UM. THere is NO WAY SHARIA LAW CAN TAKE EFFECT IN A COUNTRY THAT ALREADY HAS RULE OF LAW! It can't, if you think it can, you need to submit yourself for psychiatric assistance. THe UK is NOT a muslim country and isn't a theocracy. If anything, we added to sharia law in the mid-east by kicking Saddam out! He was SECULAR and not Islamic fundamentalist. In fact, Al Qaida was a banned group in Iraq, until of course we allow Saddam to be killed (like Al Qaeda had planned to do anyway). Not that Saddam was a great guy, but lord knows, the US prefers dictatorships to democratic elections (even at home). If you people are actually thinking Muslims are gonna take over, please, PLEASE read a book without Glenn Beck on the cover!

>> ^Xaielao:

>> ^dag:
This is the face of the New Right. Sharia law for Jesustan.

How accurate you are. The extreme right wing that lords over the republican party believes exactly this. They can pretend to themselves and others that they don't. But deep down they do, and they know it.


They do not Lord over the Republican party. They're in there but anyone looking at the policies actually pursued by the Republicans it's quite obvious they're not controlled by the Christian Right. If anything the Republicans control them for a voting block.

>> ^dag:

This is the face of the New Right. Sharia law for Jesustan.


How accurate you are. The extreme right wing that lords over the republican party believes exactly this. They can pretend to themselves and others that they don't. But deep down they do, and they know it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is the face of the New Right. Sharia law for Jesustan.

You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

As for the population statistics, yeah, those need sources.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know. There are other places in the world where there is a similar struggle brewing because the Muslims are setting up Sharia law over the protests over the native population. It's just not right for anybody to do such a thing.

Wall of text warning. No tl;dr. Learn to read dammit (see what I did there?).

@quantumushroom

Unusual post from you there qm. But again you miss the point (what did you expect?).

First off, religion necessarily has an effect on society otherwise no one would care if you adhered or not (i.e. there would be no religious wars, no religious-based hatred etc.). The problem is not that religion enhances your sense of well-being, it's that as a consequence (or side effect if you will) you close yourself off from people of a different religion and from contrary opinions on many different matters: you trade freedom of thought for psychological safety and by doing that you deserve neither. Now, if you're a "religious scientist" type then your either not really religious or not really a scientist. Compartmentalization can only get you so far.

Second, wtf does any of this has to do with liberalism? Your tangent does not intersect my argument at any point. I bet you can't derive for shit. Do you even know what derivation is?

Third, atheism is neutral. Atheism is to theism as amoralism is to moralism. The antonym to moral is not amoral but immoral. In the same way, the antonym to theism is non-theism. A non-theist can be religious, he simply does not believe in a deity or deities. Atheism was a term invented by theists to vilify non-theist and polytheists. It has been adopted by non-religious people like "nigger" has been adopted by African-Americans, as a way of empowerment. It encompasses many views, most of them non-religious. It does not mean atheists cannot suffer from the same delusions as religious people, only that they are less likely because by identifying and refusing to accept the kind of bad thinking that goes on in religious circles, they have inoculated themselves to a point.

Fourth, on the contrary one could say that there have never been a religion without a state. Every religion needs a vector of power to affirm its authority and convert others. The Jews in Pharaonic Egypt formed a state within a state, electing their own leaders and applying the laws of Abraham to their brethren, much like Muslims try to do in western countries by following sharia law and even trying to make it official. I would go so far as to say that religion is the prototype of the state. Look at Buddhism. Not a year after the Buddha died and already sects formed and tried to control the movement he started. The conflicts may not have been overtly violent, but they were power struggles and as such quite far from the detachment from worldly matters taught by the Buddha. All prophets are dictators. Their intentions may be good, but it will always turn sour when they're gone as they, and not their god or teachings, are really what unify their followers. The continuation depends not on the person or the teachings but on the institutions that they or their successors build, just like a state. You could see what I mean if you had read the Leviathan of Hobbes (that's not what he says, but the parallels he makes and his insistence that religion is necessary for the state's well-being goes in this direction). This, to me, argues for anarchism but of course with people like quantumushroom - not to mention the potential for greed and cruelty still in all of us - I would have to say we are not ripe for it just yet. It may well be that a great part of the population will need to be forced to become atheists just to live among an atheist society comfortably, like atheists were once forced to recant their views in religious societies. While it would mean some psychological violence, as long as we stay in a democratic state it would not do more damage than what religion does now and I believe it would benefit humankind in the long run.

