REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What happened to "freedom of religion"?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 15:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3679
PAGE 1 of 2

Monday, March 28, 2011 11:38 AM

NIKI2

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


CNN had a special report last night, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door". I couldn't watch it; I don't need to; I know what's going on and it makes me want to spit. Just the short video clips shown in the promos disgusted me.
Quote:

"Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door" examines a city in middle Tennessee that is torn apart by fear and suspicion as residents fight to block the construction of a large Islamic center. From New York to California, since Sept. 11, 2001, fears of radical Islam, terrorism and "Sharia law" have fueled opposition to mosque projects and launched a national debate around religious freedom protections. Murfreesboro, Tennessee has just over 100,000 people, 140+ churches, and one mosque. For decades, Muslims have lived and prayed in Murfreesboro without incident, but last May, when the Muslim community gained county approval to build a new 52,000 square foot Islamic center in town, hundreds of Murfreesboro residents took to the streets in protest. CNN anchor and special correspondent Soledad O'Brien chronicles the dramatic fight to block the mosque project in Murfreesboro and the fight over religious freedom; a fight that would ultimately include protests, vandalism, arson and an explosive lawsuit that would involve the U.S. Department of Justice.
CNN

What happened to our constant cries of "freedom of religion" in this country? It sickens me to see what's going on, the hypocrisy it represents, and the hate and ignorance of so many Americans.
Quote:

Nationwide Protests Over Mosques Increases

From Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn to Temecula in California, angry Americans are participating in protests and are being met by other Americans supportive of their Muslim neighbors. Those opposed to the building of new mosques and Islamic centers cite traffic problems, but too often intolerance and fear is the chief motivator.

At the Sheepshead Bay protest, according to The Brooklyn Paper, one protester told the newspaper, “They’re not going to stay here alive.” The article stated that “…intolerance was common at the rally.” At the Temecula protest, signs like “No Sharia Law” represented the unfounded fear that Muslims were attempting to supplant American law.

A History of Religious Intolerance Continues

Religious intolerance in America can be traced back to the Puritans of New England, who would just as soon hang a Quaker or a Catholic. In the Calvinist Dutch New Amsterdam colony, Governor Peter Stuyvesant refused to accept a ship carrying refugee Jews. Virginia’s official Anglicanism made Sunday church attendance mandatory whether one was an Anglican or not.

During the 19th Century religious intolerance grew worse. Mormons were forced to trek to Utah after having been repeatedly uprooted by often hostile and violent neighbors. The Know-Nothing Party was formed in the 1850s to deny rights to Catholics. In the 20th Century, American Jews were subjected to Anti-Semitism. Today, intolerance targets Muslims.

Intolerance and Ignorance Perpetuate Fear

Anti-mosque protests continue in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Sheboygan, Wisconsin. According to the website of the Islamic Society of Sheboygan, “Muslim families have lived in that community for 25 years and have never had a place to pray.” Newt Gingrich, however, writes that “this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.”

The strength of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, however, is most often threatened when religious intolerance is unchecked. In 1993, the Supreme Court struck down a Hialeah, Florida statute that forbade members of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye from conducting animal sacrifices during Santeria ceremonies and rituals. Gingrich has said, “No churches in Saundi Arabia? Then no mosques near Ground Zero.” But what makes the United States different from many other societies is the determination to preserve Constitutional principles, even if the results are not liked by every citizen. http://www.suite101.com/content/muslims-face-religious-intolerance-in-
american-communities-a271630#ixzz1HvqFVDGC


Don't give me the shit about mosques being "training centers for terrorists", it's been debunked and if anyone honestly believes Muslims go to mosques for the purpose of terrorist instruction, they're either deliberately ignorant or incapable of common sense. The vast majority of Muslims, just like the vast majority of every other religion, go to their place of worship to WORSHIP. Anything else is bullshit.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 11:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


What ever happened to " freedom of speech " ?

Citizens voicing their views on an issue isn't what the Founders were worried about. It was the GOVERNMENT forbidding or demanding a certain religion be followed or practiced.


" 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, March 28, 2011 11:54 AM

NIKI2

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


Ah, so it's okay for the American people to not allow the practice of freedom of religion, long as it's not the government. I get it. That makes it even more egregious, to me; if we're a nation which preaches freedom of religion, we should be PROTECTING the rights of other religions than Christianity to be followed. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy to hold it up as part of America's principles.

It's not just people "voicing" opposition, it's people pressuring their local government, AND local governments on their own, finding ways to deny Muslims freedom of religion. But that's okay with you, apparently. Then I call you a hypocrite, as well.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 11:55 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


It's sad what fear and those that would exploit it have done to this country. The hypocrisy is to be expected, it's human nature and infects our politics as much (maybe more so) than anything else. What I don't understand is why any truly religious person would be in favor of this kind of oppression. Don't they realize that as soon as it's 'acceptable' to oppress one religion it will become 'acceptable' to oppress another, and another, and perhaps eventually ALL religions.

If I were into conspiracy theories I'd think this the work of some cunning anti-religious mastermind aiming to pit one religion against the next until they are all destroyed/contained/oppressed or whatever + ???? = profit or something.

Even if I resented muslims (which I don't) I would advocate for their rights because (altruism aside) I know what affects them could eventually effect me.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 11:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Ah, so it's okay for the American people to not allow the practice of freedom of religion, long as it's not the government. I get it. That makes it even more egregious, to me; if we're a nation which preaches freedom of religion, we should be PROTECTING the rights of other religions than Christianity to be followed. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy to hold it up as part of America's principles.

