When is an assault not an assault: when the Judge sympathizes with the attacker and says it's not

[TrueMetis]

Does not compute with what you said. Try again.

What you think going to war doesn't involve bombing the shit out of them?

[Tempra]

What you think going to war doesn't involve bombing the shit out of them?

No. I think it is disingenuous to take a poll from 2009 that asks whether the US did the right thing by going into Iraq and equating that with support for "bombing the ever loving shit out of Iraq."

[Sci-2]

No. I think it is disingenuous to take a poll from 2009 that asks whether the US did the right thing by going into Iraq and equating that with support for "bombing the ever loving shit out of Iraq."

Yeah, but then we don't what the poll asked Muslims either or how they interpreted it. If people want to give out Christian leaflets outside a mosque, or are people storming the mosque trying to kill or hurt people inside?

[TrueMetis]

No. I think it is disingenuous to take a poll from 2009 that asks whether the US did the right thing by going into Iraq and equating that with support for "bombing the ever loving shit out of Iraq."

I disagree, if you support the US going to war with Iraq you must by necessity of how war works support bombing them.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Well. If one agrees with the necessity of going to war, it follows that the prosecution of said war is not going to be with feather pillows. Having said that, there is a HUGE difference between supporting the USAs acts in invading Iraq as the nation was a threat to us, with its WMD program as the data in 2003 said it had...and lets not threadjack this to Iraq...and support of killing civilians because someone drew a cartoon of Mohammed, burned a Koran, or in some other way offended Islam.

[TrueMetis]

Well. If one agrees with the necessity of going to war, it follows that the prosecution of said war is not going to be with feather pillows. Having said that, there is a HUGE difference between supporting the USAs acts in invading Iraq as the nation was a threat to us, with its WMD program as the data in 2003 said it had...and lets not threadjack this to Iraq...and support of killing civilians because someone drew a cartoon of Mohammed, burned a Koran, or in some other way offended Islam.

Which isn't at all what the poll you cited said.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Which isn't at all what the poll you cited said.

The quote I cited said " "78% believe that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies can never be justified" Well, the 22% that do, the 8% who REALLY do, those overseas surely do, think responses of rioting and rampage over the burned Korans and cartoons of Mohammed = defending Islam.

[Sci-2]

I suspect if you went to any area with poor resource distribution and lack of secularism, you could find people saying they support excessive violence to defend their faith.

The words "from its enemies" are open to a lot of interpretation. Is it against people who want to murder Muslims or just people who disagree with them theologically?

[TrueMetis]

The quote I cited said " "78% believe that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies can never be justified" Well, the 22% that do, the 8% who REALLY do, those overseas surely do, think responses of rioting and rampage over the burned Korans and cartoons of Mohammed = defending Islam.

You assume that, without backing it up. The 1% who think that it is often acceptable might, maybe. For the 7% for whom it is sometimes justifiable there is no reason to conclude that defending islam from its enemies would include book burners and cartoonists. Those two words of course being very important.

And enough claiming it is 22% that do, it's 13% total. Including those who think it is okay rarely 5%, sometimes 7%, and often 1%. Meaning 9% didn't answer.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

Every time debates such as this start up, I can't help think that if there were no religion, there would be no argument. I think I prefer that much more.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Every time debates such as this start up, I can't help think that if there were no religion, there would be no argument. I think I prefer that much more.

I think religion is the single most divisive creation of the human mind. When you look at the subject, you realize that almost all religions believe in some sort of supreme being, though they can't agree on what he wants, nor whet to call him. And, unfortunately, they all believe that theirs is the only true belief. It doesn't make for an atmosphere of love and joy.

[TrueMetis]

Made some sense thousands of years ago though, since a deity was a way to bring very different people together and maybe dissaude enemies from attacking (if you do our magic protector will smite you), but now not so much.

[Verboten]

Every time debates such as this start up, I can't help think that if there were no religion, there would be no argument. I think I prefer that much more.

I can see where this is going so: eugenics. The problem is not faith the problem is the faithful. That is all.

[TrueMetis]

I can see where this is going so: eugenics. The problem is not faith the problem is the faithful. That is all.

It's kind of both isn't it? You cannot look at fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, etc and think that there isn't something wrong with at least some of them. I mean I don't think that the only problem the Westboro people have is religion.

[Sci-2]

Every time debates such as this start up, I can't help think that if there were no religion, there would be no argument. I think I prefer that much more.

Communism, capitalism, slave trade, democracy, love, sex, racial hatred...the problem is people have ideas and beliefs.

I think religion is a powerful motivator for violence, and especially irrational hate, but I think it's hard to believe that human greed and desire would not find some other excuse.

For the millions killed by religion, billions are comforted and made stronger.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

TrueMetis, part of what you wrote " there is no reason to conclude that defending islam from its enemies would include book burners and cartoonists. Those two words of course being very important". Well, yes, by Islamic standards, enemies of Islam DO include those who offend it, whether by blasphemy or any other insult you can imagine. Thats why some guy is in trouble in Saudi Arabia for a twitter comment he made. Thats why people are in jail in the Arab world for blasphemy...they somehow were viewed to have insulted Islam or Mohammed, and yes, burning/ defacing a Koran is one way to do it.

Every time debates such as this start up, I can't help think that if there were no religion, there would be no argument. I think I prefer that much more.

If there was no religion, people would simply find something else to fight, maim and kill over. Capitalism and communism are not religions, but ample people have died defending and opposing both ideals. And yes, extreme religosity is one of the many symptoms of mental illness...but that has to be taken as a gestalt of the person...one cant just look at a ultra religious person of any faith and say "thats mentally ill because its extreme religosity".

Its without doubt that every religion has its share of extremists. In Judiasm and Christianity, they are the ones who are laughed at and mocked by the mainstream of the faith. Israel for example damned the Satmar Jews who bullied and harrassed an 8 year old girl as she walked to school. The nation...and Judiasm saw that as unacceptable, and indeed it was vile behavior. In Islam, however, the mainstream of the faith is, from what it seems, to embrace the violence and oppression thats normally associated with the extremists of other beliefs. When Jared Laughner shot Gabby Gifford, the nation damned the shooter as a radical, a nut, a loon. In Pakistan, when Governor Salman Taseers bodyguard shot and killed him because he was seeking reforms (specifically, clemency for a Christian woman to be executed for blasphemy), the Islamic nation celebrated the KILLER, for upholding the principles of Islam. From his son: "I should say too that on Friday every mosque in the country condoned the killer's actions; 2,500 lawyers came forward to take on his defence for free; and the Chief Minister of Punjab, who did not attend the funeral, is yet to offer his condolences in person to my family who sit besieged in their house in Lahore". Article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8248162/The-killer-of-my-father-Salman-Taseer-was-showered-with-rose-petals-by-fanatics.-How-could-they-do-this.html

And TrueMetis, as I wrote upthread, I dont believe the numbers in the study...I dont think the Muslims answered honestly, and as I said, I dont blame them. This one has nothing to do with Islam, but of study design and methodology. Its a common study flaw, for any study of such a type...people will tell researchers what they believe the researcher wants to hear, and what wont make them look bad. Applies to anything, really. Self reported data can be suspect indeed, especially if that data was asking about behavior that was not socially condoned. So, I would not be shocked if that 8% was actually far higher.

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

No. I think it is disingenuous to take a poll from 2009 that asks whether the US did the right thing by going into Iraq and equating that with support for "bombing the ever loving shit out of Iraq."

Fair enough, in that I suppose it is possible the polled were simply suffering from all-but-debilitating cognitive dissonance. It's possible they simply deluded themselves into thinking that military victory in Iraq, and especially our victory if you can call it that, wouldn't have logically entailed bombing the ever-loving-shit out of Iraqis. They might have thought, "Going to Iraq? Yeah, that was the right thing to do. But I wish we'd just landed our soldiers without any bombing, because it's not as if that provides any strategic or tactical advantage."

