Koran vs. Constitution
Tuesday, 14. March 2006, 08:13:27
The Koran says homosexuality must be punished by death, women are worth half of a man, apostates must be killed, non-Muslims must be treated as 2nd-class citizens (or murdered, depending on which verse you decide to quote). Clearly, these are in opposition to the US Constitution and the governing documents of all Western countries.
In Germany, the Koran has been reported to the police as incompatible with the German constitution. (H/t to Pajamas Media). They seem to be making the argument that the Koran is a political book, similar to Mein Kampf in being anti-constitutional.
This is an interesting issue. The Koran, as interpreted by fundamentalists, is profoundly anti-liberal. However, freedom of religion is a basis of liberalism. Is it possible to be tolerant of something that is inherently intolerant of tolerance? Yes, if the intolerant group is small enough to be ignored. When the intolerant group is 20% (Switzerland), 12% (France) of your population, the question becomes very difficult. I dont see a solution.
Update: if you read one article today, read this one.
In Germany, the Koran has been reported to the police as incompatible with the German constitution. (H/t to Pajamas Media). They seem to be making the argument that the Koran is a political book, similar to Mein Kampf in being anti-constitutional.
This is an interesting issue. The Koran, as interpreted by fundamentalists, is profoundly anti-liberal. However, freedom of religion is a basis of liberalism. Is it possible to be tolerant of something that is inherently intolerant of tolerance? Yes, if the intolerant group is small enough to be ignored. When the intolerant group is 20% (Switzerland), 12% (France) of your population, the question becomes very difficult. I dont see a solution.
Update: if you read one article today, read this one.
WIDGETIZE
Stop The Funny # 15. March 2006, 14:39
From the little I know of the Koran, most of Sharia law is scholarly interpretation, some of it sound, some of it a matter of opinion, and some of it questionable. Specific examples, such as the ones you give, aren't as concrete as you've been led to believe, and are a matter of interpretation, or a misrepresentation of the original source text. Repeating this only adds to confusion and alarm.