It's not just people "voicing" opposition, it's people pressuring their local government, AND local governments on their own, finding ways to deny Muslims freedom of religion. But that's okay with you, apparently. Then I call you a hypocrite, as well.




I disagree.


" 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, March 28, 2011 12:02 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
What ever happened to " freedom of speech " ?

They still have it, of course.

They are using their free speech to limit freedom of religion, which is entirely legal, and VERY sad.

I am sad that free people would CHOOSE to do something like this.



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:08 PM

NIKI2

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


Happy and CTS: Beautiful. Right on, and exactly what I'm saying. If I hadn't seen the way our country has given in to fear and hatred on this subject for so long now, or if I were a young person who actually BELIEVED the things we spout about this country, I'd be shocked.

And that says even more; that we're not shocked to see this kind of oppression happening daily right in front of us. I'm ashamed of some of my fellow Americans, and can only hope with all my heart that this is a "vocal minority" and nothing more. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sorry Niki, but we already have enough crazies who want to hasten the next world war to bring back some long dead / imaginary savior and herald in a glorious 1000 years on Earth or some such. I don't really see any point in encouraging more of the same.

Be it the JC man or the 12th Imam, no thank you.

The less religion , the better.


" 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, March 28, 2011 12:23 PM

DREAMTROVE


I disagree. I think religion is a positive force, and economics is driving the negative here.

I wonder why there wasn't more noise about Wicca and Scientology, neither of which subscribe to modern medicine as their mainstay on health, were deliberately not included in religions which were allowed to opt out of Obamacare in religious grounds.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:27 PM

NIKI2

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


What happened to "American exceptionalism" with regard to this issue? I don't see us as any better than anywhere else, and worse than some, when it comes to this crap:
Quote:

Many Americans find it difficult to believe that the U.S. has anything to learn from Europe when it comes to religion. The recent controversies over mosques suggest otherwise. That’s because this is a story that has been playing out in Europe for some time, with results ranging from restrictions on religious liberty to a worsening of tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. America cannot afford to go down the same path.

Anti-mosque sentiment is clearly on the rise in America. Efforts to block the construction of the proposed Cordoba Center in New York City are the most noteworthy, but proposed Islamic centers and mosques in places such as Murfreesboro, TN, and Temecula, CA, are also under attack. Why? Some opponents are quick to cite mundane reasons such as zoning laws or increased traffic. But one look at some of the placards in a recent Murfreesboro protest tells a different story. One stated: “Mosque Leaders Support Killing Converts Tell It!” And one protester told a local news station that “in Islam, a mosque means ‘We have conquered this country’ … They’re going to say, ‘We have conquered Tennessee.’”

Many Europeans are clearly anxious over Islam’s increasing presence and visibility because they, too, tend to define Islam as an inherently violent religion. The Swiss campaign against minarets succeeded because organizers tapped into popular fears concerning Islam, with minarets portrayed as weapons used by Muslims to conquer Europe. Polls indicate that plenty of other Europeans share these fears.

For their part, Muslims have adopted an accommodating attitude in the overwhelming majority of conflicts concerning mosques and minarets. They have agreed to relocate proposed mosques to less central (and less visible) locations. They have modified architectural designs so that mosques look, well, less mosque-like. They have kept minarets relatively short so as not to rival church towers and steeples, or they have simply not erected minarets. They have developed creative ways to issue the call to prayer, such as short-wave transmitters and text messaging, to ease concerns from non-Muslims over hearing the call from loudspeakers. In the Marseille mosque currently under construction, a flashing light will be used to issue the call to prayer.

Over and over again, Muslims across Europe have responded with respect and deference to local and national concerns and have followed the relevant laws affecting where or how they can build mosques. This is a far cry from the violent, anti-democratic reputation that the Islamic faith still has in much of Europe. But the second-class treatment Muslims have received is taking its toll, and tensions are rising between European countries and Muslims, particularly among the younger generations. Many Muslims continue to feel like foreigners and outsiders in their own country.

The European response to Islam continues in many cases to operate on unfortunate stereotypes and caricatures. It involves rendering that which is visible invisible, that which is present absent. In doing so, freedom of religion becomes the major casualty, hostility towards Muslims persists, and opportunities to build bridges between Islam and the West pass by.

We should think long and hard about whether we want to mimic Europe in its treatment of Islam. Our nation prides itself on religious tolerance and diversity. Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. But efforts to prohibit the construction of Islamic centers and mosques undermine these principles and move us closer to a Europe where restrictions on religious liberty are the most common means of “dealing” with Islam. We also risk missing some of the same opportunities as Europeans if we oppose the construction of religious centers whose purpose often includes helping non-Muslims discover what they share in common with Muslims, either as people of faith or as loyal citizens.

America has a long history of learning from some of the mistakes made in Europe when it comes to religious toleration and liberty. Here we have yet another opportunity to do so. Let’s not miss it.

http://somalimidnimo.com/2010/07/31/anti-mosque-sentiment-in-america-l
essons-from-europe
/


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:42 PM

NIKI2

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


Regarding the two mosques mentioned in the article:
Quote:

Others opposed to the plan did so for more practical reasons, citing concerns about the effects on traffic and housing values. The mosque would be built in a primarily residential area.

