Now considers Sharia law

[Quantum Windbag]

You really need to read the full article to get a feeling for the absurdity that is NOW, but they may be making some progress. Not really there yet, and I would love to have details of the vote count, but at least they admit there are some real issues in the world.

And now for some possibly good news.

Believe it or not: Someone—bless whoever it was—actually tried to pass a Resolution against “Culturally Oppressive Laws Against Women and Girls.” All the resolution called for was a public education campaign. However, it specifically singled out Sharia law and listed the human and women’s rights violations performed in its name: forced veiling, forced child marriage, normalized beating, honor killing, purdah, stoning to death, hanging, and flogging for non-compliant women.

Please listen to the language of NOW’s resolution: “Whereas, one of NOW’s official priorities is to eliminate violence against women…we urge NOW members to educate law enforcement, educators, medical professionals, and community leaders to the danger of Sharia law.”

This resolution was defeated; actually, like the surrogacy resolution, it was tabled for further discussion.

Had anyone at NOW asked me, I would have broadened this idealistic Resolution to include any and all cultural, religious, tribal, and ethnic practices that violate American law. I would not have focused only on Sharia law. The French law which banned the burqa was ethnically and religiously “neutral.” Face masks are banned. One’s identity must be visible. This is true for anyone and everyone, not just for those of one religion.

For the First Time, the National Organization for Women Considers Sharia Law

The sad part is that they lost an opportunity to support women that are actually risking their lives just to express a little bit of freedom, not wearing a veil.

https://www.facebook.com/StealthyFreedom

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We've got to keep up the fight against laws being passed based on religious beliefs. Birth control, abortion, marriage equality and more. This us the US. No one should be forced to abide by the beliefs of the religions of others. As long as it's consenting adults whose actions harm no one, myob and keep your sharia laws to yourself. I'm sure all real Americans agree.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not all arguments against abortion are based on religion, and no law exist in the US that denies anyone birh control. Perhaps you could consider actually discussing the OP instead of ranting about non existent problems.

 

[Peach]

NOW has addressed Sharia law, yes, the focus is on make violence, regardless of faith:

On Feb. 12, near Buffalo, N.Y., Aasiya Zubair Hassan was killed by her husband, Muzzammil Hassan. She had recently filed for divorce, and he was enraged. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman in a violent relationship is when she leaves; the loss of control infuriates an already violent man. This pattern has been observed for many years, and is true regardless of the race, religion or nationality of the man. We also know that unemployment and business reversals increase the likelihood of violence, and reports indicated that the Hassans� television station wasn't doing well.

Some people who commented on this horrific crime focused primarily on the fact that the couple were Muslim and that in murdering his wife, Muzzammil cut off her head. While the manner of killing certainly wasn't common, other parts of the story were typical of spousal abuse and murder. However, much of the conservative commentary focused not on the prevalence of male violence toward women nor on the importance of protecting women who have separated from a violent relationship, but instead took the opportunity to attack the Islamic faith.

Continued Threats to Afghan Women Require Support in U.S. and Worldwide | NOW Foundation

Now supports THE AFGHAN WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT ACT; sounds like addessing restrictive laws of some Islamic nations, doesn't it?

 

[Katzndogz]

NOW will not be able to overcome sharia law. Not if the want to pretend they are giving women freedom. They will fail just like similar protections failed in France and England.

 

[Peach]

NOW will not be able to overcome sharia law. Not if the want to pretend they are giving women freedom. They will fail just like similar protections failed in France and England.

The OP claimed NOW did not denounce Sharia law, NOW has:

Amidst deadly bombings, rocket attacks and threats of violence against voters, Afghanistan's national elections took place on Aug. 20. While hazardous conditions likely suppressed at least part of the women's vote, the good news is that two women ran for president, five sought the vice presidency, and some 300 women ran for election to provincial councils. Results of the election are expected to be announced this week. Women's presence is a hopeful sign that a stronger democracy can emerge from this war-torn country; but at the same time, there is plenty of evidence that women in general are not gaining ground.

Earlier this year, President Hamid Karzai signed a law that would effectively decriminalize marital rape among the country's Shia Muslim population. According to The Washington Post, the law "requires women to seek their husband's permission to leave home, except for 'culturally legitimate' purposes such as work or weddings, and to submit to their sexual demands unless ill or menstruating." President Barack Obama called the law "abhorrent."

