CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[Coyote]

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

I want to add something here - the only poll I've seen that comes close to supporting what you claim is the one Donald Trump cited, but the actual poll is here: Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad and it's methodology (unlike Pew) has been heavily criticized.

A woman wearing a hijab is following her religious beliefs in the same way as a Jewish man wearing a kippa. None of that is indicative of "support" for Sharia as law of the land or Halakha as law of the land.

 

[saveliberty]

Where has the president allowed 10,000 refugees with no documentation (presumably, you mean no vetting)?

Obama Announces Plans for the US to Take in 10,000 Syrian Refugees Next Year | VICE News

It was pretty widely publicized.

 

[pillars]

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

The majority of Christians support the 10 commandments and think that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and should influence the law of the land.

Ted Cruz's candidacy was fueled by the evangelical right and driven by dominionism, so it remains a major force in the U.S. Much of Sarah Palin's support was from people who could be classified as dominionists, and so was Michelle Bachmann's.

PublicEye.org

Dominionism is a broad political impulse within the Christian Right in the United States. It comes in a variety of forms that author Fred Clarkson and I call soft and hard. Fred and I probably coined the term "Dominionism" back in the 1990s, but in any case we certainly were the primary researchers who organized its use among journalists and scholars.

Clarkson noted three characteristics that bridge both the hard and the soft kind of Dominionism.

• Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe the United States once was, and should again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
• Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
• Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, believing that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

I live in North Carolina, anyone who thinks HB2 wasn't undergirded by the religious right's fear of gays/lesbians is delusional. There are plenty of political leaders here who are dominionist conservative Christians.

And that perspective is common in the tea party movement and in congress: Congress is still really religious and really Christian

Ninety-two percent of lawmakers in the new Congress identify as Christian, far ahead of the 73 percent of American adults who say so.

You've really softpedaled the reality of Christian control over our government.

In fact, based upon your posts in this forum, I would conclude that you are a dominionist.

I think many Americans aren't concerned by Christianity's unhealthy dominance of our political process, but are very concerned over Islam's dominance of political processes elsewhere.

That's an innately hypocritical position.

 

[Coyote]

Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?

I suppose you need to for equality's sake.

All of those faiths place women in a subordinate position to men - some sects of those faith extremely so. Shouldn't it also be out of concern for women?

 

[Coyote]

Where has the president allowed 10,000 refugees with no documentation (presumably, you mean no vetting)?

Obama Announces Plans for the US to Take in 10,000 Syrian Refugees Next Year | VICE News

It was pretty widely publicized.

Two things stand out:

There is nothing about no vetting

And, it states:
Obama's plan to accept an increased number of Syrian refugees into the US in 2016, however, only apply to the ones already in the process of coming to the US, not the ones headed to Europe.

 

[saveliberty]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."—Benjamin Franklin

Tough job.

I dont think anybody would have a definite solution to this problem tho.

IMO;
improve your technology,
improve your manpower using that technology,
implement them wisely and carefully...

Take NSA for instance.
A powerful tool for any society who acquire such a technology.
When not used wisely, can damage,
but when used wisely, not hinder, but empower the freedoms of the society


Would you think NSA would require any compromise to your freedoms, to function better than it does today?

That was the quote I was thinking about. Thanks

Also, thank you for introducing some other solutions. More than a little concerned about the NSA recording all our emails and electronic communications from a privacy point of view. I feel that is protected under the Constitution.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet.

Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot.

What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

It's a religion that incorporates a wide variety of beliefs and practices that differ around the world. It incorporates many of the same tenants and rules and intolerances as it's two related religions - they all have a shared ideology. They all have texts that call for some pretty crappy behavior and considerable intolerance as well as calls for good behavior and tolerance. The problem - in my opinion - is not the actual theology, but what followers choose to take from it, and that choice is what seperates the ancient world from the modern world. A rational view would realize that, and would attack the practices and beliefs that go against modern principles of tolerance and equality and support the ones that work towards tolerance and equality. A rational view would recognize extremism for what it is, and find ways to marginalize it so it doesn't affect vulnerable people with its propoganda. A rational view recognizes that not all Muslims believe the same and that they represent many different cultures.

Any religious prescription for morals and life that is so ambiguously written that it ALLOWS the constant creation of hateful militant groups would not be a very good religion.