"I was very surprised they would approve of that for any religion," said resident Jackie Archer.

THAT is true bullshit...we've got churches in virtually EVERY residential neighborhood, one right down the street from us. These are EXCUSES to "legally" deny them the right to build.
Quote:

After a suspected arson and reports of gunshots at an Islamic center in Tennessee over the weekend, nearby mosques have hired security guards, installed surveillance cameras and requested the presence of federal agents at prayer services.

Muslim leaders in central Tennessee say that frightened worshipers are observing Ramadan in private and that some Muslim parents are wary of sending their children to school after a large fire on Saturday that destroyed property at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Federal authorities suspect that the fire was arson.

Saturday, the police say, someone set fire to construction equipment at the site where the Islamic center is planning to move, destroying an earthmover and three other pieces of machinery. And on Sunday, as CNN was filming a news segment about the controversy, someone fired at least five shots near the property.

In Nashville, 30 miles northwest, local imams met with representatives of the United States attorney’s office on Monday to discuss the risk of further anti-Islamic violence. Several mosques have requested police surveillance, they said.

Another mosque, the Islamic Center of Nashville, has installed indoor and outdoor surveillance cameras, hired round-the-clock security guards and requested that F.B.I. agents be on site during worship services, according to the imam, Mohamed Ahmed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/31mosque.html

At least here in California, people are standing up against the intolerance:
Quote:

Demonstrators clashed Friday over the proposed construction of a mosque right next to a church in Temecula.

As worshippers at the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley arrived to pray, a small but vocal group of about two dozen protestors waved American flags and shouted through bullhorns, denouncing a plan to build a new mosque in another part of the Riverside County town.

"I just don't agree with their beliefs," said Cynthia Daum, who assembled with the protestors across the street from the center.

The existing Islamic center has been operating in Temecula out of an industrial building for almost 10 years. Members have saved the funds to build a new mosque on a 4-acre plot of vacant land in a different area of the city.

Members of the community showed up in front of the Islamic Center to lend support, outnumbering the protestors by about 10 to one. They said they won't let the anger of some community members scare them away from building a mosque because it all comes down to civil rights.

"We respect everyone's opinion - we're American," said Hadi Nael. "They have the right to freedom of speech, we have the freedom of religion."

The proposed location of the mosque, in close proximity to a church, has stirred emotions over what some people see as an intrusion on the community.

"I have witnessed what happens to many nations in the world by the expansion of Islamic ideology," said Mano Bakh. "They destroy the community, they destroy the country."

The Islamic Center will submit its building proposal to the city's Planning Commission in August. Meanwhile, protestors are circulating a petition to stop its progress.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&
;id=7585147


If that protest petition works and the mosque isn’t allowed there, then again that would be using the “law” to prohibit freedom of religion. I don’t see it working, because there is no LEGAL grounds to prohibit it, but that’s what some Americans want, and I’m ashamed of them. But obviously there are even those here who think this is okay. Not liking religion is no excuse, Raptor, what you're saying has nothing to do with stopping the building of new churches, synagogues or temples, it's only mosques which are being blocked. Wasn't even a good attempt at rationalizing your willlingness to deny these people freedom of religion.

I notice you made no comment about their right to freedom of religion; first you say it's only the "government" who can't deny freedom of religion, then you say you'd rather see no more religious edifices at all. What have you to say about their RIGHT to a house of worship?? Arson and vandalism are okay with you, I take it? "Sorry Niki" has nothing to do with the ISSUE of their right to build a mosque, it's just a way for you to disagree, given it's me, nothing more.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:47 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

At least here in California, people are standing up against the intolerance



Yeah, and look at what a colossal cluster fuck the entire state has become. Falls right in line w/ how everything else is being run out there.




When I see folks standing up against the 'intolerance', I can see an image of Niki, next to the word 'useful idiot' in the dictionary.


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

Monday, March 28, 2011 1:05 PM

NIKI2

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


Equally pathetic attempt at a snark, AND a threadjack. Has nothing to do with the issue; you answered none of my questions; and I'm not about to be jacked into responding to your idiocy, especially as we already went over the state of California's economic situation.

So when you see someone standing up against intolerance, you think they're an idiot, eh? Hooo...kay; do we need to know any more about him, folks? Yessiree, a REAL 'Murican!

Gawd, you just can't stay on track OR answer a straight question, can you? I didn't expect otherwise, and I got better things to do. You are truly an absurd excuse for a rational poster. I'm not bothering further with you.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 1:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



When those Muslims start siding with say...oh, your other fav religious folks... the Mormons, on such issues as gay marriage, let's see how 'tolerant' you are then.

This should be fun.


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

Monday, March 28, 2011 2:30 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:
What ever happened to " freedom of speech " ?

Citizens voicing their views on an issue isn't what the Founders were worried about. It was the GOVERNMENT forbidding or demanding a certain religion be followed or practiced.




So you're not okay with Tennessee's proposed law that would make it illegal to practice Sharia law, right?

And you'll no doubt come out in support of Oklahoma's new law banning Sharia law as well, yes?

After all, these ARE instances of the government telling you a certain religion CAN'T be followed or practiced.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 2:43 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I agree, of course, that these townspeople are majorly overreacting and its a bit scary, it isn't going to hurt anyone to have an Islamic center there, people need to be allowed to worship as they please, as long as no one is being hurt. I totally agree with what Happy says, this could backfire on other people too. I don't condone it. The townspeople have the right to _peacefully protest, but that is as far as this should go in the town.

