Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No I did not, he clearly said that he supports Sharia and his only problem is with the penal code.
A) Yes I saw it and I don't give a **** what Jon Stewart says and even less what Glenn Beck says.
B) Glenn Beck did not say that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11. Glenn Beck did not say that OBL was made in the USA, Glenn Beck does not call for a Sharia compliant U.S., and Glenn Beck does not refuse to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Well I am sure Rockwell would be ok with it if that took place and Saudi Wahabiist were the highest bidders....
j-mac
Question to liberals:
* Why support Islam when it is anti-feminist, anti-gay, homophobia, anti-transgendered and anti-Semitic?
Question to liberals:
* Why support Islam when it is anti-feminist, anti-gay, homophobia, anti-transgendered and anti-Semitic?
Question to liberals:
* Why support Islam when it is anti-feminist, anti-gay, homophobia, anti-transgendered and anti-Semitic?
Your point?
Not sure anyoneis supporting Islam. Your question really sidesteps the real issue. Christianity has suffered much of the same criticism, and yet I wouldn't deny a church being built.
Who here is taking such a position?Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs, and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square, are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there. You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.
So far, I see many are just plain missing the point, and trying to continually make arguments for what is not said.
Look, you claim to have watched Beck speak on this, then you would know fully well that Beck, as well as many of those in here are not arguing that the church can not be built, that these people are not within their rights to build it. They are. But the real question is, always has been, and should continue to be, should they?
Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs, and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square, are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there. You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.
To be crystal clear, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD!!!!!! BUT SHOULD THEY?
j-mac
Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs,
and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square,
are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there.
You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.
To be crystal clear, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD!!!!!! BUT SHOULD THEY?
Odd you should start by claiming peopelare arguing against something not argued, and then you do exactly what you claim others are doing. Never have I argued that Christianity is full of nutjobs. And as the pledge was not written with God in it, it would be more accurate to suggest that you side argues it should be added, but again, not anything to do with me.
In the issue of shold, that has to be discussed in factual terms and understandings. The Iman is not a terrorist or even a proven radical. It is not even being built at ground zero. There is really no controvesy here of any merit at all, but more a wild overreaction by some, a very few some.
So, stay away from your strawmen arguments and come back to the factual argument.
Not so odd Joe that you would obfuscate the argument in order to attack me for even posing the question.
The issue I take is that this Imam is indeed radical. Unless ofcourse you agree that American law needs to become Shria compliant.
j-mac
The issue I take is that this Imam is indeed radical. Unless ofcourse you agree that American law needs to become Shria compliant.
j-mac
Of course they shouldn't. They should be more respectful, but they don't have to be. And because I can't do anything about it, it's not worth getting my undies in a twist over it. Just ignore it. It's a free country.
But they are. I'm not saying they're gonna blow something up...not yet (those Jesus Camp folk though...who the hell knows); but you guys got some serious crazies. The libertarian party ain't got anything on Christian crazies. Crazies in all groups though.
It was inserted in the 50's for propaganda reasoning. Though I don't really care if it's there. I think the whole of the Pledge is propaganda.
Louis A. Bowman (1872-1959) was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[8][9] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[citation needed] Lincoln's Birthday, he led the Society in swearing the Pledge with two words added, "under God." He stated that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Though not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words "under God", all the reporters' transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said "that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom." Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[8]
Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have always argued that public displays of religion are fine. I even argue that it's ok to discriminate, a community need not put up symbols of all religions if they don't want. I think that is still true as well. If the community wants to put a manger scene by the courthouse to celebrate Christmas and nothing more, that's their right to do so. I even think displays of the 10 Commandments are ok at court houses. So long as the court rules by the laws of man and not the laws of gods, no rights are violated.
And it should be allowed to be build even if it offends the majority of the people there. Ain't no right against being offended.
I think that this is a bit of an overstatement. There may be some who are offended by "merry Christmas", but A) it's their problem and B) You don't have to stop. Ain't nothing illegal.
Of course they shouldn't. They should be more respectful, but they don't have to be. And because I can't do anything about it, it's not worth getting my undies in a twist over it. Just ignore it. It's a free country.
Could you please provide a direct quote in which the Imam said America should use Sharia law. I'd love to see it.
Jet-Mac.
No, he has not proposed that. he's having a dicussion concerning how we vote on laws. How we support or object to laws. Like the christian who objects to homosexual rights because he believes homosexuality is a sin, so to does the Muslim. Again, like the AF, you misread him.
But it was you who threw out tat strawman argument and not me. If you don't want to be called on it, don't throw such silliness out there.
When I asked, this is what I got:
But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.
Home Page | Cordoba
There is no call here to change American law.
According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.
Women's Rights and the Sharia
I would post this one for you, but I know you won't get passed the website:
American Thinker: Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
j-mac
You have got to be kidding here!!!!! :shock: No difference?
And that is just a start!:roll:
j-mac
Past. Past the website. Sorry, you have the right to use the wrong word, I have the right to be irritated.
I would post this one for you, but I know you won't get passed the website:
American Thinker: Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
j-mac
J, you're leaving the text and intent of his his article. And I remind you, Christians have been quility of abusing God's law as well. The Bible has been used to excuse abuse to women and slavery. So, leaving his text and intent to go offon yet another strawman doesn't win the argument for you. He did not call for the US to change any laws.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?