Terror attacks in Paris.

[BashfulAnthony]

Christianity has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries, and some Biblical literalist nutters are still responsible for unpleasant abuse.

Those who try to excuse the OT for its nastiness, saying it has been superseded by the NT, seem to forget it is the same deity featured in each. Besides which the NT is far from perfect. Jesus might have said and done good things but he also said and did things which were far from sensible, imo. The NT hosts that daft book of Revelation which gives free rein to Biblical extremists to interpret in mindbogglingly crazy ways!

You have no idea, have you!

[jakswan]

Islam needs a reformation, hopefully not as bloody as the Christian one!

[Hope]

Christianity has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries, and some Biblical literalist nutters are still responsible for unpleasant abuse.

If it was only Christianity that 'has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries' Floo, I could understand your pov; however, when one looks at history, it is clear that 'nastiness' has taken place for millennia - and often before Christianity had even been thought about or without having any connection to Christianity.  In view of this reality, isn't it more logical to find humanity to be the common denominator in the issue, as opposed to this or that religious or political standpoint.

Those who try to excuse the OT for its nastiness, saying it has been superseded by the NT, seem to forget it is the same deity featured in each.

'Nastiness'is a very non-descript term, Floo.  Perhaps you could explain what you feel to be the 'nasty' events, why you understand them to have occurred (bearing in mind the contexts into which they fit) and whether they were as nasty as many of the events that neighbouring nations carried out in the name of their deities?

Besides which the NT is far from perfect.

Examples, with references, please.

Jesus might have said and done good things but he also said and did things which were far from sensible, imo.

Perhaps you could enlighten folk as to those things that Jesus said and did 'which (in your opinion) were far from sensible'.

The NT hosts that daft book of Revelation which gives free rein to Biblical extremists to interpret in mindbogglingly crazy ways!

Actually, 'free rein' is the wrong term to use, Floo.  At the beginning of your post, you referred to Biblical literalists.  Literalists of any type disregard the context of literature that they are dealing with.  When one context into account, the range of interpretations is remarkably limited.

[Hope]

And Jesus specifically said that the law would not be altered.

Yet alter it he did!!

You cherry pick your holy book and so do Muslims. That's not a bad thing.

I think they may have learnt that skill from critics like youself   

[BashfulAnthony]

Hope, you won't get a discussion from Floo:  all she deals in is condemnation.

[Outrider]

If it was only Christianity that 'has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries' Floo, I could understand your pov; however, when one looks at history, it is clear that 'nastiness' has taken place for millennia - and often before Christianity had even been thought about or without having any connection to Christianity.  In view of this reality, isn't it more logical to find humanity to be the common denominator in the issue, as opposed to this or that religious or political standpoint.

Yes and no - humanity isn't uniformly this terrible, so it's not enough for it to be purely about being human. What tends to show is that totalitarianism leads to mistreatment, tribalism/nationalism leads to mistreatment... religions are replete with these ideas, particularly the monotheist Abrahamic religions.

O.

[Hope]

You are joking, of course!

Before you go off o your hobby horse, Floo, remember the context in which this law was given.  The people of Israel were effectively nomads, and therefore had no secure gaols to put wrongdoers into.  As nomads they would probably have had limited food supplies.  They couldn't afford to 'carry' people who had broken society's laws and therefore damaged society.  Basically, they would have two options; kill them or leave them to starve, both in the name of justice.  Under such circumstances, theft and rape were no different in that they both damaged social cohesion and trust, and would likely be punished in the same way.

Rather than constantly looking at history through the rose-tinted glasses of 20th and 21st Western civilisation - which isn't, by any standards, perfect - you need to start looking at things contextually.

[Hope]

Yes and no - humanity isn't uniformly this terrible, so it's not enough for it to be purely about being human. What tends to show is that totalitarianism leads to mistreatment, tribalism/nationalism leads to mistreatment... religions are replete with these ideas, particularly the monotheist Abrahamic religions.

O.

