What happened to "freedom of religion"?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, April 21, 2024 23:47
VIEWED: 7822
PAGE 1 of 1

NIKI2

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:38 PM

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 Uni

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

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:43 PM

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. "

NIKI2

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:54 PM

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

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:55 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:56 PM

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. "

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:02 PM

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.

NIKI2

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:08 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:13 PM

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. "

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:23 PM

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.

NIKI2

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:27 PM

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

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

NIKI2

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:42 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:47 PM

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.

NIKI2

Monday, March 28, 2011 11:05 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 28, 2011 11:12 PM

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.

KWICKO

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:30 AM

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.

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:43 AM

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

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:56 AM

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.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:57 AM

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.

HARDWARE

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:48 AM

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

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:33 PM

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"

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:33 PM

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.

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:35 PM

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

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

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:40 PM

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.

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:20 PM

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 aro

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

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:42 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:01 AM

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.

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:21 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:08 PM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:44 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Rap

Ya might've meant boggling.

Heh heh. Guess you never saw ...

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:41 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:46 PM

Neither did I, but I still love the term.

KWICKO

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:38 AM

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:53 PM

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

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 1, 2011 5:12 PM

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

DREAMTROVE

Friday, April 1, 2011 5:32 PM

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.

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Friday, April 1, 2011 5:33 PM

Frem, that sounds like my kinda church!

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 1, 2011 5:52 PM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 2, 2011 7:09 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, April 2, 2011 8:07 PM

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

NIKI2

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:14 PM

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 no

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

RIONAEIRE

Monday, April 4, 2011 6:10 AM

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

DREAMTROVE

Monday, April 4, 2011 6:52 AM

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.

HERO

Monday, April 4, 2011 1:13 PM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 4, 2011 2:17 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 4, 2011 2:37 PM

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.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:38 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:47 PM

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. "

DREAMTROVE

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:50 PM

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.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:52 PM

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. "

NIKI2

Monday, April 4, 2011 5:27 PM

Quote:
Tennessee State Sen. Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) and state Rep. Judd Matheny (R-Tullahoma) introduced a bill last week outlawing the practice of Sharia, a complex set of religious laws that guide behavior for Muslims. The bill attempts to define Sharia law and to make following it a felony punishable by 15 years in jail.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2011/02/sharia_law_
ban_proposed_in_tennessee.html

Can anyone honestly say THIS is not infringing on freedom of religion? There are “laws” in every religion—just like Sharia, some are practiced, some are not in different countries. But to make it a FELONY??

Anyone who honestly believes sharia law would “take over” is absolutely brainwashed by the deliberate provocation of paranoia by the right.

By the way, Constitutional scholars point out that Sharia law is religious law, and the first words of the First Amendment say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Ergo, all this bullshit is unconstitutional, given they MAKE LAWS infringing on a religion.

The use of this fear tactic is obvious by the fact that NOBODY but Muslims are or ever will be under its “jurisdiction”, and even Muslims can choose not to abide by it if they don’t want to, as is the case in many countries, including America. The Constitution says first, that the laws of the nation would be secular and that the government would not "establish" a religion (separation of church and state), and second, that people living here would be free to worship as they see fit, or not at all. These concepts are embodied in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. But as the Founders declared in their writings -- and as U.S. courts have upheld ever since -- rights are not absolute and must be limited in order to preserve the society as a whole.

While there is unquestionably pressure within their community to abide by sharia law, the fact is that any Muslim who chooses to abide by US laws as opposed to sharia laws is free to do so, and that will be upheld in any US court. For example, “honor killings”: Only the most perverse logic would attempt to apply the subject to parents who might want to kill their child; there is no parental right to “honor killing.”

In July 2008, a Pakistani man living near Atlanta was prosecuted for beating his 25-year-old daughter to death for declining to go along with an arranged marriage to a cousin twice her age.

