Multiculturalism and Sharia

[Sallow]

Another lie.....

...that is quickly becoming recognized as your default.

What part of that is wrong?

You're a Christian Theocrat.

Just admit it.

And we'll all have some pie.

Make mine a Sweeny Todd Meat Pie.

Wrapped in a little red cloth.

I'm a conservative.


BTW....the Acme Products, corp. called....they want their rocket kit back.

Well give it back to them.

Sheesh.

 

[Sallow]

What???

You felt the need to be slapped around???

Well...just a little:

The "Founders" were the left, but only if the left believed in a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.



That was easy, wasn't it?

Yep.

You are wrong.

And owe me a dollah.

Pay up.

I wondered why you carry that ratty coffee container around the subway...

I'm trying to attract little girls in red hoods.

Seems like it's working.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Note the list for sharia in post #255


You can run, but you can't hide.

Maybe you should just admit that you agreed with Jan Brewer's veto of the Arizona law.

Y'know.....I've tried valiantly not to respond to the Arizona situation....and have never posted on the issue.
It is only Liberals who love the issue, as righteous indignation is like catnip for Libs.





But, as this is your continual harping.....here is my position:

Any business open to the public must serve all of the public that comes through the door.

This is not a theocracy and therefore outside of a health violation or public nuisance, something that interferes with one's conducting business....every customer must be served.

So...a bakery must bake cakes for any...and a Muslim cabdriver must take every pedestrian....even a blind man with a dog.




Let me say, also, that I am in the minority in family debates on the issue....and that includes one lawyer on the other side of this question.



I've answered you to be done with that same question, and because it is consistent with my position vis-a-vis sharia and the Constitution.


Enough.

Harping? I asked you once. For once you graciously responded. You agree with me, or vice versa, pretty much to a T.

And I know that you didn't argue that position because it puts you at odds with the conservative consensus on this board, and you don't like to argue with your pals,

and I'd take you to task for that, but I'm guilty of the same thing on occasion. As are many here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

i get real tired of Atheists who claim Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of our country....

FYI there wasn't a stinking Atheist founder to be seen.....ALL of the founders believed in God.....even the Deists....

and you can claim all you want that the Enlightenment is the basis of the Constitution but it was only a part......counting references the founders made Christianity played a bigger part....

You didn't answer the question. What is uniquely Christian about our system of government?

Why don't you people just admit you want a Christian theocracy? You're only a stone's throw away from it with what you're already willing to admit.

instead of the Christianity being part of the Consitution......you could say the Constitution is part of Christianity.....

Christians are full of tolerance.......but when you try to force acceptance that is another matter entirely....

Then why are two of conservative Christians' most prominent issues those of trying to amend the Constitution to outlaw all abortion, and trying to amend the Constitution to restrict marriage to one man one woman?

Why were Christian conservatives as much as anyone else at the forefront of the campaign against the so-called grouind zero mosque?

Why do Christian conservatives want abstinence ONLY programs taught in school?

In fact, what is so tolerant, as you claim, about Christianity? Perhaps I'm wrong in this regard...

...maybe the conservative Christians of the sort I referenced above are simply perverting the religion in the manner you said the believers in divine right were.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Besides, it wasn't a Christian Belief - it was cynical Secular Spin-Doctoring on Christian texts in order to conjure-up a juicy rationalization that the ignorant peasantry and burghers could not argue-down, to prop-up various kings and other nobility...

Something that 'we' (The West) concluded was 'bullshit' some decades and centuries ago, and decided to leave behind...

.

So we can safely say that just because something has historical prominence as a Christian belief there is no reason that in a later time and place, society, or a nation, or a government, can reject that belief as 'bullshit',

and do so in good conscience in the context of how conscience relates to one's standing in the faith as a good Christian...

...same sex marriage, for example.

Put concisely, no Christian should allow others to convince him he is less Christian if he doesn't embrace either the divine right of kings,

or the divine limitation of marriage to one man one woman.

 

[Unkotare]

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'

Oh Christ, someone who never even read the bill.

So, you won't answer, or you can't?

 

[Unkotare]

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'

Bill Text: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2nd Regular | Introduced | LegiScan

Imbecile.

Got a link to the text of the actual bill, genius?

 

[Kondor3]

Nicely done, Political Chic.

Such verbiage does not prove conclusively that the United States is a Christian nation, of course...

