Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Aerich:
The judge's personal involvement/grudge which affected the case.
|
This is the most shocking aspect of the scenario. How dare he use his power to end the life of a woman, based on a grudge. It is a truly appalling misuse of power.
If Mohammad is right, and the Qu'ran is correct, Allah will most suredly judge this man. I think when all is said and done, we will find that his actions are deplorable under Islamic, Christian, and Jewish teaching.
Had she money, she would have had a lawyer, and so not had to use her "sharp tongue". [/QUOTE]Money isn't the issue, nor is her legal defense, or lack there-of, it's a problem with Sharia, and the ways Islam treats others in general (women are equal to 1/2 a man in legal discourse, ie it takes 2 male witnesses to prove something in islamic court, or 1 male and 2 females, non muslim men are not even counted as important as a muslim woman (to say nothing of non-muslim women), Iran has a rather more fundamental interpretation than most islamic countries (with the exception of Taliban run Afganistan, and a few others), leading to more severe injustices against those who disagree with the party line. Granted there are a lot of primarily muslim countries where women have significantly more rights, but a corrupt judge could just as easily do something similar in any one of them (although it likely wouldn't go so far as the death penalty, and if it didn't we never would have heard about it.
To Timber and Yorik, Yorik, your interpretaion of fundamentalism is quite different than TL's, the Waco incident in the 90's with the Branch Davidians , the entire Taliban regime, Iran's regime, all fit with Timber's definition of fundamentalism. Your personal view of what fundamentailist is is different, cool, call it something else, like Morgeruatism, or Timberism if it makes you more comfortable, but don't get nasty and snippy, I've been avoiding this forum because I felt the need to walk away and let cooler heads prevail rather than let loose against some members whom I don't agree with and get myself banned.
Quote:
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
|
Yorik, this is from the definition you posted on the first page (last post on that page), it fits quite nicely within T.L.'s definition, you highlighted parts of it that agreed with your idea of it and ignored several parts of your definition, if you take out the part about the US it would read rather more like this "An organized, militant Evangelical movement in opposition to Religious Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture."
the church you described (your father's) is hardly militant, nor does it seem overly intolerant, it doesn't go about saying any who don't adhere to it's dogma are damned, it may believe in the fundamental teachings of Christ, but that doesn't (by your own definition) make it fundamentalist.
now can we please stop arguing about what the definition of "is" is , and continue onward in the topic.