Try your very hardest not to punch your screen at these monkeys invoking the name of a desert war god and his epileptic mass murdering mouthpiece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlCazztehbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BrueU4xd2w
You would probably attract a more reasonable audience, one that didn't require the suggestion that their emotions be controlled, if you spoke for something other than eradicating people. This reminds me of the monkey who throws his feces at zoo visitors because he feels caged and disrespected by them. WAH!!! The cage and it's dehumanizing effects are of your own making Let's hear some of that noble reason that may be possessed in the absence of anything called god! You are upset because you imagine that harm as well as god has a face. Our perceptions are justified by our words, the effect of which is to have the world appear to you as it is precisely because you insist that it is so. The power of your own invocations is that they rule over your perception. Through them our apprehension of the world passes. Harm is not on the periodic table. Harm is a superstitious rendering of energetic exchange. What we experience is not events at a distance but our own nervous systems reaction to stimulus. Those reactions occur in step with the thing you are devoted to which is your own sense of rightness. This includes characterization of your own position such as in, I am under threat. Obviously and justly you want to punch the screen given the parameters you are using to describe it yet nothing real can be caused to become unreal. It is truly shadow boxing A mind without anxiety is kind and anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. As I have emphasized earlier in the thread the situation persists precisely because you ally yourselves against each other. Go ahead and be worried about sharia law while we fashion our own police state.
I think better to be law abiding. To be allied against each other is the continuing problem. The modern police state includes the willing to turn you in. To be against life in any measure is extreme. My point is you don't need to look abroad to find insidious meanness and this is the problem, not the particular statutes of the law you want enforced.
If laws are just it is good to abide by them. If not, one sometimes has no choice but to break them, or at least question them.
I personally question the whole idea of administration of justice. By law abiding I mean that which would fulfill the spirit of any law, the law of measures, that you love one another. Our protections extend naturally and without question to those things we love as our own. Laws or statutes are not made for the cause of justice but for fear mitigation. They work well for building construction codes but don't work well in controlling human behavior. Self control is the only truly effective control. The only reason statutory laws work to the extent they do is cooperation. If you are deciding whether of not to obey a law because you feel it is just or not this brings you into the sphere of law making and law judging which has not a lot to do with being law abiding at least in the way I am presenting it.
If a given law conflicts with one's own inner ethical sense, it could be seen as a necessity of conscience not to be bound by it.
I don't think abiding lawfully is a matter of conscience. Fact is no matter the law only what we deem lawful do we accept. Otherwise we call it unjust. I don't think adjudication is necessary to organize our lives.
Italian woes. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/muslim-screaming-allahu-akbar-holds-knife-to-tourists-neck-at-romes-colosseum The below case is more of a European immigration problem, but it fits along with the theme of solutions. People who are not accustomed to civilization, and show themselves to repeatedly destroy it ... keep them out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=15&v=fX73ggsMNEI