http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...w-leader-says-theres-thing-rape-marriage.html No rape in marriage!? Not desirable to force your wife to have sex?! Another good reason not to have religions or idiots making laws.
Jeeebus. The really surprising thing? The date that rape during marriage in the UK became illegal........ 1991. Thats fucking scary
Phil, you came this close (thumb and forefinger very close together) to making a sensible post here then you slipped and made it a generic religion bash. Having followers of sharia make these proclamations about law is a problem. Speaking as a Christian, 99 (and I won't even bother with the many 9's following the decimal) percent of Christians who have made laws regarding marriage wouldn't consider rape within or without marriage acceptable.
And yet sex is defined by western law as the essence of marriage. Think about it - you can annul a marriage if no intercourse has taken place.
To Bock: I don't think his point was that specific, rather just when laws are based on religion, they are more likely to 'hurt' someone.
Probably not and that's why I didn't neg him or really blast him in my comment. He could've been more clear.
You're wrong about there being no rape within marriage. Rape can and does happen within marriage. Rape isn't about sex. It's a violent act and should be punished by the law or with a shotgun if the law won't help.
Didn't say they would have. But there are plenty of dumb Christians wanting to codify other aspects of their belief in law if they were allowed. Which is why I made it a generic point about law and not this issue alone.
Uhhh....not really. Religion and legislation have the shared goal of controlling people's behavior. There are plenty of laws which are on the books in this country which can be traced back to religion, and they're not all, or even mostly, bad. Some of the conclusions made by religion early on were born out of reason, and of keeping order, not necessarily some connection to a "god" (regardless of how those principles were committed to paper). From a secular standpoint, many early religions were simply governments who used the idea of a punitive god in order to make the primitives fall into line. The contemporary problem of having a religion involved in legislation is that religions have as big a desire to retain control as governments, and are, by nature, slower to change, because they're not established to be answerable to the flock. That means when culture evolves, they're still decades, or more, behind the evolution of every other social force around them, and stubbornly clinging to outmoded principles. The problem is theocracies, the likes of which are governed by Sharia law. These people are actually governed by the religion, one which hasn't even arrived in the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first. The difference is that Christians are a lobbying group, and are not the whole of the governing body. And FWIW, there are plenty of dumb anti-theists who have no problem in wanting to curtail freedoms which offend their thin-skinned sensibilities. Plenty of that going around, Phil.
Really? So there are loads of atheists that want to stop people doing things like getting married if they are gay, abortion, using stem-cells in research etc? Several examples of atheists wanting to curtail the freedom to do something?
FTFY. It works both ways. People believe a lot of dumb things whether they're religious, atheist, or agnostic. Yet some of us boil every criticism down to a slam against religion. Don't be so one-track minded. In this case, it's because sharia is wrong. Leave it at that.
I'll play with widdle Phil just for one minute, just stop yer . There are plenty of anti-theists who want to scour any and every bit of reference to religion in view of the public. From a historical standpoint alone, religion had a part in the evolution of the US. You don't have to revere it, or worship it, or even believe in it's tenets, but there's no denying that it played a role. Scouring it just removes a part of history. Funny how you anti-theists are so outraged over any appearance of religion, bearing in mind that you believe that it's all made-up stuff.
Remember, these people are the target of 1984 and the inspiration of "Newspeak" and the "Ministry of Truth".
Is this the no relgious statues displaying the ten commandments on public property type stuff? I can't imagine getting behind any campaign like that but equally compared to something like abortion we aren't exactly talking apples and apples here are we?
Your credibility would be higher if you had also pointed out the stupidity of posts 3 and 4. But you seem ok with them.....
In the interests of full disclosure, I can't actually see what was posted in 4 so I can't comment one way or the other. Since it was Marso and you're making this kind of comment then I probably wouldn't have had a real problem with it, though. On three? You still don't get the point that I've been trying to get through to PGT. This isn't generally about religion. It's about something stupid sharia has done. Just because you have a problem with the subject doesn't mean that it's proof that every topic that comes down is related to your and PGT's pet peeve.
That's true. But posting a news story that doesn't support your conclusion and then not backing down from that faulty conclusion does.
Captian J's post was specifically referring to religion - not Sharia Law. And Marso's post is a picture of ground zero with the caption "Everything I ever need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11 - also regarding religion, not Sharia Law specifically. So, is the topic about religion or is it about Sharia Law?
How can it be about 'what sharia has done' when other proponents of sharia disagree with it? Its just the views of one idiot. You have taken the views of one person and pasted them over an entire section of people. You wouldnt want someone doing that with christianity or religion in general would you?
J's post dealt specifically with Muslims, right? They're the only practitioners of Sharia Law that I know about. So, yeah. It's about Sharia Law.
No. There are a lot of Muslims that currently subscribe to sharia law. There's no one that currently subscribes to the inquisition. Next?