But here's the deal -- I don't hate Islam. I hate the Arab cultures and values that have taken those ANCIENT world concepts and BROUGHT them into the MODERN world. The fact is that successful Arab nations are built around tyrannical authority and INFUSED with theological baggage. When TYRANTS control the politics -- they always abuse the "religious" part of their authority. Happened to Christians before as well when STATE -SPONSORED Inquisitions and crusades were mounted. NONE of that would have happened without state sanction.

And TODAY -- a large portion of the Muslim extremism that we are worrying about are state supported PROXIES for clashes WITHIN the Arab culture. Iran supporting Hamas in Gaza and proxies in Syria is a good example of Arab Imperialism.. They all want to kill each other essentially.

Now that SHOULD in principle make the US and EU IMMUNE to this constant carnage. But because the THEOLOGY is mixed with the POLITICAL --- These militant Jihadists that are making the news DAILY with senseless killings and violence are pissed at their FORMER Arab leaders whom they see as PUPPETS of Western influence. And of course our stupid destructive efforts to "democratize" the Arab world. We took multiple swats at the bee hive. And so the West (and Israel and moderate Arab countries) are the prime targets.

 

[pillars]

Well, that's one vote against the liberal principles of due process and equality under the law.

No, it's not. People who voluntarily choose arbitration or alternative dispute resolution are getting due process in a format that they themselves have chosen. If I supported forcing people to participate in these processes, then you'd have a point, but I don't. I support allowing them to choose an alternative to the civil system. And, so should you, because there are many matters that can be more effectively handled through mediation, arbitration, or alternative dispute resolution.

Stop strawmanning my positions.

 

[saveliberty]

Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?

I suppose you need to for equality's sake.

All of those faiths place women in a subordinate position to men - some sects of those faith extremely so. Shouldn't it also be out of concern for women?

My intention was to protect Muslim women.

 

[Coyote]

At least you don't dispute the claim that all muslims would prefer living under sharia. Sure they are mostly peaceful here and pay their taxes, but if they could, they turn the US sharia.

But they cannot, unless we let them.

And, before that - they would have to want to and the evidence is sorely lacking.

Oh they have made some initial steps in Dearborn, MI.

The thing that you have to understand about sharia is that it is an alternative method of resolving disputes. In many places, the court systems are overcrowded and have been steadily drained of funding, so people are seizing on these things as a cost-saving measure, which in fact they are.

To me, Sharia Courts, when chosen voluntarily and used as an alternative to the civil court system, have their place.

I don't see any problem with allowing that, we allow other sorts of ADR.

Well, that's one vote against the liberal principles of due process and equality under the law.

Do you say the same about alternative systems of arbritation, or is it just Sharia?

 

[Foxfyre]

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

But ALL Christians I know do not wear crosses. ALL Muslim women I know do wear the hijab. That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong it it. Some are quite beautiful. But it does reflect an obedience to Sharia law just as the Christian cross usually reflects that the person is Christian.

 

[Arianrhod]

Source?

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

But ALL Christians I know do not wear crosses. ALL Muslim women I know do wear the hijab. That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong it it. Some are quite beautiful. But it does reflect an obedience to Sharia law just as the Christian cross usually reflects that the person is Christian.

But others here will tell you they know Muslim women who do not wear hijab. How does their choice of wardrobe affect your life?

 

[Coyote]

Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?

I suppose you need to for equality's sake.

All of those faiths place women in a subordinate position to men - some sects of those faith extremely so. Shouldn't it also be out of concern for women?

My intention was to protect Muslim women.

What about protecting Jewish women, Catholic women, Morman womwn? Orthodox Jewish women can not get a religious divorce with out the husbands permission even in the most abusive marriage. Shouldn't they be protected?

Another point, often missed is that though these religious abritation groups can help adjudicate issues such as child custody and the division of property in a divorce - must be ratified by a secular court to have the force of law.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well, that's one vote against the liberal principles of due process and equality under the law.[/QUOT

Well, that's one vote against the liberal principles of due process and equality under the law.

No, it's not. People who voluntarily choose arbitration or alternative dispute resolution are getting due process in a format that they themselves have chosen. If I supported forcing people to participate in these processes, then you'd have a point, but I don't. I support allowing them to choose an alternative to the civil system. And, so should you, because there are many matters that can be more effectively handled through mediation, arbitration, or alternative dispute resolution.

Stop strawmanning my positions.

No, it's not. People who voluntarily choose arbitration or alternative dispute resolution are getting due process in a format that they themselves have chosen. If I supported forcing people to participate in these processes, then you'd have a point, but I don't. I support allowing them to choose an alternative to the civil system. And, so should you, because there are many matters that can be more effectively handled through mediation, arbitration, or alternative dispute resolution.

Stop strawmanning my positions.

No straw man, but simply a statement about your position.

A woman's testimony is worth less than a man's under sharia, so she is denied due process by very design.


The fact that she "chooses" such court rather than being killed or severely beaten by her husband or father has no bearing on the fact that sharia discriminates.

 

[saveliberty]

Two things stand out:

There is nothing about no vetting

And, it states:
Obama's plan to accept an increased number of Syrian refugees into the US in 2016, however, only apply to the ones already in the process of coming to the US, not the ones headed to Europe.

The refugees have little if any identification nor ability to get confirmation from ISIS controlled regions. Hard to vet huh?

 

[saveliberty]

Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?

I suppose you need to for equality's sake.

All of those faiths place women in a subordinate position to men - some sects of those faith extremely so. Shouldn't it also be out of concern for women?

My intention was to protect Muslim women.

What about protecting Jewish women, Catholic women, Morman womwn? Orthodox Jewish women can not get a religious divorce with out the husbands permission even in the most abusive marriage. Shouldn't they be protected?

Another point, often missed is that though these religious abritation groups can help adjudicate issues such as child custody and the division of property in a divorce - must be ratified by a secular court to have the force of law.

You quoted the post where I agreed with you. Next

 

[Foxfyre]

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

The majority of Christians support the 10 commandments and think that the Bible is the revealed word of God, and should influence the law of the land.

Ted Cruz's candidacy was fueled by the evangelical right and driven by dominionism, so it remains a major force in the U.S. Much of Sarah Palin's support was from people who could be classified as dominionists, and so was Michelle Bachmann's.

PublicEye.org

Dominionism is a broad political impulse within the Christian Right in the United States. It comes in a variety of forms that author Fred Clarkson and I call soft and hard. Fred and I probably coined the term "Dominionism" back in the 1990s, but in any case we certainly were the primary researchers who organized its use among journalists and scholars.

Clarkson noted three characteristics that bridge both the hard and the soft kind of Dominionism.

• Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe the United States once was, and should again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
• Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
• Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, believing that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

I live in North Carolina, anyone who thinks HB2 wasn't undergirded by the religious right's fear of gays/lesbians is delusional. There are plenty of political leaders here who are dominionist conservative Christians.

And that perspective is common in the tea party movement and in congress: Congress is still really religious and really Christian

Ninety-two percent of lawmakers in the new Congress identify as Christian, far ahead of the 73 percent of American adults who say so.

You've really softpedaled the reality of Christian control over our government.

In fact, based upon your posts in this forum, I would conclude that you are a dominionist.

I think many Americans aren't concerned by Christianity's unhealthy dominance of our political process, but are very concerned over Islam's dominance of political processes elsewhere.

That's an innately hypocritical position.

And I think you have presented a very skewed and unrealistic view of Christians, Christianity, and the degree that Christians use the Christian faith to control government.

I have been part of, participated in, and been in leadership and management positions in Christian organizations all of my quite lengthy life. There are a few fanatics out there as there are in all groups. These people would use government inappropriately for their purposes. But they are in too small a demographic--a demographic that is significantly shrinking over time--to be a problem.

We have a country that has had a huge majority of Christians since its inception. The very few small theocracies that existed when the Constitution became the law of the land had all dissolved by the end of that first century of our existence. And no new theocracies have developed anywhere. The closest to it was Brigham Young's Mormon settlement in Utah, but even that has moderated over time and non-Mormons get along just fine there now.

The Muslim population in the USA is also of too small a percentage to be a problem when it comes to public policy - EXCEPT when politicians choose to use it for their own agenda and purposes.

However, there is no incidence ANYWHERE in which Islam has become the predominant religion in which Sharia was not strongly promoted and in which human rights and liberties have not suffered.

That does not keep anybody from enjoying, appreciating, liking, loving Muslim people as most of us who associate with Muslims do.

But we should be aware that if you give the Mullahs power, they will almost always install and enforce Sharia law. And that is just a fact as witnessed by history.

 

[Coyote]

Source?

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

But ALL Christians I know do not wear crosses. ALL Muslim women I know do wear the hijab. That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong it it. Some are quite beautiful. But it does reflect an obedience to Sharia law just as the Christian cross usually reflects that the person is Christian.

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet.

Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot.

What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

It's a religion that incorporates a wide variety of beliefs and practices that differ around the world. It incorporates many of the same tenants and rules and intolerances as it's two related religions - they all have a shared ideology. They all have texts that call for some pretty crappy behavior and considerable intolerance as well as calls for good behavior and tolerance. The problem - in my opinion - is not the actual theology, but what followers choose to take from it, and that choice is what seperates the ancient world from the modern world. A rational view would realize that, and would attack the practices and beliefs that go against modern principles of tolerance and equality and support the ones that work towards tolerance and equality. A rational view would recognize extremism for what it is, and find ways to marginalize it so it doesn't affect vulnerable people with its propoganda. A rational view recognizes that not all Muslims believe the same and that they represent many different cultures.

Any religious prescription for morals and life that is so ambiguously written that it ALLOWS the constant creation of hateful militant groups would not be a very good religion.

Except it's not "constant" - it's relatively recent and it's driven by many many factors beyond just religion. It's also not unique - Christianity has undergone similar upheavels and "hateful" militancy through it's history. These religions along with Judaism, are unique in that they have written texts (do any others?) that are very old, have been written by multiple authors, often long after the deaths of the major players, reinterpretted by religious-political powers and through many languages. They are full of contradictions. That means it isn't that difficult to pick and choose your message if you are so inclined and it's why so many crazy cults and militant groups can spring up. I don't think that makes it a bad religion because there is also much good in each.

But here's the deal -- I don't hate Islam. I hate the Arab cultures and values that have taken those ANCIENT world concepts and BROUGHT them into the MODERN world. The fact is that successful Arab nations are built around tyrannical authority and INFUSED with theological baggage. When TYRANTS control the politics -- they always abuse the "religious" part of their authority. Happened to Christians before as well when STATE -SPONSORED Inquisitions and crusades were mounted. NONE of that would have happened without state sanction.

And with that I fully agree!

And TODAY -- a large portion of the Muslim extremism that we are worrying about are state supported PROXIES for clashes WITHIN the Arab culture. Iran supporting Hamas in Gaza and proxies in Syria is a good example of Arab Imperialism.. They all want to kill each other essentially.

Now that SHOULD in principle make the US and EU IMMUNE to this constant carnage. But because the THEOLOGY is mixed with the POLITICAL --- These militant Jihadists that are making the news DAILY with senseless killings and violence are pissed at their FORMER Arab leaders whom they see as PUPPETS of Western influence. And of course our stupid destructive efforts to "democratize" the Arab world. We took multiple swats at the bee hive. And so the West (and Israel and moderate Arab countries) are the prime targets.

Truth.

 

[alpine]

Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?

I suppose you need to for equality's sake.

All of those faiths place women in a subordinate position to men - some sects of those faith extremely so. Shouldn't it also be out of concern for women?

It is, thats why US passed numerous acts to prevent polygamy in mormom church for instance,
even tho those women claimed they were happily married...

I am not saying there should be an act against women wearing a veil,
but every human being seeing what a crippling impact it has on womens lives, has every right to seek ways against it... like regulating the islamic schools "properly" in this country...

 

[Foxfyre]

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

But ALL Christians I know do not wear crosses. ALL Muslim women I know do wear the hijab. That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong it it. Some are quite beautiful. But it does reflect an obedience to Sharia law just as the Christian cross usually reflects that the person is Christian.

But others here will tell you they know Muslim women who do not wear hijab. How does their choice of wardrobe affect your life?

It doesn't. I know and associate with numerous Muslim people in our area and ALL the women without exception do wear the hijab. I can't speak for anywhere else. It does not affect my life at all. But the only reason I brought it up was to illustrate the degree that Sharia law affects their lives which was the topic of discussion when I brought it up.