Multiculturalism and Sharia

[Foxfyre]

So a couple weeks ago the big rightwing push was to zealously defend the right of Christians to use their religion to legally discriminate against gays;

this week it's the same crowd zealously attacking the idea of Muslims using their religion to effectively do the same sort of thing.

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

The wierd thing is, that our Muslims promoting Shariah Law defenders here accuse Christians of discriminating if we think a baker who opposes gay marriage should not be forced to be a participant at such a service, but somehow it is not discrimination when Muslims are violently discriminating against gays in any circumstances. And I can bet they would defend a Muslim baker who chose not to set up a cake at a Christian wedding.

If we look for cohesiveness of reasoning among those who oppose opposition to Shariah Law, it is really REALLY hard to come by.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So a couple weeks ago the big rightwing push was to zealously defend the right of Christians to use their religion to legally discriminate against gays;

this week it's the same crowd zealously attacking the idea of Muslims using their religion to effectively do the same sort of thing.

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

The wierd thing is, that our Muslims promoting Shariah Law defenders here accuse Christians of discriminating if we think a baker who opposes gay marriage should not be forced to be a participant at such a service, but somehow it is not discrimination when Muslims are violently discriminating against gays in any circumstances. And I can bet they would defend a Muslim baker who chose not to set up a cake at a Christian wedding.

If we look for cohesiveness of reasoning among those who oppose opposition to Shariah Law, it is really REALLY hard to come by.

You are both wrong. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

 

[Foxfyre]

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

The wierd thing is, that our Muslims promoting Shariah Law defenders here accuse Christians of discriminating if we think a baker who opposes gay marriage should not be forced to be a participant at such a service, but somehow it is not discrimination when Muslims are violently discriminating against gays in any circumstances. And I can bet they would defend a Muslim baker who chose not to set up a cake at a Christian wedding.

If we look for cohesiveness of reasoning among those who oppose opposition to Shariah Law, it is really REALLY hard to come by.

You are both wrong. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The wierd thing is, that our Muslims promoting Shariah Law defenders here accuse Christians of discriminating if we think a baker who opposes gay marriage should not be forced to be a participant at such a service, but somehow it is not discrimination when Muslims are violently discriminating against gays in any circumstances. And I can bet they would defend a Muslim baker who chose not to set up a cake at a Christian wedding.

If we look for cohesiveness of reasoning among those who oppose opposition to Shariah Law, it is really REALLY hard to come by.

You are both wrong. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are both wrong. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

The subject is not about homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. The topic is Muslims and Sharia Law. Try to focus dear. You can do it. I'm quite certain you have what it takes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

The subject is not about homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. The topic is Muslims and Sharia Law. Try to focus dear. You can do it. I'm quite certain you have what it takes.

You are both wrong about Christianity-based or Sharia laws being imposed in the secular United States as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

The wierd thing is, that our Muslims promoting Shariah Law defenders here accuse Christians of discriminating if we think a baker who opposes gay marriage should not be forced to be a participant at such a service, but somehow it is not discrimination when Muslims are violently discriminating against gays in any circumstances. And I can bet they would defend a Muslim baker who chose not to set up a cake at a Christian wedding.

If we look for cohesiveness of reasoning among those who oppose opposition to Shariah Law, it is really REALLY hard to come by.

You are both wrong. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

I don't see how we can leave that up to you.....you have yet to show the ability to figure anything out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are both wrong. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

See....case in point.

"You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace."


I don't believe you can find any post where I have weighed in on homosexuality.


You need to be better informed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

See....case in point.
"You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace."
I don't believe you can find any post where I have weighed in on homosexuality.
You need to be better informed.

When I post I post to everyone.

 

[Kondor3]

Tell me, why do you believe this crap? Does the world. a changing world, just scare you and keep you up at night?

Perhaps it is not change that scares, but the direction in which change is heading...

Well put, Kondor....

Let me add this distinction: the speed of said change.