There are examples in the other direction, where judges have mistakenly upheld sharia law, but they’ve been overturned by higher courts. And again, the fact is that only MUSLIMS, and only Muslims who CHOOSE TO, abide by sharia law. That is indisputable. Yes, we have to be careful to ensure that Muslims abide by US laws rather than their religious laws, but to say that Americans will ever be held to account of sharia law is an outright lie. NOWHERE in the world, that I know of, have non-Muslims had to abide by sharia.

For there to be Islamic law(sharia) there can be no separation between state and Islam.(religion). To do this you must first put on hold the notion of "separation of church and state", which is going to happen. So for people to be afraid sharia will “take over” in our courts is ridiculous. Whatever any other country does, WE have a Constitution which forbids it, and the American people wouldn’t stand for it, however much they may have been incited to fear Islam.

Aside from that, the Founders were quite clear on the point that while there could be no abridgment of thought or belief in one's religious faith, there can and will be limitations placed on one's actions. Actions in the name of religious worship, when they conflict with the laws of the United States, are not protected. So any decision handed down by sharia law wouldn’t be legal under US laws, there’s no need to MAKE laws about it, it’s already IN the law. This is merely a fear tact

RIONAEIRE

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:09 PM

The ooky thing is that people in America used to go watch public executions just like that, hangings and the like, yuck. I think they enjoyed it too, it was a social event, yuck. You wouldn't catch me at a public execution, legal or not.

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

STORYMARK

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Open your eyes a bit, please.
Pedophilia is supposed to be illegal, too.
Rape is supposed to be illegal, too.

That's a moronic defense. They still are illegal. The fact that certain people break these laws does not mean they are becoming acceptable.

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

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?

Why, yes. With a whole whopping 30 seconds of looking, I did find such a case:

http://www.shrdo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=863:
appeals-court-hmong-marriage-provides-no-defense&catid=913&Itemid=124

Was the first link that came up. So I'm thinking wither you deliberately didn't look, or ignored facts which didn't suit your narrative.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, April 4, 2011 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
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

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism is not a consistent religion, and Sharia law is interpreted differently in different places. Sharia is based upon the teachings in the Qu'uran but like all other religions, it is all in the interpretation. For example, no where in the Qu'uran does it say that women must wear the veil, or cover themselves from head to foot. It says that women AND men should dress modestly. The rest is in the interpretation.

My understanding is that a lot of interpretating depends on the culture of a place, what are the local traditions. That is why in Afghansistan women wear the burqa, which covers their entire body and face and but in other places women wear the hijab which is simply a veil which covers the head, but leaves the face uncovered. Niki has probably more to say on the burqa given that she has lived in Afghansistan, but I believe it is a local practice. Covering the head, for both males and females is pretty common in a lot of cultures. In orthodox Judaism, married women and all males must cover their heads. When I was growing up married women in the Catholic Church still wore mantillas to mass.

Really throughout much of human history, women have been treated as second class citizens and various laws, both religious and secular have reflected that. Up until the 20th century, Islam in most places probably had better laws regarding women that in Christendom, because at least it granted them divorce and property rights. The problem has been that as Christendom (or the increasinly secular west) has moved forward with regards to women's place in society, thanks to the feminist movement,and many countries that are Islamic have moved the other way, more conservative, less rights for women. It is true that fundamentalism has been on the rise in the Islamic world, for a variety of complex reasons including power struggles and conflict that have been won by the religious extremists. Iran is an example of that. For many Iranians, the introduction of an ultra othordox religious police state was not what they had hoped for with the Iranian revolution, but I guess that is always the danger in revolutions, you never know who is going to ultimately sieze power.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Sharia law can be practiced in all sorts of ways. In itself it is not particularly hard on women, but its the ultra conservative, ultra orthodox sects that interpret it in that way.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 3:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
The ooky thing is that people in America used to go watch public executions just like that, hangings and the like, yuck. I think they enjoyed it too, it was a social event, yuck. You wouldn't catch me at a public execution, legal or not.

You sure ?
Cause a while back the Chinese had some financial bigwig pull some of the same shit that got CitiGroup thrown out of (I think) six foreign counties, including Japan...

And he got the rope for it.

Believe me, were they to hang some of these banksters who've done us over, I might very well set up a concessions stand and sell popcorn.

I'd reccommend impalement, rather than hanging though, old-school vlad-style, get more entertainment out of it that way, plus we can have a betting pool on how long it takes em to die.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 4:34 AM

Even though there are indeed people who would find pleasure and enjoyment in watching execution, just as people did in the days of old, I don't think it should be legal. If people enjoy that sort of thing they should watch slasher movies, or become snipers to kill badguys or what have you, there are options, but public executions just encourage such feelings and I feel we should stick to not having them. I do reckon though that enterprizing individuals could make money at them, selling refreshments and all, still doesn't make it something I want happening in my city.

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

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can anyone honestly say THIS is not infringing on freedom of religion?

The government infringes on "Freedom of Religion" all the time, whenever 'religion' violates civil law. Practices such as polygamy, 'marriage' to child brides, etc. that some religions and sects want to follow are illegal and have been prosecuted. The IRS regularly goes after 'churches' that they consider to be nothing but tax-avoidance schemes. To go to silly extremes, I'm sure that churches conducting human sacrifice would be frowned upon, although the Supremes say animal sacrifice is okay. When some interpretaions of Sharia Law, such as punishments like flogging or cutting off limbs, come up against the 8th Amendment, that particular 'freedom of religion, would lose out.

If you think about it, you probably approve of infringing on people's 'freedom of religion'. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal, and support laws to make it so? Do you want to do away with Sunday Blue laws? Then you're supporting the government's infringment on the freedom of religion of the folks who want to keep those religion-based laws in place.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 5:04 PM

Thank you, thank you Magons; very well said and appropos. And yes, the "chadri" is pretty exclusive to Afghanistan, and differs even within the country. The kuchi women (gypsies is closest we have) have never, EVER hidden their faces and are quite proud of it; city women cover from head to toe, tho' there are some professional women now that the Taliban isn't totally in control who wear scarves.

Quote:
Up until the 20th century, Islam in most places probably had better laws regarding women that in Christendom, because at least it granted them divorce and property rights.

That’s also true; if one reads the Qu’ran, the teachings quite explicitly set out rights for women which many other religions did not...the problem is interpretive POWER: the Mullahs. They have always known (as have Christian priests) that their power over the people can be heightened by their control, especially control of women. One only has to look at the “Garden of Eden” thing, and all throughout the Bible, to see how that works. So whenever and wherever they have been able, Mullahs have increased their control over women worldwide. But the original Qu’ran and teachings of Allah, unlike the Bible, gave women a lot of respect and rights.

I don’t think Islam has actually moved backwards, I think the INTERPRETATION of it became more constrictive of women over the years, and in teh countries where Islam was indistinguishable from government, the power increased. Here, despite the pretty consistent efforts of the religious right, our forefathers having the foresight to insist on separation of church and state has allowed us to move forward...and most other Western cultures have as well. If the government of Muslim countries wasn’t tightly in the hands of the mullahs, I think that would have happened there as well, and may in time.

Geezer, you are not getting it. In fact, you just made my point in a way. “whenever 'religion' violates civil law...”. Polygamy IS still practiced and rarely does anyone go after it, because it is practiced WITHIN the religious community; anyone who doesn’t want to abide by that law can leave the culture and our laws will protect them. The same would be true for Muslims. That’s not “infringing” on those who WISH to practice it, that’s protecting those outside the religion. That is my point; that Muslim laws would never supersede civil U.S. law OUTSIDE the religion where it is practiced.

Going after pseudo-churches who are hiding behind religion to avoid our laws is appropriate; it’s using religion to avoid civil law, so has nothing to do with "religious law"...in fact, in my opinion it's wrong to let ANY church not pay taxes. Someone has to make a determination in order to stop fraud. It’s not perfect, certainly, but unless there is a more viable means to weed out fraud, it’s what we have.

