Beliefs, Religion and Faith.

[Guy]

I'm not a theist, but I'll answer anyway.

 

It's impossible to prove that any deities exist, and equally impossible to disprove them. However the way these things work, you can't assert something with no evidence, it is a case of not true until proven true, otherwise I could assert that we are all actually plugged into computers, matrix style. This holds the same merit as an assertion that deities exist, and is equally unprovable. The discussion of whether or not deities exist is an infinite one - one side can not prove the other totally wrong, but at least we can debate 'evidence' that is presented from either side.

 

Personally, I find the scale of everything a pretty limiting factor in the existence of a deity. The universe is massive, and there's the whole possibility of other dimensions and all of that physics-y stuff. It's huge. To think that a god would care one bit about the tiniest, literally think of the smallest thing possible then half it, bit of dust floating around the infinity of space. There is so much more out there, and there is every likelihood (it's a probability, rather than a possibility) that there is other life out there too. It is unreservedly arrogant of humans to think that, if any deities did exist, they would care about nothing other than us. The observable, note observable not entire, universe has a radius of 46billion light years. Our own galaxy has a radius of ~100,000 light years, which is 0.000217% of the universe. Our Earth is 0.00000006371 light years in radius, making us 1.38500*(10^-18)% of the universe. This is obviously a very vague number, but that is not the point - the point is that we are so infinitesimally tiny and unimportant, so why would anyone care about us? I'd argue that there are a lot more interesting things out there, out of everything that exists. We don't matter, why would any person want to listen to billions of people complaining? You can't claim they do because a book says so - I've read many books and they all say a great deal of interesting things. Many of them include dragons, but it doesn't mean that dragons exist.

 

I hate to bring up an obvious question, but I will anyway because it is important. If deities exist, where are they? Do they fly around through dimensions? Or are they undetectable, and if that is indeed the argument than surely they are nothing more than figments of our imagination?

[Blyaunte]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

[Blyaunte]

I'm not a theist, but I'll answer anyway.

 

While I appreciate your response, the question was aimed at the theists to answer ... :razz:

[Guy]

I'm not a theist, but I'll answer anyway.

 

While I appreciate your response, the question was aimed at the theists to answer ... :razz:

I was going to post something along those lines anyway, as I'd be interested in a reply.

[obfuscator]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

[Blyaunte]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

 

... and I am telling you that she was arrested and tried because she was "sinning" -- not on criminal or misdemeanor charges ... :rolleyes:

[Noxx]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

 

... and I am telling you that she was arrested and tried because she was "sinning" -- not on criminal or misdemeanor charges ... :rolleyes:

Then why do most other countries run under the Sharia law not do the same? Why is driving legal there?

[Blyaunte]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

 

... and I am telling you that she was arrested and tried because she was "sinning" -- not on criminal or misdemeanor charges ... :rolleyes:

Then why do most other countries run under the Sharia law not do the same? Why is driving legal there?

 

Read back -- your answer is there.

 

To summarize:

 

Saudi owes it's very existence, mainly, to Abdul-Aziz bin Saud's alliance with the Wahhabi. The Wahhabi were/are ultra-conservative fundamentalist extremists who wish to purge Islam of all "impurities" -- which includes ANYTHING that is considered to be -- by their own definition mind you -- contrary to Qu'ranic tenet and Sharia law.

 

Most other countries operating under Sharia Law don't have this as the basis of their society -- although Afghanistan likewise had a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice under the Taliban, and so does, I think, the Gaza Strip under Hamas.

[Noxx]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

 

... and I am telling you that she was arrested and tried because she was "sinning" -- not on criminal or misdemeanor charges ... :rolleyes:

Then why do most other countries run under the Sharia law not do the same? Why is driving legal there?

 

Read back -- your answer is there.

 

To summarize:

 

Saudi owes it's very existence, mainly, to Abdul-Aziz bin Saud's alliance with the Wahhabi. The Wahhabi were/are ultra-conservative fundamentalist extremists who wish to purge Islam of all "impurities" -- which includes ANYTHING that is considered to be -- by their own definition mind you -- contrary to Qu'ranic tenet and Sharia law.

 

Most other countries operating under Sharia Law don't have this as the basis of their society -- although Afghanistan likewise had a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice under the Taliban, and so does, I think, the Gaza Strip under Hamas.

Oh that make's sense then. Probably the same reason other Middle-Eastern countries allow the distribution of alcohol and pork, etc.

[Blyaunte]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.

 

 

... and that is where you're wrong again.

 

After Manal al-Sharif, the woman in question, posted the video of herself driving a car in Khobar, she was arrested by individuals from the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

 

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice ("CPVPV") [formerly known as "the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin"] -- are mutaween -- clerics posing as policemen who enforce Sharia Law.

I'm talking about the country law, not the sharia law. Of course, the two are quite tightly bound together..

 

... and I am telling you that she was arrested and tried because she was "sinning" -- not on criminal or misdemeanor charges ... :rolleyes:

Then why do most other countries run under the Sharia law not do the same? Why is driving legal there?

 

Read back -- your answer is there.

 

To summarize:

 

Saudi owes it's very existence, mainly, to Abdul-Aziz bin Saud's alliance with the Wahhabi. The Wahhabi were/are ultra-conservative fundamentalist extremists who wish to purge Islam of all "impurities" -- which includes ANYTHING that is considered to be -- by their own definition mind you -- contrary to Qu'ranic tenet and Sharia law.

 

Most other countries operating under Sharia Law don't have this as the basis of their society -- although Afghanistan likewise had a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice under the Taliban, and so does, I think, the Gaza Strip under Hamas.

Oh that make's sense then. Probably the same reason other Middle-Eastern countries allow the distribution of alcohol and pork, etc.

 

Precisely -- Saudi is an EXTREMELY strict Islamist country, and the reason why is because of the Wahhabi and their influence.

 

Then again, if not for them, there'd've been no Saudi Arabia. So meh ...

 

:unsure:

 

In any event, point is, the law in question that was being discussed is a religious law not a secular law. It is enforced by religious police, tried before religious clerics and the punishment is determined under religious edict.

[Nomrombom]

Isn't that a violation of human rights?

[obfuscator]

Yes but bly, what i'm saying is that the secular laws are complicit in that enforcement.

[Noxx]

Isn't that a violation of human rights?

Human Rights in KSA :lol:

[magekillr]

Saudi King Abdullah has overturned a court ruling sentencing a Saudi woman to be lashed 10 times for defying the kingdom's ban on female drivers, a government official said Wednesday.

 

The official declined to elaborate on the monarch's decision, and spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.

 

A Saudi court on Tuesday found Shaima Jastaina guilty of violating the driving ban, and sentenced her to 10 lashes. The verdict took Saudi women by surprise, coming just a day after King Abdullah promised to protect women's rights and decreed that women would be allowed to participate in municipal elections in 2015. Abdullah also promised to appoint women to a currently all-male advisory body known as the Shura Council.

Saudi king overturns verdict against woman driver

[obfuscator]

From what I've heard this king wants to modernize but is being held back by the clerics.

[magekillr]

That might be the official story, but the truth is that the King doesn't care which way it goes, so long as the monarchy has power. He knows that the House of Saud's days are coming, he knows that the Empire who put him there is losing influence, and he's just trying to get an extension and appease the masses. I'm against the death penalty, but it won't surprise me -- nor would I care -- when his head is on a pike.

[obfuscator]

That might be the official story, but the truth is that the King doesn't care which way it goes, so long as the monarchy has power. He knows that the House of Saud's days are coming, he knows that the Empire who put him there is losing influence, and he's just trying to get an extension and appease the masses. I'm against the death penalty, but it won't surprise me -- nor would I care -- when his head is on a pike.

If you're against the death penalty, how can you not care if someone is put to death?

[Blyaunte]

Yes but bly, what i'm saying is that the secular laws are complicit in that enforcement.

 

Secular law enforcement is complicit, yes. Often, when the CPVPV make arrests, they do so with the assistance of the secular authorities. That said, these women being arrested and tried for driving vehicles are arrested and tried for committing acts of indecency, not for crimes and misdemeanors committed against the secular criminal code. Their trials are conducted before clerics and their punishments are meted out under the terms of Sharia, not civil, law.

 

... and keep in mind, that is only one such scenario. The CPVPV has a whole plethora of religious laws that they are authorized to enforce -- everything from "women driving" to dress code, restaurant (food handling and diet restrictions) administration, women smoking in public and (*gasp*) keeping men and women who are not married from fraternization! (Egads!)

 

While they may use secular policing to give them added muscle, the rules under which they persecute are based entirely upon religious edicts, not secular laws of any kind.

 

Let's not forget either that this is the same CPVPV that was responsible for the "ruling" of the Mecca Girls' School Fire fiasco in 2002 -- when they would not allow the girls to leave the burning building, and further hampered rescue efforts, because the girls weren't wearing proper Islamic dress and, subsequently, fourteen girls died in the fire.

 

These [bleep]ers are strict!

 

Saudi King Abdullah has overturned a court ruling sentencing a Saudi woman to be lashed 10 times for defying the kingdom's ban on female drivers, a government official said Wednesday.

 

The official declined to elaborate on the monarch's decision, and spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.

 

A Saudi court on Tuesday found Shaima Jastaina guilty of violating the driving ban, and sentenced her to 10 lashes. The verdict took Saudi women by surprise, coming just a day after King Abdullah promised to protect women's rights and decreed that women would be allowed to participate in municipal elections in 2015. Abdullah also promised to appoint women to a currently all-male advisory body known as the Shura Council.

Saudi king overturns verdict against woman driver

 

... and King Abdullah buys off another day without a revolution ... :unsure:

[obfuscator]

Yes, I think I posted earlier about the lack of a real criminal code, only the "moral" one imposed by the committees you mentioned. But I don't think we really disagree about this...

[magekillr]

That might be the official story, but the truth is that the King doesn't care which way it goes, so long as the monarchy has power. He knows that the House of Saud's days are coming, he knows that the Empire who put him there is losing influence, and he's just trying to get an extension and appease the masses. I'm against the death penalty, but it won't surprise me -- nor would I care -- when his head is on a pike.

If you're against the death penalty, how can you not care if someone is put to death?

 

Hey, if I had my way, he wouldn't be put to death. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a tyrant family that has contributed money towards terrorism and violence -- perhaps not directly, but they look the other way while the other wealthy families do it. The same goes for Stalin, Hitler, Gaddafi or any other bastard of the like.

[obfuscator]

That might be the official story, but the truth is that the King doesn't care which way it goes, so long as the monarchy has power. He knows that the House of Saud's days are coming, he knows that the Empire who put him there is losing influence, and he's just trying to get an extension and appease the masses. I'm against the death penalty, but it won't surprise me -- nor would I care -- when his head is on a pike.

If you're against the death penalty, how can you not care if someone is put to death?

 

Hey, if I had my way, he wouldn't be put to death. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a tyrant family that has contributed money towards terrorism and violence -- perhaps not directly, but they look the other way while the other wealthy families do it. The same goes for Stalin, Hitler, Gaddafi or any other bastard of the like.

So you oppose the death penalty in theory, but accept it in practice?

[Blyaunte]

From what I've heard this king wants to modernize but is being held back by the clerics.

 

King Abdullah is scared -- and rightfully so -- as he currently operates one of the most oppressive regimes in the region where the disparity between rich and poor is probably amongst the widest in the world.

 

Coincidentally, since the advent of the Arab Spring, Abdullah has laid down a whole slew of new "programs" aimed at buying off the revolution within his own country, including new unemployment benefits, subsidies for education, subsidies for housing and he's relaxed some efforts on the media -- including the internet.

 

The recent effort to offer women the right to vote in the 2015 municipal elections is another such measure.

 

:rolleyes:

[obfuscator]

But shouldn't he still be applauded to some degree for instituting those measures, regardless of his intention?

[Blyaunte]

Yes, I think I posted earlier about the lack of a real criminal code, only the "moral" one imposed by the committees you mentioned. But I don't think we really disagree about this...

 

No -- we're merely splitting hairs now -- all I am trying to ascertain here is that everyone understands that the source of the law in question, it's enforcement and punitive functions are all religious-based, as opposed to secular.

 

Noxxx was taking a beating when he said, in a nutshell, that whatever happens in Saudi stays in Saudi, and was being chastised for it because of the entire "law rules over morality/god" issue.

 

Keep in mind that, while I may not agree with either the source or the rules as they are enforced in Saudi, I sure as hell wouldn't go over there and attempt to assert my "rights as a Western woman" while visiting there -- and I agree with Noxxx that, as deplorable as these laws may seem to Western sensibilities, one has to acknowledge that a country has whatever authority it deems necessary to punish its population in whatever way it deems appropriate -- not matter how disgusting we may find it -- until such time as that said same population rises up and makes those buggers' eyes water ...

 

We're slowly seeing reform in Saudi now -- painstaking and slow as it is -- but the cause of this is two-fold: one being the courage of those people to challenge the (religious and secular) authorities to demand the base rights enjoyed by other human beings around the globe; and the other being the fear that the said authorities have that, should they not acquiesce to said demands, they will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

:rolleyes:

[Blyaunte]

But shouldn't he still be applauded to some degree for instituting those measures, regardless of his intention?

 

Do the ends justify the means? :unsure:

 

I dunno -- I'd want to weigh that first, and see what comes of it.