For a scientist, you are very, very  sloppy in your thinking.

I said that the Church's redeeming feature was that it was a voice of long-view cultural conservationism in the face of an apparent mania for anything and everything new, no matter how stupid or destructive.  I haven't said anything about abolishing the separation of church and state. And I don't see how you can automatically equate new with free.

There is not the remotest push for elevating canon law to the law of the land. Equating canon law with sharia is just plain ignorant. Frankly, I am caught completely off guard about your absolute lack of understanding.


And your reference to Henry, Wolsley and all that 16th century jazz - it's just the Stockholm syndrome of the culturally ignorant and therefore culturally submissive in the face of all the Muslim harping on and self-justification about how relevant the 7th and the 13th century still is to them. Just silly. (If it wasn't you I'd have said stupid.)

They have hang ups about what happened half a millennium ago - and so you too, being exquisitely sensitive, demonstrate hang ups about 16th century England, Europe and your own cultural foundations.

Soren wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 6:48pm:


Why? Sharia courts do pretty much the same thing as the church - namely, they perform marriages and grant divorces.

Outside of the one country I can think of that officially practices sharia law - Saudi Arabia - shariah law is civil law. It mediates disputes. It's illegal within sharia law to make rulings contrary to the law of the land - and this is grounds to overturn a sharia decision. A sharia court cannot overturn a ruling made in a civil, family or criminal court. This is sharia law.

Sharia courts rule solely on custody, divorce and property-settlement matters where rulings have not been made in a civil or family court.

How is this any different to the Catholic church absolving marriages or giving advice?

Well, in a sharia court, you meet the judges and present your case. Their deliberations are minuted, and their decisions can be appealed. Their deliberations are open and transparent. They aim to work with the will of each party, as they know this is how any ruling will ultimately play out - between people, not people and an abstract sovereign body such as a church or state.

As far as I understand, when the Catholics rule on these matters, a decision is made by priests and bishops behind closed doors and handed down the line. The church's word is final - as far as I understand.

So forgetting all the 50 lashes and beheading and stoning - illegal under sharia law where other jurisdictions take precedence - what exactly makes it worse than what the Vatican practices?

Church and state? Where there is a state, its courts take precedence over sharia law. It happens all the time - people who don't like the sharia courts' decisions, take their matters to the family or civil courts. Sharia courts are powerless, and they know it. They also respect the law - in their very own law.

So all the knuckleheads calling for sharia law are either misguided or misquoted. And all the knuckleheads trying to ban or forbid it have no idea what its powers are. It is, essentially, a mediation service.

As it is illegal under sharia to rule against any legal decisions made by the courts of the land. The separation of powers - and church and state - is built into sharia law.

I'm not sure if the same can be said for Catholic rulings. It's rare today, but it wasn't so long ago when divorced Catholics would be banished from the church.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:


The Catholic church doesn't have the monopoly on that, speaking of physical violence in particular. All the religions seem to maintain that conservative (small c) value.

The US evangelicals seem to offer all kinds of advice on how to beat your child. You just need to Google it.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:



That is because everyone knows, that God will never hold us accountable for our choices, and for what we choose to permit [ourselves to do].

All things are permissible to us - here.

Correct ?




Psalms 36:4
....he abhorreth not evil.

Google the Goa Inquisition.  Any religion has this kind of potential. The status quo is an ephemeral, fragile thing.


Ignore history at your peril.

NoN:

"Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being." Proverbs 20:30

Google Sean Harris. He's the Baptist preacher who thinks you should beat the "gay" out of your child.

Soren wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


Well let's compare apples with apples:

Difference between extreme forms of Sharia and the Goa Inquision?  Both barbaric.

Evangelical child beating and Islamic child beating? Pretty similar.