The fact that you pick out religion as having those traits, when we know that non-religious thinking is replete with them as well, highlights your mistake.  The fact that you then particularise the Abrahamic religions reinforces that.

Now, I'm not denying that followers of those 3 faiths - not to mention those of polytheistic faiths and no faith at all - have committed some horrendous crimes against humanity, but rarely is it easy to find Scriptural support, or its non-religious equivalent, for these actions unless one reads the material outside of any context.

I would also agree that "humanity isn't uniformly this terrible", but that doesn't mean that the tendency to committing atrocities isn't human as opposed to political or religious or whatever.  As we now know you can't recognise a criminal by the shape of their head; everyone has the potential for either good or bad.

[Outrider]

The fact that you pick out religion as having those traits, when we know that non-religious thinking is replete with them as well, highlights your mistake.  The fact that you then particularise the Abrahamic religions reinforces that.

I was explaining why it applied to religious ideas - I'm not saying that it doesn't happen anywhere else, you only need to look at Stalin's Soviet Union to see that. The fact that I emphasise the Abrahamic religions over the others is that their tendency towards claims of absolute truth and enforcing that on others is far, far more pronounced in history than other faiths.

Now, I'm not denying that followers of those 3 faiths - not to mention those of polytheistic faiths and no faith at all - have committed some horrendous crimes against humanity, but rarely is it easy to find Scriptural support, or its non-religious equivalent, for these actions unless one reads the material outside of any context.

Actually, it's not difficult to find scriptural support at all, and they all do. It might not be how you interpret those segments, but I keep explaining to you that you aren't the arbiter of 'True' Christianity, or Islam or Judaism - nobody is. Christianity is not a clear code, it's the sum of the actions of the people who do what they do because they are Christian, likewise with Islam. ISIS are no more nor less Islamic than Muslim shop-owners in Ruislip, they are both contributing to what Islam is.

I would also agree that "humanity isn't uniformly this terrible", but that doesn't mean that the tendency to committing atrocities isn't human as opposed to political or religious or whatever.  As we now know you can't recognise a criminal by the shape of their head; everyone has the potential for either good or bad.

They do; in religion they have a tool that leads to authoritarian and totalitarian thinking - that's inherently dangerous.

O.

[Rhiannon]

Cats to the rescue in Brussels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34897645

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We can't take Islam away from them. If we try to rename them, that's just more ammunition for them - "They refuse to even recognise the truth of Allah and his prophet!"

You can, unfortunately, not force people to take up the education they are offered any more than you can force them to take up or give up a faith.

Whereas what I get from those sorts of discussions is the realisation that Islam - and the other religions - are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything.

O.

Moral values are a large component of religion and moral values are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything, so it's not really surprising that religions are equally as vague as people's moral values. Lots of non-religious people think killing people is wrong but given a certain set of circumstances and a certain feeling of desperation to achieve a goal, all subjectively defined of course, and killing people suddenly becomes ok - hence drone  strikes.

Hence the moral value of not killing people in religion turns into it being ok to kill people - given the right circumstances and desperation, all subjectively defined of course.

Also, people do not have to be religious to lean towards a totalitarian mindset when it comes to moral values. When a country passes laws, it is effectively trying to enforce certain moral values on people who may not agree with those values.

[Outrider]

Moral values are a large component of religion and moral values are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything, so it's not really surprising that religions are equally as vague as people's moral values.

Unfortunately moral values aren't that widely advocated in religion, instead behavioural precepts and absolutes are espoused. That's not universal, but it's typical. If more value were advocated so that people could apply those to situations we'd be in a much, much better place.

Lots of non-religious people think killing people is wrong but given a certain set of circumstances and a certain feeling of desperation to achieve a goal, all subjectively defined of course, and killing people suddenly becomes ok - hence drone  strikes.

Yes, it's almost like morality is a complex thing and eternal absolute pronouncements devoid of a context are unhelpful.

Also, people do not have to be religious to lean towards a totalitarian mindset when it comes to moral values.

And I've already accepted that, and indeed put forward a non-religious example in Stalin's Soviet Union. However, I also pointed out that the nature of religion - the 'definitive' arbiters of the will and judgments of an absolute authority - is such that it lends itself to totalitarian enforcement.

When a country passes laws, it is effectively trying to enforce certain moral values on people who may not agree with those values.

That rather depends on the country - totalitarian states, say like the Arabic theocracies, are indeed trying to enforce particular moral absolutes. By contrast, democratic nations with a legislature based on a mentality of personal rights only tend to invoke laws for economic purposes (which can have a moral dimension as a secondary factor) or to try to mediate the balance between conflicting rights, in as general a way as possible to allow for contextual variation.

They aren't always successful, and there are movements towards authoritarianism even within those, but mechanisms exist to counter that.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Moral values are a large component of religion and moral values are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything, so it's not really surprising that religions are equally as vague as people's moral values. Lots of non-religious people think killing people is wrong but given a certain set of circumstances and a certain feeling of desperation to achieve a goal, all subjectively defined of course, and killing people suddenly becomes ok - hence drone  strikes.

Hence the moral value of not killing people in religion turns into it being ok to kill people - given the right circumstances and desperation, all subjectively defined of course.

Also, people do not have to be religious to lean towards a totalitarian mindset when it comes to moral values. When a country passes laws, it is effectively trying to enforce certain moral values on people who may not agree with those values.

I think there is a difference here between situationalist ethics, i.e. that we take multiple factors into account in a situation to determine what we consider is right and having such a wide selection of ethical positions able to be justified that even if they are non situationalist, that there are others available. At base it doesn't make that much difference, as I would argue all morality is judged subjectively as individuals,but individuals can be consistent to their own models and still be situationalists.

A religion does not need any consistency and can easily accommodate multiple contradictory positions justified by different traditions, leaders and 'scriptures'. I think there is a valid argument that a religion, or indeed any ideology, based on the idea of an essentially omniscient god, individual, or cadre, lends itself to an absolutist and totalitarian approach.


That there are religions or ideologies out there based on some form.of communitarianism, and lacking in the idea of a central dictated and in changing, if capable of being cherry picked to justify almost any approach, is the reason why we contrast something as being totalitarian vs no totalitarian. That sanctions are imposed by laws us not in itself indicative of totalitarianism, and using that as an argument is a bit like Vlad's indiscriminate use of Stalinism.


That societies are on some form of continuum as regards freedom, is I would agree, correct. That doesn't mean that we regard any society that is not completely anarchic as being able to be sensibly referred to in any real sense as totalitarian.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which is exactly my point - and the same point as that being made by Sadiq Khan.

Radicalisation is happening in many of these communities, and those communities need to recognise that fact because only if they are fully recognising of what may be happening in 'plain sight' are those communities going to be better able to identify those at risk, those actually in the process and help to stop it.

Report from the comments of Sadiq Khan:

'Sadiq Khan today called on his fellow Muslims not to “bury our heads in the sand” over the scale of extremism in the UK — and to do more to root out radicalisation.'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-uk-muslims-must-do-more-to-root-out-cancer-of-extremism-a3118801.html

Except that Sadiq Khan did not call on specifically his fellow Muslims to stop burying their heads in the sand. From your link he actually made the speech to a Westminster lunch - so not to a group of Muslims at all but to politicians and everyone in the room and the wider audience, when he said not enough had been done to root out radicalisation and "for too long we have buried our heads in the sand".

http://www.sadiq.london/press_gallery_speech

That you thought he was just talking to the Muslim community is either a reflection of your own prejudices Prof D, or you are naive enough to take media headlines at face value rather than look into the contents of the actual speech made.

ETA: specifically

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there is a difference here between situationalist ethics, i.e. that we take multiple factors into account in a situation to determine what we consider is right and having such a wide selection of ethical positions able to be justified that even if they are non situationalist, that there are others available. At base it doesn't make that much difference, as I would argue all morality is judged subjectively as individuals,but individuals can be consistent to their own models and still be situationalists.