The thing about Sherria law is that it _does sometimes hurt people, namely women. So I think banning it, or at least the dangerous parts of it, is totally acceptable and should be decided on a state by state basis.

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

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 2:56 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
The thing about Sherria law is that it _does sometimes hurt people, namely women.

You don't need a new law to ban a Muslim practice. Hurting people (including women) is ALREADY illegal.

Targeting a religious practice that doesn't hurt anyone sets a dangerous precedent against the First Amendment.

Targeting a religious practice that is hurtful is superfluous.



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

Monday, March 28, 2011 2:57 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
What ever happened to " freedom of speech " ?

Citizens voicing their views on an issue isn't what the Founders were worried about. It was the GOVERNMENT forbidding or demanding a certain religion be followed or practiced.




So you're not okay with Tennessee's proposed law that would make it illegal to practice Sharia law, right?

And you'll no doubt come out in support of Oklahoma's new law banning Sharia law as well, yes?

After all, these ARE instances of the government telling you a certain religion CAN'T be followed or practiced.



Yes, on both. The law is the law. And no 'religious' law can supersede constitutional law.

And isn't there some question as to whether Sharia IS authentically Muslim ?

Regardless, everyone must follow THE law, and not get special treatment or make up their own rules. You allow that to happen, you've lost any legitimacy of a nation, completely.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 5:48 PM

HARDWARE


This is a perfect example of NIMBYism. It's not just Islamic religious buildings. I've seen NIMBYism practiced against residential facilities for the retarded and mentally ill, prisons, industrial centers, powerplants, both coal and nuclear, Walmarts, the list goes on and on. Not In My Back Yard is a real fucker of a problem.

I have a patch of land, say a good 12 acres or so. I want to push up berms and put together a private shooting range. My neighbors can come along and claim noise pollution and stymie my activities on my land. If I fight that they can file an injunction and get a cease and desist on me for potential groundwater pollution from lead. I can fight it, and they'll throw up another roadblock. Because they don't like what I am doing on my own property. While it wasn't me, I know of someone who had that exact problem, an existing range for rifles, shotguns and pistols on a much larger piece of land. The neighbors in the new development next door complained. Now, they were the Johnny come lately in this situation. The range pre-dated the development. After a couple of years the landowner stopped using the 12 acres abutting the development for shooting and instead expanded his farming to the dozen acres. He started keeping pigs in the adjoining land. Property values in the development plummeted.

NIMBY sucks, but the government isn't doing it.

If you speak out on some topic it is illegal for the government to take action against you. However, if I disagree with you, don't expect to do business with me. I, as a proprietor of a business have every right to choose to not do business with you. If I choose to not do business with anyone who attends your mosque that is still my business. I'm not being prejudicial against your religion I'm being prejudicial against your mosque. It is a private business, my business, my choice.

This is called freedom. It cuts both ways.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
CNN had a special report last night, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door".



Is this the same CNN which nightly for years has shown us clips of Muslims firing their AK47s in the air and shouting 'Allah Akbar' in celebration of the latest terrorist attack? These guys are going to try to create controversy anywhere they can, out of anything they can, in search of ratings. I'd be surprised if opposition to mosques is a prevalent as they would have you believe, or that there are as many folks with anti-muslim views as they'd like you to think. I know that there have been several new mosques built and existing ones expanded here in Northern Virginia with no problems.

Just for fun, I spent a minute googling for opposition to Christian churches in the U.S. (looking worldwide finds tons) and found...

Quote:

Church construction stirs opposition in Chino Hills


CHINO HILLS - Residents and recreational users are concerned about a proposed church on rural English Road that could disrupt the area's quiet country atmosphere.

The Planning Commission tonight will consider a conditional-use permit that would allow the construction of an 11,600-square-foot, two-story church near the southwest corner of English Road and Peyton Drive. The area is presently zoned for rural residences and agricultural use.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-lan
d-use-planning/14833149-1.html


Quote:

Church condos’ ‘last approval’ draws neighbor opposition

Continued worries over the condominiums planned to go up around Porter Square’s elegant St. James’s Episcopal Church has residents preparing to attend Wednesday’s meeting of the Planning Board, said Patricia Armstrong, a neighbor of the project.

“Oaktree has repeatedly stated from the start they needed no special permits,” Armstrong said, referring to the developer of the four-story, 78,000-square-foot modern structure that would go around the 122-year-old Richardson Romanesque church. “Now they are applying for additional special permits.”

The project, resulting from the closing of a car wash at 2013 Massachusetts Ave., is a partnership between Cambridge-based Oaktree Development and the 325-member church, which would retain the ground floor of the condominium structure (except for a small retail space) and get an endowment described as being as high as $3 million — and vital to the maintenance of the church building and its programs.


http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/02/15/church-condos-%E2%80%98last-app
roval%E2%80%99-draws-neighbor-opposition
/

Quote:

Neighbors prevent church construction
New Life Church, with its lively music and real-life stories, has experienced skyrocketing attendance since 1995, and the group has pushed to expand by building a new auditorium. However, neighborhood resistance has inhibited the construction of this auditorium.

