A 14 years old rape victim was caned to death after being raped by a cousin.

Reba said:
Until half way thru your previous reply to Oceanbreeze there were no capital letters in your posts.
Click to expand...

lol interesting observation. just saw all my posts here. I think I mostly capitalized "I" and rest.... it's inconsistent. veddy veddy interesting!
 
However, I can say that in a lot of countries, it's deeply rooted in Islamic law.
Click to expand...
Correction, EXTREME fundie Islamic law. This would be the equalivant of those Christian Identity or KKK types.
 
Reba said:
Unlike you, I wouldn't presume to speak for all religions. All I can say is, not all religions are about answering scientific questions but are about man's relationship to God, and man's purpose on earth. Spiritual matters are not dependent on science.
Click to expand...

Where am I speaking for all religions? I simply made the connection that is widely accepted regarding the origin if belief systems for religions.

Of course spiritual matters are not dependent upon science. Exactly why they should not be used in matters scientific or pertaining to the law.
 
Reba said:
Really? Read this:

"The reports said Hena was raped by her 40-year-old relative Mahbub on Sunday. Next day, a fatwa was announced at a village arbitration that she must be given 100 lashes. She fell unconscious after nearly 80 lashes."

Apparently the Muslim world can move fast when it wants to.
Click to expand...

Yep, especially when it concerns Sharia law and the salvation of another's soul.:roll: Sharia law proclaims that the victim was not a victim, but a willing participant and must be punished according to religious law. The perpetrator is not considered a perpetrator, but justified in his actions according to religious law. Why hurry to do anything about him if he is not considered to be guilty of anything according to Sharia law? It just proves my point about religion being the basis of law.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
It's all wrong. But, why'd the fatwa happen to begin with? Why not go after the rapist? This CHILD was whipped to death because someone saw fit to sanction the punishment. It's backwards, Jiro. Not only that, but it's STILL happening in other parts of the world LEGALLY. WHY? Because someone puts things in a book, and, laws are written around those things? It's WRONG and MOST of the time they get away with it.
Click to expand...

Why? Quite simple. Religous belief systems used to determine law.

We still have cases in the United States of children being abused horribly in the name of religion. The difference is, when it is discovered, they at least have secular law on their side.
 
jillio said:
Where am I speaking for all religions? I simply made the connection that is widely accepted regarding the origin if belief systems for religions.
Click to expand...
You posted:

"All religions have a common denominator. They were used to explain things that, at the time, there was not enough scientific knowledge to explain."
 
Reba said:
You posted:

"All religions have a common denominator. They were used to explain things that, at the time, there was not enough scientific knowledge to explain."
Click to expand...

And that is a true statement, as confirmed by those who study comparative religion and anthropology the world over. That has absolutely nothing to do with speaking "for" a religion. That would be dependent upon that religion's doctrine. My comment was very generic. And it was made as a sociological statement, not a religious one.
 
Reba said:
You posted:

"All religions have a common denominator. They were used to explain things that, at the time, there was not enough scientific knowledge to explain."
Click to expand...

:confused:
That is a true statement. What religion uses scientific knowledge to explain?
 
jillio said:
And that is a true statement, as confirmed by those who study comparative religion and anthropology the world over. That has absolutely nothing to do with speaking "for" a religion. That would be dependent upon that religion's doctrine. My comment was very generic. And it was made as a sociological statement, not a religious one.
Click to expand...
Then you did refer to "all religions" after all.
 
Reba said:
Then you did refer to "all religions" after all.
Click to expand...

Referring to them and "speaking for them" is two very different things. You accused me of "speaking for all religions." I referred from a sociological view point, not spoke for them from a religious viewpoint.

What exactly is your point? Religion is faith based, is it not? Meaning that no proof of anything is desired or needed. And that is the problem with using religious doctrine, of any religion, as a basis for law.
 
Beowulf said:
:confused:
That is a true statement. What religion uses scientific knowledge to explain?
Click to expand...
Not all religions exist to "explain things that, at the time, there was not enough scientific knowledge to explain."

That is a true statement.

Perhaps a truer statement would be, "Science tries to explain things that it will never have enough knowledge to explain." :)
 
Reba said:
Not all religions exist to "explain things that, at the time, there was not enough scientific knowledge to explain."

That is a true statement.

Perhaps a truer statement would be, "Science tries to explain things that it will never have enough knowledge to explain." :)
Click to expand...

You don't have faith in science, do you? :lol:
 
Beowulf said:
You don't have faith in science, do you? :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm interested in and respect science and technology. I love gadgets and space travel. I admire scientists and their work. (My dad was an electrical engineer who worked for Bell Labs, Lockheed, NASA, and various military agencies, so science-oriented people were normal to me.) I enjoyed reading science fiction as a kid and teen. I'm fascinated by Discovery Channel programs. Archaeology has always intrigued me. I'm thankful for all the scientific advances that have made my life easier, safer, and healthier.

I have nothing against science, not at all. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by having "faith" in science. If you mean do I trust science for all the answers and solutions, then no, I do not. Science (a very broad term) is valuable but it's not infallible.
 
Reba said:
Not all religions exist to "explain things that, at the time, there was not enough scientific knowledge to explain."

That is a true statement.

Perhaps a truer statement would be, "Science tries to explain things that it will never have enough knowledge to explain." :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly why they exist. It is the root of all religions.

Science successfully explains things that it has enough knowledge to explain, and continues to expand it's knowledge base daily in order to continue to find explanations for that which was previously unexplainable. Religion stops and moves no further than the original explanation, no matter how much knowlege expands. That is why it requires faith. No questions, no investigations, just faith.
 
Reba said:
I'm interested in and respect science and technology. I love gadgets and space travel. I admire scientists and their work. (My dad was an electrical engineer who worked for Bell Labs, Lockheed, NASA, and various military agencies, so science-oriented people were normal to me.) I enjoyed reading science fiction as a kid and teen. I'm fascinated by Discovery Channel programs. Archaeology has always intrigued me. I'm thankful for all the scientific advances that have made my life easier, safer, and healthier.

I have nothing against science, not at all. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by having "faith" in science. If you mean do I trust science for all the answers and solutions, then no, I do not. Science (a very broad term) is valuable but it's not infallible.
Click to expand...

Is religion infallible? If so, then the religious laws that allowed this child's death are perfectly acceptable.
 
Back
Top