The enactment of the Shia Personal Status Law highlights a prevalent problem in Afghanistan: the second-class status and discriminatory treatment of women by the government and society, long after the radical Taliban fell from political power in Kabul, the nation's capital. The recent resurgence of the Taliban and other extremist groups in outlying areas has escalated acts of intimidation and violence against women and girls.

 

[Sallow]

Not all arguments against abortion are based on religion, and no law exist in the US that denies anyone birh control. Perhaps you could consider actually discussing the OP instead of ranting about non existent problems.

Seriously?

Yeah ALL arguments against abortion are religious.

And the ONLY reason this came under your radar is because you hate the Muslim religion.

 

[mudwhistle]

We've got to keep up the fight against laws being passed based on religious beliefs. Birth control, abortion, marriage equality and more. This us the US. No one should be forced to abide by the beliefs of the religions of others. As long as it's consenting adults whose actions harm no one, myob and keep your sharia laws to yourself. I'm sure all real Americans agree.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Nobody should have to cowtow to anyone else's ideological beliefs as well.

We shouldn't be forced to say that homosexuality is bad or good either. It should be against the law to to make laws that state one lifestyle is better than another.

This same-sex marriage movement is just a form of religion being forced on those who don't want to comply.

You have the right to do it, but you don't have the right to make everyone like it.

Same goes with Climate Change ideology.

You want to believe the Earth is warming, feel free. Try to force everyone to believe your nonsense and tax everyone because of it, wrong answer.

 

[Peach]

We've got to keep up the fight against laws being passed based on religious beliefs. Birth control, abortion, marriage equality and more. This us the US. No one should be forced to abide by the beliefs of the religions of others. As long as it's consenting adults whose actions harm no one, myob and keep your sharia laws to yourself. I'm sure all real Americans agree.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Nobody should have to cowtow to anyone else's ideological beliefs as well.

We shouldn't be forced to say that homosexuality is bad or good either. It should be against the law to to make laws that state one lifestyle is better than another.

This same-sex marriage movement is just a form of religion being forced on those who don't want to comply.

You have the right to do it, but you don't have the right to make everyone like it.

Same goes with Climate Change ideology.

You want to believe the Earth is warming, feel free. Try to force everyone to believe your nonsense and tax everyone because of it, wrong answer.

No restrictions on speech, nor beliefs(.) As pollution is a proven harm, tough to prevent carbon taxation, still, the US isn't touching the primary offenders IF climate change is at least, in part, human made. China cares not about the environment, just production. Buy American whenever possible.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If NOW goes after Christian oppresion of women at some point I'll care more about the fact that they exist. If they're just going after Islam though I can't say I care.

FLDS endorsed forced marriages to underage girls. Southern Baptist Convention adopted Ephesians 5's line about "...women be subject to your husbands..."

1 Corinthians 11 "Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

 

[I.P.Freely]

We've got to keep up the fight against laws being passed based on religious beliefs. Birth control, abortion, marriage equality and more. This us the US. No one should be forced to abide by the beliefs of the religions of others. As long as it's consenting adults whose actions harm no one, myob and keep your sharia laws to yourself. I'm sure all real Americans agree.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I concur.

 

[Peach]

If NOW goes after Christian oppresion of women at some point I'll care more about the fact that they exist. If they're just going after Islam though I can't say I care.

FLDS endorsed forced marriages to underage girls. Southern Baptist Convention adopted Ephesians 5's line about "...women be subject to your husbands..."

1 Corinthians 11 "Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Then there are Methodists, Prebyterians; Christians are being oersecuted in some Muslim nations. If Christians persecute, I speak against them also. Joseph Kony was a mixture of Christian, Muslim and totalitarian monster, not seen recently.

 

[PixieStix]

Not all arguments against abortion are based on religion, and no law exist in the US that denies anyone birh control. Perhaps you could consider actually discussing the OP instead of ranting about non existent problems.

Seriously?

Yeah ALL arguments against abortion are religious.

And the ONLY reason this came under your radar is because you hate the Muslim religion.