A religion does not need any consistency and can easily accommodate multiple contradictory positions justified by different traditions, leaders and 'scriptures'. I think there is a valid argument that a religion, or indeed any ideology, based on the idea of an essentially omniscient god, individual, or cadre, lends itself to an absolutist and totalitarian approach.


That there are religions or ideologies out there based on some form.of communitarianism, and lacking in the idea of a central dictated and in changing, if capable of being cherry picked to justify almost any approach, is the reason why we contrast something as being totalitarian vs no totalitarian. That sanctions are imposed by laws us not in itself indicative of totalitarianism, and using that as an argument is a bit like Vlad's indiscriminate use of Stalinism.


That societies are on some form of continuum as regards freedom, is I would agree, correct. That doesn't mean that we regard any society that is not completely anarchic as being able to be sensibly referred to in any real sense as totalitarian.

Based on my experience of religious books, it appears that the books have a context. But I can see how it would suit the agendas of people engaged in violence to ignore the context of 7th century wars with swords between 2 armies and turn it into 21st century missiles or hidden explosives aimed at soft targets and infrastructure, rather than armies. Since religions have evolved through human interpretation and additions to their philosophy, it explains why one religion can be different things to different people as people try to apply the religion to new contexts. It is no longer the religion of the 7th century as it is being interpreted and applied by people of the 21st century in a 21st century context.

Propaganda is key during violent conflicts so anything, including religion, will be used as a tool for propaganda purposes to gain recruits and funding to gain victory.

Also, people who believe in their right to certain lands and resources presumably don't need it to be based on some sort of concept of a "God-given" right.

Even if there is a concept of an omniscient God, based on my experience of religious people, they don't all claim to know what God wants - some people do claim this and some people don't. I don't know what causes some people to have that level of certainty about what God wants while others don't.

To clarify my point about totalitarianism when it comes to laws, I meant that there is potential for totalitarianism, not that passing laws automatically equates with totalitarianism.

What I see in ISIS is people trying to recreate that context to justify their actions - my impression is that they want all out war so they can justify anything they do as self-defence.

[Nearly Sane]

Based on my experience of religious books, it appears that the books have a context. But I can see how it would suit the agendas of people engaged in violence to ignore the context of 7th century wars with swords between 2 armies and turn it into 21st century missiles or hidden explosives aimed at soft targets and infrastructure, rather than armies. Propaganda is key so anything, including religion, will be used as a tool for propaganda purposes to gain recruits and funding to gain victory. People who believe in their right to certain lands and resources presumably don't need it to be based on some sort of concept of a "God-given" right.

Also based on my experience of religious people, they don't all claim to know what God wants - some people do and some people don't. I don't know what causes some people to have that level of certainty about what God wants while others don't.

Also, what I see in ISIS is people trying to recreate that context to justify their actions - my impression is that they want all out war so they can justify anything they do as self-defence.

I agree that people din't always state they k of what their god wants, that isn't what was being said, and that is why I, and indeed, Outrider have highlighted that it isn't just religions, nor indre all religions, or even those in religions that have an implicit totalitarianism by having an omni god

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Unfortunately moral values aren't that widely advocated in religion, instead behavioural precepts and absolutes are espoused. That's not universal, but it's typical. If more value were advocated so that people could apply those to situations we'd be in a much, much better place.

The emphasis placed on moral values or behavioural precepts rather depends on the human being practising the religion and also their ability to enforce their view. As with the laws and judicial systems in any country - where some judges pass lenient sentences, taking into account background and intention and context, and some don't. Sometimes the Appeals process for overly harsh or lenient sentences work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes there is prosecutorial misconduct, hiding of evidence, sloppy defence cases, unreliable witnesses, undue political influence and miscarriages of justice and sometimes there isn't.   

Yes, it's almost like morality is a complex thing and eternal absolute pronouncements devoid of a context are unhelpful.

Good thing so many theists recognise the need for context in religious philosophy then.

And I've already accepted that, and indeed put forward a non-religious example in Stalin's Soviet Union. However, I also pointed out that the nature of religion - the 'definitive' arbiters of the will and judgments of an absolute authority - is such that it lends itself to totalitarian enforcement.

The nature of religion? Does religion have a nature or is it the adherents who have a nature? Are you about to provide evidence of the objective "nature" of religion? Do you also believe there is an objective "nature of" politics? 

That rather depends on the country - totalitarian states, say like the Arabic theocracies, are indeed trying to enforce particular moral absolutes. By contrast, democratic nations with a legislature based on a mentality of personal rights only tend to invoke laws for economic purposes (which can have a moral dimension as a secondary factor) or to try to mediate the balance between conflicting rights, in as general a way as possible to allow for contextual variation.

Interesting - now you seem to believe that some legislatures are based on a mentality of personal rights and only invoke laws for economic purposes. Is this the same way you erroneously believed on another thread that the law did not require couples to justify why they were getting divorced before a divorce would be granted? 

They aren't always successful, and there are movements towards authoritarianism even within those, but mechanisms exist to counter that.

And whether those mechanisms are successful or not depends entirely on the will an nature of the people administering them - Chilcot enquiry ring a bell? 

[Outrider]

The emphasis placed on moral values or behavioural precepts rather depends on the human being practising the religion and also their ability to enforce their view. As with the laws and judicial systems in any country - where some judges pass lenient sentences, taking into account background and intention and context, and some don't. Sometimes the Appeals process for overly harsh or lenient sentences work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes there is prosecutorial misconduct, hiding of evidence, sloppy defence cases, unreliable witnesses, undue political influence and miscarriages of justice and sometimes there isn't.

Those are instances of people adding context to the scripture - the scriptures are not always principle based. And yes, there are failures of legal systems, and of the evidentiary systems that support them, but that would be the case regardless of which system of laws was being applied.

Good thing so many theists recognise the need for context in religious philosophy then.

Indeed - imagine how scary it would be if they were all fundamentalist theocratic dingbats like ISIS or the Tea Party.

The nature of religion? Does religion have a nature or is it the adherents who have a nature? Are you about to provide evidence of the objective "nature" of religion?

It was meant in the sense of 'characteristic', possibly not my clearest piece of writing.

Interesting - now you seem to believe that some legislatures are based on a mentality of personal rights and only invoke laws for economic purposes.

Not only, but primarily for economic purposes and - as I expressly said - to intervene when individual rights conflict.

Is this the same way you erroneously believed on another thread that the law did not require couples to justify why they were getting divorced before a divorce would be granted?

No, because that was not erroneous - no-fault divorces are an option, you don't have to have a specific reason beyond 'we no longer wish to be married'.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Those are instances of people adding context to the scripture - the scriptures are not always principle based. And yes, there are failures of legal systems, and of the evidentiary systems that support them, but that would be the case regardless of which system of laws was being applied.

Does this mean that you think laws have a nature or characteristic separate from the people interpreting and administering the laws?

Indeed - imagine how scary it would be if they were all fundamentalist theocratic dingbats like ISIS or the Tea Party.

Indeed and imagine how scary it would be if all atheists were totalitarian dingbats - given that a lack of belief in gods does not prevent someone from being a totalitarian dingbat.

Not only, but primarily for economic purposes and - as I expressly said - to intervene when individual rights conflict.

I have no idea what you mean by your opinion that laws are "primarily for economic purposes". It just seems to be some vague assertion you have posted on here without any type of critical analysis or supportive evidence. Having studied law at university, I seem to have formed a different opinion from you about the purpose of criminal or constitutional law  - but maybe we should discuss that on another thread.

No, because that was not erroneous - no-fault divorces are an option, you don't have to have a specific reason beyond 'we no longer wish to be married'.

Which you have to justify or prove by being separated for the period specified by the law - so even if both parties want a divorce they have to show in court that they have been separated for 2 years before a divorce will be granted. Or one party has to admit or prove unreasonable behaviour or admit/ prove adultery before the state will permit you to legally divorce. Maybe you just have a different definition of "no fault" from the people in the legal profession.

Maybe the links below will help clarify the difference between 2 people simply deciding today that they want a divorce and getting the divorce within a few weeks or months, and the situation as it actually exists in England - where they have to be separated for 2 years to be granted their divorce:

http://www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/no-fault-divorce-does-it-exist-in-england-and-wales/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27206987

[Outrider]

Does this mean that you think laws have a nature or characteristic separate from the people interpreting and administering the laws?

No, because it's a human endeavour, it has no existence outside of human behaviour. That doesn't stop it having identifiable characteristics or it wouldn't be a meaningful term.

Indeed and imagine how scary it would be if all atheists were totalitarian dingbats - given that a lack of belief in gods does not prevent someone from being a totalitarian dingbat.

It doesn't lead to it, either, whereas religion can.

I have no idea what you mean by your opinion that laws are "primarily for economic purposes". It just seems to be some vague assertion you have posted on here without any type of critical analysis or supportive evidence. Having studied law at university, I seem to have formed a different opinion from you about the purpose of criminal or constitutional law  - but maybe we should discuss that on another thread.

As someone who studied law I'm sure you appreciate that it goes a long, long way beyond just criminal and constitutional.

Which you have to justify or prove by being separated for the period specified by the law - so even if both parties want a divorce they have to show in court that they have been separated for 2 years before a divorce will be granted.

Yes, there is a qualifying period.

Or one party has to admit or prove unreasonable behaviour or admit/ prove adultery before the state will permit you to legally divorce. Maybe you just have a different definition of "no fault" from the people in the legal profession.

I don't see how two people agreeing to live apart constitutes something that is one or the other's 'fault'.

Maybe the links below will help clarify the difference between 2 people simply deciding today that they want a divorce and getting the divorce within a few weeks or months, and the situation as it actually exists in England - where they have to be separated for 2 years to be granted their divorce:

http://www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/no-fault-divorce-does-it-exist-in-england-and-wales/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27206987

So neither has done anything in particular, and they separate - which doesn't have to be physically living in different places, but that's the easiest way to demonstrate it. Then they file, and in a clean settlement it can be as little as five or six months. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I meant by a no fault divorce in a few months, I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, because it's a human endeavour, it has no existence outside of human behaviour. That doesn't stop it having identifiable characteristics or it wouldn't be a meaningful term.

The interpretation and practice of religion is a human endeavour. The OP is about the manifestation of religion based on seeing a few humans endeavouring to practise their interpretation of it.

It doesn't lead to it, either, whereas religion can

So can atheism - it depends how extreme the atheist is and how much power they have.

Some atheists might just have a lack of belief in gods. Other atheists might take their lack of belief in gods further than a personal belief, leading them to believe that no one else should be allowed to express a belief in or practice something with religious overtones because it could lead to totalitarian dingbatism.

If the extremist atheist vehemently believes that religious totalitarian dingbatism is worse for society than any other type of totalitarian dingbatism, and if the atheist has sufficient numbers and political power the extremist atheist might try to force others, outwardly at least, to adopt his way of thinking. It only takes a few extremists to give other atheists and atheism in general a bad name...

As someone who studied law I'm sure you appreciate that it goes a long, long way beyond just criminal and constitutional.

Still waiting for some supporting evidence on how you arrived at the conclusion that the law is "primarily" for economic purposes. Like I said, the assertion is not worth discussing unless you provide some evidence to support your assertion.

Yes, there is a qualifying period.

I don't see how two people agreeing to live apart constitutes something that is one or the other's 'fault'.

