Could this be counter productive???

What do you mean by "primogeny?"

Sorry its primogeniture, specificly the western tradition enshrined in "christian" law where people are not equal, especially not women.

The melting pot certainly existed, and frankly mostly exists.

Did it really? So what does it say back in the beginning are the requirements for an immigrant to join the "melting pot"? Is it a case of hey America is founded on the basis that all men are created equal and anyone can come and be a naturalised american?

Equality is something defined by law

It is, and much of it is very recent from a historical perspective and really took a lot of fighting to achieve.
Which kinda puts a damper on your bit about western values and equality doesn't it as they really had to struggle to get them introduced.

[tater]

Learn something new every day (primogeniture—I knew the concept, not the word).

As for equality, that's sort of my point WRT Christianity. Equality might well have come about IN SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it did come about—as did all the other things we happily live under in the Western world.

I don;t see that happening under Islam.

[CaptainHaplo]

I had to actually unignore Tribesman for a few minutes to read his post - and sure enough he did what state what was quoted...

"Narrowbacks" - a lazy, no good irish person...

I could have sworn that racism (Irish is a race of people after all) - was against the rules around here. Course, at least I can say I am not suprised by the source, though normally its another poster in the same vein ranting about nationalities.

Ya know - had someone said "raghead" for an Arab, or "spic" for a Hispanic, or the "N" word for a black person it would be an "offense" - but because its an insult to a race that consists of "whites", it apparently gets a pass.

Pathetic

I don;t see that happening under Islam.

Have you looked, daffy might be as nutty as a sack of almonds but what can you tel me about womens rights ion Libya,? after all he does say tha nations laws are based on Sharia so what does it do for things like inheritance, property rights, custody, divorce ....just some of the thing women in the west fought to achieve.

As for equality, that's sort of my point WRT Christianity. Equality might well have come about IN SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it did come about—as did all the other things we happily live under in the Western world.

Thats interesting though isn't it, "in spite of". Someone put a quote earlier about the balance of science and knowledge in the west working against the fruitier claims of the religions. We see that balance being eroded now by the fundamentalists who reject science.
Which is another interesting thing, you made a slightly off claim earlier about literacy. Whereas the reality is that the fundamentalists take their oil dollars and set up "schools" to teach their own version of religion and education. We are getting a lot of fundies in the west teaching their own versions now ain't we, either from removing people from the education system or making the education sysyem adopt their fundamentalist dogma.
One more question for ya though tater, there are many many versions and derivatives of islam, several people have said the only real version is the nutty fruitcake fundamentalist version. If you take the two worst fundy versions around how old are they? After all if they are the truest versions they must be amongst the oldest(think about the link with science and knowledgeand its bgalancfe effect against narrow dogma).

Ya know - had someone said "raghead" for an Arab, or "spic" for a Hispanic, or the "N" word for a black person it would be an "offense" - but because its an insult to a race that consists of "whites", it apparently gets a pass.

Too funny.
You really should remain in ignorance, though it would be good if you would actually address the gaping holes in your knowledge of scripture you regularly display.
But its OK your little rant there displays more of your ignorance.
So despite getting the definition wrong can you explain how a "white irishman" using the disparaging term(under your definition or another) can be construed as racist?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I had to actually unignore Tribesman for a few minutes to read his post - and sure enough he did what state what was quoted...

"Narrowbacks" - a lazy, no good irish person...

I could have sworn that racism (Irish is a race of people after all) - was against the rules around here. Course, at least I can say I am not suprised by the source, though normally its another poster in the same vein ranting about nationalities.

Ya know - had someone said "raghead" for an Arab, or "spic" for a Hispanic, or the "N" word for a black person it would be an "offense" - but because its an insult to a race that consists of "whites", it apparently gets a pass.

Pathetic

I would not talk of "race", but "people" and/or "cultures/societies" (=Volk, Völker).

Biologically, within a claimed racial group there are as many genetic variations as there are between races. The quality of these differences is different, but numerically there seem to be even more variations withoin a race group than between them.

The term "race" explicitly leaves out factors that are even more decisive to form the trenches, walls and differences between people: "race" does neither include politic ideologies, nor national sentiments, it leaves out cultural context of social envrionments and religious concepts. Arguing with "race" pays too much attention to physical differences, and ignores too many mental, abstract, artificial, envrionmental differences.

Seen that way I would enver think of the Irish as a "race". Nor is Islam a race, or Chriostian fundamentalists, or the Republicans, or the players in my old chessclub back in Berlin.

The EU's PC brigade, the poltiical left and especially our islamophile Gutmenschen have linked the term "race" to "religion" nevertheless, so that it can brandmark any opposition to its big sociological experiment in Europe to turn it over, and any criticism of relgion in general and Islam in special, as "racism". Tribesman also loves to do right that. But such claims have no basis, obviously, they are anti-intellectual, and propaganda strategies to silence opponents in opinion by accusing them of the worst crime there is in the PC world: "hate crimes". In other words - yelling loud so that the other cannot be heared.

