There go those crazy Muslims again... Now they're gonna cane a bitch for drinking a beer at a nightclub.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Malaysian-Model-Kartika-Sari-Dewi-Shukarno-Ready-To-Face-Caning-Over-Beer-Drinking-Offence/Article/200909415394656

It must be hudud in Malaysia.
There's a prohibition against alcohol in Islam.

Yes, Muslims aren't permitted to drink alcohol, but really, shouldn't the punishment for such an infraction be handled by Allah, not an Islamic court established here on planet earth? This is why Islam is a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised with extreme prejudice.

Seems to me, by that argument, you're having trouble understanding how a theocracy works.

Seems to me, by that argument, you're having trouble understanding how a theocracy works.

Ha!

You've fallen directly into my trap!

My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.

There are valid reasons to have prohibitions on alcohol. Look at the former 18th Amendment. Look at our draconian Cannabis laws: simple possession can get you a year in jail. Is that any more just than a caning for drinking alcohol? The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.

This is why Islam religion is a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised with extreme prejudice... particularly Islam.

My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.

Agreed.

Look at our draconian Cannabis laws: simple possession can get you a year in jail. Is that any more just than a caning for drinking alcohol?

Yes. And you know my stance on Cannabis laws.

The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.

Yes. Control.

The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.

Yes. Control.

I was going to say health, but control works too.

Haha, indeed you've pegged me. Personally I think governments should have nothing to do with what goes in or what comes out of your body (including thoughts and words), who or what you have consensual sex with, and for the most part what you can buy.

This is why Islam religion is a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised with extreme prejudice... particularly Islam.

Just because people decide to take things and interpret them like so, follow them so, is not the fault of the religion. It's the fault of the people.

Religions were made up by people. They don't exist without people.

If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?

My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.

Theocracy is a useful tool for bringing a mindless rabble into order.  Consider how many ancient governments were essentially a theocratic dictatorship.

You're only comfortable with its elimination because you live in a society where you don't need to invoke the power of an almighty being to get shit done.

If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?

How are they getting in trouble?  Is it because of other people who also read the book and follow its teachings?

yeah

Im suprised this story made it to gun AFTER she got the downgraded sentance.

If your book specifically says (as in many religious texts) that non-believers, non-followers, or followers-who-break-the-rules (ie - sinners) of the book/way/prophet/etc should be punished then...

...it's YOUR fault for writing the book that way.
...it's YOUR fault for distributing the book to other people.
...it's THEIR fault for following your way, despite the negative aspects.
...it's THEIR fault for implementing the negative aspects of your way.
...it's the SINNER's fault for knowing the rules, but breaking them.

Im suprised this story made it to gun AFTER she got the downgraded sentance.

i blame apathy.

There are valid reasons to have prohibitions on alcohol. Look at the former 18th Amendment. Look at our draconian Cannabis laws: simple possession can get you a year in jail. Is that any more just than a caning for drinking alcohol? The substance prohibitions of the Muslim faith, along with those of most other major religions, are usually based on something that transcends the religion.

Trees:



Forest:


I'd like to point out a couple of major differences between Islamic Law and US Law. For starters, our laws were created by man, not a fairytale Allah. I'd like to also point out that as such, we have not quite enough hubris to make our laws permanent, but Islam has no such qualms. The faulty 18th Ammendment was repealed after a paltry 13 years and our misguided Cannabis laws are changing for the better more and more each day. Islam however, has had a ban on alcohol for 1400 years. I think it's fair to say their prohibition on alcohol is written in stone. The real issue however isn't whether religious bans on intoxicants have any real world basis on whether they're harmful to the individual or society, the issue is whether religion has the right to create and enforce law, which I feel it doesn't.

With religious law you don't get to pick and choose the laws you think aren't that bad because they're based on something that transcends the religion, you get the whole package whether you like it or not.

Your post says to me that since intoxicants can be bad for you and Islam had recognised that, and that a year in jail is worse than a caning, that the logical conclusion is that the whole of Islamic law is therefore sane and acceptable, including brutal executions for things such as adultery.

Of course, the year in jail being worse than caning overlooks the fact that caning is a brutal affair that often results in permanent bodily damage, but to each his own I suppose.

If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?

If your book specificly says that your eating plan will grant them a blissful afterlife and anyone not following it should be smashed with stones until they were dead, then no, it's not the book's fault. It's the author's fault.

My stance is theocracy has no place whatsoever in the modern world, and since Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.

Theocracy is a useful tool for bringing a mindless rabble into order.  Consider how many ancient governments were essentially a theocratic dictatorship.

You're only comfortable with its elimination because you live in a society where you don't need to invoke the power of an almighty being to get shit done.

That's still often done, but in the confines of the religion of your choice, not by an agent of the state. Still, I'm thrilled that most of the world has progressed to the point where we can live in a society where the almighty isn't needed to keep us out of a state of anarchy.

It's shameful that part of the world wants to drag us kicking and screaming back into the stone age.

Trees:

Forest:

I couldn't see a difference.

Still, I'm thrilled that most of the world has progressed to the point where we can live in a society where the almighty isn't needed to keep us out of a state of anarchy.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm going to keep theocratic rule in my back pocket, just in case.

Islam is unable to conduct itself as a religion and not a theocracy it therefore must be eliminated.

I take issue with this for the same reason as Sakhi. Islam doesn't conduct itself. The Islamic do.

Your post says to me that since intoxicants can be bad for you and Islam had recognised that, and that a year in jail is worse than a caning, that the logical conclusion is that the whole of Islamic law is therefore sane and acceptable, including brutal executions for things such as adultery.

Trees:
Forest:

I point out that there are valid health-based reasons to prohibit the consumption alcohol and suddenly I'm condoning the bombing of the WTC? No, I was pointing at a tree within the forest, not the whole forest.

the issue is whether religion has the right to create and enforce law, which I feel it doesn't.

Then I think you'll be happy to learn that the religion only creates law through the agency of the religious. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a moral code. Even a moral code that you disagree with or one that fundamentally contradicts your own moral code. As long as the threatened punishments only accrue in the afterlife all is well.

Now if your argument is that governing bodies shouldn't use religion as a basis for law then I agree. If the government punishes alcohol consumption based on its adverse health effects (as was the case with Am.XVIII) then there is a strong case to be made that the government is required to extend a paternal shield over us in our innocence. (Incidentally I disagree with this argument, but it's not as if it's completely outlandish). I'd go further and say that a government may well use the moral code of a religion as a guide. However I would not go so far as to say that any laws can be based purely on religious precepts. There must be something to ground the religious law to reality in order for the government to enforce it.

Of course, the year in jail being worse than caning overlooks the fact that caning is a brutal affair that often results in permanent bodily damage

You're thinking abut vandalism in Singapore. This is Malaysia.

"We want to co-operate with the religious authorities. But do it correctly and not the Taliban way," he said, referring to plans to carry out the punishment with only a light cane.

If i wrote a book on how to eat healthily, people read the book, they followed the book.
Someone then ate a food that I said not to eat in the book, they got in trouble for it.
Is it really the books fault that they're getting in trouble?

If your book specificly says that your eating plan will grant them a blissful afterlife and anyone not following it should be smashed with stones until they were dead, then no, it's not the book's fault. It's the author's fault.

I am confused now.

If I wrote in the book you will get a blissful afterlife now smash people with stones it is my fault for people following it.
If I didnt write in the book that you will get a blissful afterlife now smash people with stones it is the books fault that people are doing this.

How are people not accountable at all here?
How on earth does it become the books fault when it doesn't even say it in there?

I take issue with this for the same reason as Sakhi. Islam doesn't conduct itself. The Islamic do.

woohoo, someone agrees with me!

Then I think you'll be happy to learn that the religion only creates law through the agency of the religious. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a moral code. Even a moral code that you disagree with or one that fundamentally contradicts your own moral code. As long as the threatened punishments only accrue in the afterlife all is well.

I agree:

Yes, Muslims aren't permitted to drink alcohol, but really,  shouldn't the punishment for such an infraction be handled by Allah, not an Islamic court established here on planet earth?

Now if your argument is that governing bodies shouldn't use religion as a basis for law then I agree. If the government punishes alcohol consumption based on its adverse health effects (as was the case with Am.XVIII) then there is a strong case to be made that the government is required to extend a paternal shield over us in our innocence. (Incidentally I disagree with this argument, but it's not as if it's completely outlandish). I'd go further and say that a government may well use the moral code of a religion as a guide. However I would not go so far as to say that any laws can be based purely on religious precepts. There must be something to ground the religious law to reality in order for the government to enforce it.

I completely agree. I'm not being so outlandish as to deny that religion will ever have an influence a secular government, or that secular government should neglect to create law on the grounds it might be agreeable to a religion. My central point is that enforcement of pure religious law created because a certain deity said so is something that should be handled by the supernatural deity in question, not their earthly representatives, especially when capital punishment is involved. 

We already agree on this point though. 

FWIW, Standard Maylasian caning is just as brutal as Singapore's, and this whole thing where Islam canings are supposedly token affairs administered with a limp wrist meant to be more of an embarassment than a physical punishment sounds like some spin-doctor type poppycock to me.

But, that opinion is entirely based on my own ignorance, suspicion, and prejudice.

My central point is that enforcement of pure religious law created because a certain deity said so is something that should be handled by the supernatural deity in question, not their earthly representatives, especially when capital punishment is involved.  

The very state of being supernatural requires that you have earthly representatively to enact punishments in life.  Besides, the suopernatural realm supposed to be pretty clear-cut:  heaven and hell, without tomfoolery in between.

Punishments in life are intended to straighten your path.  If you do not straighten due to punishments in life, then you do no deserve eternal salvation.

It is the duty of a just, theological society to ensure that everyone has the greatest opportunity possible to make it into the best of final resting places.

I'll bet you couldn't type that whole thing with a straight face.

I'll bet you couldn't type that whole thing with a straight face.

From the standpoint of a theological leader, it makes sense.  Those leaders are responsible not only for their followers' physical well-being, but their spiritual well-being as well.

Except it's all bullshit.