I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.[/quote]
Get a diary, already!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.
Get a diary, already![/quote]
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.
Get a diary, already!
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.[/quote]
It means you should joint the Film Actors Guild.
I don’t know, I’m sorry, I’ve been eating a lot of sugar lately.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
[…]Evidently, if one is a wife beater that adheres to sharia law, they’s probably be chomping at the bit to get in your country.
You’re saying you don’t see the obvious down side to this?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/christopher_howse/blog/2008/09/14/criminal_sharia_judgments
If you read my posts, you’ll see that I do have a problem with it - I think there should be no religious based alternative arbitration, as it indeed increases the possibility of legal conflict and abuse. That is a massive downside.
If you’d asked me, I would get rid of both sharia and beth din arbitration. And of course faith schools and state support for ‘faith based initiatives’. State and religion should be separated, religious membership legally controlled like membership to a club - no special rights whatsoever.
But - if given to one religion (beth din) under the current legal view, it has to be given to others as well. I just don’t take the ‘all muslims are evil and want to take over the world’ stance serious - it doesn’t help address or solve any of the complex problems faced in a practical way.
And I find the ‘moral outrage’ over the existence of sharia based arbitration quite problematic, as it concentrates on doom mongering based on a fear of the perceived dangers of that specific religion - while not dealing with the root causes of what gets people into arbitration in the first place.
I’d be much less critical if the Independent and the Daily Mail, and some posters here for that matter, were known for supporting the rights and quality of disadvantaged migrant women who may in the end be suffering under this system. But no - the focus is on outrage, not constructive criticism. I hope that makes sense.
Makkun[/quote]
Capitulation has not worked well in Denmark. Good luck with your pending Dhimmitude.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.
Get a diary, already!
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.[/quote]
What it means is he is pissed off that you have not toed the line with liberal ideology, but they can’t conveniently dismiss you as a racist. Yet. So he wishes you would just… Go awayeeeeeee
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Capitulation has not worked well in Denmark. Good luck with your pending Dhimmitude.
C’mon Tokoya, you know that could never happen in Great Britain! The Muslims there will obviously limit themselves to civil matters, right?
[/quote]
And they won’t try to impose it on the non-believing infidels.
[quote]So qed - but I’d say let’s bring the discussion back to the issue at hand: how does religious civil arbitration compromise or supercede British law?
[/quote]
Congratulations, you’ve discovered theonomy! Have you even bothered to read any of Rushdoony’s positions? How about Bahnsen? I pulled this page from Chalcedon:
[quote]Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God’s glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to “spring” Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.
It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed “public education”; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means �?? education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.
This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men’s hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God’s holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.
We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens’ children.
We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind. [/quote]
Sorry - no desire expressed to spread Christianity by the sword as Islam is spread (Surah 9:5, 'Umdat al-Salik). Even in the theonomic interpretation, which is widely regarded as heretical, there is still no interest in running around killing people. How do I know this? I sat under the preaching of one of the leading theonomists in a the southern California presbytery of the OPC, where the late Greg Bahnsen preached and was Bahnsen’s best friend. The guy was expressly against the use of man’s means to achieve the spread of God’s kingdom. Bahnsen was against it, so is Rushdoony. The percentage of Christians that even hold to this view of Biblical law are so small as to be insignificant. But even at that, they’re not promoting violence. Don’t take my word for it - go read Bahnsen or Rushdoony and find out for yourself. They believe in enforcing Old Testament (Mosaic) Law re-interpreted in light of the New after society has already been made Christian by the power of God. There are very few people who hold to this view, and MG Kline et al rebutted it a long time ago.
Do you read what you write before you hit “submit”?
Yeah, uh, time passes guy. There’s a new threat in town.
You needn’t take any of my word for my assertions made about Islam. All you have to do is get a Qur’an, learn how it’s organized, and study it. There are commentaries online. Search “Ibn Kathir” and “Jalalayn”. Read through the parts of the Hadith about jihad also, specifically in Bukhari. The USC Muslim student’s association has them online.
