The Logic Off Topic list

The reasons are simple.  Most Muslims don't believe these things in
isolation in the manner you posted them.    They also aren't posting these
things here so we aren't faced with the issue.  And moreover, they aren't
lambasting people and threatening them with these things.

That's why.  I hope I have helped you understand the difference.

----- Original Message -----
From: <jon_jabc@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: [L-OT] Banning, consistency.


> "Mike Cover" <vista500@m...> wrote:
> > YOU ARE A REAL FAIRY...you gave it away by spelling friends
> >"firends"... which is what all the gay guys on Fire Island call each
> >other.  You should suffer with a gun barrell to your brain, my
> >faggot-one!  Take your queer brothers and "feel" someone elses pain.
> >
> ---------
> Hi,
>
> Although I'd support the banning of Mike Cover on the strength of the
> above, isn't there a problem of consistency here?
>
> If a white Anglo-Saxon, male, Christian, indicated that the following
> propositions were under any circumstances reasonable, he'd be in
> trouble:
>
> *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.
>
> I would consider their application unacceptable and morally repugnant
> under any circumstances.
>
> But what about the brutality of the Old Testament? I hear you cry.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Those are the principles on which an Islamic society should be run.
>
> My question is, therefore, why aren't Muslims banned?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>