Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Learn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his ******* JOB.

This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit Politics

 

[Pogo]

Learn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his ******* JOB.

This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit Politics

As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:

>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<​

The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.

It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:

>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.

... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<​

**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, brother. You really need to let go of that. Trump won, that's reality. Kavanaugh's on the court, that's also reality, and it's not going to change. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, it's not going to change. Play the hand you're dealt.

That's pretty much how the Nazis win... when decent people give up.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Learn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his ******* JOB.

This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit Politics

As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:

>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<​

The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.

It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:

>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.

... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<​

**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".

Actually, I read every single word, comma and period of my link and remain just as convinced as ever that this hack dingbat judge made a ghastly ruling and his ruling must have been politically motivated because it sure wasn't motivated by common sense and the law.

That you get behind this judicial quackery demonstrates where you are coming from...a place of foolish idiocy. Must be your San Francisco sense of justice.

If federal law guarantees civil rights to all then on what basis is this asshole judge ruling that only states have the right to ban female genital mutilation? Does a female child not have the right as a United States citizen to be free from being held down and having her genitals sliced up and all potential future sexual experiences robbed from her forever?


Yes, I know what this judge ruled and I find it appalling and disgraceful. His reasoning is b.s. though you seem to applaud it which doesn't surprise me. Children are constitutionally guaranteed the right to be free from abuse of any sort, and that includes the right not to be mutilated bodily.

The judge himself calls fgm a form of physical assault. If Minnesota or Michigan or any other state won't come out of the dark ages and fails to protect a girl from this sort of abuse specifically the federal government has already stepped in and outlawed all forms of grievous physical harm whether performed by a monstrous doctor or not.

Congress does not have the "authority" that the constitution gave them to pass a law that criminalizes fgm?
What are you smoking, Chuck? You are a bigger clown than the judge, apparently.
Look for this fool's ruling to be overturned on appeal.

 

[hadit]

Oh, brother. You really need to let go of that. Trump won, that's reality. Kavanaugh's on the court, that's also reality, and it's not going to change. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, it's not going to change. Play the hand you're dealt.

That's pretty much how the Nazis win... when decent people give up.

Reality, Trump is the legal president. He satisfied all the necessary Constitutional requirements to become president. You're angry because you're believing a lie.

By the same token, Kavanaugh is a legal Supreme Court Justice. He also satisfied all the Constitutional requirements to become one. Again, you're angry because you're believing a falsehood.

You don't have to like either one of those guys to gain a true perspective on reality.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't have to like either one of those guys to gain a true perspective on reality.

Reality, Trump is going to be frog marched out of the white house in chains. and people like you will deny you ever supported him.

 

[hadit]

You don't have to like either one of those guys to gain a true perspective on reality.

Reality, Trump is going to be frog marched out of the white house in chains. and people like you will deny you ever supported him.

Not so. Number one, that won't happen even if you get your wet dream and he's convicted of something, and number two, sure I'll say I supported him right up until he is proven to deserve justice. You can support some things a person does while not supporting other things. At least conservatives are capable of such nuance.

Are all liberals incapable of nuance? Maybe it's a maturity thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Not so. Number one, that won't happen even if you get your wet dream and he's convicted of something, and number two, sure I'll say I supported him right up until he is proven to deserve justice. You can support some things a person does while not supporting other things. At least conservatives are capable of such nuance.

Are all liberals incapable of nuance? Maybe it's a maturity thing.

Yeah, somehow I can't go along with GASSING ******* CHILDREN because I like a tax cut that we can't afford.

Another Von Papen Republican heard from.

 

[Pogo]

Learn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his ******* JOB.

This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit Politics

As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:

>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<​

The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.

It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:

>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.

... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<​

**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".

Actually, I read every single word, comma and period of my link and remain just as convinced as ever that this hack dingbat judge made a ghastly ruling and his ruling must have been politically motivated because it sure wasn't motivated by common sense and the law.

That you get behind this judicial quackery demonstrates where you are coming from...a place of foolish idiocy. Must be your San Francisco sense of justice.

If federal law guarantees civil rights to all then on what basis is this asshole judge ruling that only states have the right to ban female genital mutilation? Does a female child not have the right as a United States citizen to be free from being held down and having her genitals sliced up and all potential future sexual experiences robbed from her forever?


Yes, I know what this judge ruled and I find it appalling and disgraceful. His reasoning is b.s. though you seem to applaud it which doesn't surprise me. Children are constitutionally guaranteed the right to be free from abuse of any sort, and that includes the right not to be mutilated bodily.

