Blue:
As noted earlier, how Sharia Law is applied in Islamically managed countries, and how individuals in those counties view, desire or oppose its application, has nothing to do with whether those same individuals, were they to become U.S. citizens/residents, view, desire, oppose, advocate for or acquiesce to its application in U.S. Moreover, as the Wiki description indicates, even in Islamically ruled countries, Sharia Law is applied as individuals deem appropriate. The Muslims in those countries exercise judgement and selectivity in applying Sharia Law just as we do here. What that tells us is that Muslims are not at all strangers to the idea of using judgment to apply laws and mete out punishments.

Purple:
Just an observation....What a non-sequitor paragraph for a writer to have placed immediately following the one you've shown before it. Did you "cut and paste" the content you opted to share from Wiki, or is that literally how those paragraphs appear? The explicit and implicit points of the fourth paragraph have nothing to do with the ones before. At best, they are connected only by their both mentioning Sharia Law. Birds and flying fish both have wings and can fly, but short of that they have little correspondence between them.

I am not blaming you for the oddity. I'm merely observing that the thoughts expressed in the two final paragraphs have no natural correlation to each other; there's a lot of "ground" between the ending and overall thoughts in the third paragraph and the thoughts found in the fourth one. It's rare that I see such abrupt transitions and disparate topics adjacent to one another (with no "warning" in between) in Wiki essays.

Conclusion:
Why is it that you tacitly deny the parallels between adherents of Christianity and those of Islam? Why do Muslim's expressions of their views re: Sharia Law disconcert you, yet the same expressions with regard to Biblical laws do not? Why do you tacitly assert that Muslims are incapable of the same sorts of judgmental and situational reasoning that Christians are? Why do you recognize that Christian extremist groups are the minority, yet fail to make the same recognition with regard to Muslims, instead viewing substantively all Muslims as being identical in all meaningful respects to the bellicose ones that are most often depicted on the nightly news? Has it occurred to you that with the glaring gaps in your expressed rationales, you paint yourself as a chauvinist?

Sincerely yours.
As discussed earlier (and was Bill Maher's point last year), some 80+% of Muslims in Egypt, etc. feel it's appropriate to put people to death who decide to leave Islamic faith. 50%+ of American Muslims want to see Sharia law in the US. you keep defending, dodging, distracting, diverting, and trying to paint it "similar the Christianity, when it's clearly, absolutely not. Oh - and you keep bloviating. Drop the mic - please - your voice-to-text software is painful. This is an online forum - not your personal stage.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2015, 10:45 AM   #135
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
8845
Rep
7,923
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Applying Sharia law as the law of the land could be seen as fundamentally as problematic as applying Napoleonic law instead of what is in place here now. It's not so much that it is religious-based, as fundamentally different in nature. A large group of immigrants advocating for the change to Napoleonic law SHOULD give rise to equal levels of fear by those who choose to live in America.
Appreciate 0
      09-29-2015, 12:34 PM   #136
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
711
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
As discussed earlier (and was Bill Maher's point last year), some 80+% of Muslims in Egypt, etc. feel it's appropriate to put people to death who decide to leave Islamic faith. 50%+ of American Muslims want to see Sharia law in the US. you keep defending, dodging, distracting, diverting, and trying to paint it "similar [to] Christianity, when it's clearly, absolutely not. Oh - and you keep bloviating. Drop the mic - please - your voice-to-text software is painful. This is an online forum - not your personal stage.
Red:
How damned myopic and illogical are the ideas and lines of thought you are committed to holding?
  • Is it really that hard for you to see that what 80% of Muslims in Egypt, etc., countries governed entirely, in all aspects of life, by Islamic Law (Sharia Law), think is appropriate does not at all indicate that Muslims in America, a country not at all governed by Sharia Law, believe the apostasy provisions of Sharia Law should be applied to them or other Muslims in Amereica?
  • Has it occurred to you that in some countries that are governed by Islamic Law, apostasy is sometimes seen as treason because the church and state are not politically separate; thus the context associated with apostasy is not as all as singularly focused, as cut and dried, as it is from yours and my view of merely renouncing our religious beliefs?
  • Does it occur to you that you are illogically and without basis inferring that, by answering that they favor using Sharia Law, American Muslims necessarily mean that they favor applying Sharia's apostasy penalties? Yet there is no question in the survey that asks whether they favor apply Sharia in its entirety. There is no question asking American Muslims if they agree with Sharia Law's provisions re: apostasy.
  • Are you aware that even as Egyptian Muslims assert that they believe Sharia Law should be applied, not every person who makes that claim means that they believe every provision of Sharia Law should be applied without exception, or even at all? (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreli...ey-say-sharia/)
    • Is it possible that American Muslims, though they favor Sharia Law, may not favor applying every provision of Sharia Law in every case where a given provision may conceivably be applied?
    • It is at all reasonable to think that American Muslims may take exception with one or more Sharia Law proscriptions, guidelines and penalties, even though there are many provisions with which they do not take exception?
  • Does it occur to you that there are entire countries that are predominantly Muslim and that apply Sharia Law and the Muslims in those nations do not favor death as the penalty for apostasy?
Do you now see just how ridiculous it is that you even mentioned Egypt, to say nothing of making an inference about what American Muslims believe/want re: a single provision of Sharia Law that (1) wasn't even addressed in the CSP survey to which they responded, and (2) that is based upon what non-American Muslims want in their own countries? Although you undeniably have made the inference you made regarding what American Muslims think about Sharia's apostasy provisions, it quite simply is not a valid one; there is nothing in the survey to support it.