I mean, some of these people, like me, may have supported our going into Iraq, but don't think we should have killed anyone or fired a single bullet. I think it's pretty clear that if we'd simply marched our soldiers into Baghdad, Saddam would have slipped out the back door and joined a monastery somewhere. Peaceful transition. Sure, some people maybe wanted us to bomb Iraq, but your brush is too wide if it paints me, too.

ETA. And while we're on the subject, what is with these cooks and their wanton destruction of eggs?

[Early Earl]

How did that turn into a discussion about Iraque?

I started reading the thread because the OP seemed interesting. (I admit I didn't read the full 20 pages in between.) That "assault" incident was pretty much covered, though by the comment that clarified that it was an "uneducated" judge who made the descision based on personal believe. The political implications of this about religion are hardly any, in my opinion. If anything, it indicates that the law system needs to be revised to prevent such awfull ruling.

But I started reading this, because in my country we have actually problems of a similar nature. From the 1960s immigrants from Turkey started to come to Germany. They have been sending for their relatives to live here, too. It is said, that they are building "sub-cultures" here, living all by themselves in certain parts of bigger cities. It is also said that being somewhat "cut off" from their "native culture" they tend to be more conservative about their beliefs than for example people in the greater cities of Turkey itself. While I do believe that this is true to some extend, I probably wouldn't say it is that big of a problem as people tend to make of it.

The problem is, that there were a number of court rulings (by properly educated judges) that based their descision on the immigrants' law (e.g. the sharia). Those were mostly conscerned with matters of (forced) marriage. First, there is no problem with basing a descision upon the Scharia, even in countries in which it is not law, but only so in cases conscerning the relationship between two citizens (in opposition to a state-citizen relationship, which eg. is ruled by criminal law). Basically, free citizens may decide for themselves, which rules they agree to abide, as long as noone else's rights are violated. It's like a contract, really.

The problem is second: The constitutional rights force the government not only to prevent violations done by itself, but to a certain degree also violations by citizen against each other. (best example again criminal law. The constitution is granting the citizens the right to remain physically unharmed thus forcing the government to protect the people from such by paying for police and "punshing" criminals.) The conflict occurs, when the right of religious freedom of a woman (in pretty much all the cases) who wants to live by the Sharia is conflicting with her right of equality and freedom of choice which she is not willing to claim, because basically she has grown up in a ("sub-") society that has taught her it was not "her place" to have those rights.

In summary: How much are the judges allowed to dismiss the expressed choice by a mentally healthy person, if it is evident that the choice is made in ("forced") ignorance of her constitutional rights? (eg. assuming that most women would not be willing to marry a complete stranger from a different country, give birth to his children and do his housework for the rest of her life without having much of a life herself. I personally believe that's not a far fetched assumption and also that muslim religion doesn't make that mandatory even for strict believers).

Question: To close the circle to what I thought the OP was about: How to solve conflicts of religious freedom vs. individual rights with the least violation of both?

P.S. If - at best - the Iraque war was an attempt to establish a free and stable political situation, then it was doomed to fail, imo, because history has shown that economic wealth always preceeded freedom of citizens. Best example: french revolution, newest examples: China or Saudi arabia: If not constant or fast changes towards more individual freedom, than at least some and more than shown as in North Korea. And they always go along with changes of the economic system. So, if you want a society to become more liberal, you have to have something to share (money.) and the people will find the will to take it, aka aspire political power to get it.

P.P.S. you may never haved guessed, but I'm not a native speaker ;). I had troubles writing this post so I apologize for it probably being a hard read.

[Seli]

Every time debates such as this start up, I can't help think that if there were no religion, there would be no argument. I think I prefer that much more.

History suggests people are quite willing and capable to find other things to disagree on enough to bash eachothers brains in. Sports, political ideologies, language, culture.

[Robin Of House Hill]

History suggests people are quite willing and capable to find other things to disagree on enough to bash eachothers brains in. Sports, political ideologies, language, culture.

Or just that they look different.