What a new low for the religious establishment

Tsunami 'punishment' for breaking Islamic law



The tiny community of Lampuuk in northern Indonesia was almost totally destroyed by the Boxing Day tsunami five years ago.

It used to be a popular tourist destination, but since the tsunami Sharia Law has been more rigorously enforced and police patrol the beaches to ensure visitors are appropriately dressed and acting in a demure way.

Video from The BBC

Nice to see men with guns spouting religious law makes me wonder sometimes if human stupidity and arrogance can stoop any lower.

This is not about local customs its about men with guns bulling people without guns into submission.

Now some jumped up despot is claiming the tsunami was a punishmet for breaking Islamic law.

Before you come in and say this has nothing to do with Islam they are using there interpritation of Sahria law so they are entwind.

I so wish that one day all relgions will be the preserve of the individual and totaly seperate from goverment and local laws.

Originally posted by jpmail
I so wish that one day all relgions will be the preserve of the individual and totaly seperate from goverment and local laws.

Many of us share that wish. While I disagree with what is going on in that video, those kids should respect it if they are going to that beach. The authorities could at least put up better signage though, citing examples of what not to do, etc...

Crazy world we live in.

Originally posted by jpmail
I so wish that one day all relgions will be the preserve of the individual and totaly seperate from goverment and local laws.

I too yearn for this day. I am tired of religion being applied to government actions, and tired of religion being shoved down the collective throats of the world. Don't you all see where this is going? A war between Islam and Christianity is brewing. I think we should find them all a nice, private place, and let them fight it out. Naked, with no weapons save what they can pick up from the ground. I guess when they all kill each other, us Pagans will have it wrapped up then, huh? Only thing is, we don't try to convert, and never threaten. We do, however, vote.

Originally posted by autowrench
I think we should find them all a nice, private place, and let them fight it out. Naked, with no weapons save what they can pick up from the ground.................Only thing is, we don't try to convert, and never threaten.

separating religious believers from non-religous believers? sounds like a threat to me.

leaving that aside, most governments routinely enforce lots and lots of laws that are related to morality. what makes one stupid set of laws better than another?

all cultures have codes to cover acceptable public behavior.

if it's unacceptable to you that people on a beach should be told that their clothes are too revealing then is it also unacceptable to you that you can't walk down the street naked?

if it's unacceptable that beach huts should have a sign saying "respect sharia law" then is it also unacceptable that a bar in your home town must have a sign up saying "no smoking"?

if it's unacceptable for a man and woman to be told to sit 3' apart, is it also unacceptable that they should be told they can't have sex?

The thing is.....where do we draw the line in the sand?

When does humanity say, "Enough? You're actions aren't acceptable?"

Yes, its societal standards. But if you want to change a society, then you have to speak out. Make yourself heard.

Lots of folks who do that will hear the standard reply, "It's their culture, let them have it."

It was the American culture to keep blacks "separate but equal". But some brave folks spoke out against that, and things changed.

Who decides what the new moral code should be? Just a guess, but if you have to use a gun to enforce your viewpoint it might not be you......

This is what happens when mortal man interprets what their Messiah said 2000 years ago or so.

I personally wonder about the story of Mohammad coming out of a well in the desert.

Read this description of the Muslim prophet.

The Apostle of Allah, is neither too short nor too tall. His hair are neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. He has long al-masrubah which means hair growing from neck to navel. He is of long eye-lashes, close eye-brows, smooth and shining fore-head and long space between two shoulders. When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. I never saw a man like him before him or after him.

Depictions of Muhammad.

Does it not read like a typical description of a Sasquatch?

No wonder Muslims do not want pictures of him shown.

I don't care what any ones personal beliefs are as long as they are personal.When the PTB start making their beliefs the law then I have issues.

I'm pretty quick to call Shenanigans on religion, but did you watch the video you posted?

Those fellas didn't seem terribly unreasonable. They seemed to want to ensure that everyone knew the law and was reminded often so no sneak attack could happen.

Personally, without incriminating evidence, this is a non-issue for me. It's their country. Let's em have it and run it their way.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Yes I did watch the video and I see where your coming from but what I was pointing out every policeman was armed. Its always the people with guns or the guns to back them up that bully the general populas.

Also what happens when people who are'nt Muslim but have lived there all there lives start saying no?

The people with guns will hurt them.

Also if the killing and eating of babies was acceptable in a given country would that be ok because its there country? Its unlikey to happen but you see my point?

At some point it has to be wrong weither its there country or not. I see no reason why religion should be forced on people in any shape or form.

Originally posted by jpmail
reply to post by KrazyJethro

 

Yes I did watch the video and I see where your coming from but what I was pointing out every policeman was armed. Its always the people with guns or the guns to back them up that bully the general populas.

Yes, police are armed. It's prudent that they are. To be clear, government only has one tool: Force. To bastardize government for using it's one and only tool doesn't seem uniform.

Also what happens when people who are'nt Muslim but have lived there all there lives start saying no?

The people with guns will hurt them.

Well that's up to them. If they would like to overthrow their government in lieu of a more secular and rational government, I would be in support of that and would suggest the US do so as well.

Also if the killing and eating of babies was acceptable in a given country would that be ok because its there country? Its unlikey to happen but you see my point?

No I don't because it's really ridiculous. I have no vested interest in other nation's policies unless they actively violate my country. I would support speaking out about the wrongs of other countries, lending moral support, providing education to governments who wish to improve, but nothing more than that.

Even if they decided to eat babies.

At some point it has to be wrong weither its there country or not. I see no reason why religion should be forced on people in any shape or form.

You don't, but others don't. It's not your business really. You can say it's wrong, but it many respects their system could work for them.

The UK police as a whole except for the armed responce unit manage to do there jobs without guns so no its not prudent.

Use of force to imposse a goverments will is not morally justifiable just because its the only tool they have.

To overthrow there goverment would mean major political reform which is very hard to do without bloodshed and even then the populace is not armed so its a one sided fight.

I pointed out myself that eating babies was unlikley but it does not change my point that just because its there country anything they do is acceptable.

Take that down to the level of your next door neighbour. Say he beats his wife and kids but does in on his privatly owned land inside his own home, does that make it right because its his way of doing things? more so is it ok because is does not impact on you?

I like your idea of education and help for goverments that want to improve but what do you do when the goverment does not want to change the status quo but the population does and they have no means of taking on there goverment.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by jpmail]

Originally posted by jpmail
The UK police as a whole except for the armed responce unit manage to do there jobs without guns so no its not prudent.

While I wouldn't take that one as the rule, it's the countries prerogative. The fact that they have guns is a non-issue.

Use of force to imposse a goverments will is not morally justifiable just because its the only tool they have.

This is not a defensible position, at all. Governments use force all the time, and many times I'd suggest you think it's just fine. By the way, because a government uses force (which they all do by definition), does not mean it is oppressive.

To overthrow there goverment would mean major political reform which is very hard to do without bloodshed and even then the populace is not armed so its a one sided fight.

I don't know the gun laws in the area, but of course revolt is bloody. They normally are. The point, is you either risk it, live with it, or try to adjust it over time (normally long) from the inside.

I pointed out myself that eating babies was unlikley but it does not change my point that just because its there country anything they do is acceptable.

I'm not saying I think many things nations do domestically is what I would consider "acceptable", but it's not really my call to make unless it seriously affects my nation (which it doesn't in this case).

Take that down to the level of your next door neighbour. Say he beats his wife and kids but does in on his privatly owned land inside his own home, does that make it right because its his way of doing things? more so is it ok because is does not impact on you?

No, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean I need to break down the door, claim his house under my domain and correct the situation. Additionally, the if the wife doesn't leave I certainly have less pity for her.

This, however, is not a congruent argument since we have police and laws that apply to that level. This is untrue of nations.

I like your idea of education and help for goverments that want to improve but what do you do when the goverment does not want to change the status quo but the population does and they have no means of taking on there goverment.

They always have means. Guns do not always equal success, and very often overwhelming public opinion being ignored isn't something governments can stand against for long.

Suffering is tolerated as long as suffering it tolerable. Obviously it is tolerable.

reply to post by jpmail


I agree, but you cannot lump extremist Islam and Sharia Law into everyday 'normal' religions.

These people are fanatics who are brainwashed from birth. The sad part is it is almost impossible to deprogram them.

It seems to me these girls on the video were singled out because the looked like Muslims. And a Muslim in a jurisdiction of Sharia Law, must follow that law.

It would be far better for these girls not to dress or act like Muslims if they are to remain in that area.

Welcome to the REAL enforcers of the NWO...It isn't who you thought it would be is it?