Welcome to the middle ages

[DWP]

ShadownINja said:

Is it really to do with religion/a god? Or just ultra harsh laws on sexual promiscuity?

It's a sad reflection on an ill educated group of men, attempting to control women. Using religion as a means and excuse. Lock them up at home, cover them from head to foot, stop them being educated, stop them working, don't allow them to drive, no contact with men, unless it's controlled by their fathers or brothers and if none of that works, flog them or kill them in so called honour killings

[Sheets Tabuer]

She should have done what she was told the first time

Talking of which, the afghans have just introduced a nice law. Rape within marriage is allowed and curbs on the rights of women to leave the house.

Why are we there again?

[Jasandjules]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Why are we there again?

We are fighting for freedom.

Makes you proud, doesn't it?!?!?

[Timmy35]

Jasandjules said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

Why are we there again?

We are fighting for freedom.

......and much cheaper opium & heroin.

[tamore]

i've seen websites where you have to enter your credit card details to see stuff like that.

[elster]

MrV said:

elster said:

Not really news.

They showed people getting flogged a few weeks ago on sky news.

They where drug user/dealers though so not likely to garner the sympathy a female would though.

The crime is just as bad in the eyes of the Taliban.

They weren't going to show the media the no PC ones. Even the Taliban have their own Max Clifford

[Scraggles]

saw another one where the girl was stoned for going out with some lad of the wrong religion, her dress came loose in the struggle and the mullahs were very concerned that her legs were showing at the same time as her brains were being splattered over the road, so to make things right, they covered her legs...

religion of peace ? not a chance

[fluffnik]

Jasandjules said:

This is what fecks me off with those lefties who support religious freedom.

There should be NO Freedom to do as you wish in support of an imaginary friend.

Personal religious freedom is fine, inflicting your delusional illness on others, including your children, is not.

It is not Enlightened to assist in the promulgation of ignorant superstition, it is Enlightened to ridicule it.

[XitUp]

Chainguy said:

Certain areas of the UK in 20 years?

No.

[Alfanatic]

Jasandjules said:

MrV said:

They where drug user/dealers though so not likely to garner the sympathy a female would though.

I have no problems with drug dealers being flogged. Nor thieves. However, religion as the basis for a flogging is not acceptable to me.

I thought she was being flogged on the basis of having bonked her in-law. What's the difference between a religion declaring this punishment acceptable for the crime, and whatever values you hold that allow you to declare it acceptable to flog other criminals?

Jasandjules said:

This is what fecks me off with those lefties who support religious freedom.

There should be NO Freedom to do as you wish in support of an imaginary friend.

What if the victim effectively consents by supporting the same friend and his laws? By consenting I of course mean they weren't forced into that religeon from birth.

Edited by Alfanatic on Saturday 4th April 21:02

[Jasandjules]

Alfanatic said:

I thought she was being flogged on the basis of having bonked her in-law. What's the difference between a religion declaring this punishment acceptable for the crime, and whatever values you hold that allow you to declare it acceptable to flog other criminals?

My values are not based on my imaginary friend. It's as simple as that. Without the social mores of believing theft is wrong etc. then we would have anarchy. Without some religious buffoon telling us God would be offended by X, y or Z we would not have anarchy.

[Timmy35]

Jasandjules said:

Alfanatic said:

I thought she was being flogged on the basis of having bonked her in-law. What's the difference between a religion declaring this punishment acceptable for the crime, and whatever values you hold that allow you to declare it acceptable to flog other criminals?

My values are not based on my imaginary friend. It's as simple as that. Without the social mores of believing theft is wrong etc. then we would have anarchy. Without some religious buffoon telling us God would be offended by X, y or Z we would not have anarchy.

• devils advocate.

Whether a deity or an agreed concept of 'the state' we all obey an imajinary friend or foe of some kind. The only difference is perhaps that we elect ours, or think we do, and believe ours is more humane. Although don't we all think we're on the merciful side.

1 million + Iraqi dead might of course disagree with our idea of mercy and gentle justice.

[109 Bob]

Lefty Guns said:

Is sharia law already practiced in "some areas of the UK"?

Just wondering to what extent?

There is no Sharia law in the UK.

[Sheets Tabuer]

109 Bob said:

Lefty Guns said:

Is sharia law already practiced in "some areas of the UK"?

Just wondering to what extent?

There is no Sharia law in the UK.

That's what you think, most sharia law is about simple stuff like neighbour disputes, family arguments etc and is practiced by communities up and down the country.

[Jasandjules]

Timmy35 said:

• devils advocate.

Whether a deity or an agreed concept of 'the state' we all obey an imajinary friend or foe of some kind. The only difference is perhaps that we elect ours, or think we do, and believe ours is more humane. Although don't we all think we're on the merciful side.

1 million + Iraqi dead might of course disagree with our idea of mercy and gentle justice.

The State as such in theory defines law which the majority find acceptable, and thus formulate society. Those rules can be found throughout many nations and many different cultures (property/theft, not beating up/killing someone to take their stuff etc). These are the rules I mean, and the laws I refer to. There are different theories relating to the creation of such rules (social contract etc.). However, laws based on religion are inherently wrong IMHO. I do not believe in any God, why should I obey any law based upon God etc?

I agree about "Iraqi Gentle Justice", and I abhor what those who we elect have done in our name. They ought to be shot for it IMHO (I am not a big fan of gentle) - I also include here references to Guantanamo Bay - how can we claim the superior moral ground when such a place exists?

[ShadownINja]

Jasandjules said:

ShadownINja said:

Is it really to do with religion/a god? Or just ultra harsh laws on sexual promiscuity?

And why do you think the Ultra Harsh laws exist on sexual promiscuity?

There are many stupid laws in the UK based upon religion as well...

DWP said:

ShadownINja said:

Is it really to do with religion/a god? Or just ultra harsh laws on sexual promiscuity?

It's a sad reflection on an ill educated group of men, attempting to control women. Using religion as a means and excuse. Lock them up at home, cover them from head to foot, stop them being educated, stop them working, don't allow them to drive, no contact with men, unless it's controlled by their fathers or brothers and if none of that works, flog them or kill them in so called honour killings

Yes, exactly. It's extremists using something as an excuse control others.

[cheapoman]

It wasn't that long ago we'd be doing that to brown people, just for a laugh.

Least we forget

[forza whites]

109 Bob said:

Lefty Guns said:

Is sharia law already practiced in "some areas of the UK"?

Just wondering to what extent?

There is no Sharia law in the UK.

In Luton, Bradford, Bolton, Tower Hamlets, Dewsbury and the like there is.....Give it time...we'll all be in
such a minority, .....the Roman Catholics will get it first!!

[Timmy35]

Jasandjules said:

Timmy35 said:

• devils advocate.

Whether a deity or an agreed concept of 'the state' we all obey an imajinary friend or foe of some kind. The only difference is perhaps that we elect ours, or think we do, and believe ours is more humane. Although don't we all think we're on the merciful side.

1 million + Iraqi dead might of course disagree with our idea of mercy and gentle justice.

The State as such in theory defines law which the majority find acceptable, and thus formulate society. Those rules can be found throughout many nations and many different cultures (property/theft, not beating up/killing someone to take their stuff etc). These are the rules I mean, and the laws I refer to. There are different theories relating to the creation of such rules (social contract etc.). However, laws based on religion are inherently wrong IMHO. I do not believe in any God, why should I obey any law based upon God etc?

I agree about "Iraqi Gentle Justice", and I abhor what those who we elect have done in our name. They ought to be shot for it IMHO (I am not a big fan of gentle) - I also include here references to Guantanamo Bay - how can we claim the superior moral ground when such a place exists?

But isn't secular law similar to religious law really. The Americans execute thousands of people under a democratic/ non religous legal system.

As for majority? I think in numerical terms we have for some time had a minority government in the UK in voting terms.

[elster]

Sheets Tabuer said:

109 Bob said:

Lefty Guns said:

Is sharia law already practiced in "some areas of the UK"?

Just wondering to what extent?

There is no Sharia law in the UK.

That's what you think, most sharia law is about simple stuff like neighbour disputes, family arguments etc and is practiced by communities up and down the country.

Yes but it is not a law.