France Shoot-Out

[Hax]

Amen, brotha.

[Brenus]

“France allowed them to come in heaps so now it must learn to handle the problems resulting from it.” Yope, that is call freedom. And France deals with them.

“As I have said, values are construed by and live in societies, not by any books.” You have no clue about what religion is, do you? The book is Holly, therefore it is law. By the way, can you explain the subtle difference between Muslim values and Quran values?

“More than once you expressed your negative attitude to current Ukrainian (nazi) government and your worry for and sympathy with the "rioting populaces" in Donbas” And this made me a supporter of war crimes, or atrocities? And even this is partial lies. But I refer you to what I REALLY wrote in the said debate.

“These are streams which do not change the overall pretty universal mainstream ideology” Which is?

“Sharia is the (custom) law, yet it is not the state law” So it is a law. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge of Islam, and how intimate are faith and laws.

“If 16 century is modern for you” You are trolling me, are you? Well, in case you don’t: History is divided in Periods: Pre-history, Antiquity, Middle-Ages (sometimes Dark Ages), Renaissance, Early Modern History and Modern History (contemporaine in French) History. So it is not modern History for ME, it is a classification. All right, I should have said Early Modern History, problem of translation…

“But even so, 16-17 centuries can hardly boast of religious tolerance” No, but that was not the point.

[Fragony]

Every political party in the Netherlands recognises the problems with a certain part of our population. The difference is that most political parties respect our constitutional rights, including the freedom of religion.

I'm not a politician and for that, I will freely admit that I think some religions are more disagreeable than others. If I somehow were to start believing in God, I would sooner become jewish (allthough it's hard to get recognition as a convert) or a christian than a muslim. There's still the reality of their presence, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Any "solutions" you propose must start from that basic premise. The PVV will never accomplish anything meaningful on this subject, because they're not on the same page as everyone else.

We'll see. The PVV is the biggest party in all ratings, more seats than the current government combined. They will be excluded by a rainbow-coalition of course despite being the biggest, that is how things roll. Maybe that is for the better but they aren't going to go away, the PVV will keep growing.

[Gilrandir]

The book is Holly, therefore it is law.

Wrong. Holiness has nothing to do with legislature. Many things that are written in the Bible (considered to be holy) are not laws. For example, one of the commandments says that you mustn't desire your fellow's wife. Is there a christian country where conjugal infidelity/promiscuity is a felony? It may be a custom law which is held sacred by the believers, but it doesn't have any power over non-believers or adherents of other confessions.

By the way, can you explain the subtle difference between Muslim values and Quran values?

Like I said: there are no Koran values - there are tenets. If a society chooses them to be guiding principles they become values. The same with other societies and other holy books.

“These are streams which do not change the overall pretty universal mainstream ideology” Which is?

Google it yourself.

“Sharia is the (custom) law, yet it is not the state law” So it is a law.

From wikipedia:
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. Laws can be made by legislatures through legislation (resulting in statutes), the executive through decrees and regulations, or judges through binding precedent (normally in common law jurisdictions).
Again from wikipedia:
Sharia means the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion.
If Sharia is a RELIGIOUS law it binds only believers, while law in general binds all the citizens of a country. It is true, though, that some Muslim countries try to make sharia civil/criminal (thus universal law). (Again from wikipedia: Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation in various Muslim countries, namely Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Brunei, United Arab Emirates and Qatar). I don't know whether this means they adopt such a decision legally or make it a custom practice.

“But even so, 16-17 centuries can hardly boast of religious tolerance” No, but that was not the point.

It was: you said that in the past (including 16-17 centuries ) the muslim prophet was ridiculed, yet it didn't provoke any killings. My argument was that those were ages rampant with all kinds of intolerance, including the religious one (remember inquisition, for instance), so such things would have been causes for serious turmoils.

[Hax]

Is there a christian country where conjugal infidelity/promiscuity is a felony?

Yes.

[Gilrandir]

Yes.

I'm not sure if you mean this:
Later, some jurisdictions, a total of 16 in the southern and eastern United States, as well as the states of Wisconsin[131] and Utah,[132] passed statutes creating the offense of fornication that prohibited (vaginal) sexual intercourse between two unmarried people of the opposite sex. Most of these laws either were repealed, were not enforced, or were struck down by the courts in several states as being odious to their state constitutions.
But, first of all, such laws (as the article shows) were repealed, so even if there WERE such countries there AREN'T, and secondly, they legally prohibited sex between UNMARRIEDS, while the Bibile prohibits CONJUGAL infidelity.

[Hax]

I'm not sure what conjugal infidelity means.

In any case, adultery is not a criminal offense but still has serious legal implications, so interpret that the way you like.

Also here.

EDIT: To get back on topic, interestingly, in the early Middle Ages there were some poets who ridiculed Islam and got away with it. So yeah, this kind of reaction is a modern thing I guess.

[Gilrandir]

EDIT: To get back on topic, interestingly, in the early Middle Ages there were some poets who ridiculed Islam and got away with it. So yeah, this kind of reaction is a modern thing I guess.

In your link I saw only one poet mentioned. And he was blind, so perhaps it was considered wrong to harm a person who had been punished enough by destiny (God). Or it could be equally seen as railing of a person against destiny (God) that had punished him. I believe people at that time often had such a perception of diseases. Moreover, we don't know how much critical he was in his verses of Islam or any other religion and how he worded his criticism. Perhaps he was subtle enough in allegories for the simple minds not to spot it. Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough. Perhaps he was only known locally or (relatively) widely to a small group of literates. In both cases I believe those literates who didn't fancy his works might have seen to it that they were not made public or at least not widely known.
But you didn't mention any other men of letters (and not only) who were not so lucky. I'm sure there were many more of such cases.
It is true, though, that today, any of such blasphemies (as they see it) are known swifter and broader (like Rushdie). Moreover, with modern techniques of spinning and propaganda it is easier to give a desired/undesired explanation to anything and easier to stir larger quantities of people to violence.

[Hax]

In your link I saw only one poet mentioned. And he was blind, so perhaps it was considered wrong to harm a person who had been punished enough by destiny (God). Or it could be equally seen as railing of a person against destiny (God) that had punished him.

Fine.

I believe people at that time often had such a perception of diseases.

Citation required.

Moreover, we don't know how much critical he was in his verses of Islam or any other religion and how he worded his criticism.

Yes we do.

Perhaps he was subtle enough in allegories for the simple minds not to spot it.

No he wasn't.

“اثنان أهل الأرض : ذو عقــلٍ بلا ديــن وآخر ديِّنٌ لا عقل لهْ”

There are two people on the earth: those with brains and no faith, and the other believe but has no brains". Very subtle.

Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough. Perhaps he was only known locally or (relatively) widely to a small group of literates. In both cases I believe those literates who didn't fancy his works might have seen to it that they were not made public or at least not widely known.

Eh. Whatever. We don't know too much about literacy rates in mediæval Arabian culture, so we're talking about literature for the elite per definition. He was still immensely popular.

But you didn't mention any other men of letters (and not only) who were not so lucky. I'm sure there were many more of such cases.

Citation required. What was much more dangerous in mediæval Islam was heresy, not atheism. It would appear that both were more-or-less tolerated in most situations, but when one famous mystic declared "I am the truth" (Ar. انا الحق) he was executed.

EDIT: The list goes on.

It is true, though, that today, any of such blasphemies (as they see it) are known swifter and broader (like Rushdie). Moreover, with modern techniques of spinning and propaganda it is easier to give a desired/undesired explanation to anything and easier to stir larger quantities of people to violence.

Yeah, alright. Perhaps.

[Brenus]

“I don't know whether this means they adopt such a decision legally or make it a custom practice.” Err, what was obscure in the text you copied from Wiki? “Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation” and” Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour” Religions, through Churches are social Institutions.
“Many things that are written in the Bible (considered to be holy) are not laws.” True, but we speak of Islam here.

“For example, one of the commandments says that you mustn't desire your fellow's wife” I like this one… Can the fellow’s wife desire you? Sexists, all of them…

The Quran is a law book, a history book and a book of moral: Moral goes with the law. Immoral = illegal, illegal=immoral. All Religions tend to do this, but it is completely integrated in the Quran. And some aspect are added following the life of the Prophet (roughly), so 2 main divider in Islam: Sunnites and Shiites. Then you have an immense variety of different interpretations within the two main, so Islam can go from pacifists to warlike preachers. And Google won’t give an answer to who’s the main stream as Islam is as well politic, reason why you didn’t even try to answer, wisely.

“Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough.” Unlike the Afghans, Pakistanis, Indonesians and others who speak fluently french and were all able to detect the "offence".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes.

Adultery remains illegal in many US states to this day, albeit it is seldom enforced.

Also specifically prohibited by our military's UCMJ, though penalties are typically maxed only when the behavior is compounded by other factors detrimental to military discipline.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure what conjugal infidelity means.

Putting the Gladius in the Vagina, dear boy.

[Hax]

Thanks for posting a more eloquent and in-depth response I was aware there were adultery laws, but I wasn't too sure of the extent to which they function.

Putting the Gladius in the Vagina, dear boy.

Alright :D

[Fragony]

hihihi PVC has a short one. Not that it matters, it's what you do with it

[a completely inoffensive name]

Putting the Gladius in the Vagina, dear boy.

Pretty sure most women wouldn't find a sword in their vagina sexy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

yes, I know the joke...

[Husar]

Fun fact: A vagina and a sheath for a sword are both called "Scheide" in German.

[Fragony]

Fun fact: A vagina and a sheath for a sword are both called "Scheide" in German.

Same here, but 'schede'

[Gilrandir]

Citation required.

John 9:2:
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Of course Jesus answered that neither, yet his disciples (perhaps reflecting the existing social idea) believed that there is a connection between deformity and punishment (for former sins).
Also:
"God displayed anger with them and departed. When the cloud left the Tent, Miriam was leprous, white like snow. Aaron turned to Miriam, and saw she was leprous." (Num. 12:9-10)
And usually in middle ages epidemics were believed to be scourges, punishments from God.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/his...ack-death2.htm

Eh. Whatever. We don't know too much about literacy rates in mediæval Arabian culture, so we're talking about literature for the elite per definition. He was still immensely popular.

Citation required. What was much more dangerous in mediæval Islam was heresy, not atheism. It would appear that both were more-or-less tolerated in most situations, but when one famous mystic declared "I am the truth" (Ar. انا الحق) he was executed.

I don't claim to know much of medieval islamic poets, so most of my considerations were surmises (as you may have noticed, they were strewed by I believe or I think). Yet I don't doubt that the age of general intolerance (in Europe, in particular) was witness to many executions (Bruno, for once) and massacres on religious grounds. Perhaps, in the East it wasn't the case, yet I think that Islamic world was no exception to the general tendency of the time, so one so knowledgeable of it as you would have find plenty of cases when heretics/atheists were murdered or otherwise suffered for their views (or at least for expressing them in public). For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj

Err, what was obscure in the text you copied from Wiki? “Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation” and” Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour” Religions, through Churches are social Institutions.

Albeit being a social institution, church (except perhaps in some Muslim countries) doesn't enforce laws.

Can the fellow’s wife desire you?

Nah! Commandments are meant for men. Women can do whatever they want.

The Quran is a law book, a history book and a book of moral: Moral goes with the law. Immoral = illegal, illegal=immoral. All Religions tend to do this, but it is completely integrated in the Quran.

Yet I (well, not I but wikipedia) gave the limited list of countries in which the equations you offer is more or less kept as sharia is only A SOURCE (meaning one of the sources and I don't know how significant it is in comparison to others) in these half a dozen states. In other muslim countries, evidently immoral =/= illegal.

And some aspect are added following the life of the Prophet (roughly), so 2 main divider in Islam: Sunnites and Shiites. Then you have an immense variety of different interpretations within the two main, so Islam can go from pacifists to warlike preachers. And Google won’t give an answer to who’s the main stream as Islam is as well politic, reason why you didn’t even try to answer, wisely.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Instead of "mainstream" I should have had "typical, average". And I hope you can figure out typical islamic values.

“Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough.” Unlike the Afghans, Pakistanis, Indonesians and others who speak fluently french and were all able to detect the "offence".

Like I said: modern era offers plenty of opportunity to blow some idea or fear out of proportions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

hihihi PVC has a short one. Not that it matters, it's what you do with it

18 inches is short?

Fun fact: A vagina and a sheath for a sword are both called "Scheide" in German.

Proof that soldiers will always relate their equipment to the female anatomy. The Latin "Vagina" just means "sheaf", the fact that it's a polite word for a woman genitalia gives me constant amusement.

[Hax]

Perhaps, in the East it wasn't the case, yet I think that Islamic world was no exception to the general tendency of the time, so one so knowledgeable of it as you would have find plenty of cases when heretics/atheists were murdered or otherwise suffered for their views (or at least for expressing them in public). For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj

Yes, Mansur al-Hallaj was the guy I quoted in my post. The point I was making is that he wasn't an atheist, but a heretic.

[Fragony]

18 inches is short?

No that's pretty damn big, are we still talking about swords

[Gilrandir]

Yes, Mansur al-Hallaj was the guy I quoted in my post. The point I was making is that he wasn't an atheist, but a heretic.

I don't think it is that important. What I tried to expose is that Middle Ages were not tolerant, even violent, to people who were different from the average. It concerns nationality, confession, skin color and so on. Those who were tended to fare poorly. Thus, the claim that violence stemming from religious intolerance is a new development is false.

[Hax]

I don't think it is that important

Okay, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

What I tried to expose is that Middle Ages were not tolerant, even violent, to people who were different from the average.

Well, obviously. I think that goes for many societies even nowadays.

Thus, the claim that violence stemming from religious intolerance is a new development is false.

Not violence per se, but this kind of mob mentality/vigiliante-style 'justice'. What you forget is that Mansur al-Hallaj was not murdered by a mob, but put on trial and executed by the state. You know who else were persecuted by the state in medieval times? Extremist preachers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Proof that soldiers will always relate their equipment to the female anatomy. The Latin "Vagina" just means "sheaf", the fact that it's a polite word for a woman genitalia gives me constant amusement.

Well, most Romans -- except in public speech -- probably used the term cunnus more anyway. Prior to Octavian, they were a rather "earthy" sort for the most part. He was the one who was trying to cover all of the normal bricks with marble facades anyway...

[Gilrandir]

Not violence per se, but this kind of mob mentality/vigiliante-style 'justice'. What you forget is that Mansur al-Hallaj was not murdered by a mob, but put on trial and executed by the state.

The staff of CH were not murdered by the mob either (but not after a state trial too). But, again, I don't agree that mob mentality justice (as you term it) is a new development either. I don't know whether it was the case with Mansur but manipulating crowds is an old game, with "trial" of Jesus as an example. Then the official trial may follow or accompany public censure (= raving crowd outside the courtroom).

[Hax]

The trial of Jesus is a semi-mythical event, so I'm not really sure that it's a good idea to use that as an example. Now I don't disagree with your premise, but the attack on the Charlie Hebdo's staff was the consequence of a certain kind of mentality which has become much more common in the last 200 years or so. Keep in mind, Mansur al-Hallaj was kept on trial for eleven years.

It's interesting to see how the interpretation of Sharī'a law has changed in so far as that some Muslims believe that it's no longer the state's but the individual's duty to enforce it.

[Gilrandir]

Now I don't disagree with your premise, but the attack on the Charlie Hebdo's staff was the consequence of a certain kind of mentality which has become much more common in the last 200 years or so.

I don't agree on the date. Group/mob mentality is what has helped isolated communities survive since time immemorial.

Keep in mind, Mansur al-Hallaj was kept on trial for eleven years.

At that time it took people ages to travel from, say, Outremer to Paris. Now everything happens faster.

It's interesting to see how the interpretation of Sharī'a law has changed in so far as that some Muslims believe that it's no longer the state's but the individual's duty to enforce it.

Since the list of states supposed to enforce Sharia laws is definitely too short for those Muslims you speak of, they take justice (as they see it) into their hands.

[Hax]

correction: much more common in the Islamic world in the last 200 years.

At that time it took people ages to travel from, say, Outremer to Paris. Now everything happens faster.

Eleven years.

Since the list of states supposed to enforce Sharia laws is definitely too short for those Muslims you speak of, they take justice (as they see it) into their hands.

Yes, maybe.

[Fragony]

And another attack by someone who has culture. There is only one thing that has nothing to do with it.

#yeahright

[Fragony]

You couldn't make it up. A debate about freedom of speech and Charlie Hebto at a school for journalists banned images of Charlie Hebdo because OFFENCE. The one who decided that was a proud jesuischarlie. No you idiot you are not Charlie. Worst is that he probably doesn't understand that. Gutmenschen are so weird.