The church has had trouble getting approval for the project from city planners.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/neighbors-prevent-church-construc
tion


So when can we expect the CNN special on this prejudice against Christians?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:33 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
This is a perfect example of NIMBYism.

It is just always sad to see NIMYism because of disability or religious prejudice. It is sad for me to see it done to Christians too.

If these folks were simply protesting, that is one thing. But they are also committing vandalism and arson, which takes it to another level. Freedom of speech doesn't extend that far.



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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:35 AM

NIKI2

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


Quote:

Yes, on both. The law is the law. And no 'religious' law can supersede constitutional law.
Now that’s an asinine response if there ever was one. DIRECTLY contradictory to his previous remark that
Quote:

Citizens voicing their views on an issue isn't what the Founders were worried about. It was the GOVERNMENT forbidding or demanding a certain religion be followed or practiced.
These unnecessary and prejudicial laws about sharia ARE the government impinging on freedom of religion, so despite you insinuating that, given it’s not the government affecting freedom of religion it’s okay, in this case it’s fine with you that the GOVERNMENT is prohibiting freedom of religion. Rarely do you so quickly contradict yourself, but thank you for making your prejudices and hypocrisy so evident.

As to the Mormons (cute snark) and Muslims not approving of gay marriage, that’s their right and privilege, just as it is ANY individual’s. Of course I tolerate their belief on the matter...it’s when governments (local, state, federal) make LAWS forbidding those civil rights that I abhor it. Every single religion I can think of has one or more biases with which I disagree; that in no way changes my tolerance of same. I may not like them, but that’s MY business, in no way means I’d do ANYTHING to forbid their opinions!

As to banning Sharia law, the idiotic thing about it is that it reflects unfounded paranoia, prejudice and nothing else. There’s never been a move to have sharia law supersede law, as far as I know, it was just drummed-up fear that even made it an issue. I seem to recall two places being named where it was claimed sharia law was ALREADY a danger, and it turned out one city didn’t even exist, and there WAS no sharia law in the other. That’s really all we need to know about that non-issue. But it’s fodder for the masses, a focus for hatred and fear, so it works for those pushing it.

How about Halakha (Jewish law) and Hindu law, and Canon law (Ctholic law)? Should we go about making laws prohibiting THEM, too??
Quote:

Canon law is the codification of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox law (like in a civil law tradition), while Sharia law derives many of its laws from juristic precedent and reasoning by analogy (like in a common law tradition).
Wiki

Jewish law:
Quote:

The mitzvot in the Torah (also called the Mosaic law after Moses) pertain to nearly every aspect of human life; some of these laws are directed only to men or to women, some only to the ancient priestly groups (the Kohanim and Leviyim, members of the tribe of Levi, some only to farmers within the Land of Israel. (Note “every aspect of human life”.) Halakha has developed gradually through a variety of legal and quasi-legal mechanisms, including judicial decisions, legislative enactments, and customary law. Jewish law is based on the Torah.
Canon law (Catholicism):
Quote:

Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members. It is the internal ecclesiastical law governing the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Anglican Communion of churches. The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. Canon law, like other Christian laws, is based on the Bible’s teachings.In the Roman Church, positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person. The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but indeed all-encompassing of the human condition. (Note: “All-encompassing of the human condition”)
Hindu law:
Quote:

Hindu law was recognized by the British after their rule of India but its influenced largely waned after the establishment of the Republic of India, which is secular. Hindu law is largely based on the Manu Smriti (smriti of Manu).


Sharia law is based on the Q’ran, and also determines every aspect of it’s followers’ lives.

So what exactly is the difference between those laws (and there are many other religious laws in different Christian faiths, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Reform Churches, Lutheran, United Methodist, etc.)? Why focus on Sharia law? We all know “why”, but the point is, most religions have their own forms of law, of judges, juries, etc. and they are valid within that religious community but do not take precedence over the law of the land in most countries (I wonder about Jewish Law in Israel...?). Neither does Sharia law, it’s not a threat nor will it ever be in America or any other non-Muslim country. It’s fear mongering and giving people some focus for their hatred and xenophobia, nothing more.

If we’re afraid of sharia law taking over, then we should be equally fearful of Cannon, Judaic, Hindu and all the various Christian faiths’ laws, right?

We don't hear about Christian churches being protested because they're Christian churches. It's not CNN creating this problem, it's individuals (almost exclusively on the right) who get media ATTENTION, and it spreads from there. Remember, the Islamic Center in New York was APPROVED before what's-her-face started making noise about it. Sorry, I don't buy it's the media "creating" this. Certainly they overplay it--see thread on "Media Exaggeration"--but when things happen, they make news. If those wishing to stoke fear and anger in others didn't take a lot of time and effort into figuring how to GET media attention, they wouldn't be covered. As it is, they invariably are--from the pastor wanting to burn Q'rans on. When those in authority or in the public eye, legislators, candidates, politicians, etc., make a point of talking about things which incite hatred and fear (with careful use of visceral wording), they catch on with some segment of the population. When it gets big enough, it gets repeated coverage.

Whatever the percentage of people the special presented, I think it's a good thing to bring it to people's attention, offer facts and information, and hopefully work in opposition to such hatred. I have no problem with that, I'm glad CNN took the time to do so; it beats the hell out of the same-old, same-old I mentioned in that other thread. The idea of "investigative journalism" has pretty much died; to have media take the time to educate on something which is happening is fine with me.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Niki - My 2 statements you posted weren't in the least bit contradictory.