You suggested in a thread on the Muslim board that if 2 people want a divorce they could get one without having to jump through arbitrary hoops imposed by the State because the State has no interest in defining the moral aspect of civil marriage - and you suggested this was a no fault divorce . I disagreed and said the State does seem to have an interest in defining some moral issues involved in civil marriage as they would not grant a divorce without the couple meeting certain criteria to the satisfaction of the State, and that the 2 year separation period was not just the time it takes to deal with the administrative aspects of breaking a marriage contract. 

If the 2 people are not physically separated they have to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction a separation of lives - the court will look into whether they share a room, meals, bills, even though both consent to and want a divorce.

And if the 2 people who want to divorce have attempted to reconcile during that 2 year period, and do reconcile for a period, they are not allowed by the State to include that reconciliation period in the count of the arbitrary 2 years of separation imposed by the State.

We just seem to be disagreeing on the level of State involvement in letting a couple divorce.

[Outrider]

The interpretation and practice of religion is a human endeavour. The OP is about the manifestation of religion based on seeing a few humans endeavouring to practise their interpretation of it.

More than 'a few'.
 

So can atheism - it depends how extreme the atheist is and how much power they have.

No, it can't. It's not a sovereign defence against totalitarianism, by any stretch, but you can't get from 'I don't find a god' to 'therefore I have instructions from an absolute authority that you all have to follow'.

If the extremist atheist vehemently believes that religious totalitarian dingbatism is worse for society than any other type of totalitarian dingbatism, and if the atheist has sufficient numbers and political power the extremist atheist might try to force others, outwardly at least, to adopt his way of thinking. It only takes a few extremists to give other atheists and atheism in general a bad name...

But that's not springing from their atheism, but from their sociological view of the ills of religion.

Still waiting for some supporting evidence on how you arrived at the conclusion that the law is "primarily" for economic purposes. Like I said, the assertion is not worth discussing unless you provide some evidence to support your assertion.

The majority of the laws that are discussed and enacted are to do with governing people's, companies' and the nation's financial interactions. Even when there are criminal laws enacted they integrate financial penalties.

You suggested in a thread on the Muslim board that if 2 people want a divorce they could get one without having to jump through arbitrary hoops imposed by the State because the State has no interest in defining the moral aspect of civil marriage - and you suggested this was a no fault divorce . I disagreed and said the State does seem to have an interest in defining some moral issues involved in civil marriage as they would not grant a divorce without the couple meeting certain criteria to the satisfaction of the State, and that the 2 year separation period was not just the time it takes to deal with the administrative aspects of breaking a marriage contract. 

If the 2 people are not physically separated they have to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction a separation of lives - the court will look into whether they share a room, meals, bills, even though both consent to and want a divorce.

And if the 2 people who want to divorce have attempted to reconcile during that 2 year period, and do reconcile for a period, they are not allowed by the State to include that reconciliation period in the count of the arbitrary 2 years of separation imposed by the State.

We just seem to be disagreeing on the level of State involvement in letting a couple divorce.

We want people to adequately establish the change in their status - yes. Does that constitute a 'fault', I don't think so. Does it place any extra burden on them - no, if they're separating anyway. The courts want the efficiency of not having to flip-flop back and forward with every drama-seeker's change of heart.

It does seem as though we both understand the law's details and simply have a different impression of what that constitutes as a personal impact.

O.

[jakswan]

http://tinyurl.com/o2uzyew

Quite a heated debate
Unbelievable? Is ISIS Islamic?

[Gonnagle]

Dear World,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34903407

"The terrorists do not represent Islam. They don't have a religion, the only religion they have is terror," says 19-year-old Anissa. "They cite the Koran but take verses about times of war out of context. They forget the verses that promote tolerance. Everything I know about tolerance has been instilled in me by the Koran."
Seven-year-old Dado puts it very simply: "Terrorists are very nasty. They have made people afraid and that's not good because if people had done the same to them they wouldn't have liked it. In killing people they prevent them from having pleasure in the future, celebrating their birthdays or having a visit from the tooth fairy when they lose a tooth."

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Islam needs a reformation, hopefully not as bloody as the Christian one!

Too late. The division between Sunni and Shia is already pretty bloody.