Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:Am I worng in saying that Muslims expect a society to live under Sharia, if the Muslim population attains 50% and above? Not trying to be inflammatory, but I believe this is the general expection. Can anyone answer this? I'll Google it myself in a bit.

I believe the point is that when there is enough votes to elect the members of the ruling body to pass Sharia law into effect. Only then will it become the law of the land, as long as the people making the laws do not invoke Sharia law into effect it will not be the law of the land. The percentage of Muslims in a country will only carry if they can muster enough votes to carry the law into effect. Muslims might see 50% as a threshold, but they might need far fewer if the rest of the population doesn't stand against them.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Am I worng in saying that Muslims expect a society to live under Sharia, if the Muslim population attains 50% and above? Not trying to be inflammatory, but I believe this is the general expection. Can anyone answer this? I'll Google it myself in a bit.

I believe the point is that when there is enough votes to elect the members of the ruling body to pass Sharia law into effect. Only then will it become the law of the land, as long as the people making the laws do not invoke Sharia law into effect it will not be the law of the land. The percentage of Muslims in a country will only carry if they can muster enough votes to carry the law into effect. Muslims might see 50% as a threshold, but they might need far fewer if the rest of the population doesn't stand against them.

Thanks doc. Yeah, I couldn't find anything further on it. I'm sure you're correct.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:[
Amusement and boredom, what else is there?"

There seems to be a drought of philosophy on forums lately, so people amuse themselves with dross.

Maybe the time spent on Troll feeding is the cause of the dearth. And do you not think that the trickle of newcomers seeing this bullshit would not see this Forum as worthwhile?
We do seem to get newbies, but they do not seem to stay. Wonder why?

Then why don't you set an example and post something worth reading, rather than so much hostility and vitriol.

My posts are always thoughtful and worthy. Maybe you should stop reading Troll stuff and join the discussions.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Am I worng in saying that Muslims expect a society to live under Sharia, if the Muslim population attains 50% and above? Not trying to be inflammatory, but I believe this is the general expection. Can anyone answer this? I'll Google it myself in a bit.

I believe the point is that when there is enough votes to elect the members of the ruling body to pass Sharia law into effect. Only then will it become the law of the land, as long as the people making the laws do not invoke Sharia law into effect it will not be the law of the land. The percentage of Muslims in a country will only carry if they can muster enough votes to carry the law into effect. Muslims might see 50% as a threshold, but they might need far fewer if the rest of the population doesn't stand against them.

True. But even when the number of Muslims reach 50% it is likely that they shall be so modified by the advantages of secular law that they will not be so interested in Islamic laws.
Sharia means literally "law"; sharia law is a tautology, and brings with it the implication of all or nothing; either you have sharia or not. But this is not the case. Sharia comes in many forms throughout Islam.
The danger is that elements of Sharia that find common cause with Christians will be adopted. The first to go might be abortion, and pre-marital sex.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: Then why don't you set an example and post something worth reading, rather than so much hostility and vitriol.

My posts are always thoughtful and worthy. Maybe you should stop reading Troll stuff and join the discussions.

Well, I don't see your posts unless I intentionally click on them, or someone else quotes them. Some time ago you were unnecessarily abusive and I decided that I didn't need to see that. If you have toned down a bit, I might start looking again.

Lacewing wrote:

bobevenson to Arising_uk wrote:The defense that Ouzo provides against institutional false prophets is recognizing their ploys and artifices...

Many people already recognize such things, Bob.

Nobody except Bob the Baptist recognizes such things. That's why the world is in such a mess as exclusively viewed by your humble narrator!

thedoc wrote:I did read it ("The Ouzo Prophecy"), and I've never seen so much BS in one place before.

OK, then how do you explain why the spokesman for the Biblically ultra-conservative Spiritual Counterfeits Project was totally blown away by the paper (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/spiritual ... rfeits.pdf)?

bobevenson wrote:

thedoc wrote:I did read it ("The Ouzo Prophecy"), and I've never seen so much BS in one place before.

OK, then how do you explain why the spokesman for the Biblically ultra-conservative Spiritual Counterfeits Project was totally blown away by the paper (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/spiritual ... rfeits.pdf)?

This letter expresses more doubts than support, in fact it questions the truth of your claims.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: Then why don't you set an example and post something worth reading, rather than so much hostility and vitriol.

My posts are always thoughtful and worthy. Maybe you should stop reading Troll stuff and join the discussions.

Well, I don't see your posts unless I intentionally click on them, or someone else quotes them. Some time ago you were unnecessarily abusive and I decided that I didn't need to see that. If you have toned down a bit, I might start looking again.

m'kay.
The thing about getting "un-necessarily abusive" is that it is most often at the end of a ramp of increasing teasing, taunting, and finally badgering. I'd not be surprised if your own post previous to the one you mention has some element of taunting in it.