Moreover, you cited Egypt (God only knows why) and yet a simple look would have told you that there are more twice as many Muslims in Indonesia -- a country that is only 8 percent "less Muslim" than Egypt -- who disapprove of "death for apostasy" than there are Muslims in the whole of Egypt.
Green:
The point of my raising Christianity and Christians in my earlier post was to point out the hypocrisy of even mentioning the Sharia provision re: apostasy. I thought that as a non-Muslim monotheist, you'd be aware that in fact the Bible also stipulates death for the sin of apostasy.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
- Deuteronomy 13:6-18
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
- Romans 1:20-32
As good Christians, should we follow Paul's recommendation?

The hypocrisy of many Christians, many American Christians in this context, is not limited to the Bible's instructions re: apostasy. Consider Jesus' comments regarding one of the Ten Commandments.
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
- Matthew 15:1-9
Now one may think that Jesus promulgated a new law, but as is shown in the passage above, Jesus praised the Old Testament Law and He stipulated that both his and the New Law be followed.

The point of citing those Bible passages is to say that if you are going to correlate Muslim-ness and Sharia Law, you'd best check to see if the exact same correlation can or cannot also be made of Christians and Bible Law. You deride, debase and slander insolently Muslims for wanting to adhere to their law and be what constitutes in their mind "good Muslims," yet you fail to recognize that if one is to follow the Bible and be a "good Christian," at least on the matter of apostasy, one should have no different view, not about apostasy itself or about the supremacy of Biblical Law over secular law. This even as you deign in your arrogant hypocrisy to ignore that, just as plenty of Christians and Jews can and do ignore the Bible's pronouncements regarding apostasy, so can and do plenty of Muslims, not the least of which I pointed out number over 200 million of them

Blue:
Is this the Bill Maher video to which you referred?



If it is, I have to give you credit for being able to find any discussion and take it out of context and attempt to use it to support a point you want to make.

Other:
You gripe about the fact that some of my posts are long. God only knows why because you barely read them, and even there you only see the words; you don't actually grasp what they mean collectively. I don't ever not read one or several post and then comment on the post overall. I will at least caveat my comments by admitting that I didn't read "this or that" portion of it.

In contrast, I'm griping about the fact that you writing very little; moreover, none of it is contextually relevant to the topic at hand. I'm griping about the fact that you make invalid inferences. I'm griping about the fact that you have the temerity to deride me for taking the time to craft reasonably complete arguments when you have shown neither the inkling nor ability to do so, instead peppering the discussion with unsubstantiated assertions and slanted sources that offer only biased points of view.

Do you think for you could actually bother to present a set of on-point facts, rather than the stated opinions of other people, share your analysis of those facts, and develop your own, original argument that makes a strong and logical case for the conclusion that results from your analysis? If you think you can, why don't you?

