REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

You believe Muslims are scary, dangerous people

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 07:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6031
PAGE 2 of 3

Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:55 PM

WISHIMAY


Separation of church and state is a necessary ideal for true expression of freedom, no matter what country you are in. Lack of demonstration of that ideal is indicitive of intent to obsessively dominate others, which I associate with mental illness...

Ultimately, their society can run however it runs, but only an idiot wants to be told how and what to believe...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:56 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

You cannot legislate what a person will believe; the most you can do is attempt to brainwash them.
I feel the Middle East would have more peace and unity with separation of church and state. They are familiar with
the concept, but it is hard for most of them to conceive of such a change as harmonious with their faith.
I think we should get out of there and let the idea percolate.
It works for the Turks.
It must be terribly hard to export our notions of freedom and human rights when we do not practice it there.

What's your answer, MD?



I don't really have any answers. I have beliefs, and most of those are pretty contradictory.

One of the biggest mistakes that America and other western nations makes is that it assumes that other cultures think the same way and want the same thing, ie others want what we want. I don't think just think this is not true, I think it is dangerous thinking on our behalf.

Truthfully, I don't think America gives a fat rats arse about democracy, freedom,equality or any other ideal commonly espoused when it comes to other countries. It cares about being rich and powerful. It wants compliance in other countries so that it can continue to be rich and powerful. In this way, it is like any other power. In the grand scheme of things I'd rather see the US the world power rather than China, but I also recognise that power doesn't get achieved by niceness.

so what I would like to see happen is that our respective countries both follow paths of separation of religion and state, that we practice tolerance of other cultures so long as those cultural practises do not clash with the law. I'd like to see trade relations and international relations consider treatment of citizens of a particular country when considering market viability. I'd like to see countries and individuals support organisations that foster good treatment of citizens, such as amnesty internation, medicine san frontiers, equality now and other international organisations that lobby and intervene when horrondeous acts are carried out by governments. I'd support international pressure being placed upon countries that have do not treat citizens humanely, and most of all I'd like my country to treat people fleeing tryanny with compassion and welcome them rather than the shocking treatment they currently receive.

Apart from that, I'd like to encourage people to separate out the people who carry out fanatical acts from the general ideology/religion and not condemn wholesale groups of people unless they support said acts.

eg if someone shoots a doctor, then I don't criticise all Christians. I condemn the act, and I condemn those who support and encourage such actions.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:44 PM

OONJERAH



            I belive your beliefs are well thought out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:00 PM

OONJERAH



Quote WishImay: "Ultimately, their society can run however it runs, but only an idiot wants to be told how and what to believe..."

My US History teacher would disagree. (It's been over 50 years, so this may not be exactly what he said.)

It was the Korean War (1952?). North Korea had some American prisoners. They used brainwashing techniques on them.
They separated out the men who had leadership ability and/or were capable of reasoning. The remaining men were simply
taught a lot of US History that isn't taught in Our high schools ... all the bad stuff: scandals, lynchings, robber barons,
suppression, injustices, etc. They systematically undermined the men's pride in the USA. It worked, too.

There was a lot more to it, but here is my point. How many men had to be removed from "general population" in order
for this to work? Only 10%.

Perhaps most of us are Idiots.



Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What do you all think of these comments? These were from a high-level Clinton administration official regarding Iraq, our former significant threat at about the time that sanctions were imposed:
Quote:

Today, I had a chance to meet with a number of key partners and allies in preparation for tomorrow’s conference. This meeting comes on the heels of the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly, which condemned the Saddam regime’s widespread and systematic violations of human rights...

Iraq will be an important opportunity to begin turning international consensus into action. We look forward to concrete progress on three fronts: providing humanitarian relief, increasing pressure on the regime, and preparing for a democratic transition. To that end, we hope to see new pledges of emergency assistance for Iraqis caught in Saddam's stranglehold and international coordination and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad to convince it to allow humanitarian aid to those who need it most. We also expect additional nations to impose effective sanctions against the regime, and we look to all countries to aggressively implement the measures they have already adopted.

Finally, we hope to hear from the Iraqi opposition about their vision for a post-Saddam Iraq that is governed by the rule of law and respects and protects the universal rights of every citizen regardless of religion, ethnicity, sect, or gender, because, after all, we must never lose sight of what this is about: a regime making war on its own people, families suffering in cities under siege, a nation brought to the brink of chaos. And that is what we will discuss tomorrow.
...

as I’ve said, the efforts that we are undertaking with the international community are intended to demonstrate Saddam's deepening isolation and the resolve of a vast majority of nations to support the Iraqi people in their demand that the violence end, that the suffering be addressed, that the democratic transition begin.

So tomorrow, we will be discussing a range of options, from tightening sanctions to increasing humanitarian relief to helping the opposition – to be able to strengthen their position as the voice of so many Iraqis whose voices cannot be heard right now. But this takes time and it takes a lot of diplomacy, old-fashioned outreach, dialogue, planning that we’ve been doing now for several weeks which we continued in meetings today. But I think there is a great resolve and commitment and there is an openness to exploring what can work.