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

thedoc wrote:I did read it ("The Ouzo Prophecy"), and I've never seen so much BS in one place before.

OK, then how do you explain why the spokesman for the Biblically ultra-conservative Spiritual Counterfeits Project was totally blown away by the paper (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/spiritual ... rfeits.pdf)?

This letter expresses more doubts than support, in fact it questions the truth of your claims.

That is exactly what I and many others have told him, yet it is the entire basis for his religion: that a self-styled "Spiritual Counterfeits Project" expressed doubts about his so-called prophecy.

Bob is that stupid. Incredible though it may seem.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Am I worng in saying that Muslims expect a society to live under Sharia, if the Muslim population attains 50% and above? Not trying to be inflammatory, but I believe this is the general expection. Can anyone answer this? I'll Google it myself in a bit.

I believe the point is that when there is enough votes to elect the members of the ruling body to pass Sharia law into effect. Only then will it become the law of the land, as long as the people making the laws do not invoke Sharia law into effect it will not be the law of the land. The percentage of Muslims in a country will only carry if they can muster enough votes to carry the law into effect. Muslims might see 50% as a threshold, but they might need far fewer if the rest of the population doesn't stand against them.

True. But even when the number of Muslims reach 50% it is likely that they shall be so modified by the advantages of secular law that they will not be so interested in Islamic laws.
Sharia means literally "law"; sharia law is a tautology, and brings with it the implication of all or nothing; either you have sharia or not. But this is not the case. Sharia comes in many forms throughout Islam.
The danger is that elements of Sharia that find common cause with Christians will be adopted. The first to go might be abortion, and pre-marital sex.

Yes, that last bit is a frightening thought. I've seen in Canada varied groups get together momentarily, to fight against more liberal values most hold.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:
I believe the point is that when there is enough votes to elect the members of the ruling body to pass Sharia law into effect. Only then will it become the law of the land, as long as the people making the laws do not invoke Sharia law into effect it will not be the law of the land. The percentage of Muslims in a country will only carry if they can muster enough votes to carry the law into effect. Muslims might see 50% as a threshold, but they might need far fewer if the rest of the population doesn't stand against them.

True. But even when the number of Muslims reach 50% it is likely that they shall be so modified by the advantages of secular law that they will not be so interested in Islamic laws.
Sharia means literally "law"; sharia law is a tautology, and brings with it the implication of all or nothing; either you have sharia or not. But this is not the case. Sharia comes in many forms throughout Islam.
The danger is that elements of Sharia that find common cause with Christians will be adopted. The first to go might be abortion, and pre-marital sex.

Yes, that last bit is a frightening thought. I've seen in Canada varied groups get together momentarily, to fight against more liberal values most hold.

Religion is mainly rubbish and anti-democratic. None is ever internally democratic as they are guided by dogma, and the result is that religious folks are taught to think of moral law as being absolute and universal. They think nothing of imposing their morality upon the rest of us.
"Religion Poisons everything", is a well chosen phrase.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That is exactly what I and many others have told him, yet it is the entire basis for his religion: that a self-styled "Spiritual Counterfeits Project" expressed doubts about his so-called prophecy.

To save yourself from utter failure, my friend, never take a course in logic.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Religion is mainly rubbish and anti-democratic. None is ever internally democratic as they are guided by dogma, and the result is that religious folks are taught to think of moral law as being absolute and universal. They think nothing of imposing their morality upon the rest of us.
"Religion Poisons everything", is a well chosen phrase.

I tend toward this view too. I understand that, in general, Christians may think they have a duty to try to "save" non-believers, because the way they see it: non-believers are on the wrong track and don't know any better. But when people think they are associated with a god, many of them become intoxicated into glorifying themselves above others, and thinking that everything they do is righteous and/or forgivable. So they can then rage in their god-suit against others, without ever considering whether they themselves would allow such intrusive and disrespectful behavior to be levied against themselves... in regard to THEIR religious freedom or other freedoms. It can be such a dangerous and destructive mentality. I tend to think it actually conceals more of what is preached against, than revealing what is preached for.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: m'kay.
The thing about getting "un-necessarily abusive" is that it is most often at the end of a ramp of increasing teasing, taunting, and finally badgering. I'd not be surprised if your own post previous to the one you mention has some element of taunting in it.

Going on my memory, which is faulty at best, I believe your exchange was with someone else that I was following. In any case, I agree that a "reply in kind" is far too common on a forum.