If were interested in Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, George Will, or any othe public figure's opinion, we wouldn't need to come to this forum; we can watch their TV shows, listen to their radio shows, read their editorials, and online videos. The point of being here is to share and discuss, perhaps even for some people to develop, one's own views, not merely parrot those of one's favorite so-called pundit. It may be that you and I have arrived at the same conclusions as public pundits on certain points, but I'm not keen to hear or see you express your thoughts about it in exactly the same way, using the same approach and bases of support as those figures do.

I'm interested in seeing the original ideas and robust arguments of other critical thinkers. Now if you haven't any such ideas or arguments, that's fine, but don't lambaste me for being such a person and having explored various topics, having thought about them and sharing them. That is after all what a forum is for.


Sincerely yours.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 1
      09-29-2015, 09:28 PM   #137
bbbbmw
Major General
2376
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
As discussed earlier (and was Bill Maher's point last year), some 80+% of Muslims in Egypt, etc. feel it's appropriate to put people to death who decide to leave Islamic faith. 50%+ of American Muslims want to see Sharia law in the US. you keep defending, dodging, distracting, diverting, and trying to paint it "similar [to] Christianity, when it's clearly, absolutely not. Oh - and you keep bloviating. Drop the mic - please - your voice-to-text software is painful. This is an online forum - not your personal stage.
Red:
How damned myopic and illogical are the ideas and lines of thought you are committed to holding?
  • Is it really that hard for you to see that what 80% of Muslims in Egypt, etc., countries governed entirely, in all aspects of life, by Islamic Law (Sharia Law), think is appropriate does not at all indicate that Muslims in America, a country not at all governed by Sharia Law, believe the apostasy provisions of Sharia Law should be applied to them or other Muslims in Amereica?
  • Has it occurred to you that in some countries that are governed by Islamic Law, apostasy is sometimes seen as treason because the church and state are not politically separate; thus the context associated with apostasy is not as all as singularly focused, as cut and dried, as it is from yours and my view of merely renouncing our religious beliefs?
  • Does it occur to you that you are illogically and without basis inferring that, by answering that they favor using Sharia Law, American Muslims necessarily mean that they favor applying Sharia's apostasy penalties? Yet there is no question in the survey that asks whether they favor apply Sharia in its entirety. There is no question asking American Muslims if they agree with Sharia Law's provisions re: apostasy.
  • Are you aware that even as Egyptian Muslims assert that they believe Sharia Law should be applied, not every person who makes that claim means that they believe every provision of Sharia Law should be applied without exception, or even at all? (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreli...ey-say-sharia/)
    • Is it possible that American Muslims, though they favor Sharia Law, may not favor applying every provision of Sharia Law in every case where a given provision may conceivably be applied?
    • It is at all reasonable to think that American Muslims may take exception with one or more Sharia Law proscriptions, guidelines and penalties, even though there are many provisions with which they do not take exception?
  • Does it occur to you that there are entire countries that are predominantly Muslim and that apply Sharia Law and the Muslims in those nations do not favor death as the penalty for apostasy?
Do you now see just how ridiculous it is that you even mentioned Egypt, to say nothing of making an inference about what American Muslims believe/want re: a single provision of Sharia Law that (1) wasn't even addressed in the CSP survey to which they responded, and (2) that is based upon what non-American Muslims want in their own countries? Although you undeniably have made the inference you made regarding what American Muslims think about Sharia's apostasy provisions, it quite simply is not a valid one; there is nothing in the survey to support it.

Moreover, you cited Egypt (God only knows why) and yet a simple look would have told you that there are more twice as many Muslims in Indonesia -- a country that is only 8 percent "less Muslim" than Egypt -- who disapprove of "death for apostasy" than there are Muslims in the whole of Egypt.
Green:
The point of my raising Christianity and Christians in my earlier post was to point out the hypocrisy of even mentioning the Sharia provision re: apostasy. I thought that as a non-Muslim monotheist, you'd be aware that in fact the Bible also stipulates death for the sin of apostasy.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
- Deuteronomy 13:6-18
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
- Romans 1:20-32
As good Christians, should we follow Paul's recommendation?

The hypocrisy of many Christians, many American Christians in this context, is not limited to the Bible's instructions re: apostasy. Consider Jesus' comments regarding one of the Ten Commandments.
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
- Matthew 15:1-9
Now one may think that Jesus promulgated a new law, but as is shown in the passage above, Jesus praised the Old Testament Law and He stipulated that both his and the New Law be followed.