Nation - is not a race. Religion - is not a race. Culture - is not a race. Politic ideology - is not a race. Criticising nations, religions, cultures, politcal ideologies therefore cannot be racism: discriminating judgements of memebers of other races whose differences are taken as evidence for their inferiority based on genetic characteristics. Any political ambition to link critical arguments against religion, politiics and culture with "racism", can be written down in papers, and can be turned into treaties, official declarations and even laws - but it remains to be a contradiction in itself, an obvious propaganda stunt, a declaration of intellectual bancruptcy. This remains so even if people are too loose to use the term racism, and in politics it is en vogue to swing th term like a waraxe. For example turkey's Erdoghan has been accused of racism when he declared recently that eventually Turkey will deport all Armenians living in turkey if they do not submit to the supremacist claim for dominance by Turkey and fully submit to Turkish statehood. Eventually I accused him of racism myself, in a moment of verbal comfortability and to make the arugment flowing easy. But more precisely, it is Turkish ultranationalism, and supremacism. As far as I know he has not accused the Armenians to be inferior because they are just that: an ethnic group called Armenians. On the othe rhand, racism it was what tzhe Nazis did: claiming the wickedness and inferiority of Jews on the basis of a questionable race theory that thoight of Judaism as a biologically frounded category, it seems. That racism went so far that here a group of humans was degraded so much that it even fell mout of the race theory, and declared as another "species" in general, "animals", leaving them no human attribute anymore that would identitfy them as "man". Only this dehumanisation explains why it is possible in big genocides or the holocaust that humans treat other humans in the way it happens duirng such horrific events. The nazis finally treated the Jews and "processed" them like any industrial other resource, may it be cattle or mineral ore.

The EU's PC brigade, the poltiical left and especially our islamophile Gutmenschen have linked the term "race" to "religion" nevertheless, so that it can brandmark any opposition to its big sociological experiment in Europe to turn it over, and any criticism of relgion in general and Islam in special, as "racism". Tribesman also loves to do right that.

Don't talk bollox.
That is to do with illegal discrimination, so just as you can't refuse service or employment to someone because they are Polish you cannot refuse them because they are hindu.
The expansion of the legislation to include culture(which includes religion) is because narrow minded bigots discriminate on many grounds including nationality and religion.
It funny really, if those hate filled bigots from back in the '30s whose words sound very much like yours didn't make institutionalised discrimination based on religion such a major issue then bodies formed after that conflict might not feel the need to be taking such a strong view on the bigotry.

[tater]

Religion is not an "indelible" trait. It is a CHOICE to believe (without proof, into the bargain) a set of ideas. It only becomes a racist thing when it is dealt with as race, and not voluntarily held ideas. Violence is not acceptable vs ideas. Rhetoric, OTOH, is perfectly acceptable vs ideas.

It is wrong-headed to consider it protected from public commentary. Since it is nothing more than a set of ideas, discussing—even arguing— the ideas IS THE POINT.

Wicked ideas are wicked, and calling them wicked is not a bad thing.

Anyone who thinks that women are lesser beings in terms of their place in society and law—for whatever reason—is an idiot. Period. If a set of people chose to believe that without proof, they are still idiots.

Libya?

Having some rights, or better rights than medieval dirt farmers in europe is faint praise. They have rights, but they are not equal rights. They inherit less, they have different rules for divorce than men. How do they count in court again? They are not allowed to take multiple husbands, but their husbands may take multiple wives, no? Divorce? It is my understanding that while women can initiate it, the man must consent in most countries, whereas the man can divorce literally at will just by declaring it a few times.

Regarding other fundamentalists—guess what, they are scumbags, too, if their beliefs leave their own brains and affect anyone else through their actions. Anyone who believes any arbitrary text to be the unerring, literal truth is... I don't even know where to begin. None the less, I live in a culture that is basically very tolerant, pluralistic, and enlightened, and it came out of a largely Christian culture. That doesn't make me religious—I'm not—but it does make me at least recognize what would not be possible if I lived under the thumb of a different set of literalists (note that unlike Islam, there are significant, non-literalist Christian sects).

What is the penalty in law in the West—even in countries with an official, Christian church—for apostasy?

Right, there is none.

What is the societal penalty in the same countries?

Right, none to speak of.

If I had been born in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, what would happen if I admitted that I left the faith to become an atheist, agnostic, or even some other religion?

Nothing?

What's the official punishment in the Bible for apostasy? (I really have no idea)

What's the official punishment in the Koran/Hadith for apostasy?

Death, right? That one is not even controversial as I recall.

Sorry, but anyone that claims that the freedom to change your mind about a personal matter of faith should be punished at all, much less death is evil. As is anyone who believes it.

