Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

What's the difference?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's the difference?

    A couple of news articles and the fact the silly season is upon us here in the US make me wonder.

    It was noted in the paper the other day that a District Court struck down a law in Oklahoma that makes it illegal for any court in the state to use Sharia or any other foreign precedent or law as a basis for its rulings. Suit was filed by an Islamic man who said it violated his rights and the court agreed noting that there was no case of any court in OK ever using sharia as a basis anyway. This brings up the fact that for some reason we now have this bogeyman sharia and a fear by a number of idiots that somehow it is going to be imposed on us in the US. Now if there was an outside chance of it happening I might be scared myself but let's face it, the proverbial snowball has a better chance of surviving than sharia becoming the law of the land. My question tho is that the main groups that seem to worry about this scenario are conservative Christian groups and their fellow travellers. They view the Islamic legal code as an attack upon the Constitution while at the same time have no problems trying to inflict their religous views upon everyone by trying to use them as the basis for new laws or reasons to overturn old ones. So what the hell is the damned difference except for the fact of different religous systems behind the legal codes. That and the fact that there is a much higher chance of the religous right getting their way than the Muslims, a fact that scares me a lot more.

    in a recent statement as to why he will veto a bill allowing gay marriage in NJ that state's governor said that he was hesitant to overturn centuries of social and religous tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. First off, whose religous tradition? There are a number of religions that allow for polygamy so why is it ok to tred on their traditions? Also what the hell does reigous tradition have to do with the laws of the land? The proposed bill does not require that churches perform marriages between gays if it violates their precepts, in fact there is a specific ban against such a requirement. This is a secular bill mainly so that gays can have the same civil benefits as straight people. Of course there will probably be some folks that decide they want a church wedding and try to force the state to force the church to marry them if they want to be able to perform marriages at all but they will be in the minority and any effort to do such a thing should be heartily opposed. Unlike issues of housing, adoption, healthcare and such the only difference between a civil marriage and a church one is a matter of ceremony and that is not a civil rights violation. So hold the mirror up to these people, if you are pushing for laws based on your religous views then you have no right to rant that some other religous group might be trying to do the same thing you are.
    herb

    Man spends his time on devising a more idiot proof computer. The universe spends its time devising bigger idiots. So far the universe is winning.

    http://www.wolfshead.net/wolfshowl


    http://www.wolfshead.net/books

  • #2
    obviously the difference is they think their religion is the one right religion

    Comment


    • #3
      True.

      Just read a line concernig religion, possibly elsewhere on this board, that I particularly liked. Something on the order of the fact that all men are atheists concerning religions that are not their own. Now if only we can increase the number of enlightened "atheists" that realize religous codes are how we should conduct ourselves, legal codes are how we must conduct ourselves and while not always exclusive of each other in everything there is no way they can possibly be totally inclusive of each other.

      interesting in that I just saw the movie Priest. The backdrop is a world where vampires were wiping out the human race and people turned to the church for protection. The church develops a line of fighters to defeat the vampire menace and become the rulers of the world. My comment after the first 5-10 min of the movie laying out the backdrop, "I don't know what scares me more, the vampires or the church."
      Last edited by Wolfshead; 01-29-2012, 07:24 PM.
      herb

      Man spends his time on devising a more idiot proof computer. The universe spends its time devising bigger idiots. So far the universe is winning.

      http://www.wolfshead.net/wolfshowl


      http://www.wolfshead.net/books

      Comment

      Working...
      X