As to cutting off hands and feet, that’s tougher; but I don’t see any case of it having taken place in America, so until it does, we’ll have to wait and see. Yes, that would be infringing on freedom of religion, but there, like some other aspects, I’m not sure what you do in order to allow that religious practice, unless the person to whom it happens wants to leave their faith, at which time there’s no DOUBT to me that they would be protected by U.S. laws. Unfortunately such things (and many of the provisions toward women) only come to light after the fact.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue; within their religion, just like within Islam, Christians can enforce their own “laws” against it, just as they do contraception, divorce, etc. But to make a civil law AGAINST it, just like abortion and homosexuality, is to force people to abide by Christian laws, so wrong. It should have nothing to do with the public at large and their civil rights. Practically ANY religion can keep to its practices if it wants to, as long as they don’t go against U.S. laws. Anyone NOT of that religion doesn’t have to

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 6:05 PM

God used to have a female counterpart/aspect, the Shekina. Some historians have argued that the religion used to have a pair God and Goddess.

The Adam and Eve story is commonly misinterpreted as an excuse for misogyny.

Originally, it's suggested that Adam and his partner were created at the same time, either as two distinct entities or within the same entity and later separated. There's some dispute whether his first partner was Eve or Lilith.

The stories that Eve was made from muck or other lowly substance to the dust/mud/clay that was used for Adam, or that she was made from Adam's rib, came much later. Also, the whole thing about the apple and original sin isn't actually suggested to be the fault of women - rather, Adam carries original sin, because whereas Eve was tricked into tasting the fruit of knowledge, Adam chose to so she would not be alone.

The whole thing about the immaculate conception is not that Mary was a virgin, but rather that God intervened at the moment of Mary's conception, to make sure she would be free of the sin that would normally have passed to her from her father. This made her an appropriate vessel through which Jesus was then born.

And then I could get into Gnostic text and make comparisons to Shekina with Sophia and Eve and the Demiurge with Lilith, but this is already getting boring, so I won't.

Basically, most of the excuses from the Judeo-Christian texts to repress women are mistaken from what the mytho is SUPPOSED to suggest. But, unfortunately, it's also true that women were largely oppressed throughout most of the ancient world.

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, you are not getting it. In fact, you just made my point in a way. “whenever 'religion' violates civil law...”. Polygamy IS still practiced and rarely does anyone go after it, because it is practiced WITHIN the religious community; anyone who doesn’t want to abide by that law can leave the culture and our laws will protect them.

I can see you're not getting it either. Polagamy is illegal. Polagamous marriage is not recognized by the government and any wives beyond the first one have no legal rights as spouses. I do notice you skipped right over forced marrigae of very young girls to hurch "elders" without a comment. The government is surely active in prosecuting this as a crime. As for leaving - based on recent cases concerning folks in very insular sects, it's very difficult for folks, especially chidren, who have no real knowledge of the outside world, or who believe that the safety of their soul depends on living by their elders rules, to just up and leave.

Quote:
As to cutting off hands and feet, that’s tougher; but I don’t see any case of it having taken place in America, so until it does, we’ll have to wait and see. Yes, that would be infringing on freedom of religion, but there, like some other aspects, I’m not sure what you do in order to allow that religious practice...

So you would allow flogging, cutting off limbs, stoning to death and "honor" killings if it was done by people of a certain religion to another person of that religion, as long as it was done under color of their religious practice? I would hope that if it even threatened to reach that point that you'd decide that there might be some good in reasonable control over the practice of that particular faith.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:47 PM

Quote:
So you would allow flogging, cutting off limbs, stoning to death and "honor" killings if it was done by people of a certain religion to another person of that religion, as long as it was done under color of their religious practice?

Where exactly did I say that? I didn't, I said I'm not aware of any cases of it in the U.S. OBVIOUSLY such an idea is abhorrent, I hated it as much in Afghanistan, where I actually SAW a man's hand cut off. So trying to misrepresent what I said is inexcusable.

Also, we’re talking LAWS and the prosecution of same, not what the result of a polygamous marriage means to the multiple wives. Let’s stay with that, please. As to polygamy being enforced, you’re wrong:

Quote:
About 1953, the state of Arizona National Guard raided a polygamist colony called Short Creek on the Utah/Arizona border, and separated the kids from their mothers, and threw the men in jail. The people of the nation were so outraged by it, that there have not been polygamy prosecutions since. (Unless you want to consider Waco to be an anti-polygamist raid.) So while polygamy is not legal, the laws against it are not enforced.

http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/faq.htm

Quote:
Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle; these laws originated as anti-Mormon legislation, although they are rarely enforced.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polygamy

I believe child-marriage laws ARE enforced, but not very seriously in many cases:

Quote:
While American news journalists frequently report child marriages in Third World countries, the matter is largely ignored in the United States.

http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/07/17/life_and_arts/art1.txt

Quote:
Until 2008, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced child marriage through the concept 'spiritual (religious only) marriages,' as soon as girls are ready to bear children, as part of its polygamy practice and laws have raised the age of legal marriage in response to criticism of the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

NOT because of prosecution, note, but because of criticism.

Quote:
In March 2008, the state of Texas believed that children at the Yearning For Zion Ranch were being married to adults and were being abused. The state of Texas removed all 468 children from the ranch and placed them into temporary state custody. After the Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Texas acted improperly in removing them from the YFZ Ranch, the children were returned to their parents or relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#United_States

Given parents or relatives were probably within the cult, I wonder if there was any follow-up on child marriages within the group?

As recently as the 19th century, child marriage was common in America ( http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009637.html) Even more recently,

Quote:
Country star Lorretta Lynn was married at 13. History has been forgotten that marrying before 16 even was not entirely rare.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/8D0A30C9-1883-418E-B9FD-2CC38E509098/ I believe Loretta Lynn is still alive? I suspect there are many child marriages in poorer, more ignorant states and among religious cults. Whether they are prosecuted or not is another matter; it would seem that in many cases, they’re ignored.

Then there’s “forced marriage”:

Quote:
A shotgun wedding is a form of forced marriage occasioned by an unplanned pregnancy. Some religions and cultures consider it a moral imperative to marry in such a situation, based on reasoning that premarital sex is sinful and unsafe. The phrase is an American colloquialism, though it is also used in other parts of the world. The use of violent coercion to marry is no longer legal in the United States, although many anecdotal stories and folk songs record ins

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

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 9:29 PM

As someone who lives in Utah, I can vouch that polygamists live around here as pretty much an open secret. It's only when they upset someone in the higher ups that anyone goes after them.

Warren Jeffs eventually pissed off too many people. The Texas FLDS compound had some baptists in the police and the state national guard down there that had been looking for an excuse to raid the mormons anyway.

As for Sharia Law, eh. It's not like communities that all these people practicing Sharia Law are moving into don't already have their own laws about harm you can do to a human being. Where personal/religious law and community law overlap is where a jury comes in. This is why a story like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Mitchell

Ends up with Mitchell being both diagnosed a crazy AND convicted of a crime. Freedom of Religion is one of those "right to swing your arms ends at my nose" kinds of thing.

However, care must be taken to not interpret that as "this religion MIGHT do something, so let's stomp out the ability to practice that religion."

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 12:42 AM

Niki, you say that things aren't prosecuted unless there is criticism. Well it doesn't seem like you are willing enough to criticize, if people just pussy foot around bad behavior like 14 year olds being married off to 50 year olds then it isn't prosecuted enough, sure we do have laws about it, but people need to push for those laws to be enforced sometimes because the law establishment gets lazy, or they get so busy prosecuting other things that they don't pay attention. So we need to be more vocal about criticizing such behavior, just because it happened to Loretta Lyn doesn't make it okay.

I think child marriages are worse than polygamy, I mean polygamy is a bit groty in my opinion and I agree it should be illegal but enforcement of it isn't as important as enforcement of other laws. From what I know the only enforcement of it is that subsequent wives don't get legally recognized as such, meaning they don't get marriage rights, which I'm totally okay with. If people want to do it at home its their choice, but don't expect me to recognize it.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 12:56 AM

Pffth, some members of my family *still* do the whole shotgun wedding thing, and the shotguns are not whatever metaphorical - not that most of those on the business end are all that reluctant, tis more a matter of tradition these days than anything.

Of course this didn't stop Yuriko (who has some bizarre ideas of how our culture works) from threatening to come over here and marry me in that fashion - I pointed out that she didn't have a shotgun and she retorted "Yeah, but you're in america, I can just buy one at the grocery store over there..."

I'm not entirely sure whether Shinto beliefs allow for such a thing, but coming from a culture in which arranged marriages still exist (been talkin to Maltquake about hers as of late) it's certainly credible, even if her threat really isn't.

-Frem

PS. Been worried as hell about them recently, she lost her beloved uncle to the carnage and will not listen to me or her family as we encourage her to get the hell out of dodge, but then I wouldn't listen either, she's busy with relief efforts and communication has been difficult.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:42 AM

I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and I don't have to hear or see it.

Consent obviously becomes questionable the younger someone is, and with teenagers there's the whole hormone thing clouding the issue.

Of course, there's ways that the law gets abused and teenagers get labeled with sex offender felonies that I don't approve of either.

I need to remember to send some cash to a Japan relief fund. I've been meaning to. I have a friend over in Japan right now too. Think she's in Osaka, which should not be in the danger zone, unless the fault slips again.

As for Yuriko, just point out the difficulties between a kitsune-human relationship. Sad, about her uncle. We have some Japanese in our town, migrated here from Topaz after being thrown out of most everywhere else, and so now and then I hear about people still lost and missing.

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 4:34 AM

I don't have a problem with arranged marriages as long as both parties are grown and concenting and both willing to do it. I think that my family would do a decent job of finding me a mate, I haven't had any luck the Western way of choosing your own.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:44 AM

Well, Maltquakes problem is that she is tall (like 5'10" - VERY tall over there!) and curvy, which wouldn't mean so much to most americans but in her culture is considered by many to be unattractive, and when you add in that her canines stick out kind of straight, cause cosmetic dentistry isn't as common overseas, well.

One of her pole-up-ass relatives from her oh-so-very-proper-lets-not-offend-anyone family referred to her as an ogre and about reduced her to tears, this was before the disaster and she had stress enough running things (she's next up in line in their heirarchy) while Yuriko was in Italy at her studies, so it kind of fell to me to comfort and counsel - she asked me to send her a Texan to marry, lololol..

I gave her a fistfull of tips on how to drive her oh-so-proper parents completely batshit (this got me oh-so-politely bitched out by them via a quite, quite diplomatic email) and encouraged her to be a little bolder towards the one potential who *did* like her - they were still at the playdate/"interview" date stage of things, and most of em couldn't wait to get AWAY from her, but one of them who is on the low end of socially-acceptable for her (apparently her family is pretty upscale, so there's the whole shame factor of being unmarriable) actually liked her, in part because she has certain, uhhh, endowments up front which are for the most part lacking amongst her peers, you see, and because the gent in question has a bit of a thing for warrior/amazon type chicks - he's sweet enough even if he is something of a goofball, and just barely well off enough to qualify for attention, bonus points for that being his own founded biz and not family money, either.

So, stealing a page from american culture she snuck out to go see him and upon her return found both parents with THAT look goin on - and instead of handing off the little speech I gave her about how if all she's gonna get for being the good always-do-the-expected-thing girl, is crapped on, well maybe that isn't going to happen...
She flat tells em *I* gave her permission. *wince*
Thus the bitching out they delivered - and then they invited her paramour to tea, and bitched HIM out for an hour and a half, but that was actually a good sign cause the manner in which they did so placed him as idiot boyfriend or errant husband, indicating a begruding acceptance of his interest, AND praise to his loyalty cause while he did drive her home, he did NOT rat her out.

She was dancing around in little happy circles till the disaster hit, but for days after he was missing and she was totally insane about it, one of the things that prompted Yuriko to go running back despite both me and her own family telling her not to.
Apparently the whole neighborhood was flooded, and since the temple was on a hill, it was the only structure which wasn't wrecked, and thus happens to be the core of the relief efforts, so someone has take charge of the situation, and Maltquake wasn't coping so well.

Anyhows, I dislike the whole concept of arranged marriage since it leans toward regarding people as property, which always gets my back up - but if they're okay with it, then it ain't really for me to say, other than to "officially" throw my approval at it since that's such a comfort to her - ain't about what *I* believe, but what they need to believe in order to get through the day, so for the time being I gotta grit my teeth, bite my tongue and play along, cause the last thing those kids need right now is me provoking a crisis of their faith, however misplaced.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NIKI2

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 5:04 PM

Quote:
Freedom of Religion is one of those "right to swing your arms ends at my nose" kinds of thing.

However, care must be taken to not interpret that as "this religion MIGHT do something, so let's stomp out the ability to practice that religion."

Concisely put, and pretty much sums up the argument for me.

No, Rione, I never said things aren't prosecuted unless there is criticism. I mentioned that one sect changed its practices because of criticism, I didn’t connect that to prosecution. I was indicating that we HAVE some of those things in America already, so pointing at Islam and saying it has them so we should deny all Muslims freedom of religion is disingenuous self-righteousness. And I never, ever said ANY of those things were okay or that I wanted to pussy foot around them, I merely pointed out that they EXIST, so condemning Islam for having them when we don’t even bother to eradicate them in our own culture is hypocritical. I agree with you that they should be prosecuted, and I believe they would be prosecuted if brought to the attention of the law, as actually has been the case in many instances.

Look at the quote above; THAT is the essence of what I was saying, nothing more.

Quote:
enforcement of it isn't as important as enforcement of other laws

That’s a judgment, in my opinion, and I don’t think each of us has the right individually to decide which law is more important to prosecute. If a law is bad, we should change it. If it is not, it should be prosecuted, and polygamy and child marriage are both wrong in my opinion and should be prosecuted. I just don’t think it’s right to point to ALL Muslims as practicing those things while ignoring that we allow them.

Byte, I agree to a point:

Quote:
I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and I don't have to hear or see it.

Consent obviously becomes questionable the younger someone is, and with teenagers there's the whole hormone thing clouding the issue.

I would say rather “I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and harm no one.” Unquestionably it can be extremely difficult for those who don’t want to abide by a religious law to appeal to the authorities, as it would mean being shunned by their community. But the law IS there to protect them if they choose, as it is with any other thing people choose to appeal to it for. (sorry about the grammar!)

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 7:05 PM

Quote:
I would say rather “I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and harm no one.”

BDSM crowd wouldn't like that.

Love hurts, or so they say. People lie, they reject, they lead people on, they break promises, they're unfaithful, they neglect. Ethically a good person will avoid too much of any of that, or at least soften the blow, and do their level best to not intentionally harm anyone. But people aren't perfect, either.

We already have laws about assault, abuse, and murder, and unlawful detention, and I already mentioned non-consent, so those're covered. People have to make their own choices, and some of them will be unforgiveable. Sometimes people can intervene, but when they can't, friends, family, or society as a whole will do for the victims what they can.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 1:01 AM

Byte, your first line made me laugh out loud, that's one of those ... fuzzy ... areas of life, fuzzy as in, what should I do/think? I tend to lean against such things, but ... anyways.

Frem how old is your friend whose parents want her to be married? Is hersister Yuriko married? At least she found someone that she sort of fancies and that seems to like her, maybe it will work out. But of course I believe she shouldn't be forced to marry him, nor should he be forced to marry her. They need to be willing etc. I hope they're doing okay right now, what with being earthquaked and all.

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

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, April 21, 2024 11:47 PM

Journalist jailed as Taliban continue media crackdown

https://www.voanews.com/a/journalist-jailed-as-taliban-continue-media-
crackdown/7574223.html