If you want to keep believing as you do, fine. You’ve been warned. It’s no skin off my back. We saw what happened to the Armenians and Greeks last century and the Chaldean/Assyrians this century, and then all of the victims of the various jihads starting with the Banu Quraizah. If you’re not capable of understanding the historical and religious data on Islam, it’s not my problem. I don’t see any of the other liberals hopping on this thread to bail you out in this discussion, perhaps because they’re better at sensing danger than you are. You probably are one of those 7/7 or 9/11 Truthers. Good luck to you. We’ll see how well your atheistic convictions hold up when the Muslims are making you recite the shahada. BTW, maybe you ought to ask the southern Nigerian Christians how well they liked the introduction of shari’ah in the north.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.
Get a diary, already!
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.[/quote]
It is pretty clear. Your statement comes off as out-of-the-blue andunrelated to the topic at hand. Seems like nothing more than egocentric brainstorming.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Capitulation has not worked well in Denmark. Good luck with your pending Dhimmitude.
C’mon Tokoya, you know that could never happen in Great Britain! The Muslims there will obviously limit themselves to civil matters, right?
And they won’t try to impose it on the non-believing infidels.[/quote]
Let’s just say assimilation is not their strong suit.
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Capitulation has not worked well in Denmark. Good luck with your pending Dhimmitude.
C’mon Tokoya, you know that could never happen in Great Britain! The Muslims there will obviously limit themselves to civil matters, right?
And they won’t try to impose it on the non-believing infidels.
Let’s just say assimilation is not their strong suit. [/quote]
Biggest understatement of the century.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I can’t think of any of my own religious convictions that need to be backed by law. Issues important to me, such as abortion, I don’t argue from my religious faith anyways.
Get a diary, already!
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.
It is pretty clear. Your statement comes off as out-of-the-blue andunrelated to the topic at hand. Seems like nothing more than egocentric brainstorming.[/quote]
I guess you’re incapable of following along.
[quote]
Makavali wrote:
So getting rid of any and all religious interference in law would be best, no? (This question is not directed at Makkun)[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Congratulations, you’ve discovered theonomy! Have you even bothered to read any of Rushdoony’s positions? How about Bahnsen? I pulled this page from Chalcedon:[/quote]
So let’s recap for a second here: earlier you wrote “No Christian church or organization I know of, either now or in history, wants to enforce the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law, which are the “ugly” aspects to which you refer. In order for your assertion to hold any water you would have to demonstrate that one exists.” Then you let me search painfully rubbish websites on a breathtakingly backwards view of the bible - only to tell me you knew this all along. Why claim in the first place that you know of none? That’s just a bit inconsistent - but let’s move on.
[quote]Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God’s glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. […] We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind.
Sorry - no desire expressed to spread Christianity by the sword as Islam is spread (Surah 9:5, 'Umdat al-Salik). Even in the theonomic interpretation, which is widely regarded as heretical, there is still no interest in running around killing people.[/quote]
I didn’t claim that. And that wasn’t what you had asked me to find.
And … reality as well, I guess.
Normally yes. If you see it somewhere, quote me, and I’m happy to explain. Just don’t make me go looking for any crazy theonomists anymore.
I know. And the biggest threat at the moment is militant islamism. And if our respective security services would range Islam itself as a threat, I may perhaps even be inclined to agree with you. But they don’t, and so far you haven’t convinced me - except that it’s even more important to protect our freedoms from the influence from religion - any religion.
Why would I? I leave reading religious texts to the people interested in them. I rather concentrate on statistics, facts and socio-political trends. Yes, primary sources have their role in understanding the motivation of the radical few - but as long as the general faith of Islam hasn’t been identified as threat to society, I don’t think I’ll really get into this. As a representative of a competing faith, I take your assertions with even more than a pinch of salt.
As ever so often - you’ve not been able to prove a connection between your texts and any form of societal influence in current British society. Not when it came to fertility rates, crime, domestic violence. All you have is religious texts, and a dim view of a minority which happens to be from the other religious club. Sorry, not enough to convince me.
