Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161998)	3/25/2006 5:53:35 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Shariah is logically coherent, and cannot be argued with on its own premises. The clash is therefore of premises. At the end of the day, we are attempting to impose our premises on societies that are conditioned to reject them. Well said, and I could never have put it that clearly. However, one needs to also recognize, that you take a muslim person out of the Sharia environment, and let him/her live, breathe, work in a different environment, their approach to events in life also changes. If this happens over a generation or more, the younger crowd does not even know what Sharia means, and would be uncomfortable living in that environment.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161998)	3/25/2006 6:11:29 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793955

I'd like to se how many domestic death penalty oponents think the execution should go forward because it is emblematic of a different culture with different values. I'l bet there are more than a few in that subset of wackiness.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (161998)	3/26/2006 2:57:35 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Unfortunately, we are living in a time equivalent to Adolf's megalomania and we can pretend all we like, but that's what's burgeoning out of the Islamic world in the form of Islamic Jihad and death for all sorts of offences against Islamic ideology. < Because our societies were built on Judaeo-Christian foundations, we take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him, for abandoning Islam. (On the other hand, the right to convert TO Islam has been universally affirmed.)> Since Islam necessarily includes the imperative to kill apostates, infidels and all sorts of people, [I have no idea why King George II and others assert that Islam is a religion of peace], and threatening to kill is illegal in New Zealand and a lot of other countries, it seems that becoming Islamic is threatening to kill and membership of such a gang is therefore inherently illegal. So I don't see how there can be a right to convert TO Islam in the USA, Britain, New Zealand and the like. They should all be bundled into camps and deported to an Islamic country if they claim to be adherents of the sharia horrors. Mqurice