You my friend have hit the nail on the head. There is a huge difference between freedom of religion and what is acceptable human behavior.

Let me illustrate. In 1621 Caspar Plautius visited South America and observed a native culture that practiced Devil Worship along with Cannibalism. Now according to the logic of many liberals who think that Shiahira law is acceptable because its part of the Islamic belief system....I pose this question to you...what if people today that practice the occult want to sacrifice humans or animals and eat their flesh? Is that acceptable? If you say there is a difference between cannibalism and Shiahira Law...I think many PETA and Human Rights activists would strongly disagree. Any religion that practices a social behavior that is unacceptable to the social norms of any society that does not preserve the sanctity of life and protect the rights of all living creatures both man or animal needs to be defined not as a religion but as pure evil. Now one may say that Shiahira law is not practiced to that extent in America....I have one thing to say to that...Not Yet Anyway. What needs to be the focus of this debate is what is the limitations of social norms say for example people that eat monkey brains...verses people that practice mutilation of their own family members. It all comes down to Human Rights...don't protect any religion that does not hold Human Rights as its highest moral responsibility. The Islamic faith at its very core is evil. IMHO.

You my friend have hit the nail on the head. There is a huge difference between freedom of religion and what is acceptable human behavior.

Let me illustrate. In 1621 Caspar Plautius visited South America and observed a native culture that practiced Devil Worship along with Cannibalism. Now according to the logic of many liberals who think that Shiahira law is acceptable because its part of the Islamic belief system....I pose this question to you...what if people today that practice the occult want to sacrifice humans or animals and eat their flesh? Is that acceptable? If you say there is a difference between cannibalism and Shiahira Law...I think many PETA and Human Rights activists would strongly disagree. Any religion that practices a social behavior that is unacceptable to the social norms of any society that does not preserve the sanctity of life and protect the rights of all living creatures both man or animal needs to be defined not as a religion but as pure evil. Now one may say that Shiahira law is not practiced to that extent in America....I have one thing to say to that...Not Yet Anyway. What needs to be the focus of this debate is what is the limitations of social norms say for example people that eat monkey brains...verses people that practice mutilation of their own family members. It all comes down to Human Rights...don't protect any religion that does not hold Human Rights as its highest moral responsibility. The Islamic faith at its very core is evil. IMHO.

to an extent you have a valid point,but i think the punishment thats dealt to individuals for breaking Islamic laws is evil..for example if a married man is caught w/another woman he is shot on site,no questions asked.

to an extent you have a valid point,but i think the punishment thats dealt to individuals for breaking Islamic laws is evil..for example if a married man is caught w/another woman he is shot on site,no questions asked.

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.'

archaic punishments,,,but time and culture can (obviously) alter them

following laws doesnt make people evil people, some laws have to be altered to catch up with a 'higher' spiritual or soical order

mosaic law was pretty harsh too(old testament),

so either all those israelis were 'evil' or current sharia law muslims are just archaic

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.'


archaic punishments,,,but time and culture can (obviously) alter them

following laws doesnt make people evil people, some laws have to be altered to catch up with a 'higher' spiritual or soical order

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.'


archaic punishments,,,but time and culture can (obviously) alter them

following laws doesnt make people evil people, some laws have to be altered to catch up with a 'higher' spiritual or soical order

Funny, but I kinda always thought that BEHEADING and PUTTING PEOPLE IN WOOD CHIPPERS was kind of 'archaic' and all that, but these Seventh Century throatcutters have no concern for what EDUCATED people in the Twenty-first Century see as 'archaic' ... they only see 'dhimmi' and 'Infidel' ... and if you ain't 'muslim', guess how they see you ... "higher spiritual or soical order" be damned ... They're not worried about the 'law' catching up - they ARE 'the law' ...

I feel a connect to God , I feel empathy for those who dont have such a connect, but I dont hate them or see them as infidels
in fact, I think the biblical name for those who refuse to accept the lord is 'fools'...but semantics aside

I see people as human and their souls as equally significant.

Thankfully, I dont have the amazing insight that others on these threads do to tell you how others feel about, think, or see me when I have never met them.

You and I can both agree on that...God teaches us to hate Sin but not the sinner. I think the problem today is like the church in Florida that is burning Koran's and calling people "fagots" is that one can become confused as to whether or not they know the difference.

" ... you hit the nail on the head, my friend

confusing the sin with the sinner and painting whole religions (and anti religions) black because of it ... "

you hit the nail on the head, my friend

confusing the sin with the sinner and painting whole religions (and anti religions) black because of it

So in light of that would you agree that both religions need corrective measures? Or should we make exceptions to the rule in the name of religious tolerance? your thoughts.

I dont think its the religions that need correction so much as the cultures which interpret and apply them.

Those cultures in islamic society which practice archaic punishment need to abide more by those lessons in the Quran which condemn violence. Those cultures in christian society which practice archaic punishment and unjust treatment should abide more by the lessons in the bible which encourage loving their neighbor.

lmao...you should really consider running for office...that was the best political answer I have ever heard...please don't take offense I am only joking with you...but your response clearly shows that you want to separate bad religions from bad people. I guess in some psychological circles one could separate the two? I dunno.