I don’t think my fellow ‘liberals’ here think they have to jump in - there’s nothing much to worry about, as your arguments so far haven’t been able to make a connection between radical islamism and the social reality of religious civil arbitration. Except of course that I’m now even more opposed to it.
Makkun
PS: On the upside though, I guess I won’t have to read any Leviticus quotations in future gay related threads anymore - as modern Christians aren’t theonomists. Oh no, I bet there’ll be some brilliant explanation why it’s ok to pick and mix those in…
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
[…]Capitulation has not worked well in Denmark. Good luck with your pending Dhimmitude.
[/quote]
Which part of ‘I’m opposed to religious arbitration’ did you not get? I’m not sure how I can make the sentence any clearer.
Makkun
Not. Quite. Right.
Even the theonomists don’t want to enforce the civil aspects of Mosaic Law as they were written to the Israelites. Bahnsen believed in re-interpreting them for the modern era in light of their fulfillment in Jesus. But even then, they only wanted these re-interpreted laws enforced when everyone in society wanted them enforced anyway. They viewed a society in which everyone was already converted to Christianity through PREACHING.
I know your eyes glaze over at any hint of religious doctrine or nuance, but in this case, you’ll have to pay attention because it nullifies your entire moral equivalence.
Identified by whom - people such as yourself and NuLabour PC commissars who haven’t bothered to crack open the Qur’an?
Right. 7/7 never happened - it was a government conspiracy, right? No jihad there.
Was I making a case from Leviticus against gay marriage? Your fellow gays are in for it once shari’ah picks up steam. But you’ll see. Read Bruce Bawer.
Here, Makkun. Here are Roger Wagner’s sermons:
The guy teaches at Bahnsen Theological Seminary and is a theonomist and was Bahnsen’s best friend. See if you can find anything in there that supports your thesis. Better yet, you can get him on the phone and ask him yourself.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Not. Quite. Right.
Even the theonomists don’t want to enforce the civil aspects of Mosaic Law as they were written to the Israelites. Bahnsen believed in re-interpreting them for the modern era in light of their fulfillment in Jesus. But even then, they only wanted these re-interpreted laws enforced when everyone in society wanted them enforced anyway. They viewed a society in which everyone was already converted to Christianity through PREACHING.
I know your eyes glaze over at any hint of religious doctrine or nuance, but in this case, you’ll have to pay attention because it nullifies your entire moral equivalence.[/quote]
I don’t know where you get that moral equivalence bit from, and I’m starting to be tired of asking where you get it from, but I’m sure it all makes sense to you.
Actually, I did get the part wrt changing society towards biblical laws in a non-violent way - by convincing/preaching. I’m quite happy that this can’t be achieved, so it’s a bit of a pointless argument.
Well, technically, it isn’t my job - so I’m quite ok with concentrating on the issues that I see as more of a threat to society: people who spend their time marginalising others.
As for that NuLabour comment - I think I’ve said enough about that.
Sure we have jihadists here. It’s just not all muslims as you insinuate. As for 7/7 - show some respect (if you can), quite a few of us know or know of (muslim) victims or people who just missed it.
My fellow gays - uh, the slur, it hurts. From you, I’ll carry that as badge of honor - I’m sure my girlfriend will understand. And I didn’t say you did - it’s just know that now I can live without fear that the ones who do are not planning to change our society to some archaic pre-modern bible state. That’s reassuring.
As we’re really not on topic anymore - I think I’ll call it a day. I’m sure I’ll meet again soon enough - when there are a few first stones to cast.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
[…]Capitulation has not worked well in Denmark. Good luck with your pending Dhimmitude.
Which part of ‘I’m opposed to religious arbitration’ did you not get? I’m not sure how I can make the sentence any clearer.
Makkun[/quote]
Your countrymen accepted it willingly. That is part of Dhimmitude ~ submission.
Enjoy it.