To tribesman's credit, he's at least arguing. We have others on this earth who murder people over movies and cartoons.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tater - to answer your question regarding Biblical teachings on apostasy - there are many differing thoughts - however they center on whether an apostate (a true believer who choses to forsake the faith) loses their salvation or not. There is no New Testament "rule" regarding punishment of apostasy, since punishment in our terms denotes a sense of physical damage. While there is an advisement for those of the Faith to both pity and render spiritual aid (as in trying to reconvert them) - they are also advised to "forsake" that person if such attempts fail. This means simply to no longer associate with that person. This does not mean you couldn't say hello to them at the grocery store, or offer them help should they need it - but it does mean you are advised not to go play golf with them (modern day examples).

The whole idea of the Xtian faith is such that their apostasy is not a matter for another person to judge or punish - because the sin of denial is not against the believer, but against God, and as such God will punish it as is appropriate in His will. Thus, the punishment is spiritual in nature, and beyond the realm of humanity. This is why the question of whether an apostate loses their salvation is so debated.

The Old Testament does not deal directly with apostasy either, though there it is often claimed that because the worship of false gods demanded death, apostasy had to as well. There is no biblical statement to that effect, unless one makes the arguement that "the wages of sin is death" and apostasy is a sin. Even so - theologically in this case death is still a spiritual matter - not a physical one.

Even if modern theology is in error on the issue of apostasy in the Old Testament, its a moot point since the NT changes the rules - from "Law" to guide. Its also worth noting that if one were to be "fundamentalist" on the guide - you would still have to reconcile the "law" of execution regarding worship of false gods with the commandment of "Thou shall not kill." Obviously, there isn't a big call for Xtians to go out and execute tree hugging dirt worshippers - nor should there be.

On the issue of the status of women, the "liberalization" of the bible started during OT times - and has continued to today. Its worth noting that even in the time of Jesus - and if one takes scripture literally, Jesus condoned - the lesser status of women, as well as the institution of slavery, among other things seen as "evil" by modern society.

Anyone seen any of that in Islam? Guess not..... LOL

It is wrong-headed to consider it protected from public commentary.

There is nothing wrong with public commentary, its when that commentry crosses the bounds it becomes a problem.
For example Wilders can say what he likes about the religion , it can be debated wether he mainly tells the truth or largely talks absolute sensationalist bollox. However when he wants people to have restricted rights or be stripped of their citizenship because of their religion he moves into a different league.
Likewise with Skybird , he puts together some very good arguements and can develop them to a good depth, but then goes off on his little conspiracy nonsense where we must force a confrontation because everyone is a fundamentalist out to conquer the world by having babies and killing unbelievers while being in cahoots with a secret clique of western politicians working under the infamous imaginary treaties.

Libya?

Yes Libya, after all the claim was that all the countries treat their women as complete ****.
So when it comes to the application of family law and the women has more rights than the man it does shoot that arguement down doesn't it.

BTW any thoughts on that question I asked you about the versions and derivatives?
After all several people keep saying Islam needs a reformation, since the reformation is only one of the many schisms christianity has been through how many has Islam been through and how many differnt flavours are there apart from the fundy nutty flavours?
Take for example that big mosque in Switzerland, one of the two that have towers already so are not afected by the ban on new minaret. Thats an "apostate" groups mosque isn't it, how are there so many of them in the world, surely as apostasy means death they should have been wiped out years ago.

Its worth noting that even in the time of Jesus - and if one takes scripture literally, Jesus condoned - the lesser status of women, as well as the institution of slavery, among other things seen as "evil" by modern society.

It is worth noting that people who take scripture literally are the fundamentalists, which is true in all the big three.
In all three it is also true that the fundamentalist fruitcakes we hear about so often now are a fairly modern development.

[tater]

What major sects of Islam are not fundamentalist (using the same "literalist" definition used for Christians)?

One more question for ya though tater, there are many many versions and derivatives of islam, several people have said the only real version is the nutty fruitcake fundamentalist version. If you take the two worst fundy versions around how old are they? After all if they are the truest versions they must be amongst the oldest(think about the link with science and knowledgeand its bgalancfe effect against narrow dogma).

I know of no major sects that do not believe in the inerrant Koran, or what I'd call "biblical literalism" if it were Baptists.

I saw a video of a debate where Hitchens (again, lol) quoted a moderate European Imam (swiss?) who was questioned about apostasy, and the Islamic penalty. He tried to deflect saying that it was not pragmatically possible to murder all apostates, but he couldn't say that death was not the ideal, koranic penalty (because it IS). And he was supposed to be hyper moderate.

What major Islamic sects accept evolution? Which say that murdering apostates is wrong?

I'm genuinely curious. I don't doubt there might be some, but what is their total membership compared to the Sunni, Shia, etc?