The judge himself calls fgm a form of physical assault. If Minnesota or Michigan or any other state won't come out of the dark ages and fails to protect a girl from this sort of abuse specifically the federal government has already stepped in and outlawed all forms of grievous physical harm whether performed by a monstrous doctor or not.

Congress does not have the "authority" that the constitution gave them to pass a law that criminalizes fgm?
What are you smoking, Chuck? You are a bigger clown than the judge, apparently.
Look for this fool's ruling to be overturned on appeal.

What he struck down was ---- once AGAIN for the intellectually emptypocketed who couldn't read it the first 18 times ---------- the argument that the law is based on FGM being "health care". That, and the fact that the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which has nothing to do with the practice of FGM. In other words it's a badly written law. Good intentions, bad execution.

Apparently then you'd have us believe that FGM *IS* health care. Feel free to try to fly that one, Elmer. And put it right next to your admission that he just called the same thing "assault". Pretzel-makin' time. Do go on and describe to us how you would make this "appeal" argument that FGM amounts to "health care". A procedure which has absolutely zero health benefits and scores of health hazards.

Once you figure that out go look up something called the "Tenth Amendment". ******* idiot.

 

[hadit]

Not so. Number one, that won't happen even if you get your wet dream and he's convicted of something, and number two, sure I'll say I supported him right up until he is proven to deserve justice. You can support some things a person does while not supporting other things. At least conservatives are capable of such nuance.

Are all liberals incapable of nuance? Maybe it's a maturity thing.

Yeah, somehow I can't go along with GASSING ******* CHILDREN because I like a tax cut that we can't afford.

Another Von Papen Republican heard from.

You mean what Obama did regularly at the border? I mean, obviously you have to accept and excuse everything Obama did while screeching and complaining about everything Trump does, even when it's the same thing. I guess it's just your lack of nuance and all.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What he struck down was ---- once AGAIN for the intellectually emptypocketed who couldn't read it the first 18 times ---------- the argument that the law is based on FGM being "health care". That, and the fact that the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which has nothing to do with the practice of FGM. In other words it's a badly written law. Good intentions, bad execution.

You've come a long way from female genital mutilation is older than Islam therefore somehow it isn't their fault. And now, after arguing the matter dozens of times you must have finally read one of my links and now you are arguing a whole new tune presenting a whole new rational for why this judge wouldn't stop Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota from this barbaric act. And acting like a smug dick the whole time!

The prosecution took the wrong tact when arguing the matter yet I informed you long ago that the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act already makes it a crime to mutilate and injure children in this way.
Why you call me a ******* idiot is a mystery.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

By the way, if rape victims can be treated for injuries and trauma due to rape under Obama Care how would the victim of female genital mutilation not be considered a matter for health care also under Obama Care?

Just wondering why certain types of sexual trauma are considered a matter for health care but not others.

John Roberts found that Obama Care was really a tax, when not even the Obama lawyers themselves would make that argument. Judge Friedman could find a distinction between
the victims of sexual assault (a matter of healthcare) and the victims of female genital mutilation (assault)?
What an interesting ruling he made. Seems like both would be a matter of healthcare to me
and most rational people.

 

[JoeB131]

You mean what Obama did regularly at the border?

Nope. That's a lie. One incident involving adult men... you guys just can't **** helping lying.

This is what you are defending, Asshole.

stop ******* lying and stop using "But, but, but Obama" you racist asshat.

 

[hadit]

You mean what Obama did regularly at the border?

Nope. That's a lie. One incident involving adult men... you guys just can't **** helping lying.

This is what you are defending, Asshole.

View attachment 232214

stop ******* lying and stop using "But, but, but Obama" you racist asshat.

And you fell for the narrative, hook, line and sinker. Obama set the policy, what were they supposed to do, wag their fingers at the violent thugs?

And just so you know, bleating "racist" stopped being meaningful years ago. You really need to get out more.

 

[Silhouette]

Learn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his ******* JOB.

This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit Politics

As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:

>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<​

The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.

It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:

>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.

... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<​

**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".

So the judge was nudging a higher court to approach the arguments from an assault standpoint? Maybe argument re: healthcare might have been framed around assault being a form of malpractice & child abuse as defined in CAPTA?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So the judge was nudging a higher court to approach the arguments from an assault standpoint? Maybe argument re: healthcare might have been framed around assault being a form of malpractice & child abuse as defined in CAPTA?

Part of the prosecution's argument was the doctor at the middle of this all was bound by federal law because she was funded partially with federal funds, as I understand the issue.The judge says otherwise.