Really?
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Pro-Life Humanists » A Secular Case Against Abortion

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NOW will not be able to overcome sharia law. Not if the want to pretend they are giving women freedom. They will fail just like similar protections failed in France and England.

The OP claimed NOW did not denounce Sharia law, NOW has:

Amidst deadly bombings, rocket attacks and threats of violence against voters, Afghanistan's national elections took place on Aug. 20. While hazardous conditions likely suppressed at least part of the women's vote, the good news is that two women ran for president, five sought the vice presidency, and some 300 women ran for election to provincial councils. Results of the election are expected to be announced this week. Women's presence is a hopeful sign that a stronger democracy can emerge from this war-torn country; but at the same time, there is plenty of evidence that women in general are not gaining ground.

Earlier this year, President Hamid Karzai signed a law that would effectively decriminalize marital rape among the country's Shia Muslim population. According to The Washington Post, the law "requires women to seek their husband's permission to leave home, except for 'culturally legitimate' purposes such as work or weddings, and to submit to their sexual demands unless ill or menstruating." President Barack Obama called the law "abhorrent."

The enactment of the Shia Personal Status Law highlights a prevalent problem in Afghanistan: the second-class status and discriminatory treatment of women by the government and society, long after the radical Taliban fell from political power in Kabul, the nation's capital. The recent resurgence of the Taliban and other extremist groups in outlying areas has escalated acts of intimidation and violence against women and girls.

The OP made no such claim, it pointed out the fact that a resolution was tabled at the general convention. I know, I wrote it. I then went on to point out that by not passing the resolution they last a chance to stand together with women who are risking their lives by defying that law. You later responded with evidence that NOW supports a useless law law that won't change anything anywhere.

You might consider that condemning Sharia law, I don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not all arguments against abortion are based on religion, and no law exist in the US that denies anyone birh control. Perhaps you could consider actually discussing the OP instead of ranting about non existent problems.

Seriously?

Yeah ALL arguments against abortion are religious.

And the ONLY reason this came under your radar is because you hate the Muslim religion.

You always have to speak in absolutes, which is why you will always be wrong.

Confessions of a Pro-Life Atheist, Why I Fight Abortion | LifeNews.com

Pro-Life Humanists » A Secular Case Against Abortion

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If NOW goes after Christian oppresion of women at some point I'll care more about the fact that they exist. If they're just going after Islam though I can't say I care.

FLDS endorsed forced marriages to underage girls. Southern Baptist Convention adopted Ephesians 5's line about "...women be subject to your husbands..."

1 Corinthians 11 "Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Wow, even more demented than Duddley.

Keep posting like this and everyone will be laughing at you.

 

[Machaut]

This resolution was defeated; actually, like the surrogacy resolution, it was tabled for further discussion.

The resolution was defeated, for practical purposes. Attendees didn't understand Robert's Rules of Order and allowed the opposition to donk up the discussion with an improper motion.

That said, the resolution wasn't good policy. It looks like several of them weren't.

For example, NOW passed a resolution about “Dismantling White Privilege.” This one requires that each chapter report “must include verification of participation in racial justice actions.” In terms of Women With Disabilities: “Be it resolved that NOW conference events and discussions will include presenters who are women with disabilities.”

Then this: In the name of American women (!) the NOW Board resolved to “Support U.S. Normalization of Relations with Cuba;” “Mandate Health Insurance Coverage for Gender Reassignment Surgery,” and “Eliminate Workplace Abuse of Women of Color in Academia.”

A resolution isn't an order, it's merely an expression of opinion. I wonder, though, whether or not their Dismantling White Privilege resolution will result in all NOW chapters becoming involved in racist activities anyway.

The Women with Disabilities resolution is just insulting. "Alright cripples, you're completely worthless and have no talents or qualifications and you never will, but we feel bad about that, so we're going to pretend that we don't think less of you and give you a few minutes at our meetings to pretend you're an actual person! Isn't NOW just so forward-thinking?"

While I don't have a problem on the surface with their resolutions on Cuba and workplace abuse (although, since none of the resolutions are unavailable, I haven't read them), the health insurance coverage one sounds ominous and beyond appalling. It sounds like it either calls for the government to force all Americans to have gender reassignment surgery insurance in the event that they decide they want that surgery, or it wants the government to force all insurance companies to start covering the procedure. Regardless, it still sounds pretty bad.