The point of citing those Bible passages is to say that if you are going to correlate Muslim-ness and Sharia Law, you'd best check to see if the exact same correlation can or cannot also be made of Christians and Bible Law. You deride, debase and slander insolently Muslims for wanting to adhere to their law and be what constitutes in their mind "good Muslims," yet you fail to recognize that if one is to follow the Bible and be a "good Christian," at least on the matter of apostasy, one should have no different view, not about apostasy itself or about the supremacy of Biblical Law over secular law. This even as you deign in your arrogant hypocrisy to ignore that, just as plenty of Christians and Jews can and do ignore the Bible's pronouncements regarding apostasy, so can and do plenty of Muslims, not the least of which I pointed out number over 200 million of them

Blue:
Is this the Bill Maher video to which you referred?



If it is, I have to give you credit for being able to find any discussion and take it out of context and attempt to use it to support a point you want to make.

Other:
You gripe about the fact that some of my posts are long. God only knows why because you barely read them, and even there you only see the words; you don't actually grasp what they mean collectively. I don't ever not read one or several post and then comment on the post overall. I will at least caveat my comments by admitting that I didn't read "this or that" portion of it.

In contrast, I'm griping about the fact that you writing very little; moreover, none of it is contextually relevant to the topic at hand. I'm griping about the fact that you make invalid inferences. I'm griping about the fact that you have the temerity to deride me for taking the time to craft reasonably complete arguments when you have shown neither the inkling nor ability to do so, instead peppering the discussion with unsubstantiated assertions and slanted sources that offer only biased points of view.

Do you think for you could actually bother to present a set of on-point facts, rather than the stated opinions of other people, share your analysis of those facts, and develop your own, original argument that makes a strong and logical case for the conclusion that results from your analysis? If you think you can, why don't you?

If were interested in Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, George Will, or any othe public figure's opinion, we wouldn't need to come to this forum; we can watch their TV shows, listen to their radio shows, read their editorials, and online videos. The point of being here is to share and discuss, perhaps even for some people to develop, one's own views, not merely parrot those of one's favorite so-called pundit. It may be that you and I have arrived at the same conclusions as public pundits on certain points, but I'm not keen to hear or see you express your thoughts about it in exactly the same way, using the same approach and bases of support as those figures do.

I'm interested in seeing the original ideas and robust arguments of other critical thinkers. Now if you haven't any such ideas or arguments, that's fine, but don't lambaste me for being such a person and having explored various topics, having thought about them and sharing them. That is after all what a forum is for.


Sincerely yours.
I actually read your entire speech!

You talk about how the survey didn't ask the questions, and you postulate that the Muslim respondents may not have intended (fill in the blank), but you don't know their answers any more than anyone else.

You also handily mis-interpret Christian scripture (Paul was speaking of deserving a spiritual death - not a physical one, much less at the hands of someone else).

There were several bloviation triggers in your speech - like "temerity." You may want to notify your speechwriter.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      10-03-2015, 03:52 PM   #138
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
711
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I actually read your entire speech!

You talk about how the survey didn't ask the questions, and you postulate that the Muslim respondents may not have intended (fill in the blank), but you don't know their answers any more than anyone else.

You also handily mis-interpret Christian scripture (Paul was speaking of deserving a spiritual death - not a physical one, much less at the hands of someone else).

There were several bloviation triggers in your speech - like "temerity." You may want to notify your speechwriter.
Purple:
Did you? Your reply doesn't suggest you did. Someone seeking to make a cogent rebuttal would have cited any number of alternative passages from the Bible to make their case. They would also have at least answered the simple "yes or no" question about whether I identified the correct Bill Maher video. Moreover, were there integrity in their comment to begin with, they'd have in the first place provided a reference to the video they cited.

Orange:
Has it occurred to you that "misinterpret" doesn't require a hyphen? Any spell checker would have caught that.

Blue:
??? What about the syntax of "deserve death" even remotely suggests that Paul meant spiritual death? One's spirit is one's soul. One's soul either lives on, enjoys everlasting life, thus alive, or it cannot, cannot because it is, well, dead. That will happen, according to Christian dogma, owing to one's beliefs and acts, no matter whether anyone, including Paul, thinks one's soul, spirit, deserves it or not. Spiritual death isn't something that humans can make happen other than unto themselves as individuals.

