The Logic Off Topic list

jon_jabc@... wrote:

>*Male homosexuals should be subject to physical punishments such as 100
>lashes, or even death.
>
>*Married men who have engaged in homosexual acts should be executed.
>
>*Men are allowed to beat their wives.
>
>*Women's memory's are inferior to men's, and can't be trusted with
>certain legal matters.
>
>*Someone who has accepted the Prophet but later rejected him (an
>infidel) should be executed.
>
>*Someone who defames the religion should be executed.
>
>*Thieves should have their hands amputated.
>
>
>These of course, are all Islamic laws.

No comment.


>I would consider their application unacceptable and morally repugnant
>under any circumstances.

No comment.


>But what about the brutality of the Old Testament? I hear you cry.

No comment.


>The OT is a collection of stories, containing inconstancies, that are
>impossible to read outside of an historical or even mythical context,
>and is believed to be infallible, literal truth only by fundamentalist
>Christians. And regardless, the brutalities therein, were largely
>contradicted, or even abrogated by the non violent (in comparison to
>Muhammed) example of the Christians' Prophet, Jesus - "he who is
>without sin cast the first stone", "Turning the other cheek", etc.

No comment.


>The Quran on the other hand provides a clear set of rules, and is
>believed by ALL Muslims to be the infallible word of Allah. Not one
>word is negotiable. The accepted aHadith are seen pretty much as being
>just as Holy and essential.

No comment.


>Those are the principles on which an Islamic society should be run.

No comment.


>My question is, therefore, why aren't Muslims banned?

Hmmmm. Let's see .........

The LUG-OT waited until Mike Cover did something to which many in the 
community objected. He was spoken to privately by several on the list; and 
also probably by the Moderator.

Mike Cover's behaviour did not change for he again posted something to 
which many in the community objected. So ... he was banned.

Simple cause and effect as far as I can see. Actual deeds done matched by 
actual consequences.


When anybody, irrespective of colour, race, creed and the like, does 
something to which many in the community object, then doubtless they will 
be spoken to privately by people on the list; and also probably by the 
Moderator. If they take no notice of this, then probably they will be banned.


Tell you what. Why don't YOU try this system out. Irrespective of your 
gender, race, creed or whatever, why don't you just go right on ahead and 
ACTUALLY POST SOMETHING utterly objectionable. And then sit back and see 
what happens. Irrespective of gender, race, creed or whatever.

Doubtless, when a Muslim is banned it will not be because of something they 
MIGHT on speculation do because of some code of ethics that others might in 
principle find objectionable. If a Muslim is banned then it will be because 
of something that they actually DID on this list. Irrespective of gender, 
race, creed or whatever.

Or ... maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Come to that ... you have not 
a clue what my own personal beliefs are; and you also have not a clue how I 
might choose to act either for or against those beliefs. So ... why not ban 
me forthwith. Just in case. You never know, after all, what I might say or 
do next.

Irrespective of gender, race, creed or whatever.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com