@Gallowflak

Nowhere did I say atheists were more rational than the religious. In fact, most rationalists (like Descartes) are religious for various reasons, one which I will explore below. I said that atheists are more reasonable and detached in their understanding of the world. Now, while "reasonable" comes from "reason" it does not mean here that a reasonable person uses more reason than another. It means that a person is more sensible than another. For example, there are no empirically verifiable evidence of a god or gods. Any religious person not mentally ill will agree. They may argue for the acceptance of anecdotal evidence or of natural phenomena as "acts of God", but just saying something doesn't make it so and anecdotal evidence is not verifiable/repeatable by a third-party and thus of very little value. So there doesn't seem to be any evidence for deities, even Pascal admitted that fact in the frickin 17th century, that's why he had to make a wager with non-believers: he tried to say that by betting on an infinite reward you cannot lose (many think that Pascal says the odds are infinite, but that would be empirical. Pascal says that since god is presumably infinite, and that you presumably gain this infinity when you die, you should take the bet since by doing so you lose nothing in this life. Of course the last part I think is false, also the dying part. Only the "god is infinite" has any kind of weight and it is very light). Of course he didn't really understand mathematical infinity and thus didn't realize that doing so meant you only had an infinitesimal chance of winning in return.

Digression aside, this means that the natural state of a rational being would be non-theistic. Only non-rational belief (based on logical fallacies or the sentiment of faith) or logical arguments based on non-empirical premises can lead to the existence of a god as part of one's thinking. Thus, while not necessarily non-rational, religious thinking most of the time is. In other cases, when dubious premises are used, we would say that the conclusions are not reasonable, meaning that they do not agree with our raw, unfiltered experiences of the world. This is exactly why many religious persons and theists resort to rationalism, as it lets them bypass primary experience in order to define god a priori as the creator of our experiences by some logical argument with dubious premises. Of course this comes from an empiric viewpoint, but then again rationalists don't have a monopoly on reason even though they let us empiricists have a monopoly on experience: that's where the Kantians enter, but that's a story for another time I'm afraid.

I don't get how "choice" vs. "born that way" is relevant?

If it's a choice... then you're saying people should be legally prevented from following a life style of choice. Which is to say removing a freedom based on legally enforcing a single religion.
--> Sharia Law (the Christian version) ... Gasp the Terrorists have won!!!

if it's "Born that way"... then Gays can't help it... but being Christian is a "choice".
--> So you can Choose to be less Christian then!
(Conselling will be available to help remove your urges to pray)

Oh Gretchen... Jon Stewart's bowel movements are more of a journalist or "newsman" than you... But then again, so are mine. Anyone's bowel movements are better journalists than you and your pathetic group of "friends".

On the other hand, that thing about the fatwa is true... Cat Stevens can go fuck himself and his moronic religious beliefs. For me that was a huge stain on the whole event. How can they talk about sanity, and invite someone who would defend Sharia Law?

>> ^Jinx:

Man, that Sharia Law bullshit keeps getting referenced without people really knowing the facts. Research it please, and that means going further than the Daily Mail I'm afraid.
Ok, lets get some actual stats up in this.
Christian - 41,000,000 - 71%
Muslim - 1,600,000 - 3%
No Religion - 8,500,000 - 15%
Why is Mohammed the most popular name? Probably because it accounts for a very large percentage of those 1.6 million. The rest of us Brits make names up, steal names from other cultures and generally aren't naming our kids as traditionally. Consequently no one name trumps Mohammed. So is Maher racist for his remarks? No, just horrible misinformed. I expected better.
Oh, and of those 71% Christians I expect the vast majority are basically agnostic or deist. As for seperation of Church and State...well it might be in your constitution but I think we do it more justice. Some irony huh.


I'm amazed that someone as informed as Maher would make such a stupid mistake in logic and such ridiculous remarks. There is no threat of a Muslim majority rising up in any EU nation. Yes their birthrates are higher than the national average but it has been decreasing as more Muslims get assimilated into society.

Sadly a lot of Europeans share the same ridiculous ideas as Maher and this has led to an alarming rise in fear and bad sentiment towards Muslims.

