What happened to "freedom of religion"?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, April 21, 2024 23:47
VIEWED: 7822
PAGE 3 of 8
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Hardware:
This is a perfect example of NIMBYism.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now that’s an asinine response if there ever was one. DIRECTLY contradictory to his previous remark that
Yes, on both. The law is the law. And no 'religious' law can supersede constitutional law.Quote:
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.
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.
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:
Wiki
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).
Jewish law:Quote:
Canon law (Catholicism):
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.Quote:
Hindu law:
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”)Quote:
Hindu law was recognized by the British
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/vatican-canon-law-adviser-ny-goven
Vatican Canon Law Adviser: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Should Be Denied Communion
or-and Quote:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-coverin
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.
g1.htm Quote:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wcs/wcs05.htm
Under Canon Law a woman could not be witness in ecclesiastical or criminal suits, nor attest a will.Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_Judaism
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.
Orthodox Jewish law:Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_Judaism
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME