- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 9, 2015 at 9:36 pm #820533
anonymeParticipantJo, we probably agree on more things than either of us realizes…! The difference lies in the approach.
January 9, 2015 at 9:43 pm #820534
skeeterParticipantThanks Dobro. That explains my confusion. You were coming to a conclusion based on assumptions and I was using only the information presented in the article you linked. So not surprising we come to different conclusions.
January 9, 2015 at 10:15 pm #820535
SmittyParticipant“So, on the one hand, we realize these nutcases from religion #1 are operating outside of their religion, while on the other hand…”
Well, when you yell “Allahu Akbar” right before you start shooting up the joint, yes.
January 10, 2015 at 12:01 am #820536
seaopgalParticipantPardon the interruption, while I comment on the OT:
From what little I know about CharlieHebdo, the editors, writers and cartoonists understood the risk they were taking and accepted it. They did not court death, they took appropriate precautions (and, interestingly, their country stood up to protect them — would we, the land of the free, provide police protection to Dan Savage or Jon Stewart in a similar situation?), but they did not let fear stop them in their work or daily lives … and they died doing what they loved, for the sake of the nation they loved. We should all be so brave and passionate about our work!
You may now return to your previous debate … because that is what Freedom of the Blog is all about.
January 10, 2015 at 12:34 am #820537
captainDaveParticipantJans S: Please don’t accuse me of hatred of anyone. My issue is quite the contrary. I don’t like seeing any citizen of any faith subjugated by religious text.
To answer your question about Washington Senate Resolution 8652 sponsored by CAIR, the following statement seems in conflict with the separation of church and state doctrine embedded in the US constitution:
“WHEREAS, Religious leaders who facilitate conflict resolution often achieve results that ease the burdens on our courts;”
The forgoing statement opens the door for legally binding arbitration through religious authority to settle legal disputes. I have no problem with people using their faith leaders to settle differences that otherwise could end up in court. However, I do have a major problem if such settlements preclude injured parties from seeking recourse under the due process of US civil law for which they are constitutionally entitled.
Other than the foregoing statement, the entire text of Senate Resolution 8652 seems completely redundant to existing state and federal constitutional authority, statutes and case law. I am aware of no restriction at anytime in the last 240 years in the US against people wanting to settle disputes out of court through consultation with spiritual leaders.
Why do you think CAIR wants religious leaders to facilitate conflict resolution? Do you really think CAIR’s agenda is to simply reduce Washington court costs for tax payers?
Do you think women of Islam should not have the same legal rights as other women in Washington with regard to divorce, inheritance, abuse and other legal matters?
Washington Senate Resolution 8652 has no purpose but to authenticate an alternative body of Islamic law that is not compatible with our constitutional rights.
To understand what is at stake in this discussion, here are a couple of recent reports from the UK and France regarding the use of Islamic (Sharia) law:
“House of Lords debates FGM and Sharia Law in the UK” – National Secular Society (UK) http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/12/house-of-lords-debates-fgm-and-sharia-law-in-the-uk
“A ‘Two-State Solution’ for France?” – The Hill http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/229068-a-two-state-solution-for-france
January 10, 2015 at 1:25 am #820538
JanSParticipantSmitty…another link..
Dave, I will not get into it with you..it’s a matter of opinion…yours and mine.
one thing though You said “Do you think women of Islam should not have the same legal rights as other women in Washington with regard to divorce, inheritance, abuse and other legal matters?” Guess what? They do!. If they choose something else because of religion, that ‘s their choice. There is nowhere in the language of our laws that says “except if you are a Muslim woman” Get over it.
And what you say about 8652…you are reading something into it (about Sharia Law) that simply isn’t there…you are imagining something based on your own prejudices and fears.
Over and out, done !
January 10, 2015 at 3:31 am #820539
dobroParticipant“You were coming to a conclusion based on assumptions and I was using only the information presented in the article you linked”
Yes, and I was also engaging in some hyperbole and sarcasm to emphasize my general point about how silly it is to blame entire religions for the acts of small groups of radicals and criminals who commit heinous acts while shouting “Praise Jesus”or “Allahu Akbar”or “Hail Bhudda” or “Bow Down to the Flying Spaghetti Monster”. The criminals who commit the acts are responsible.
January 10, 2015 at 3:40 am #820540
dobroParticipant“WHEREAS, Religious leaders who facilitate conflict resolution often achieve results that ease the burdens on our courts;”
The forgoing statement opens the door for legally binding arbitration through religious authority to settle legal disputes…However, I do have a major problem if such settlements preclude injured parties from seeking recourse under the due process of US civil law for which they are constitutionally entitled.”
Are you a lawyer besides being a Captain? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see a single thing in that statement that leads to your unjustified conclusions.
January 10, 2015 at 8:38 am #820541
JanSParticipantdobro and others…here’s one man’s take on this….
January 10, 2015 at 9:19 am #820542
captainDaveParticipantdobro: I have spent more years than I want to admit in studying law. The development of statutes begin with resolutions (step one).
If not to lay framework for enacting new laws, why do you believe that the Council on American-Islamic Relations lobbied for the legislature to affirm that “Religious leaders who facilitate conflict resolution often achieve results that ease the burdens on our courts”?
Step 2 will be to use the affirmed resolution as a basis for lobbying on specific proposed statute amendments or new laws. There are a lot of sources on the internet about how laws are made but here is one published by the US senate: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/howourlawsaremade.pdf
I am obviously a minority opinion here, but I believe that justice and equality are best served under the legal system we currently have on the books. There is no aspect of Sharia Law that appeals to me because it violates the fundamental concept of separation between church and state.
If disputing parties want to follow Sharia Law on their own accord, there are no laws to stop them. Hence, there is no reason for CAIR to sponsor and lobby for new legislation unless their intent is to force compliance by one or more parties in a legal action.
January 10, 2015 at 4:27 pm #820543
JoBParticipantanonyme.. thank goodness for differences of approach.. no one voice ever reaches every ear
January 10, 2015 at 5:37 pm #820544
dobroParticipant“I am obviously a minority opinion here, but I believe that justice and equality are best served under the legal system we currently have on the books.”
I understand your reasoning better now but I still disagree with your conclusions. And statements like the one I quoted don’t help your credibility any. You are not in any minority here regarding our legal system and I’m sure you can’t name any common forum user who favors Sharia law over our current legal system.
January 10, 2015 at 6:25 pm #820545
elikapekaParticipantOh, for heaven’s sake, Captain Dave, you’re really overreaching here. There’s nothing in that resolution that hides a plan to introduce Sharia law. It’s one of those meaningless resolutions that legislatures pass all the time. This one honors religious diversity. There are very liberal and very conservative sponsors. Do you really think Pam Roach would be in favor of Sharia law?
I imagine one of the reasons CAIR lobbied for the resolution was because of anti-Muslim sentiment expressed by so many.
Just as an aside, please do some reading on the genocide in Rwanda not that long ago. While many Christian clerics were complicit or did nothing, the Muslim community, however, actively protected many Muslim and non-Muslims.
January 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm #820546
dobroParticipantThis is the most interesting article I’ve come across regarding this situation…
January 10, 2015 at 6:41 pm #820547
waynsterParticipantIt can even happen here to our local artist. Free speech applies to all… even if you don’t like what they say to bad …. it doesn’t give you the right to murder cause harm to life or property if you don’t….. period!…
January 10, 2015 at 6:55 pm #820548
anonymeParticipantdobro, excellent article. Thanks.
January 10, 2015 at 9:42 pm #820549
dobroParticipantHere’s an article about a Muslim man who was instrumental in saving some lives during the kosher supermarket hostage situation. Why can’t he represent all Muslims?
January 11, 2015 at 10:25 pm #820550
dobroParticipantArifa Akbar, literary editor at the Independent, after recounting a string of condemnations by Muslim faith leaders, wrote this…
“For Muslims to apologise is for them to admit that they – we – harboured these men, we invited them to our mosques and listened to their bile and hatred, and perhaps even their planning. How many of us were and are complicit in this? I’m not, and the majority of Britain’s 2.8 million Muslims aren’t either. After 9/11, I spoke to the brother of a Muslim victim. Who should apologise to him? The policeman shot dead in the line of duty was a Muslim. Who should apologise for Ahmed Merabet’s death? Me?
How far do ripples of responsibility extend? Should an imam in Southall apologise for the actions of these men in Paris? France has a significant Muslim minority with its own tensions – the ban on the veil and high levels of disenchantment among this largely banlieue-dwelling minority. It is all rather more complex than can be smoothed over with an apology.”
January 12, 2015 at 1:59 am #820551
wakefloodParticipantFWIW, I’m not saying anyone directly suggested that my early comment asked anyone to apologize. It did not. Some other comments in the thread may have – as I didn’t read all in their entirety.
I did want to clarify my post though. I merely hoped that Muslim leadership take a stand against this type of radicalism – and they HAVE as we’ve seen multiple times – there wasn’t any obvious ones at the time of my posting but happened shortly thereafter. I find this encouraging.
And for those who might assume that I haven’t asked for similar responses from Christian leadership when radicals bomb clinics, etc. I absolutely have and will continue to do so.
January 12, 2015 at 2:45 am #820552
dobroParticipant“I would dearly love to see rational Muslims turn out in mobs protesting this act and helping find and turn in the perpetrators.”
According to Reuters, 3.7 million people turned out in France today to denounce the recent attacks. They report that it is the biggest public demonstration in the history of France.
https://news.yahoo.com/least-3-7-million-march-france-honor-attack-194247869.html
I’m sure many of those people were Muslims. The policeman that died was Muslim. As I mentioned earlier, (#41) a Muslim was instrumental in saving several lives during the market hostage situation was Muslim. As Lindsey pointed out (#20) many leaders have condemned the acts.
So how many Muslims and their leaders need to condemn this stuff before we can give the tired fiction of “no Muslims taking a stand against” a rest? And does it count if it’s not reported by NBC, CBS, or Fox or other corporate media sources?
January 12, 2015 at 3:08 am #820553
JoBParticipantJanuary 12, 2015 at 5:26 am #820554
wakefloodParticipantDid someone actually use the hyperbolic and useless phrase:
“…the tired fiction of “NO Muslims taking a stand against”…?
Absolutes do nothing for any real discussion.
January 12, 2015 at 6:08 am #820555
dobroParticipantGuilty.
So, to return to the issue, what do you think about the first clause of that sentence…
“So how many Muslims and their leaders need to condemn this stuff…”
and I’ll correct the second part…
“…to satisfy those who feel the need to see mobs of people protesting and condemning this act?”
January 12, 2015 at 6:27 am #820556
HMC RichParticipantPost 18. JOB. Why are you defending how badly certain aspects of Islam treats women? Prove It.
On second thought, Never Mind. If you want to be subject to Sharia law then go ahead and keep thinking Christians are as bad or worse than Muslim Fanatics.
January 12, 2015 at 6:50 am #820557
wakefloodParticipantdobro: As many as possible.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.