Newsweek: Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong
"There is no Europewide data available, but one study says fertility rates among Turkish-born women in the Netherlands fell from 3.2 in 1990 to 1.9 in 2005, barely above the figure for native-born Dutch."

Man, that Sharia Law bullshit keeps getting referenced without people really knowing the facts. Research it please, and that means going further than the Daily Mail I'm afraid.

Ok, lets get some actual stats up in this.
Christian - 41,000,000 - 71%
Muslim - 1,600,000 - 3%
No Religion - 8,500,000 - 15%

Why is Mohammed the most popular name? Probably because it accounts for a very large percentage of those 1.6 million. The rest of us Brits make names up, steal names from other cultures and generally aren't naming our kids as traditionally. Consequently no one name trumps Mohammed. So is Maher racist for his remarks? No, just horrible misinformed. I expected better.

Oh, and of those 71% Christians I expect the vast majority are basically agnostic or deist. As for seperation of Church and State...well it might be in your constitution but I think we do it more justice. Some irony huh.

>> ^Kofi:

They seem eager to adopt Sharia law? I thought they only allowed it certain minor cases. Still, they dont have a bill of rights or a constitution. But, Sharia Law to take over? I wonder what their official religion, The Church of England thinks of that.


That is my understanding as well. Additionally, any judgements passed by a sharia court in Britain is not officially recognized by the state. Verdicts only stand as an unofficial agreement between the parties involved. Also, any case tried in a sharia court can also be tried in an official court at any time, if any of the parties desire so.

Sharia courts in Britain are a gesture of good faith toward islamic communities, giving them the opportunity to resolve matters within a judicial system they feel more comforable with. But they carry no weight.

They seem eager to adopt Sharia law? I thought they only allowed it certain minor cases. Still, they dont have a bill of rights or a constitution. But, Sharia Law to take over? I wonder what their official religion, The Church of England thinks of that.

1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe.



Even England still has blasphemy laws on the books from hundreds of years ago, but they're never enforced. Actual instances of people being prosecuted for blasphemy in Europe are very few and far between.



The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world.



Depends how the cameras are used. The mere existence of CCTV cameras on the streets is not necessarily a bad thing.



There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit.



That would be very very bad, but the law hasn't actually been passed yet. It was just proposed. Surveilance of the internet is worse than surveilance of public streets because:



1. Nearly all internet crimes are victimless crimes except where people are using the internet to plan to do something IRL. There is no such thing as getting mugged on the internet, and viruses/hacking are nearly 100% avoidable as a matter of personal responsibility without much need for policing.



2. There is an expectation of privacy in your personal communications that does not exist when you're walking down a public street. If 1000 other people walking down that street can see it too, why are you worried about one more guy watching it on CCTV?



3. People can and will use encryption to circumvent any and all attempts at policing the internet, so don't even bother. Internet anarchy is inevitable so you might as well accept it.




Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).



This is exactly the same in principle as fingerprinting. I've got no problem with it.


There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.
It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.




Separate courts for Sharia law are bad, but is that really much different from a corporation making employees agree to resolve all civil disputes with the employer via binding arbitration with a particular arbitrator? In the latter case there's sort of coercion/adhesion going on. If both sides were really free to choose and agreed upon using a particular arbitrator to resolve their civil disputes, then there'd be no problem. If e.g. Muslim women in abusive relationships are being forced my their husbands to use these separate courts, that's terrible, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that or anything similar.

@jwray: 1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe. There seem to be a lot of laws against blasphemy popping up.

I never said that the US was "more free" than the UK, or said that the US was better. I said that the UK was not better than the US, though. They're just fucked up in different ways.

The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world. There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit. Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).

There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.

It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.

I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me.

Right, but your espousing one Fox News talking point after another. You may not be a conscious fan of the organization, but you agree with them.

Really?

Yes, really. You certainly won't take my word for it, but perhaps you can be convinced to do a little research on the topic.

You agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where behind all of the attacks.

No.

You are aware that Bin Laden is no more a citizen of Saudi Arabia than he is a Muslim, correct?

I have no knowledge of bin Laden's citizenship nor his religious views. Neither do you for that matter. But neither enter into this debate.

You are aware that... bin Laden this..., the Taliban that..., blah blah blah... Sharia Law..., Shiite v Sunni... terror... Muslims baaaad..., etc

Again, none of this is relevant to the points I made, you refuse to address my points as stated, and I'm not going to debate you on these terms.