Moreover, given that Paul's epistle was directed to Christians, what would be the point of referring to a spiritual death being something apostates "deserved" when they were already of the mind that non-believers were spiritually "dead" merely by dint of not believing? The whole point of condemning apostates to death, is IMO, a largely a political thing, no matter what faith mandates it. Christianity's history of putting apostates to death even predates the very creation of Islam.
Where people had been forcibly converted to Christianity, they often secretly continued to practise their original faith. To Christian eyes this constituted abandoning the Christian Church, and was thus constituted apostasy. Despite the risks, pockets of people throughout Christendom secretly managed to hang on to their original religions for many centuries, even though they must have known that they were likely to be killed if the Church authorities found out. Well into the Middle Ages remote European communities were still worshipping the gods of their Celtic and Teutonic ancestors in private. In public, everyone was obliged to subscribe the current version of Christian orthodoxy.

Christian authorities had to keep a close watch on other categories of potential defector, since Christians were frequently converted to other religions if they had the opportunity to find out about them. This type of apostasy was common on Christendom's territorial borders where ideas were freely exchanged, but rare in the hinterland where ideas were firmly controlled. Christians who travelled beyond Europe were at risk from new ideas, and the Church has long been embarrassed by the fact that many Crusaders, fired by Christian zeal to kill God's Moslem enemies, had ended their lives as Moslems, killing God's Christian enemies.

http://www.heretication.info/_atheists.html

As I indicated before (and provided references to support it), Islamic states are governed by the tenets of their religion, not by secular laws. As far as I know, there do not exist any states that are governed by Christian law, other than Vatican City, and with its population of ~500 people most of whom are employed and ordained into the Catholic church, I doubt apostasy is a concern. The secular equivalent of apostasy, however, is treason, and death is most certainly a punishment for that crime. (Saeed, Abdullah; Hassan Saeed (2004). Freedom of religion, apostasy and Islam. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 85. and Saeed, Abdullah (2005). "Ridda and the case for decriminalization of apostasy". The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia. Oliver Leaman et al. (eds.) (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 551.) (And I provided book references this time because there's no point in providing you with web links; you don't read there content there even when I do. Perhaps you'll bother instead to pick up a book?)

On this matter, as with damn near everything you've shared in this sub-forum, you quite simply fail to consider context before you make your puerile statements. So, what it, do you respect other nations' right to choose their own approach to sovereignty or don't you? What business or concern of yours is it how another nation deals with sedition, apostasy and treason? Who gives you the right to declare that their methods are wrong in those countries? So you see, the sh*t you share here shows us that you are neither a good scholar, good Christian, or even good American.

Notwithstanding whether one construes Paul as meaning physical or spiritual death, there is no mistaking what Matthew tells us Jesus said about dishonoring one's parents. "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." It is obvious that in our time as in Jesus' time, there are plenty of so-called Christians who are hypocrites who "nullify the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition, so-called Christians who "honor [Him] with their lips, but their hearts are far from [Him].

Red:
Why should I fill in the blank? It's obvious that you do not understand the point of the comments I made in red. And frankly, I'm not going to tell you what it is because I now have confirmation of the veracity of my supposition that I'm trying to have a discussion with a mental midget. I don't engage people in intellectual battles when it's obvious they are unarmed, but neither do I partake in simple discussions with fools. You do not need to reply, for I will not read your comments. I am done responding to you for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,
Tony20009
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 1
      10-04-2015, 04:24 PM   #139
bbbbmw
Major General
2376
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Purple:
I am done responding to you for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,
Tony20009
Promise?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2015, 03:23 PM   #140
montegokid94
Banned
32
Rep
266
Posts

Drives: 4 wheels
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Everywhere

iTrader: (9)

Tony20009 singlehandedly shut down all the inbreds with well thought out posts, links, statistics, etc.
Appreciate 0
      10-15-2015, 08:43 PM   #141
bbbbmw
Major General
2376
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by montegokid94
Tony20009 singlehandedly shut down all the inbreds with well thought out posts, links, statistics, etc.
I failed at that: You're still posting.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2015, 11:43 AM   #142
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
7862
Rep
13,394
Posts

Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

And here it is. 15 million dollar lawsuit.
15,000,000.00

http://irvingblog.dallasnews.com/201...er-clock.html/
__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 AM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST