13 yr old stoned to death

[Zapatista]

No

I just don't know what you are trying to do. You ask a question you know the answer to and the reulting answer will still tell you nothing.

[Hardy]

It's called debate. I'm trying to understand the position of those who seem to be supporting the introduction of islamic law in Europe, while at the same time proclaiming themselves anti discrimination, pro free speech, pro freedom of religion, etc. - all concepts actively denied by islamic law. I simply don't understand how they can hold both views and I'm asking them to explain the bit I'm missing about the benefits of this initiative.

[nifan]

All depends how you interpret it nifan and most of todays Christians don't manipulate one line of scripture and use that to suppress women, at least not that I know of.
Looking at the bigger picture and comparing the New Testament to Sharia Law is ridiculous

I know they dont Iceman, but the majority of muslims dont go round stoning people either.

"manipulating" scripture however is an interesting comment.
Who doesnt manipulate it?
How is the bible supposed to be read? Is it word for word and literally? Is it to be interpreted? The interpretation of the bible has changed over the years, so id suggest that it has been manipulated by both christians and non christians alike.

[Zapatista]

I don't think you are. What you are trying to do is take contributers to the debate who are aware of a grey area and drag them into the black or white areas to justify your denial of that grey area. This is not debate it is limiting the arguement to a place you can hold your own.

[Hardy]

You're entitled to think that. I think you're wrong. For one thing, I haven't suggested any limit to the argument. I just asked a question, to which I haven't got an answer. Even one teeny weeny little plus point for sharia law in Europe would be a start. For another thing, I'm actually a great fan of the grey area. Isn't that where all the debate takes place?

[Mentalman]

Nifan, if I may say so, you're missing the point. I'm arguing against introducing sharia law into the EU. That NYT article missed the point also. Going on about how recently it was that we had similar laws makes my point for me. We've worked for centuries to eliminate this stuff from our European laws. Our laws no longer permit this kind of discrimination. We no longer have the death penalty. What, then, is the case, having achieved all this, for taking a backward leap and importing a body of law that supports discrimination (at the least)?

Maybe the EU should have Paddyaria law, every Monday off from May to September.

Feckers already have that, those secularists in France get more religious holidays than we do - one bank holiday every week through June & July (or something ridiculous like that...who cares about facts, a catchy one liner is much better)

[Tyrones own]

Supplementary question: Will those who find find laws that discriminate against women, non-believers and blasphemers unacceptable but support their introduction into European law please make their case.

Tyrone's Own - I'm a bit puzzled by your last paragraph- could you clarify?

It was in response to the condescending post from Myles that I've quoted below

Your wasting your time Donagh. Some of these boys understanding of Muslim life and Sharia law is akin to Hollywoods understanding of the troubles -  Simplistic and uninformed.

Seriously, After ye do get around to answering Hardy's question, could I also get an answer from the
(who could be described as sympathizers) their honest thoughts on the link I posted.