>> ^drattus:

We're the most imprisoned nation in the world, both per capita and in raw terms and that's been a fact since the Clinton administration. If the more than a decade long title holder for most imprisoned nation in the world isn't a police state, then exactly what is it?
International Centre for Prison Studies
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php


I agree that the US has a stupidly high imprisonment rate, mostly due to your insane and useless "war on drugs", but at least there is a process. The laws behind it may be retarded, but as a general rule, you aren't living in fear of being snatched off the street by uniformed goons. Hyperbole doesn't really help anyone, and frankly, calling the US a police state is trivialising the struggles of those who live in real oppression (i.e. North Korea, sharia law, etc).

That's not to say you shouldn't complain about injustice in your country, simply that you should call it what it is.

My standard is absolute as well. Any deity that would command it's people to do evil things in the name of order (as opposed to 'good') is evil...

God's old testament law is not about being good, it's about following the rules. Even if the rules are inherently evil (ownership and (mis)treatment of slaves for example).

Your charactisation of your god is as a slave master who demands absolute obedience, not as a loving father protecting his flock... Further, god changes his mind on the punishment and decides suddenly that the one must sacrifice for the all... Sin didn't disappear, but all the drastic measures you claim are needed to combat it sure did. Mebbe he finally woke up to the fact that commanding people to commit atrocities is.. ya know, WRONG... Gee, convenient for those born AD right? X D

How about you SB? If your god commanded it would you stone your child to death for talking back?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html

Yeah, your god is loving and kind... Like Idi Amin or Pol Pot was... If any human did what god ordered back then, we would condemn them.. Sharia law and all that right? Pro tip, if us flawed humans can see that something is morally wrong, how can the almighty not?

>> ^shinyblurry:

The proof that you're not is that you give no regard to the sin itself. You are using a relative standard to judge his crime, whereas God uses an absolute standard. There is no such thing as a minor sin in Gods eyes. God is holy and His standard is moral perfection. Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin.
Neither was the crime itself picking up sticks. The actual crime was rebellion. It is not a minor thing to break Gods law, which the man knew full well he was doing. God punished Him not only for rebellion, but also as a public example to the rest of Israel that His laws were to be taken seriously. You have to remember that the Jews were His chosen people, and that they had entered into a covenant with God willingly. They agreed to follow His laws and adhere to His standards, and His standard was that they would be holy as He is holy. This meant that they would obey His law unceasingly with no exceptions. They also agreed with God that if they did not obey His law, they would incur the penalties He laid out.
I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent.
You say there is no way a loving God would ever do that, to which I reply, that a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm. To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.

no offense taken. true, pat condell has some weird views I completely disagree with but ... the message of this video cannot be ignored: religion fucks up everything if people let it and sharia law is fucking retarded

Hmm. I'm an atheist, but I kinda disagree with them on this one.

It is an elective course. Don't like it, don't take it -- just like they said. And yes, I would say the same thing if it was an elective course about the Quran or Sharia law.

I took an elective "World Religions" class in my public High School. It was very cool -- we talked about comparative numbers of adherents of various religions and non-religious people, regional and national religious trends, religious shifts over time and what caused them, etc. etc. This was in Kansas, so it could easily have been some conservative Christian right-wing nut just trying to push an agenda, but it wasn't. In my opinion, it was interesting and objective.

However, even if it wasn't, it still would have been an elective class. Hell, even in required classes, I had people pushing subjective opinions down my throat as though they were facts. "Shakespeare was the greatest Western writer in history." The best thing that I learned from classes like that was that sometimes opinions differ, and that is OK -- don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

Yes, by all means, let us see what happens next. He'll be back on the streets in no time and the efforts, and cost, of the police operation will count for nought. It pains me to say this, but some aspects of sharia law, at times, seem quite attractive.

Alive again.

ps: nice profile image!

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
*dead

Absolutely. One of the top comments on YouTube was something along the lines of, "Any Christians completely horrified that their scriptures command this? Check out Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Your god commands it too."

Thankfully almost every Christian on the planet is a cafeteria Christian: choosing which parts they like and skipping the parts they don't.
>> ^hpqp:

Such is life under Sharia Law... which is mostly copied from Judaic law (for this particular case, see Deut. 22:28-29).

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

Such is life under Sharia Law... which is mostly copied from Judaic law (for this particular case, see Deut. 22:28-29).

>> ^shinyblurry:

What the administration is not telling you is that total withdrawlal of the troops was not the preferred plan. The plan was to leave a remnant of a few thousand behind to oversee training. But because our negotiaters bungled talks with the Iraqi government and failed to get immunity for the troops, they pulled them all out. Iraq also recently announced that it wouldn't be having any of our bases there either. So basically Iran has taken over, and this fledging democracy, which we completely failed to establish, is going to be overtaken by extermists and brought under sharia law. We are basically symbolically handing over the control of the country to Iran and leaving in shame and disgrace. God help the Iraqi people.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalys
is/Article/589004/201110211900/Politicizing-Our-Exit-From-Iraq.htm


It's funny how imperialism works. The countries we occupy seem to side with the opposition, why is that?

You're correct though, the Iraqi government is kicking us out. Of course we will leave behind thousands of mercenaries and the CIA will have a shadowy presence. And the State department will be hiring 5,500 more security contractors to protect 17,000 civilians working for the American government in Iraq.

Sounds like to me this is the perfect opportunity for the US or Israel to stage an attack by Iran on Iraq or US troops. Remember the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point that was repetitively aired after the recent fake DEA-Saudi bomb plot.

What the administration is not telling you is that total withdrawlal of the troops was not the preferred plan. The plan was to leave a remnant of a few thousand behind to oversee training. But because our negotiaters bungled talks with the Iraqi government and failed to get immunity for the troops, they pulled them all out. Iraq also recently announced that it wouldn't be having any of our bases there either. So basically Iran has taken over, and this fledging democracy, which we completely failed to establish, is going to be overtaken by extermists and brought under sharia law. We are basically symbolically handing over the control of the country to Iran and leaving in shame and disgrace. God help the Iraqi people.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/589004/201110211900/Politicizing-Our-Exit-From-Iraq.htm

Sharia Law comes straight from the "sacrosanct" Judeo-Christian "culture"... it's copy-pasta'd from the OT peoples.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You want to promote Islam? PROVE you're not following the edicts of the warlord muhammed. PROVE your religion as practiced in America is tolerant of other faiths and free of honor killings and sharia law.

How would one go about proving such things? They can swear up and down that they meet whatever requirements you demand and they'll just be called liars.

Every culture "new" to America deserves to be poked and prodded. We have a RIGHT to know who our neighbors are and what they believe. When PC bullsh1t prevails, you get an end run around common sense and build mistrust. You want to promote Islam? PROVE you're not following the edicts of the warlord muhammed. PROVE your religion as practiced in America is tolerant of other faiths and free of honor killings and sharia law.

OK,
so then the question is:

Does Sharia Law Conflict with the US Constitution?
If so, then the rule of the Constitution comes first. (meaning those Sharia laws are forfeit when it comes to continuing the practices of said Sharia law.)

Are there any practices in Christianity that conflicts with the US Constitution?
Then those beliefs should be forfeit in the presence of the Constitution as well.

Should the beliefs of the Muslims spill over into local law, No, and neither should any of the Christian laws. The Constitution comes first, Separation of church and state. Every individual is free to practice their religion publicly and privately as long as they don't break the laws.