But it DOES prove that the cultural and spiritual and philosophical and moral framework of both the Founding Fathers and our nations' Charter documents were part and parcel of latter-day Secularized Christendom and a continuance and extension of the principles of the domain of Christianity...

Close enough for government work...

Take an extra chocolate chip cookie from the cooling tray for that one...

Delicious!

So....you bake?...

Not so's you'd notice, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating goodies fresh from the oven.

 

[Unkotare]

Why don't you people just admit you want a Christian theocracy?

Why don't you pretend to be a grown-up and respond to what people are really saying instead of begging them to say what you want to reply to?

 

[Kondor3]

[

Besides, it wasn't a Christian Belief - it was cynical Secular Spin-Doctoring on Christian texts in order to conjure-up a juicy rationalization that the ignorant peasantry and burghers could not argue-down, to prop-up various kings and other nobility...

Something that 'we' (The West) concluded was 'bullshit' some decades and centuries ago, and decided to leave behind...

.

So we can safely say that just because something has historical prominence as a Christian belief there is no reason that in a later time and place, society, or a nation, or a government, can reject that belief as 'bullshit',

and do so in good conscience in the context of how conscience relates to one's standing in the faith as a good Christian...

...same sex marriage, for example.

Put concisely, no Christian should allow others to convince him he is less Christian if he doesn't embrace either the divine right of kings,

or the divine limitation of marriage to one man one woman.

Horseshit.

You make a blogging career out of trying to put words into peoples' mouths, don't you?

Go find somebody dumb enough to fall for that crap and to sit still for it.

No sale, Mac.

The topic is Shariah Law as an import into The West.

 

[Unkotare]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Why-Should-Call-Ourselves-Christians/dp/1594035644/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395203434&sr=1-1&keywords=why+we+should+call+ourselves+christians]Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies: Marcello Pera: 9781594035647: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[American_Jihad]

Multiculturalism: What Happened to Responsibility?

by Christine Williams
March 14, 2014

Far too many interfaith cultural dialogue sessions have focused on the appeasement of immigrant groups while ignoring human rights abuses from their foreign countries of origin; abuses which many immigrants have accepted as the norm and often seek to protect in an effort to sustain the dignity of their group identity.

"This loathsome term [Islamophobia] is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché, conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics." — Abdur-Rahan Muhammed, former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought.

The real answer lies in the recognition that multiculturalism to promote equality was enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights ... it has provided a sound definition of values, which Western nations need to be unapologetic in advancing.

Multiculturalism is engrained in the Canadian constitution—as well as in the constitutions of many European nations. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act states that all are equal under the law regardless of their race, national or ethnic origin, color, or religion. Canada was the first country in the world to legislate national multiculturalism. Under this policy, all citizens "can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging." Citizens also "have the freedom to preserve, enhance, and share their cultural heritage," and "full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in all aspects of Canadian society" is promoted. Diversity in Canada is deemed a national asset, and although its constitution allows all citizens equal rights and freedoms, it also requires "equal responsibilities," a factor that has been overlooked.


According to Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen:

Even Pierre Trudeau, the key architect of multiculturalism, regretted how multiculturalism had been warped to emphasize an immigrant's identification with his country or culture of origin rather than his assimilation of a Canadian identity. At a private luncheon with MPs in the mid-1990s, Trudeau was asked whether multiculturalism had developed the way he hoped. He replied: "No, this is not what I wanted."

Given the neglect of the responsibilities component, multiculturalism in Canada (and elsewhere) is open to exploitation by special interest groups that threaten the country's national identity and democratic heritage, in addition to homeland security. In Canada, this oversight also bears implications for its neighbor, the United States. Canada was forced to shut down the Iranian embassy in Ottawa after it was discovered to have been mobilizing Iranian immigrants to infiltrate the Canadian government, and spreading messages of propaganda and hate through "cultural programs", under the directorship of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

...

It is now necessary to rescue Canada's identity from "withering away" and to resuscitate other Western countries from the foreign infiltrations that have usurped the common values that made these countries great and attractive to immigrants in the first place. Multiculturalism will not disappear, nor will immigration from societies with values inconsistent with Western democracies. As the West faces a continued influx of immigration, it is imperative that we do not limit ourselves to mere criticisms of multiculturalism. Instead, policies need to be established and implemented -- at every level of society -- that would facilitate in a practical way a multiculturalism that includes, under law, responsibility as a central focus -- and on the same level of importance -- as equal rights and freedoms.

Multiculturalism: What Happened to Responsibility?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Based on this thread, I believe that one can see that the openness of our society, the desire to make newcomers feel accepted, plus the less than careful attention to the best interests of our nation by our politicians, may lead to disastrous results.

It may have begun.
And multiculturalism is the first step.




My final panel for this thread is a warning from the folks in Virginia who found suspected Islamists entering the political realm.


20. "Our cautionary message to the Virginia GOP Establishment:
If we still have dispassionate historians 20 or 30 years from now, we don’t want them to be able to equate fearful blindness on the part of the GOP toward Political Islam and the Muslim Mafia with the blindness of some (but not all) prominent Democrats in the 1940s and 1950s to Communist infiltration into our government and institutions."
BlueRidgeForum » David Ramadan: Are Virginia GOP Eyes ?Wide Shut??



An interesting comparison, eh?
Communists, Soviet agents, were able to move into the command positions at the very highest levels in Franklin Roosevelt;s administration.




Why should we expect today's government officials to be any more stringent in attending to what is best for America?

 

[Spoonman]

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

The "Founders" were the left.

What???

You felt the need to be slapped around???

Well...just a little:

The "Founders" were the left, but only if the left believed in a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.



That was easy, wasn't it?

that left also believed religion should not be controled by government and free excercise there of should not be impeded. they believed in total free speech. the believed in the rights of citizens to own guns uninfringed. if that is the left what the hell is wrong with the left of today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

i get real tired of Atheists who claim Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of our country....

FYI there wasn't a stinking Atheist founder to be seen.....ALL of the founders believed in God.....even the Deists....

and you can claim all you want that the Enlightenment is the basis of the Constitution but it was only a part......counting references the founders made Christianity played a bigger part....

You didn't answer the question. What is uniquely Christian about our system of government?

Why don't you people just admit you want a Christian theocracy? You're only a stone's throw away from it with what you're already willing to admit.

Judeo-Christian.

The basis of the nation is from the above doctrines.
It would take an uneducated dolt not to know that.


Raise your paw.


But no one is calling for a theocracy.

When state governments are proposing laws that would allow someone to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification to commit acts of discrimination that are otherwise prohibited by the secular law of the land,

they are calling for theocracy at least in that area of the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Besides, it wasn't a Christian Belief - it was cynical Secular Spin-Doctoring on Christian texts in order to conjure-up a juicy rationalization that the ignorant peasantry and burghers could not argue-down, to prop-up various kings and other nobility...

Something that 'we' (The West) concluded was 'bullshit' some decades and centuries ago, and decided to leave behind...

.

So we can safely say that just because something has historical prominence as a Christian belief there is no reason that in a later time and place, society, or a nation, or a government, can reject that belief as 'bullshit',

and do so in good conscience in the context of how conscience relates to one's standing in the faith as a good Christian...

...same sex marriage, for example.

Put concisely, no Christian should allow others to convince him he is less Christian if he doesn't embrace either the divine right of kings,

or the divine limitation of marriage to one man one woman.

Horseshit.

You make a blogging career out of trying to put words into peoples' mouths, don't you?

Go find somebody dumb enough to fall for that crap and to sit still for it.

No sale, Mac.

The topic is Shariah Law as an import into The West.

Now you're denying you said this?

"Besides, it [divine right] wasn't a Christian Belief - it was cynical Secular Spin-Doctoring on Christian texts in order to conjure-up a juicy rationalization that the ignorant peasantry and burghers could not argue-down, to prop-up various kings and other nobility..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

You didn't answer the question. What is uniquely Christian about our system of government?

Why don't you people just admit you want a Christian theocracy? You're only a stone's throw away from it with what you're already willing to admit.

Judeo-Christian.

The basis of the nation is from the above doctrines.
It would take an uneducated dolt not to know that.


Raise your paw.


But no one is calling for a theocracy.

When state governments are proposing laws that would allow someone to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification to commit acts of discrimination that are otherwise prohibited by the secular law of the land,

they are calling for theocracy at least in that area of the law.

Anything may be proposed.

But there is no such law, is there.




Let's compare that to this by a Liberal icon....

"US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers"
RIT professor demands jail for climate change deniers | The Daily Caller

Hard to see the difference between Liberals and the garden variety fascist.




So....in the scheme of things, which is worse....not having a cake baked as per your request...or being imprisoned for a dissenting view?



I have no doubt that you'll be afraid to answer that.





Imagine if Professor Lawrence Torcello demanded that Obama be imprisoned for his false claims of the Stimulus boondoggle would cure the recession.

".... the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html


In that case, the guy might have something there......

 

[NYcarbineer]

Judeo-Christian.

The basis of the nation is from the above doctrines.
It would take an uneducated dolt not to know that.


Raise your paw.


But no one is calling for a theocracy.

When state governments are proposing laws that would allow someone to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification to commit acts of discrimination that are otherwise prohibited by the secular law of the land,

they are calling for theocracy at least in that area of the law.

Anything may be proposed.

But there is no such law, is there.





..

So where has Sharia law been passed in this country?

 

[Unkotare]

You didn't answer the question. What is uniquely Christian about our system of government?

Why don't you people just admit you want a Christian theocracy? You're only a stone's throw away from it with what you're already willing to admit.

Judeo-Christian.

The basis of the nation is from the above doctrines.
It would take an uneducated dolt not to know that.


Raise your paw.


But no one is calling for a theocracy.

When state governments are proposing laws that would allow someone to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification to commit acts of discrimination that are otherwise prohibited by the secular law of the land.

That's not happening.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When state governments are proposing laws that would allow someone to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification to commit acts of discrimination that are otherwise prohibited by the secular law of the land,

they are calling for theocracy at least in that area of the law.

Anything may be proposed.

But there is no such law, is there.





..

So where has Sharia law been passed in this country?

Your education is about to proceed.....get ready to take notes.

Sharia.....Both de facto and de jure....





1. Special accommodations at taxpayer funded universities.



2. " During the jury selection process, some attorneys have excluded potential jurors based on their religious affiliation and characteristics, often when the trial will involve religion. .... In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (who was accused of playing a role in the September 11 terrorist attacks) federal prosecutors surveyed potential jurors about their religious affiliation (e.g., Jewish, Muslim) and characteristics (e.g., strength of beliefs, frequency of attendance at worship services, and knowledge about Islamic beliefs) (Markon, 2005; McNulty, 2005). A lawyer in California is said to have removed Jewish jurors based on his belief that they would be less likely to give the death penalty (Associated Press, 2005)." http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2008/07/how-attorneys-can-use-religion-to-be-more-effective-at-trial/

a. " Attorney wants to exclude Jews from Abdel Hameed Shehadeh’s upcoming terror trial" Attorney wants to exclude Jews from Abdel Hameed Shehadeh?s upcoming terror trial | New York Post






3. " WASHINGTON—Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, 62, a U.S. citizen and resident of Fairfax, Va., pleaded guilty today to conspiracy and tax violations in connection with a decades-long scheme to conceal the transfer of at least $3.5 million from the government of Pakistan to fund his lobbying efforts in America related to Kashmir." FBI ? Virginia Man Pleads Guilty in Scheme to Conceal Pakistan Government Funding for His U.S. Lobbying Efforts





4. "This month, AIG announced that it would offer Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance policies, known as takaful, to U.S. customers through one of its subsidiaries. To be Shariah compliant, companies cannot earn interest and must agree to send a percentage of their revenue to Islamic charitable groups..... by subsidizing AIG, the federal government is conveying "...a message of endorsement and promotion of Shariah-based Islam ... and [a] message of disfavor of and hostility toward Christianity and Judaism." In September, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve took a nearly 80-percent stake in AIG when it injected $150 billion to help prop up the troubled company." AIG Bailout Promotes Shariah Law, Lawsuit Claims | Fox News


a. In the letter to AIG, the Representative made these points:
".... under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries:
• A woman cannot leave the house without her husband’s permission.
• Men can beat their “insubordinate” wives.
• Women who are convicted of adultery are punished by death by stoning.
• Apostasy from Islam is punished by death without trial.
• Non-Muslims under Shariah law are second-class citizens.
• Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed.
• Slavery is permitted and deemed legitimate.
“It is disheartening to think that your products are helping Shariah to gain a foothold in the United States,” the Republican members of Congress wrote. U.S. lawmakers scold AIG over Shariah finance