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

I'll settle for 'Direction' being the primary cause for alarm or angst or frustration, with 'Speed' being secondary.

Conservatives have a bad rep for being too detached from the Common Man, and for not advocating strongly enough for the Common Man, or even against his interests.

Lib-Progs have a bad rep for emotion-based knee-jerk reactions and indulging in orgies of jackrabbit-changes while their window-of-opportunity lasts, consequences be damned.

Conservatives have a bad rep for being isolationist or nationalistic and xenophobic in nature and largely un-welcoming of fresh immigration and cultural influences.

Lib-Progs have a bad rep for presenting their backsides to illegal immigrants and alien cultures without regard for borders or dilution of existing culture and identity and largely without regard for the poison-pill ideologies and primitive and violence-prone and assimilation-resistant baggage which some non-Western immigrant cultures and belief-systems bring with them.

In that regard, Lib-Progs make the dangerous mistake of equating the consequences and aftereffects of waves of Muslim immigration with waves of non-Muslim immigration in times past.

Islam is a different critter.

Lib-Progs cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the cultural and political and violence-enabling baggage that Muslim immigrants bring with them are different in nature and scope and pervasiveness than any other group we've dealt with before.

And then, to make matters worse, Lib-Progs will delude themselves that the predictable and inevitable Culture Clash issues that arise afterwards, are actually attributable to other factors or that things aren't as bad as those sounding an alarm would have us believe.

Conservatives as just as capable of being foolish as Liberal-Progressives are, in other important matters.

But, in matters of cultural assimilation and immigration, and Multi-Culti (multiculturalism) and, most specifically, in connection with the ongoing and mounting problems that posed by sizable waves of immigration from Muslim-dominated parts of the world...

Lib-Progs most closely resemble ostriches hiding their heads in the sand; most commonly motivated by a highly laudable desire for and commitment to Egalitarianism, but, unfortunately, rendered, for all practical purposes, as Egalitarianism at Any Cost or Risk.

Their viewpoint in connection with MultiCulti, as it applies to Muslim immigration, is quite honestly and arguably, largely divorced from reality, dangerous to society, and not to be trusted.

At best, they serve a purpose in this respect, in preventing the Opposite Camp from going overboard in the other direction, but, generally speaking, they should not be allowed to set and sustain policy in such matters, for any appreciable period of time.

Whenever the Lib-Progs get a turn at-bat, they always try to push society down this shitty Multi-Culti path, and, eventually, the mainstream gets fed up with it, and votes-in more Conservatives, with an eye towards bringing the focus back to the middle again.

In this respect, Lib-Progs are even more Learning-Impaired than their Conservative counterparts - and that's considerable in its own right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a couple weeks ago the big rightwing push was to zealously defend the right of Christians to use their religion to legally discriminate against gays;

this week it's the same crowd zealously attacking the idea of Muslims using their religion to effectively do the same sort of thing.

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that, as exemplified by, but not limited to, the Arizona law that the governor vetoed.

 

[Unkotare]

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that.

No they are not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? We aren't if you honestly read what some are saying in this thread.

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

The subject is not about homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. The topic is Muslims and Sharia Law. Try to focus dear. You can do it. I'm quite certain you have what it takes.

What's the difference between a Muslim wanting a law that conforms to Muslim beliefs, although it might conflict with the current secular law,

and a Christian wanting a law that conforms to Christian beliefs, although it might conflict with the current secular law?

 

[Kondor3]

So a couple weeks ago the big rightwing push was to zealously defend the right of Christians to use their religion to legally discriminate against gays;

this week it's the same crowd zealously attacking the idea of Muslims using their religion to effectively do the same sort of thing.

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that, as exemplified by, but not limited to, the Arizona law that the governor vetoed.

Newsflash.

If you live in almost any country in Europe, or the Western Hemisphere, or those outlying reaches of European colonialism such as Oceania...

Your system of Secular Law is based largely upon Christian Canon Law...

Canon Law, itself, is a hybrid of Roman Law and Frankish and Germanic and Salic Law, and incorporating a mix of the moralities and ethics and philosophy and governing principles of mainstream Christian Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and, later, Protestant)...

Canon Law was used to govern much of The West from the fall of the Roman Empire through the Dark Ages, and well into the Middle Ages, or the approximate (500 AD - 1100 AD timeframe) and formed the point of departure for the Common Law of various countries, such as English Common Law, and even the Napoleonic Codes...

It might require a couple of hops to make the connection, over the centuries, such as...

Canon Law > English Common Law > American Law...

But the roots and core precepts of the Secular Law under which you live are to be found within Christian Law (Canon Law, and all its latter-day variations), even if today's corpus juris is only a 2nd or 3rd cousin to Christian Church Law...

What is The West but Secularized Christendom?

The injection of Foreign Religoius Law into the corpus juris of Secularized Christendom - and from the Old Enemy of Christendom, no less - is an undesirable state of affairs, IMHO, and doomed to failure, so long as people are brave enough to take the brickbats and to resist such developments, rather than dooming our society to a weakening of its own identity and governing mechanisms, by allowing such subversion to proceed uncontested and unchecked.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are both wrong on homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. That's as far as it need go.

The subject is not about homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. The topic is Muslims and Sharia Law. Try to focus dear. You can do it. I'm quite certain you have what it takes.

What's the difference between a Muslim wanting a law that conforms to Muslim beliefs, although it might conflict with the current secular law,

and a Christian wanting a law that conforms to Christian beliefs, although it might conflict with the current secular law?

There isn't any.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that.

No they are not.

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So a couple weeks ago the big rightwing push was to zealously defend the right of Christians to use their religion to legally discriminate against gays;

this week it's the same crowd zealously attacking the idea of Muslims using their religion to effectively do the same sort of thing.

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that, as exemplified by, but not limited to, the Arizona law that the governor vetoed.

Note the list for sharia in post #255

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The subject is not about homosexuality and their rights in the marketplace. The topic is Muslims and Sharia Law. Try to focus dear. You can do it. I'm quite certain you have what it takes.

What's the difference between a Muslim wanting a law that conforms to Muslim beliefs, although it might conflict with the current secular law,

and a Christian wanting a law that conforms to Christian beliefs, although it might conflict with the current secular law?

There isn't any.

depends on the 'confliction'....

 

[NYcarbineer]

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that, as exemplified by, but not limited to, the Arizona law that the governor vetoed.

Newsflash.

If you live in almost any country in Europe, or the Western Hemisphere, or those outlying reaches of European colonialism such as Oceania...

Your system of Secular Law is based largely upon Christian Canon Law...

Canon Law, itself, is a hybrid of Roman Law and Frankish and Germanic and Salic Law, and incorporating a mix of the moralities and ethics and philosophy and governing principles of mainstream Christian Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and, later, Protestant)...

Canon Law was used to govern much of The West from the fall of the Roman Empire through the Dark Ages, and well into the Middle Ages, or the approximate (500 AD - 1100 AD timeframe) and formed the point of departure for the Common Law of various countries, such as English Common Law, and even the Napoleonic Codes...

It might require a couple of hops to make the connection, over the centuries, such as...

Canon Law > English Common Law . American Law...

But the roots and core precepts of the Secular Law under which you live are to be found within Christian Law (Canon Law, and all its latter-day variations), even if today's corpus juris is only a 2nd or 3rd cousin to Christian Church Law...

What is The West but Secularized Christendom?

The injection of Foreign Religoius Law into the corpus juris of Secularized Christendom - and from the Old Enemy of Christianity, no less - is an undesirable state of affairs, IMHO, and doomed to failure - which, I suppose, is better than allowing such, and dooming our society, rather than dooming such an attempt at subversion.

So? Our government was preceded by an absolute monarchy who derived his power by divine right.

Are we supposed to be preserving some of that because that is where we came from?

Where do you people get these idiotic ideas?

 

[Unkotare]

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that.

No they are not.

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'