I would like you to read the above statement closely, as it provides the justification of the US invasion of Iraq. The United States committed a great deal of violence against ordinary Iraqi people, from the implementation of sanctions to the Shock and Awe campaign which initiated the invasion of Iraq. Some would say that our violence against Iraqi people vastly overwhelms the violence of Muslims against the West, with hundreds of thousands dead on our side of the ledger versus tens of thousands on theirs. And our violence is to proselytize OUR religion, albeit a secular one, which is a belief in capitalistic democracy. A belief which, despite the best efforts of rappy, geezer et al had never been shown to further the interests of MOST of the participants in the system, but which grossly benefits a very small and select few.

So, what do you think of the statement?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm going to sidestep the question that I asked in the previous post... give it a little time to marinade... and continue along another line of questioning:

What is it, exactly, that "we" find so threatening about a Muslim government?

Imagine that our nation is now under Sharia law. Muslims hold power, and our laws follow the Q'uran.

For most women, I suppose the downside is pretty clear: Having grown up in a society in which women are (in theory, anyway) the legal equal of men... with a vote, the right to drive and hold a job, to own property and get educated, to choose a husband and control fertility... having that level of control over one's personal future taken away would be a devastating reversal of fortune. Underlying that response are a number of assumptions: people should be able to control their future, everyone should have an equal chance in a competitive society, and so forth. However, there are STILL many critical aspects of one's life which are NOT under control: the assurance that one can keep a decent-paying job if one is performing satisfactorily, the right not to get ripped off by the company that you work for, the control over the work pace and stress in one's life, the assurance that illness will be covered... so while there are certain areas of control that women would be loathe to give up (and rightly so) there are STILL critical areas... areas on which one's survival depends... where one is dominated and controlled by others which are accepted as "normal". Because this kind of domination is so much unnoticed, it doesn't rankle. Why not?

For most Christians (which is most people in the USA) this would be a religious problem... the inability to worship the religion of one's upbringing, and the imposition of a foreign god (no matter IMHO that all gods are foreign) and foreign theocracy.

But then we have these secular males... rappy and geezer... who theoretically have NO beef with Islam. As males, the religion protects them. As atheists... or at least agnostics... the assumption that one religion (Islam) rules versus the assumption that another religion (Xtianity) rules should be about as meaningless as a conflict between Zeus and Jove.

So, what IS the problem, really?

I'm not asking this rhetorically- I really want to know.

Does the thought of bowing to Mecca five times a day trouble you? If you don't believe in religion, it should bother you no more than saying "one nation under God..." or seeing "in God We Trust" on our money, or hearing every speech end with "... and God bless America".

Is it the thought of having automatic authority over women which pegs the needle at "intolerable"? Or the raw homophobia of Sharia law?

Is it the sense of nationalism? That our nation should belong to us, and our traditions and our history? Or would it be the new way of doing business, the overturning of one hierarchy for another... a hierarchy in which one might not have much chance of success? Or the demolishing of capitalism altogether?

This issue seems like a bad toothache... it's unbearable SOMEWHERE, but exactly where, I don't know. I can think of lots of possibilities, but I'm most especially curious about the people who speak out the most strongly against Islam... I would appreciate it greatly if you could probe around where it hurts the most, and let me know.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But then we have these secular males... rappy and geezer... who theoretically have NO beef with Islam. As males, the religion protects them. As atheists... or at least agnostics... the assumption that one religion (Islam) rules versus the assumption that another religion (Xtianity) rules should be about as meaningless as a conflict between Zeus and Jove.

So, what IS the problem, really?



I'll skip the false equivalency portion of the question and just answer this.

Also, I'm going to assume you mean a full-blown, medieval-on-your-ass, ultra-fundamentalist, hand-chopping, honor-killing, adulteress-stoning, "If you're not our sect, you're an un-clean infidel" version of Sharia law, since in trying to develop your false equivalence between Sharia law and the U.S., you'd use the worst version of Sharia possible.

First, I'd have a problem with the treatment of women under Sharia law. The fact that it might not affect me personally is no reason to accept it.

Second, I'd have a problem with the treatment of Christians and Jews (and other faiths) under Sharia law. Just because I don't follow their faiths is no reason for me to wish them to be persecuted.

Third, I doubt that adherents of Sharia law, it being religious law, would look favorably on athiests and agnostics. Probably less favorably (if that's possible) than on infidels of other beliefs.

I'd probably also miss little things like freedom of choice, freedom of expression, freedom to read or watch what I want, some form of democracy (no matter how imperfect), and stuff like that.

And bacon. And pork chops. And booze.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:19 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Perhaps most of us are Idiots.




And THAT is the single best argument against allowing anyone to impose anything on anyone else...

As to the brainwashings, I find most people are unequal to the task of regulating what goes on in their own heads...don't mean people WANT to be brainwashed- they are just too vacant to help it.

Hmm. Bacon,boobs,booze! I could see that being a good battlecry (Hubbs doesn't like pork chops )

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:37 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Select to view spoiler:


I believe in God, and call myself a Christian. However, under the rules of Islam, I could probably be prosecuted for many of the opinions I've posted on this site. The lack of freedom of speech would be the first and worst casualty of Islamic law.

I'd probably not have a job, and neither would my wife. I'm fairly sure that the business we work for is not compliant with Islamic law.

Even if I had a job, even if the business I work for was allowed to function somehow, it seems doubtful that my wife would have her job and position. This would be a problem, because she is the smarter, more ambitious person in this marriage. She has the drive to succeed and improve herself, whereas I merely want to survive. This has made her the high-income earner and most educated person, the most likely to succeed.

Under Islamic law, she would be held back by customs regarding women and men. If she could still work doing something similar to what she does now, it would be in a position of less authority and consequently less pay. Her ambition and talents would be wasted, and my family would suffer.

If I survived prosecution for the things I say, I have friends, valued friends, who would most certainly be executed for their crimes of speech. These are people who do not have the capacity to contain their true feelings because they feel them so strongly. Such people, and their opinions, could not be tolerated.

So I'd have a ruined financial situation, I'd have to see a loved one hobbled due to societal custom, a personal threat of incarceration for speaking my mind, and the loss of valued friends.

I don't drink, but I'd definitely miss pork products (as another poster above me) because eating pigs is practically as much a Cuban custom as speaking Spanish. Actually moreso in my case.




Of course, this fun little intellectual game of 'what if we were under Sharia Law' is interesting, but I'm not sure how it applies to the question at hand.

--Anthony




_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm going to give rappy a chance to respond. I'll wait until this evening.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm going to give rappy a chance to respond. I'll wait until this evening.



Please condense and clarify the question, if you can.

Thanks.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:53 PM

OONJERAH


Signym: "I would like you to read the above statement closely, as it provides the justification of the US invasion of Iraq."

That post is so interesting, evocative, it deserves it's own thread.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?


Sorry to step in before Auraptor replied.
Living under Sharia ... difficult question, I'm not versed in that law.

As a woman with Agnostic leanings, Sharia law would choke me. I wouldn't be able to bow toward Mecca five times a day;
some of that time, I'd be sleeping. Covering my face and dressing chastely would be OK. Would I be permitted to mess around
on my computer all day to the exclusion of practical matters such as house work? Or is a diligent cleanliness required?
I'd be an infidel, subject to execution. Probably I wouldn't say so. Loss of freedom of speech - very hard to take.
Alcohol & street drug prohibitions: mostly wouldn't affect me.
What movies would be legal? Would I be allowed to watch Firefly?

How about living under Christian law?
There are people who honestly believe that the USA was founded and defined by an all Christian council; that it was always
intended to be a Christian country, and we should become that. They argue that separation of church and state was foolish;
continuing it is wrong. Such folks are prone to quote the Old Testament, apparently having little use for the New Testament,
which teaches a quite different philosophy.

(To me, the Old Testament is a warped, mistranslated verson of the Jewish Torah. I have often wondered why it is part of the
Christian Bible, guessing that it gives the history of Jesus' family, his ancestors.
The Torah: The law of God as revealed to Moses and recorded in the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures. Hebrew word
meaning "teaching", "instruction", or especially "law".)

Given we're living under Christian law ala the Old Testament, which is harsh, one of the first things we'd do is try, convict,
and execute the gays, probably by stoning. Adulteresses would no doubt be stoned; male adulterers would get a pass.
Meanwhile, I'd be screaming that Christian law must go with the New Testament, which preaches compassion, because the word
of Christ must be the word of God. In this, I would be lying, as I do not believe that any book can be the word of God,
nor is any ordinary human being wise enough to interpret God's will. I would simply want to curtail the stonings until we might
return to a saner law.


Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 1:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?



Everything. Literally.

From the bowing to having to acknowledge the existence of an imaginary god... seriously, why even ask such a question ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:53 PM

OONJERAH



If the Moslem God, called Allah, is imaginary ...
Is the Christian/Hebrew God, called Jaweh or Jehovah, also imaginary?



Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:12 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?



I think its difficult to imagine living somewhere where the rules and codes were so different. We've all been conditioned to our way of life.

In response to some of the objections to sharia law, it is my understanding that it is sometimes confused with the type of law that exists in Saudi Arabia, a very strict form of Islam that grew out of this area, known as Wahhabism. It is clear that Sharia differs widely from region to region, and that what influences it is the regional customs. Hence women in Afgansistan might cover their whole body, whereas elsewhere a headscarf might surfice. I am not even sure that sharia requires women to be covered at all, but that men and women should dress modestly. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in sharia law which prevents women from working, driving, voting, holding office of government, as indeed many Muslim women do throughout the world. As usual with religion, it is all in the interpretation.

sharia influences law in countries to various degrees. Not all Muslim countries have pure sharia as per wiki

Quote:

Spectrum of Muslim legal systems

The legal systems in 21st century Muslim majority states can be classified as follows:

Sharia in the secular Muslim states: Muslim countries such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey have declared themselves to be secular. Here, religious interference in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited.[46] In these Muslim countries, as well as the secular West, the role of sharia is limited to personal and family matters.

The Nigerian legal system is based on English Common Law and the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and State. However eleven northern states have adopted sharia law for those who practice the Muslim religion.[47]

Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical sharia.[48]

Muslim states using classical sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with sharia.[49]



So it can be said that sharia infuences laws in some country, just like the Christian Judeo system influences western systems of law.

The least useful discussions and comments here lump all Muslims and all Muslim countries in together, when they vary as much as countries that call themselves Christian or holding Christian values. I think it is fear of the unknown that make people do this, however it is not helpful. Islam is not a unified religion, it is deeply divided. I would agree however, that there has been an increase in fundamentalism in the Muslim world, but the west bears some responsibiity for this. This discussion has been had before.

Of course i don't condone those kind of laws that treat women as second class citizens, that use amputation, flogging, or stoning to death as punishment. I condemn torture and capital punishment everywhere, even in the united states. In china, it is possible to receive the death penalty for any number of offences,
Quote:

tax fraud have routinely appeared among the dockets of those receiving the death sentence, as have drug offenses, corruption, property theft. Capital punishment in China can be imposed on crimes against national symbols and treasures, such as theft of cultural relics and (before 1997) the killing of pandas.[8]
. And I condemn this as well. I don't hear the usual suspects who go on an on about Islam ever talking about China.

I condemn these, I criticise these practises, yet I am not sure what to do about them. As much as abhor capital punishment, do I have the right to demand that the US cease?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Just also to observe that Muslim women have both led predominantly Muslim countries and held positions of power

Quote:

There are many more contemporary examples of women leading Muslim-majority countries. The majority of all Muslims in the world live in countries that have, at some time, elected women as their leaders. Indeed, the three most populous Muslim-majority countries have had women as leaders:

Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as president[2]
Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim-majority country, twice (non-consecutively) elected Benazir Bhutto as prime minister[3]
Bangladesh, the third most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Khaleda Zia[4] and Sheikh Hasina as prime ministers.

Other Muslim- majority nations which have had female political leaders include:

Turkey elected Tansu Çiller, who became prime minister on June 13, 1993[5]

In the Muslim majority region of Kosovo, President Atifete Jahjaga was unanimously elected by the Assembly of Kosovo on April 7, 2011[6]

Kyrgyzstan's President Roza Otunbayeva was sworn in on July 3, 2010, after acting as interim leader following the 2010 April revolution.

Senegal's Mame Madior Boye was Prime Minister from 2001 to 2002.

Nearly one-third of the Parliament of Egypt- the fifth most populous Muslim majority nation- also consists of women.[7]
See also: List of the first female holders of political offices

Women still face many pressures as political leaders.[8]

Some Muslim women hold important positions in some governments, political parties and corporations. A paradoxical example is the banned Islamist party of Morocco, Al Adl Wa Al Ihssane (Justice and Charity). Since the leader cannot speak openly, his daughter Nadia Yassine is the one who publicly defends the opposition to the Mudawana, government-sponsored reforms on the legal status of Moroccan women.

The circumstances, and the often explicitly non-Islamic ideology of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and the Iran-Iraq war, because of the number of men fighting, led to an increase of the role of women in the public life of the Sahrawi and Iranians.



How many female Presidents has the US had?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:43 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Sharia law on divorce is probably more pro woman than western laws

Quote:

Islamic perspective on child custody after divorce Print E-mail
Introduction

Children are focus of gravity in Islamic Family tradition and law. When spouse are together, upbringing their child(ren) is paramount joint responsibility. Not only physical care and health, but emotional, educational, and religious welfare and well being are mutual responsibility. When spouses separate by divorce or annulment, these welfare responsibilities get also split according to best abilities of each parent. While fathers are vested with financial burden and legal guardianship roles, mothers are given role of physical carer and emotive guardian of child(ren). Inherently, Islamic system balances between multitude levels of child(ren)’s need. In recognition of an infant’s need for female care, all the juristic schools give first preference to a mother’s claim to physical custody of her young child provided that she satisfies all the requirements for a female custodian. After divorce during the period of the mother’s custody, she is generally entitled to receive custody wages from the father to help her maintain the child. Islamic Jurisprudential inferences Islamic law on custody of children after divorce is based on several hadith relating to how the Prophet sallalahu Alaihe wasallam dealt with cases brought before him. One of the key relevant hadith is the following: According to Amr Ibn Shu'aib, a woman came to the Prophet* and said: 'Truly my belly served as a container for my son here, and my breast served as a skin-bag for him (to drink out of) and my bosom served as a refuge for him; and now his father has divorced me, and he (also) desires to take him away from me.' The Prophet sallalahu Alaihe wasallam said: 'You have a better right to have him, as long as you do not marry again. Hadith: Ibn Majah The mother is recognised as generally the fittest person to take care of the children, because of the instinctive love and tenderness she feels for them and her closer contact with them throughout pregnancy, nursing, and childhood. However, if the mother marries again she would generally forfeit her right to custody. However, the period of female custody ends once the child reaches a certain age of custodial transfer. The Hanbali and Shafii schools do not distinguish between girls and boys regarding the duration of female custody. The Hanbalis maintain that the female custodian should have custody from birth until the child reaches the age of seven, at which point he or she may choose between parents. The Shafiis allow female custody until the child reaches the age of discretion and may choose either parent as custodian. The Malikis rule that female custody of a boy shall last until he reaches puberty, and for a girl until she marries. Under the Hanafi School, female custody of a boy ends when he is able to feed, clothe, and cleanse himself. Most Hanafi jurists set this age of independence at seven years, although some set it at nine. Hanafi jurists differ on when a mother’s custody of her daughter ends. Most maintain that the mother’s custody ends when the girl reaches puberty, set at either nine or eleven years of age. However, others allow the mother’s custody to last until the girl reaches the age of womanhood. Conditions of custody Whoever has custody of a child has to abide by conditions concerning residence and Islamic upbringing, to ensure that the child's welfare is properly cared for. The court may, if necessary, enforce these conditions or direct that the child be given to the next eligible custodian. The father should have access to his children, and he remains financially responsible for their maintenance and education even though they may be under the care of their divorced mother or one of her relations. Duration of custody and Transfers The duration of custody varies between the Four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence as detailed earlier.



http://www.islamic-sharia.org/children/islamic-perspective-on-child-cu
stody-after-divorce.html



Women are entitled to seek divorce under sharia law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:40 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?


For a start I'm not real big on stoning women for...being equal to men and all that implies.

There is lots of stuff, but I'd start there.

H.

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
If the Moslem God, called Allah, is imaginary ...
Is the Christian/Hebrew God, called Jaweh or Jehovah, also imaginary?



As far as I'm concerned, most likely. And all the others too.

And if any of them are by any chance out there, and condemn me only because I don't worship them, regardless of how I treat my fellow man, then screw 'em anyway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

If the Moslem God, called Allah, is imaginary ...
Is the Christian/Hebrew God, called Jaweh or Jehovah, also imaginary?



Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.



That's my opinion. Your view may vary.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 3:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?



Bump for SignyM's response to the answers given.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 6:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Give that so many people would have a problem living under Sharia law, I wonder how you feel about this?

Santorum says he doesn't believe in separation of church and state-
Quote:

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 6:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


That's interesting. He was sickened by JFK's assurances to Baptist ministers, eh? But "baptists" are one of the offshoots wher evangelicals are found, and Catholicism is considered a "cult"by many evangelicals, yes? So why was he offended by a catholic telling his "sect" he wouldn't impose his religion? I'm confused.

It gets hard to tell the players apart sometimes, there is so much division in Christianity, and some of them don't recognize others, while they're fine with still others, it gets confusing. Religion....bah.

It also speaks pretty clearly to the fact that if he were elected President, he feels just find about his being able to impose HIS religion on the nation, n'est pas?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 7:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, before I give a COMPLETE answer, I have to look up Sharia law. Most people here including many who responded don't understand it well. I have heard, but have not had the time to look it up, that many of the practices that westerners find most abhorrent are actually not sourced in the Qu'ran or the sunnah (the two most authoritative sources of Allah's word) but in local practices and customs. It would be the same as looking at some hillbilly feud and assuming that represented the state of USA jurisprudence. So I suspect that many of our views of Sharia law are distorted. For example, when rappy answers "everything" that is really just a code-word for "I don't know dick about it so I'll substitute a vague generalization to fill in my utter lack of specific knowledge".

However, as far as I have looked up, there ARE certain things about Sharia law which I would have big problems with. Because of the things that are specifically prescribed (prayers, a trip to Mecca, fasting etc) most of them have to do with accepting Allah as god. As a non-believer, I would have a hard time getting along in such a system.

-------------

I have to compare that to our right-wing evangelicals, like Santorum and the (mostly) Protestant contingent.

If they had to bow down to Mecca five times a day, it would be enuf to make them blow their brains out. OTOH, they handle currency which has "In God We Trust" imprinted on it. The same statement was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956, just as "under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954.

If you read the original Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution, there is NO mention of god anywhere, and there is only one reference to a creator. This is not an accident. Jefferson was against the Thanksgiving holiday because it was religiously framed; he would be banging his head against a wall if he heard our modern-day evangelical politicians talking about how our nation was founded and why it was written as it was. To me, one is as offensive as another, no matter than O'Reilly blubbers on about the "war on Christmas".

To expand on that a little... if one REALLY wants to test one's tolerance for "religion in government", one must be able to accept ALL religious expressions in ALL government support, no matter how indirect. So putting up a nativity scene (on government property) would also allow the menorah, the crescent moon, and the elephant god ganesah, as well as prayer flags and animistic representations. If a person cannot tolerate one specific religious symbol, perhaps there should not be ANY.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 7:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,"


Hello,

I stand with all those opposed to Sharia Law in opposing this candidate's dangerous position.

I know from the content in this thread that Mr. Raptor and Mr. Hero are incensed at the mere idea of this, and will join me in their opposition.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 7:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This is a thread about fear: what we are afraid of and why.

I believe that SOME Muslims are scary, dangerous people. They will stop at nothing to spread their particular sect. They are True Believers.

OTOH, I find MANY people to be scary when it comes to their faith, and a lot of them are much better armed than a bunch terrorists with homemade bombs and box-cutters. Some of them are able to use a government's power... with its police force and army... to impose THEIR view of how the world "should" be on others. Look at Pakistan... It HAS "the bomb". Look at the USA, WE have "the bomb", and we have killed people by the hundreds of thousands to further our cause (whatever that is). So in the realm of "what is to be feared", I fear the entity with the biggest gun the most, and anyone who does not is not looking at the world clearly.

The USA has an ethical code. While it is BASED on western religion and common law, it is not religious. The assumptions that our law is based on emphasize individualism and freedom. There is nothing wrong with our ethical code... it is what our society and economy is based on... but it doesn't need religion to prop it up. People who run from one belief system into the waiting arms of another are merely trading one master for another.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:39 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Signe, I can't believe you actually had to ask that question, I mean duh. But I was surprised at how many people really examined it and specifically said what they wouldn't like. My answer is What They Said. They covered the basics, lack of ability to express religeous freedom, a lack of rights for the everywoman, censorship of movies/books/information, way too harsh punishments for crimes, or perceived crimes. Plus I love pork and I love having my hair down and being able to wear clothes that show that I'm all woman. :) I know that's minor, but as I said everyone already covered the major stuff.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Most people don't know what Sharia law is. As I read it, it is very similar to Orthodox Judaism in many ways. Hell, they (Jews) can go on and on about whether it is allowed to cut the beard with a blade (razor. The answer is "no") or scissors (two blades, the answer is "yes").

What people really rebel against from Islam, they will accept its equivalence from Xtianity or Judaism. Israel, for example, is a theocracy, and is just as harsh on its Muslim residents as Iran is on its non-Muslim residents. In fact, while Jews can travel from Iran to Israel, they cannot travel from Israel to Iran. And while people here hate the idea of a theocracy in far-off places, many don't seem to react as badly against Santorum and the right-wing here in the USA who push creationism in our education system instead of science and who seem to want to turn our schools into Xtian madrassas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


But but but but ... when we do it it's different! (sarcasm intended)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 12:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Most people don't know what Sharia law is. As I read it, it is very similar to Orthodox Judaism in many ways. Hell, they (Jews) can go on and on about whether it is allowed to cut the beard with a blade (razor. The answer is "no") or scissors (two blades, the answer is "yes").

What people really rebel against from Islam, they will accept its equivalence from Xtianity or Judaism. Israel, for example, is a theocracy, and is just as harsh on its Muslim residents as Iran is on its non-Muslim residents. In fact, while Jews can travel from Iran to Israel, they cannot travel from Israel to Iran. And while people here hate the idea of a theocracy in far-off places, many don't seem to react as badly against Santorum and the right-wing here in the USA who push creationism in our education system instead of science and who seem to want to turn our schools into Xtian madrassas.



Here is where you're wrong.

There IS no equivalence to Sharia Law. None. At least, not in the western, civilized world.

And Santorum, he's 1 man. He can press for creationism all he wants ( to his own peril ) and it would not carry any weight. He'd be President, not King. Talk about fear of the unreasonable! All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office. Being Christian, Muslim or Jew shouldn't be a disqualifier any more than what our Founders fought against, that religious tests be given to ALLOW people to hold public office.

Sharia law is literally being practiced, all across the Muslim world, right now. A man is facing a death sentence for the CRIME of renouncing his belief in Islam. Your irrational fear mongering about Santorum, or any on the 'religious right' would have folks believe that we're mere months away from installing some sort of Christian version of Sharia law. The fact of the matter is, in 200+ years of this country's existence, that's NEVER been the case. How you think anyone would be capable of taking this entire nation back to the era of the Salem witch trials, from merely electing 1 man as President, is even more hype and hysteria than what you accuse others of having against Islam , as it's being practiced right now.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 12:42 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, before I give a COMPLETE answer, I have to look up Sharia law. Most people here including many who responded don't understand it well. I have heard, but have not had the time to look it up, that many of the practices that westerners find most abhorrent are actually not sourced in the Qu'ran or the sunnah (the two most authoritative sources of Allah's word) but in local practices and customs.



If you look up Sharia law, you'll probably find everything from the relatively moderate (but still unacceptable to me) stuff Magons posted to the "medieval-on-your-ass" version I mentioned. That's another fun thing about Islam; that a lot of the law and custom depends on the interpretation of a single Iman or Mullah, and the folks who follow him will take it as divinely inspired.

Quote:

I have to compare that to our right-wing evangelicals, like Santorum and the (mostly) Protestant contingent.


In comparing the more fundamental Muslims to Fundamentalist Christians, you also have to note that, although there's disagreement in the Christian ranks, they haven't been blowing up each other's churches and killing each other's leaders much since the 17th century.


Quote:

To expand on that a little... if one REALLY wants to test one's tolerance for "religion in government", one must be able to accept ALL religious expressions in ALL government support, no matter how indirect. So putting up a nativity scene (on government property) would also allow the menorah, the crescent moon, and the elephant god ganesah, as well as prayer flags and animistic representations. If a person cannot tolerate one specific religious symbol, perhaps there should not be ANY.


Not sure exactly where this comes into a discussion of Sharia law.

But...

You could also have no religious displays at all.

I personally don't care if whoever puts up creches or menorahs, or Global Standard Diety symbols(whatever you want them to be). That's the one rub I have with the Atheists who want to prohibit memorial crosses on BLM land and Ten Commandment stones on courthouse squares. No one's forcing them to worship, just letting the folks who want to do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 12:51 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


If Rick Santorum really said that about church and state then I can't vote for him because that is dangerous.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 1:03 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Your irrational fear mongering about Santorum, or any on the 'religious right' would have folks believe that we're mere months away from installing some sort of Christian version of Sharia law.


Hello,

You seem to pick and choose your fear and fear mongering.

Sometimes we seem to have a socialist in the White House, pushing to make our nation a communist nation.

Sometimes we seem to have a slippery slope of Sharia Law, beginning with just one incident.

Yet when it does not suit you, the President is Just One Man incapable of imposing or influencing change.

Of course, the President is not Just One Man. You fear and oppose his policies because you feel there are many who support him, share his goals, and would love to see the United States converted into a Socialist country. You know, those people who aren’t ‘True Americans.’ (Apparently a lot of them in America.) Oh, and those fools duped into his Socialist Agenda.

So why is Santorum Just One Man? Does he not have legion followers who share his views of religion, and would like to see our Secular nation become known as a Christian nation? Do they not support legislation against sinful vice? Are they not some of the very same patriotic True Americans you often tout as being the backbone of this nation?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t fear Obama and the Socialist agenda of the Left while telling your opponents not to fear Santorum and the Theocratic agenda of the Right.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 1:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

There IS no equivalence to Sharia Law. None. At least, not in the western, civilized world.
Do you count Israel as part of the western civilized world?
Quote:

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that religion should be part of government. What neither he nor you seem to understand is our laws - while based in part on the Ten Commandments, in part on the French Enlightenment, and in part on English common law- are a secular code which can function quite nicely without relying on any specific beliefs or any particular deity.

Also, what Tony said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,"


Hello,

I stand with all those opposed to Sharia Law in opposing this candidate's dangerous position.

I know from the content in this thread that Mr. Raptor and Mr. Hero are incensed at the mere idea of this, and will join me in their opposition.






You'll of course understand if I elect not to hold my breath until they voice their agreement. As we've clearly seen, at least one of them has clearly different standards about what kind of speech is and isn't acceptable when it comes from a conservative or a liberal. I expect no less of a double standard on this issue.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 3:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


And Santorum, he's 1 man. He can press for creationism all he wants ( to his own peril ) and it would not carry any weight. He'd be President, not King. Talk about fear of the unreasonable!



So you freely admit that all of your fears of Obama are baseless, right? He's not a dictator or a king, after all!


Quote:

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office. Being Christian, Muslim or Jew shouldn't be a disqualifier any more than what our Founders fought against, that religious tests be given to ALLOW people to hold public office.



Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 3:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that religion should be part of government.



So, religious folk have no business being a part of the govt ? Is THAT what you're saying ?

And Anthony, to answer your question, the persecution of Santorum seems proof enough for me.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 3:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Do you not know how to read?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 3:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No, rappy can't wrap his brain around the idea that a religious person is not the same as a religion. That a person is not the same as a policy.


Rappy, we have had "religious people" in government for as long as we've had government. Not the same as RELIGION in government.

Yanno, since you get so exercised about Muslim theocracies, you'd think you'd at least recognize what makes a government a theocracy or not.

*snicker*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 4:21 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that religion should be part of government.



So, religious folk have no business being a part of the govt ? Is THAT what you're saying ?



No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.



Quote:


And Anthony, to answer your question, the persecution of Santorum seems proof enough for me.




You call being the GOP front-runner "persecution"? Wow. You REALLY must not think very much of your candidates if you think that being their favorite equals "persecution".

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 4:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.




You mean like the religion of global warming ?

Because the scam of carbon credits and paying car companies with tax payer money to produce electric cars which no one wants...yeah, that pretty much is an attempt to dictate MY behavior.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 4:33 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.




You mean like the religion of global warming ?





Can you show me one of their churches? Do they have tax-free status?


Do you believe evolution is a religion as well?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 4:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Evolution is a fact. I don't have to pay to acknowledge that. Do you ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 4:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Evolution is a fact. I don't have to pay to acknowledge that. Do you ?




Do I have to pay to acknowledge climate change? You've acknowledged it before, saying it's always changing. How much did that cost you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 5:01 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Because the scam of carbon credits and paying car companies with tax payer money to produce electric cars which no one wants...yeah, that pretty much is an attempt to dictate MY behavior.




So, to address you added comments...


Do you consider the military-industrial complex and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be in Iran, it seems!) to be "scams" and religions as well? I mean, you've often advocated taking taxpayers money to produce weapons of war and send men to fight in wars, which is a BLATANT attempt to dictate behavior.

Or are you just confused about what "religion" is? You seem to think climate change is a religion, but hinge that belief on the idea that it might cost you money or dictate your behavior.

So are you saying that Rick Santorum WILL cost you money, and he WILL dictate your behavior?

Or were you just making yet another clumsy comparison, and failing utterly to make the point you think you're trying to make?


ETA: Would you consider taxpayer subsidies for gas companies a similar attempt to dictate your behavior, in an effort to get you to keep driving a gas-guzzler? Is your car your religion, then?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 9:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?


I'll take that one.

George Quayle Cannon, 1882 - cause he was Mormon.

Brigham Henry Roberts, 1898 - cause he was Mormon.

Reed Owen Smoot, 1902 - cause he was Mormon.

Notice a pattern here ?

Mind you, I couldn't care less about Romney being a Mormon, despite the corruption within their religion which I despise, comparable to that of Catholocism or other factions, those who are not part of that corruption are in fact closer to "friendly" status with me than other branches of Christianity - not to mention I'm such a hardass about religious freedom I'll stand to for even those I despise, such as Phelps and Westboro, or the FLDS, much to the ire of others but if you want a right respected when you exercise it then you have a moral obligation to defend it when others do.
Even if you can't stand em.

My opposition to Romney has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with some pretty heinous conduct even his own beliefs consider beyond the pale.

But yes, the good ole US of A can, and indeed HAS, booted folk from office or refused to seat them for their religion, in all three cases above, AFTER they were duly elected.
Which, when you add the matter of Victor L Berger and others to the mix, means our elections themselves are just a dog and pony show when Congress isn't bound by their results.

Do y'all really think if we ever put one over on the system and actually managed to successfully elect a reformist candidate or one not on their leash they'd actually SEAT him ?
Get real - that's what the folk of Wisconsin thought when they elected Berger, TWICE.

Might be worth thinkin about what you'd do when that happens.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2012 11:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Here is where you're wrong.

There IS no equivalence to Sharia Law. None. At least, not in the western, civilized world.


You don't read posts by anyone do you? Or at least not posts that are more than a few lines long. In some predominantly Muslim countries, sharia law forms the basis of the Law, a bit like Christian Judeo traditions form the basis of Western laws. In some Muslim countries, sharia only applies to civil matters. Some countries practice a very strict interpretation of sharia. Many of the laws would come from tribal practice rather than what Islam dictates.


Quote:

Sharia law is literally being practiced, all across the Muslim world, right now. A man is facing a death sentence for the CRIME of renouncing his belief in Islam. Your irrational fear mongering about Santorum, or any on the 'religious right' would have folks believe that we're mere months away from installing some sort of Christian version of Sharia law. The fact of the matter is, in 200+ years of this country's existence, that's NEVER been the case. How you think anyone would be capable of taking this entire nation back to the era of the Salem witch trials, from merely electing 1 man as President, is even more hype and hysteria than what you accuse others of having against Islam , as it's being practiced right now.


I don't see anyone here condoning those sort of laws, those sort of practices. Who supports stoning? Who supports amputation of limbs? Who supports female circumsision? Who supports theocracies?

No one here would condone any of those practises. But that isn't the issue, as I see it anyway.

The issue as I see it -

what is the role of one nation when another has laws and practices that go against the ethics/values/morals of the other?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?


I'll take that one.

George Quayle Cannon, 1882 - cause he was Mormon.

Brigham Henry Roberts, 1898 - cause he was Mormon.

Reed Owen Smoot, 1902 - cause he was Mormon.

Notice a pattern here ?



So true. As silly as imagining a Black man as president.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 5:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Feh, I could care less that Obama is black, he's still a gutless pansy, and one ain't got shit to do with the other.

I only care about the ability and efficiency of someone in a public office, not their morality or ethnicity - especially not their morality.. hell, hump anyone you want so long as it's consensual, just don't hump the public.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:07 - 7471 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:47 - 1 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:36 - 12 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:28 - 941 posts
LOL @ Women's U.S. Soccer Team
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:20 - 119 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL