Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'

[HAL9000]

How does America let these nutbags get any kind of public profile, sort it out people.

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, not true at all. The Old Testament is just as strict and open to intolerant interpretation as the Quran. And btw, the "codified" thing you mentioned is also not true, the non-scriptural "laws" in Islam are called fatwas, and they are issued by clergyman who are fat and corrupt hypocrites. It would be like saying Christianity is governed by Roman Catholic pedophiles.

You have little understand about the topic. I do not blame you, but those who should have taught you properly and did not.

The Law of Moses never applied to non-Jews unless they chose to live in the Land of Israel. If you wish to live in Israel, then you have to follow Israeli Law. This is no different than living in Sweden and having to follow Swedish Law.

If you are a Jew, you must follow the Law of Moses as well, regardless of where you live.

One caveat, the ability to be a judge in a religious Jewish court has been lost (it is possible a direct line still exists, but no ruling has yet been made), so none of the legal issues can be judged...and no conviction means no sentencing. The punishments cannot be carried out if one cannot have a trial because there are no judges. And again, this only applies to those in the Land of Israel and to Jews anywhere.

The Quran places its Sharia Laws on the entire planet, regardless of if you are a Muslim or not. Some rules only apply if you are Muslim, to be sure, but most are applied to everyone. The Quran also says Islam must conquer the planet and gain temporal power over every people, the Bible says no such thing.

 

[cybrsage]

If you want to say that Santorum is a fanatic or zealot, go for it. Analogizing to Sharia is about as dumb as saying he's like the Dalai Lama.

Yep, absolutely correct.

 

[janas19]

You have little understand about the topic. I do not blame you, but those who should have taught you properly and did not.

Same to you, my friend.

 

[cybrsage]

Same to you, my friend.

Have you ever even studied Torah? Read the Mishna? Opened a Siddur and sung the praises in Hebrew?

All that aside, your rebuttle is lacking in substance. You do not need to have read the Mishna or sung praises in Hebrew (though you do need to study Torah to talk about Torah) to have a good argument.

Your argument is simply "nu-uh", which is not good enough. Try again, you may sway people that you are correct...but only if you can support your view at all.

 

[SilthDraeth]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a stupid thing to say, infohawk, Christian Sharia type laws dominated European thinking during the bulk of the dark ages. Burning Heretics at the stake, the Spanish inquisition the hundred year war where Catholics and Protestants cheerfully murdered each other may be some evidence that Christianity have since reformed. But when we look at all recent war crimes in the former Yugoslavia where Christians murdered Muslims in orgies of murder, its hard to conclude Christian Sharia is not alive and well to this very day.

Or we could go back to the supposedly Christian continent of Europe pre WW2, and watch all those Christians look the other way as Jews, Gypsies, Slav's, and so may others were murdered, while so many other good Christians did their bit to help the process along.

And now we get the news that rouge US soldiers in Afghanistan were engaging in the systematic murder of Afghan civilians. And Infohawk, I am sure you are proud or the
Westboro Baptist church and the REV Jim Jones.

So please grow a brain infohawk, its not just the Moooslems.

But its just the wonderful thing about "GOD", as soon as "we" self convince ourselves that God is on our side, it frees us up to commit the most despicable of human acts.

Say after me, KILL FOR GOD, KILL FOR GOD as we only do the acts of the devil. And even better yet, KILLING FOR GOD morally justifies the righteous to steal the property of GODLESS HEATHENS.

You bring up a valid point a lot of people never grasp.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

People often think this means, "If I smash my finger and yell God dammit!" I am guilty.

Yet it is in actuality speaking of people claiming God told them to do it, or raging holly wars, etc. That is the the true meaning behind the commandment.

Now obviously agnostics, and atheists etc will have no problem with this commandment, but anyone who calls themselves a Christian needs to think this one through.

 

[janas19]

Have you ever even studied Torah? Read the Mishna? Opened a Siddur and sung the praises in Hebrew?

All that aside, your rebuttle is lacking in substance. You do not need to have read the Mishna or sung praises in Hebrew (though you do need to study Torah to talk about Torah) to have a good argument.

Your argument is simply "nu-uh", which is not good enough. Try again, you may sway people that you are correct...but only if you can support your view at all.

Lol, no I just enjoy you expending the energy to think so hard and do all that typing while I sit back and laugh at your ignorance.

 

[cybrsage]

That, and it means not to take His Name lightly, flippantly. This is why many Jews say HaShem (which means The Name), Adonai (Lord), and G-d (to prevent spelling the English name for HaShem). The Tetragrammaton is never spoken outside of the Temple, which is not yet rebuilt, so you will never hear the true Name of God spoken aloud.

 

[cybrsage]

Lol, no I just enjoy you expending the energy to think so hard and do all that typing while I sit back and laugh at your ignorance.

Ah, this means you have no clue about which you speak. No problem, at least I understand your point now.

It is sad, for most people do not want to purposefully remain ignorant.

 

[senseamp]

Conservatives need to stop dragging Jews into this and saying "Judeo-Christian" values. If they want to cram Christianity down people's throats, they should just own up to that, and stop pretending like Jews are in it with them.

 

[SandEagle]

You have little understand about the topic. I do not blame you, but those who should have taught you properly and did not.

.
.
.

The Quran places its Sharia Laws on the entire planet, regardless of if you are a Muslim or not. Some rules only apply if you are Muslim, to be sure, but most are applied to everyone. The Quran also says Islam must conquer the planet and gain temporal power over every people, the Bible says no such thing.

can you source this? and i don't want to see foxnews, cnn, or any of that crap. you are either brainwashed into thinking that muslims want to rule the planet or are delusional and part of the establishment that continues to spread these lies. in reality, muslims must follow the law of the land. they are required to do as the romans when in rome.

these judeo-christian hybrids are useful idiots though. they're getting tricked into killing each other off. muslims vs christians. lol. how 5th century

 

[Infohawk]

Lol, no I just enjoy you expending the energy to think so hard and do all that typing while I sit back and laugh at your ignorance.

That sounds a lot like trolling...

 

[Infohawk]

Conservatives need to stop dragging Jews into this and saying "Judeo-Christian" values. If they want to cram Christianity down people's throats, they should just own up to that, and stop pretending like Jews are in it with them.

Do you really get the impression Christians are trying to align themselves with Jews? I don't. I think you're reading too much into the CNN title that the Palestinian-American author might have also had a role in choosing. (It's also sort of funny because Christians have often been accused of being anti-Semitic.)

The term judeo-christian accurately reflects the heavy influence that the Old Testament has on conservative Christians. A lot of the more primitive stuff comes from the Old Testament. The fact that many American Jews today are secular and liberal doesn't really change that.

 

[Infohawk]

these judeo-christian hybrids are useful idiots though. they're getting tricked into killing each other off. muslims vs christians. lol. how 5th century

In English, the 5th century means 400-499 CE/AD. Islam wasn't even around back then. Maybe you were thinking of the Islamic calendar that you learned from?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Right, it's a bad analogy that is designed to suggest equivalence where there is none.

The belief that your views have absolute moral authority = the belief that your views have absolute moral authority. It's a perfect analogy. Sharia being better codified is irrelevant -- if you're up against the stake because we think you're a witch and we've codified the Bible's "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," does it really matter that there's wiggle room in which, if you close one eye and squint with the other, perhaps you could possibly read the New Testament as maybe undermining the requirement specifically laid out in the Old Testament?
Hard line is hard line.

 

[cybrsage]

can you source this? and i don't want to see foxnews, cnn, or any of that crap. you are either brainwashed into thinking that muslims want to rule the planet or are delusional and part of the establishment that continues to spread these lies. in reality, muslims must follow the law of the land. they are required to do as the romans when in rome.

I used to have the exact Suras and such, but basically, it is needed to cause the return of the Mahdi. After the Mahdi rules for 7 years, the end of days begins.

 

[Infohawk]

The belief that your views have absolute moral authority = the belief that your views have absolute moral authority. It's a perfect analogy. Sharia being better codified is irrelevant

Actually yeah it is relevant. Again, say zealotry, say fanaticism, say dogmatic if you want. That's not what Sharia means. Sharia is a legal framework. People here are using it as a synonym for "religious" which is quite simplistic and ignorant. Again, the author is just trying to make a particularly primitive aspect of Islam seem equivalent to Christianity where there is no equivalency. You're buying it hook line and sinker.

 

[cybrsage]

The belief that your views have absolute moral authority = the belief that your views have absolute moral authority. It's a perfect analogy. Sharia being better codified is irrelevant -- if you're up against the stake because we think you're a witch and we've codified the Bible's "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," does it really matter that there's wiggle room in which, if you close one eye and squint with the other, perhaps you could possibly read the New Testament as maybe undermining the requirement specifically laid out in the Old Testament?
Hard line is hard line.

The Law of Moses is only binding on those whose ancestors agree to bind themselves and their offspring to it...and those foreignors who chose to live amongst them.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Actually yeah it is relevant. Again, say zealotry, say fanaticism, say dogmatic if you want. That's not what Sharia means. Sharia is a legal framework. People here are using it as a synonym for "religious" which is quite simplistic and ignorant.

"Ignorantly absolute" = religious. "Reasoned religion" is a contradiction in terms.
AFAIK, Sharia is an absolute system. So no reason is allowed. Calling that religious is calling a spade a spade.

The Law of Moses is only binding on those whose ancestors agree to bind themselves and their offspring to it...and those foreignors who chose to live amongst them.

Rick Santorum thinks otherwise, as do millions of others who believe their personal beliefs are shared by and demanded by God. Your disagreement with their religion doesn't make it not a set of religious beliefs, and doesn't make their desire to impose their religious beliefs become something other than a desire to impose religious beliefs.

 

[Infohawk]

"Ignorantly absolute" = religious. "Reasoned religion" is a contradiction in terms.
AFAIK, Sharia is an absolute system. So no reason is allowed. Calling that religious is calling a spade a spade.

If you're so critical of religion than you shouldn't like black and white thinking. Yet that is what you're doing. You're not seeing any shades of gray. The shades of gray here is that one religion has a built-in governance system and another one doesn't. You thinking religions aren't reasonable doesn't change that fact.

 

[cybrsage]

"Ignorantly absolute" = religious. "Reasoned religion" is a contradiction in terms.

Not true, but your ignorant absolutism makes you say such. Hmmm....

AFAIK, Sharia is an absolute system. So no reason is allowed. Calling that religious is calling a spade a spade.

All legal systems are absolute...if they are not, they fail.

Rick Santorum thinks otherwise, as do millions of others who believe their personal beliefs are shared by and demanded by God.

No, he does not. I am quite confident he works on Saturday (the Sabbath Day). However, you are right about the millions, since there are now roughly 13 or 14 million Jews on the planet.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If you're so critical of religion than you shouldn't like black and white thinking.

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

It is reasonable to assume there is objective truth, for if there was not objective truth the statement, "there is no objective truth," could not be objectively true... and that statement could also not be true, nor could that one, nor this. Any and all declarative statements are predicated on the assumption of objective truth. The alternative cannot even be spoken of. (but it can. but it can't. but it can and can't. but it neither can nor can't. but it both can and can't and neither can nor can't. but it can neither can and can't nor neither can nor can't..."

Stop being stupid. X=X is not philosophically murky.

All legal systems are absolute...if they are not, they fail.

LOL!
Fucking idiot.

 

[Infohawk]

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

It's not a non-sequitur. It's what you're doing. You're oversimplifying.

Stop being stupid. X=X is not philosophically murky.

You're pulling X out of your ass here. Please.

 

[Craig234]

The point is, Muslim things have been made to sound foerign and terrifying, while things very similar in our culture are 'sacred' and protected and praised.

This is common in xenophobia. Instead of noticing the commonalities of humanity with other people, the areas of being different are highlighted and exaggerated and attacked.

Hell, the Muslims themselves can't get along over a very minor difference between Sharia and Sunni - and millions of Christian Americans vote against other Christians.

 

[Infohawk]

The point is, Muslim things have been made to sound foerign and terrifying, while things very similar in our culture are 'sacred' and protected and praised.

Such sloppy thinking: Muslim "things." No not Muslim "things." Specifically, "Sharia." That specific idea has no equivalent in Christianity.