In a welcome development Dr. M.Zuhdi Jasser, (American Islamic Fund for Democracy) an enlightened Muslim leader, has condemned the ruling of judge Friedman and I have to agree wholeheartedly. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Founder and President of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Rebukes Judge's Dismissal of FGM Charges

Female Genital Mutilation: American Muslim Physician Says Stop Defending the Abuse of Girls and Women
As he said if the cutting of young frightened girls is not done due to medical emergency but for some twisted
religious or ideological reason then that's abuse! And the federal government has every right to intervene if the
cretins in Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan will not act out of cowardice.

Some people here are backing the inexplicable ill reasoned decision of Judge Friedman and the only reason I can see
if their ideology is as twisted, despite claiming to abhor fmg, as the judge himself and the doctors that make this all possible.

 

[Pogo]

By the way, if rape victims can be treated for injuries and trauma due to rape under Obama Care how would the victim of female genital mutilation not be considered a matter for health care also under Obama Care?

Just wondering why certain types of sexual trauma are considered a matter for health care but not others.

John Roberts found that Obama Care was really a tax, when not even the Obama lawyers themselves would make that argument. Judge Friedman could find a distinction between
the victims of sexual assault (a matter of healthcare) and the victims of female genital mutilation (assault)?
What an interesting ruling he made. Seems like both would be a matter of healthcare to me
and most rational people.

Yet another false comparison. There was no question as to whether the victim should be treated under any legislation. The law was about the practice of performing the operation. And also (again) passed under the Commerce Clause, which it has nothing to do with.

Performing an assault on a victim --- treating the victim of that assault: know the difference. Nothing in the law applies to the latter, positively or negatively. So NO --- there is no way performing FGM can be considered "health care". It has no health benefits, never did, never will.

Seems to me your spleen should be vented at whoever drew up a law that has nothing to do with interstate commerce and put it under a Commerce Clause, and ask them what the hell were they thinking.

 

[Pogo]

Learn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his ******* JOB.

This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit Politics

As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:

>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<​

The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.

It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:

>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.

... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<​

**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".

So the judge was nudging a higher court to approach the arguments from an assault standpoint? Maybe argument re: healthcare might have been framed around assault being a form of malpractice & child abuse as defined in CAPTA?

I don't think a judge has the authority to 'nudge' a law in any direction; they're just supposed to look at what's passed and rule on whether or not it's legitimate as passed. Obviously the rational conclusion would be to simply write an assault law instead of a commerce law but that has to be the legislators' job.

 

[Pogo]

In a welcome development Dr. M.Zuhdi Jasser, (American Islamic Fund for Democracy) an enlightened Muslim leader, has condemned the ruling of judge Friedman and I have to agree wholeheartedly. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Founder and President of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Rebukes Judge's Dismissal of FGM Charges

Female Genital Mutilation: American Muslim Physician Says Stop Defending the Abuse of Girls and Women

As he said if the cutting of young frightened girls is not done due to medical emergency but for some twisted religious or ideological reason then that's abuse! And the federal government has every right to intervene if the cretins in Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan will not act out of cowardice.

Did you go to Tulane?

Because that's how your posts read ---------- two lanes. Having it both ways, points going in both directions.

The evil brilliance of opening our immigration system to people that live by the dictates of an antithetical religion that clashes with our society that recognizes no official religion is that they will forever be a wedge when it comes to issues like female genital mutilation and they will elect politicians that owe allegiance to Islam rather than the nation itself.

In any case I don't see Islam ever doing much, if anything, to end the barbaric custom
so in a sense Islam is sponsoring the practice. In a very real sense.

The Imams could issue official condemnations but it doesn't seem to bother them all that much, if at all.
One of the many hells here on earth is to be born a girl into a strict Muslim family.

So it's a piddling meaningless distinction to claim Islam did not start the practice when it does nothing to stop it among it's many members.

... That's the difference between a moral and immoral religion. Just like the rape gangs that flourish in the UK, Germany, Sweden, etc. Mohammad's followers feel entitled to rape women who aren't Muslims and their religion with the fifth century mind set continues to plague the earth.

See also posts 56 and 62. Kinda fun watching you contradict yourself.
You let us know who wins. And consider that this internal contradiction would not have been necessary had you not adopted the dishonest position in the first place.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

See also posts 56 and 62. Kinda fun watching you contradict yourself.
You let us know who wins. And consider that this internal contradiction would not have been necessary had you not adopted the dishonest position in the first place.

I'm sorry. What do you do when you see something for the first time that contradicts a previously held position?
Still cling to your outdated opinions? Or change your mind as facts change?

Well I'm sure you cling to your hidebound lefty bullshit but when I see an enlightened Muslim figure condemning the practice of female genital mutilation I am only too happy to acknowledge it. Sorry to disappoint you. Stay obtuse and dim.