I wonder when they'll post this year's resolutions for online review.

 

[Peach]

NOW will not be able to overcome sharia law. Not if the want to pretend they are giving women freedom. They will fail just like similar protections failed in France and England.

The OP claimed NOW did not denounce Sharia law, NOW has:

Amidst deadly bombings, rocket attacks and threats of violence against voters, Afghanistan's national elections took place on Aug. 20. While hazardous conditions likely suppressed at least part of the women's vote, the good news is that two women ran for president, five sought the vice presidency, and some 300 women ran for election to provincial councils. Results of the election are expected to be announced this week. Women's presence is a hopeful sign that a stronger democracy can emerge from this war-torn country; but at the same time, there is plenty of evidence that women in general are not gaining ground.

Earlier this year, President Hamid Karzai signed a law that would effectively decriminalize marital rape among the country's Shia Muslim population. According to The Washington Post, the law "requires women to seek their husband's permission to leave home, except for 'culturally legitimate' purposes such as work or weddings, and to submit to their sexual demands unless ill or menstruating." President Barack Obama called the law "abhorrent."

The enactment of the Shia Personal Status Law highlights a prevalent problem in Afghanistan: the second-class status and discriminatory treatment of women by the government and society, long after the radical Taliban fell from political power in Kabul, the nation's capital. The recent resurgence of the Taliban and other extremist groups in outlying areas has escalated acts of intimidation and violence against women and girls.

The OP made no such claim, it pointed out the fact that a resolution was tabled at the general convention. I know, I wrote it. I then went on to point out that by not passing the resolution they last a chance to stand together with women who are risking their lives by defying that law. You later responded with evidence that NOW supports a useless law law that won't change anything anywhere.

You might consider that condemning Sharia law, I don't.

I would like stronger condemnation, but as NOW points out, the focus should be on the abused women, not the religion of the abusers. I want my elected reps to not only condem, but take real action; something Saudi seems to stand in the way.

 

[Katzndogz]

In France, England and Florida muslim women have demanded sharia law as an expression of their freedom. How dare we tell them not to wear a veil.

Did you not notice the young woman from Colorado wanting to go to Iraq so she could have what she saw as the freedom of sharia law.

 

[guno]

You really need to read the full article to get a feeling for the absurdity that is NOW, but they may be making some progress. Not really there yet, and I would love to have details of the vote count, but at least they admit there are some real issues in the world.

And now for some possibly good news.

Believe it or not: Someone—bless whoever it was—actually tried to pass a Resolution against “Culturally Oppressive Laws Against Women and Girls.” All the resolution called for was a public education campaign. However, it specifically singled out Sharia law and listed the human and women’s rights violations performed in its name: forced veiling, forced child marriage, normalized beating, honor killing, purdah, stoning to death, hanging, and flogging for non-compliant women.

Please listen to the language of NOW’s resolution: “Whereas, one of NOW’s official priorities is to eliminate violence against women…we urge NOW members to educate law enforcement, educators, medical professionals, and community leaders to the danger of Sharia law.”

This resolution was defeated; actually, like the surrogacy resolution, it was tabled for further discussion.

Had anyone at NOW asked me, I would have broadened this idealistic Resolution to include any and all cultural, religious, tribal, and ethnic practices that violate American law. I would not have focused only on Sharia law. The French law which banned the burqa was ethnically and religiously “neutral.” Face masks are banned. One’s identity must be visible. This is true for anyone and everyone, not just for those of one religion.

For the First Time, the National Organization for Women Considers Sharia Law

The sad part is that they lost an opportunity to support women that are actually risking their lives just to express a little bit of freedom, not wearing a veil.

https://www.facebook.com/StealthyFreedom

Let me explain something to you peanut head , religious groups have relgious courts in this county to address religious tradition issues within their community, they do not take prescient over civil an criminal laws of the land .

A network of Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Halakha) exist across the United States and in other countries. Their activities are permitted In democracies, religious courts are consensual, functioning for the benefit of the communities they serve, mostly in matters of family status, marriage, divorce etc. They may not, of course, submit judgments that violate state or federal law.