That you even think that makes any further discussion pointless.

Demanding that a woman get 4 witnesses to support her claim that she was raped is beyond lubricious. C'mon, you're not even making this challenging any more.

Sad.

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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:20 AM

NIKI2

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


Nope, your two statements are directly contradictory. First you refuted what was said by saying it was only "people" expressing their dislike, that the Constitution only prohibits GOVERNMENT from interefering with freedom of religion. Then you expressed approval of GOVERNMENT interfering with freedom of religion where sharia law is concerned. Nice try, but the contradiction is way too obvious for anyone reading it.

As to the content of sharia law, there are no doubt equally repugnant laws in other religions. Women can't be priests under Catholic law, and there's lots more:
Quote:

Vatican Canon Law Adviser: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Should Be Denied Communion
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/vatican-canon-law-adviser-ny-goven
or-and
Quote:

1983 Code of Canon Law directs that women should still wear veils, and the Church teaching on this has not changed, and never will change.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-coverin
g1.htm
Quote:

Under Canon Law a woman could not be witness in ecclesiastical or criminal suits, nor attest a will.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wcs/wcs05.htm
Quote:

Like most women in Europe, Jewish women in the Middle Ages had exclusively household roles and arranged marriages; child brides were common. Jewish women were generally prohibited from holding formal leadership roles with authority over men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_Judaism

Orthodox Jewish law:
Quote:

In accordance with Jewish Law, Orthodox Jewish women refrain from contact with their husbands while they are menstruating, and for a period of 7 clean days after menstruating, and after the birth of a child. In the area of education, women were historically exempted from any study beyond an understanding of the practical aspects of Torah, and the rules necessary in running a Jewish household – both of which they have an obligation to learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_Judaism

CURRENT Orthodox Jewish law:
Quote:

forbade women from serving as presidents of synagogues or any other official positions of leadership. Modern Orthodox authorities, and most Haredi Rabbis, rule that all women's prayer groups are absolutely forbidden by halakha (Jewish law).


Hindu law has undergone many changes with regard to women. But previously:
Quote:

1. The Hindu Woman has no right to divorce her husband.

2. She has no property or inheritance rights.

3. Choice of partner is limited because she can only marry within her own caste; moreover her horoscope must match that of the intending bridegroom/family.

4. The family of the girl has to offer an enormous dowry to the bridegroom/family.

5. If her husband dies she should commit Sati (being cremated with her dead husband). Since today's law forbids Sati, society mainly punishes her in other "holy" ways (see below).

6. She cannot remarry.

7. The widow is considered to be a curse and must not be seen in public. She cannot wear jewelry or colourful clothes. (She should not even take part in her children's marriage!)

8. Child and infant marriage is encouraged.

One can find discrepancies between what we believe is fair and what other cultures/religions believe between any religion if we look. Sharia law applies to Muslims only, and even there it is adhered to strictly only by some and is changing in different countries.

Your desire to paint things the way YOU want to see them is pathetic; your need to hate Islam is prejudicial. Under Muslim law:
Quote:

1.The Muslim woman has the same right as the Muslim man in all matters including divorce.

2. She enjoys property and inheritance rights. She can also conduct her own separate business.

3. She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a partner for her, her consent must be taken.

4. The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife (not the other way around as is practiced by some).

5. A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the responsibility of the Muslim society.

6. Mixed marriage is encouraged and is a means to prevent racism creeping in society.

http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/statushinduwomen.html

There are idiosyncracies in every "religious law" with which you or I might not agree; some of which are abhorrent. I know you don't like facts, especially when they negate your position, and probably don't even read facts I present. You will probably make some unrelated snark or deny or rationalize the facts, thereby making "any further discussion pointless".


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:42 AM

DREAMTROVE


I've found the influx of Muslims to cause exactly zero problems. In fact, they probably introduce fewer problems than other groups that have moved in here.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:


Nope, your two statements are directly contradictory. First you refuted what was said by saying it was only "people" expressing their dislike, that the Constitution only prohibits GOVERNMENT from interefering with freedom of religion. Then you expressed approval of GOVERNMENT interfering with freedom of religion where sharia law is concerned. Nice try, but the contradiction is way too obvious for anyone reading it.



The ignorance you're displaying is mind bottling, and damn near too much for me to comprehend.

There is zero contradiction, what so ever. You can't have separate laws for separate groups of people ! If Muslims want to live on reservations,....then maybe we can talk. But if you're going to live in a free society, you're going to have to abide by the same laws.

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

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:21 AM

NIKI2

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


So SADLY "unclear on the concept"!

They DO live by the same laws, idiot. We're talking about building a mosque, nothing else. It's the GOVERNMENT keeping them from building mosques in these places, so it is directly against the Constitution. All we're talking about is their right to build a mosque; if you have a problem with their religious practices, then you have to have the same problems with the religious laws of EVERY OTHER RELIGION in America.

Your argument was that it was just people expressing "freedom of speech", that it was only wrong if the GOVERNMENT curtailed freedom of religion. Well, in the cases cited, the local government IS the one denying them the right to build their place of worship.

It's not about Sharia, it's not about the tenants of their religion; it's about their RIGHT to worship, which you are quite willing to deny them because you don't agree with some parts of the religion. Ergo, you do not believe in the Constitution unless it pertains to what YOU approve of.

I know you don't get it, and that's sad, but it's your problem and I'm not going to keep trying to get through your deliberately-thick skull, because I know this is a prime example of you desperately needing not to admit you're wrong.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


You keep flip flopping over Sharia law / building a mosque point. That confuses the issue and quite frankly, I'm tired of your games. Just because a local municipality here or there doesn't want to pass an ordinance for the building of a mosque at a certain site, that doesn't constitute some vast display of 'intolerance' or attack on anyone's freedom of religion. There may be some very legitimate reasons for not approving of a building permit, that have zero to do w/ them being Muslim.

Seriously, go nuzzle your Husky.

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

Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:44 AM

DREAMTROVE



Rap

Ya might've meant boggling.



That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Rap

Ya might've meant boggling.




Heh heh. Guess you never saw ...


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

Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:41 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nope, never saw it.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:46 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Neither did I, but I still love the term.


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

Thursday, March 31, 2011 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:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Rap

Ya might've meant boggling.




Heh heh. Guess you never saw ...







So you're saying you're that ignorant? We already knew that.

"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  

Friday, April 1, 2011 4:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Speakin of...

Preston man files suit, says law prohibiting sale of liquor violates rights
http://news.hjnews.com/news/article_8ba24aaa-5b2c-11e0-8e9f-001cc4c002
e0.html

Quote:

In his formal complaint submitted to the U.S. District Court in Pocatello earlier this month, Philip H. Mockli, founder and "Head Honcho" of the state's newest religious movement - the Ethereal Enigmatic Euphoric Movement Toward Civilized Hedonism - says Franklin County Republicans are pushing their conservative agenda on the community by allowing only beer sales in Preston's taverns.

Again, not everyone shares the same morality.
Yay for hedonism!

-F

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

Friday, April 1, 2011 7:12 AM

BYTEMITE


"Mormons Mormons everywhere, and not a drop to drink."

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

Friday, April 1, 2011 7:32 AM

DREAMTROVE



Such is the nature of a salt lake.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Friday, April 1, 2011 7:33 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


Frem, that sounds like my kinda church!

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

Friday, April 1, 2011 7:52 AM

BYTEMITE


It's true, though they're pretty entrenched in Idaho too.

The salt lake actually isn't worthless like you might expect, lots of wetlands in the estuaries, and brine shrimp farms. Way back when, the settlers appreciated the lake for it's healing (antiseptic) qualities. Of course, now it has some pretty horrific toxins on the bottoms of it. The mosquitos were always a problem.

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

Friday, April 1, 2011 9:09 PM

DREAMTROVE



Byte, re: your reference to the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is a reference to salt water, IIRC.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Saturday, April 2, 2011 10:07 AM

BYTEMITE


I know. The alcohol situation isn't so great in Utah either. Mormons have a lot of say in government in both states.

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

Sunday, April 3, 2011 10:14 AM

NIKI2

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


To return to the original issue:

Both the fear of Sharia law and the resistance to allowing Muslims to build mosques are the same issue; fear instigated by hateful people to create controversy and persecute one group and the religion they practice.
Quote:

Just because a local municipality here or there doesn't want to pass an ordinance for the building of a mosque at a certain site, that doesn't constitute some vast display of 'intolerance' or attack on anyone's freedom of religion.
That is pure bullshit and you know it. We already KNOW some of the “reasons” for denying the permits are mere excuses, so that doesn’t hold water. Refusing a permit to build a house of worship BY THE GOVERNMENT, be it local, state or federal, IS infringing on freedom of religion, period.

How about property rights??? Some here are so quick to scream “property rights!” when something happens which THEY dislike, yet the property rights of a these people mean nothing when it fits their mentality. In some instances the people who want to build a mosque OWN the land, so let's see some hypocrisy to deny them the right to build on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY...I'm sure it's coming.

West Rogers Park, Chicago:
Quote:

We’re hearing from the local chamber of commerce and alderman’s office that the city has denied a special use permit that would allow a mosque to replace a shut down hot dog grill.

It’s based on the need to generate tax revenue on the former site of the original Fluky’s and later U Lucky Dawg, at 6821 N. Western Ave.

Tax revenue. Right. I wonder how long that site has sat idle, not producing any tax revenue, or if a Christian church would have been denied for the same excuse. The fact is The First Amendment is applicable to the states and local governments. No governmental entity may prohibit the free exercise of religion--they may not deny building permits or make zoning decisions based solely upon the identity of the religious group seeking to build. The due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment ensure the protection of fundamental rights in every state as well. AND, those seeking to pressure their government into denying the permits aren’t hiding behind things anymore:
Quote:

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

Mr. Harmoush said the Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council. “We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.” The City of Temecula recently postponed a hearing on whether to grant the mosque a permit.

“As a mother and a grandmother, I worry,” Ms. Serafin said. “I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion. But Islam is not about a religion. It’s a political government, and it’s 100 percent against our Constitution.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?pagewanted=1&_r
=1&hp


These people aren’t hiding behind excuses of “tax revenue” or “parking”, they’re quite up front about why they want the mosques denied permits. It is not only attempts by people to force their local governments to deny freedom of religion, it is also people trying to force their government to infringe on private property rights.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



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

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:10 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Am I opposed to/afraid of mosks being built in my area? No, if they want to they can as long as they obtain the property etc. Am I afraid of Sherria law? Sort of. Am I afraid of Sherria law gaining a foot hold in the US? Not in the near future since we have laws against hurting girls and women etc. But Sherria law, well those aspects of it, do scare me some.

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

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

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:52 PM

DREAMTROVE



As far as I know sharia is only practiced in Saudi Arabia. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:13 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As far as I know sharia is only practiced in Saudi Arabia. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.


Wrong. Its practiced in many Muslim countries. Its a matter of degree as to how much its implemented. In some ways the Saudis are strict and some ways they are not. The most extreme was in Taliban-controlled Afganistan...try being a woman there.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

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

Monday, April 4, 2011 4:17 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Am I afraid of Sherria law gaining a foot hold in the US? Not in the near future since we have laws against hurting girls and women etc. But Sherria law, well those aspects of it, do scare me some.



Open your eyes a bit, please.
Pedophilia is supposed to be illegal, too.
Rape is supposed to be illegal, too.
Yet in Wisconsin, Hmong groups still practice the traditional method of marriage - a grown man kidnaps a girl of about 12-14, rapes her, and thus she becomes his wife. Have not heard of a single one of these men being prosecuted, have you?
I do not expect different from Sharia Law once entrenched.

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

Monday, April 4, 2011 4:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Iran still has public executions, correct ? Women 'guilty' of adultery are stoned and gays sent to the gallows ?

Dunno how much Sharia law is involved, but it sure as heck is barbaric.

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

Monday, April 4, 2011 5:38 AM

DREAMTROVE


I'm never sure if you're really this ignorant.

Sharia law is fundamentalist Sunni, not Shi'a.

Even George W. Bush understood that.

Specific cases, in the NW and NE corners of Iran there are some tribal areas. Sometimes local chiefs do kill people. This is illegal, but it's hard for the national govt. to control.

The hanging of homosexuals was homocide, they were hung from a swingset, not a gallows.

Iran has capital punishment, so does the US. I've known people who go to observe executions, I guess that's sort of public. Certainly the stories are broadcast on the television, which has the same purpose: To make sure that everyone sees the death that is done to the people who break this law.

I don't know what the story is on Iranian executions. I know that overall, the western myth of the Mideast as a stone age society is pretty much imperial bigotry. The first two major complaints Iraqis made about our effort to topple Saddam Hussein was that we disrupted their interstate system and took down their cell phone network. This contrasted sharply with the president's comment "We're talking about people who live in caves." And yes, he was talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan, when he said it.

So, bearing in mind that Iran is a massive military industrial power with its own nuclear program and its own space program, yes, they're less advanced than us, but not less advanced than us from 1/2 a century ago. In fact, we recently sacrificed 3 predator drones to the discover that in fact, they were useless against Iran.

As I keep telling people: You have one life, and one planet. You can like what's on it, or not. Every time you dislike something, your world gets smaller. Pretty soon your world becomes insular. Not only is it not any fun for you or those around you, you become ignorant because you're not getting any ideas from the outside. Personally, I know where I would be without the input of Iranians, the same place I would be without the input of Jews. People who've had profound positive impact on my life come from all places, and I'm very grateful to all of them, and I'm grateful to the man who told me many years ago to not hate things.

I'm using a mac. I'm not a mac user. I'm upstairs at the mac. In a little bit, I'll be downstairs using linux. then, I'll pick up my ipad, and do my inventory, I'll load up windows to check the stocks, and then I'll start programming on the Android. That's five different OS's. If I didn't have a mac, I could code for iPad, if I didn't have an iPad, I couldn't write apps, if I didn't have a PC I wouldn't have this stock program, and without linux, programming for the web would be a pain. The android is to expand my apps, and make some more powerful open source stuff.

The rest of the world works the same way.

There is suddenly a stunning quantity of rain


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Monday, April 4, 2011 5:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Didn't read my post, did ya ?

Quote:

Dunno how much Sharia law is involved, but it sure as heck is barbaric.


I admitted as much, or did you miss that in my 2 whole lines of my reply ?

This is the sort of story I meant -

Quote:


A gay Iranian teen could be facing the gallows in Iran after his attempts to seek asylum in Britain and Holland failed.

Yesterday the Netherlands' highest court rejected Mehdi Kazemi's last-ditch bid to avoid deportation to Britain, where he fears authorities will send him back to Tehran and possible execution.

The teenager came to London to study English in 2005 but later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.
Mr Kazemi applied for asylum in the UK, saying he feared for his life if he returned to Iran.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-531729/Gay-teen-facing-gallows
-Iran-asylum-bids-Britain-Holland-fail.html#ixzz1IZNkbFMd



As I understand, Mehdi Kazemi was eventually given asylum in Britain, and did not have to return to Iran.


'Public' viewing means exactly that. Open to all those who want to see it. A 'viewing' of an execution ,as we have here in the US, isn't 'public', by any stretch of the imagination.




" 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, April 4, 2011 5:50 AM

DREAMTROVE



I read your post, you didn't read mine. As I said, a homocide is not public policy. We have homocides here too. Actually, Obama has made it legal for the US govt. to assassinate US citizens. One was for running a website. I don't know offhand how many rights that violates. Depends if it involved bivouacking.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Monday, April 4, 2011 5:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


You and I are talking about totally different things. Which I find curious, as I only had 2 lines in my reply, and there wasn't all that much room for confusion.


" 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  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL