Women's rights - Shariah law

[jimnyc]

One link led to another then to another and I found this article. Apparently, the co-chairwoman (Linda Sarsour) of the "Day without a Woman" protest - is also FOR Shariah law - and most of us know how that works out for women. She's of course a self described activist. Now, I can see someone getting away from such environments, and then being an activist against, but not the other way around.

---

Ayaan Hirsi Blasts Linda Sarsour: ‘She is a Defender of Sharia Law, Fake Feminist’

Ex-Muslim, Ayann Hirsi appeared on Fox News to speak out against Sharia law and expose the suffering women experience under Islam. She took a shot at Linda Sarsour who is a pro-Sharia law Muslim and now apparently the face of the feminist movement in the U.S.


Ayaan Hirsi: “…Slavery by ISIS. These are the times we live in with these fake feminists who say they speak for Muslim women, they have never said anything about this.

Linda Sarsour is not a defender of universal human rights. She is a defender of Sharia law. She hates me because I expose what Sharia law is.

We have threats, real threats against women. A real war on women. Our genitals are being cut. 140 million women have been subjected to genital mutilation, child brides, mass rape in Europe. This is the kind of thing we need to be marching against.”

Ayaan Hirsi is absolutely correct. Why don’t feminists ever listen to her? She has first hand experience being abused under Islam.

Linda Sarsour is not for women’s rights. She wants to see every woman under Sharia law, in a Hijab and in a state of subjugation.

Pictured below, pro-Sharia law Linda Sarsour leading a ‘women’s march’. You just can’t make this stuff up!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/ayaan-hirsi-blasts-linda-sarsour-defender-sharia-law-fake-feminist-video/

[sear]

We will for the first time be able to consider women as having equal social status as men in Islam when men are required to wear burkas in public.

[Drummond]

We will for the first time be able to consider women as having equal social status as men in Islam when men are required to wear burkas in public.

- Bizarre.

This, surely, is a serious subject. Do you have a point to make of any worth, in answer to the thread's subject ?

It doesn't amount to fighting for equal rights ... when those 'rights' amount to a repression of them. Islam sees to it that women are always second class citizens in whatever society Sharia Law IS the law.

[Black Diamond]

We will for the first time be able to consider women as having equal social status as men in Islam when men are required to wear burkas in public.
Maybe George Soros can spend some of his billions to make such an event possible. :rolleyes: Muslims don't like cross dressers or trannies.

[aboutime]

WE THE PEOPLE must work hard to INSIST....SHARIA LAW does not exist, and does not apply in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Only the CONSTITUTION applies.

[sear]

"- Bizarre.
This, surely, is a serious subject." D #3
Thus my insightful satirical reply.

"Do you have a point to make of any worth, in answer to the thread's subject ?" D #3
Did, and have already posted it.

But for those to whom my sharp satirical point was obscure, I'll spell it out.

Any society that compels its women when seen in public to wear a sleeveless sack, and have a male chaperone, but does not impose corresponding limitations on men, discriminates against women.

And as our own Jim Crow experience confirmed, social equality is preceded by equality under law.

[aboutime]

Thus my insightful satirical reply.

Did, and have already posted it.

But for those to whom my sharp satirical point was obscure, I'll spell it out.

Any society that compels its women when seen in public to wear a sleeveless sack, and have a male chaperone, but does not impose corresponding limitations on men, discriminates against women.

And as our own Jim Crow experience confirmed, social equality is preceded by equality under law.


So, you sidestepped actually leaving your opinion here, as to whether Sharia law applies in the USA, rather than the Constitution??

Poor you. And speaking of Jim Crow in this case is STUPID, and IRRELEVANT.

Explain how Sharia law is anywhere close to:

Jim Crow laws, in U.S. history, statutes enacted by Southern states and municipalities, beginning in the 1880s, that legalized segregation between blacks and whites. The name is believed to be derived from a character in a popular minstrel song.

[sear]

"So, you sidestepped"

I thought it far too obvious to mention.

"whether Sharia law applies in the USA"

Absolutely !
In fact, our First Amendment guarantees it, to anyone that wishes to follow it, provided so doing does not infringe or usurp the right of anyone else.
In that regard is has legal protection comparable to that of Kosher law, and similar religious standards.

"rather than the Constitution??"

I hope you already know the answer to that question, and are merely probing me out of curiosity.

But any Constitutional scholar would simply point you to the supremacy clause, Art.6 sect.2 of the United States Constitution for the answer to that question.


ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



at then inquires:

"Poor you. And speaking of Jim Crow in this case is STUPID, and IRRELEVANT.

Explain how Sharia law is anywhere close to:

Jim Crow laws, in U.S. history, statutes enacted by Southern states and municipalities, beginning in the 1880s, that legalized segregation between blacks and whites. The name is believed to be derived from a character in a popular minstrel song."

Equality under law, as I've already explained.

You can't see a connection between denying a dark-skinned American access to public accommodation including a water fountain, a Woolworth's lunch counter, etc.
and compelling a woman to wear a sack, denying her the right to obtain a driver's license, etc.?

[KarlMarx]

One link led to another then to another and I found this article. Apparently, the co-chairwoman (Linda Sarsour) of the "Day without a Woman" protest - is also FOR Shariah law - and most of us know how that works out for women. She's of course a self described activist. Now, I can see someone getting away from such environments, and then being an activist against, but not the other way around.

---

Ayaan Hirsi Blasts Linda Sarsour: ‘She is a Defender of Sharia Law, Fake Feminist’

Ex-Muslim, Ayann Hirsi appeared on Fox News to speak out against Sharia law and expose the suffering women experience under Islam. She took a shot at Linda Sarsour who is a pro-Sharia law Muslim and now apparently the face of the feminist movement in the U.S.



Ayaan Hirsi is absolutely correct. Why don’t feminists ever listen to her? She has first hand experience being abused under Islam.

Linda Sarsour is not for women’s rights. She wants to see every woman under Sharia law, in a Hijab and in a state of subjugation.

Pictured below, pro-Sharia law Linda Sarsour leading a ‘women’s march’. You just can’t make this stuff up!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/ayaan-hirsi-blasts-linda-sarsour-defender-sharia-law-fake-feminist-video/

Let me make one thing clear... FEMINISTS ARE NOT FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS... THEY ARE FOR THE "RIGHTS" OF OTHER FEMINISTS.

Feminism is nothing more than Marxism with a dress... period. Feminism is about hatred, hatred of men, all men. All the feminists I have had the misfortune to know are horrible, nasty people who feed on being perpetually angry for real and, mostly imagined, slights and completely contrived oppression. They are not above lying, cheating, and God knows what else in order to advance their agenda.

Most women who think that they are feminists are not... because they are decent people who are interested in advancing the dignity of mankind.... actual feminists are more suited to running a death camp... and in my opinion, have no redeeming qualities as human beings....

[sear]

"All the feminists I have had the misfortune to know are horrible, nasty people" KM #9

I met & knew Betty Friedan.
I confess, Yassir Arafat reminds me of her.

But apart from her gravelly voice she seemed OK to me. I gather she ruffled feathers with her book The Feminine Mystique.

Let's not lose sight of a fundamental reality.

Champions of causes are often disliked by some, whether for their principle, for their vehemence, or some other social grace not promoted in charm school.

[aboutime]

Let's finish this right here, right now. You came back to defend Sharia law as somehow sanctioned, granted, and legalized by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The key word being "DEFEND", attempting to convince me, and others that a Treaty (which is authorized by the President)
AT NO TIME will, or should SHARIA law replace, or be used instead of the U.S.Constitution.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

[KarlMarx]

"So, you sidestepped"

I thought it far too obvious to mention.

"whether Sharia law applies in the USA"

Absolutely !
In fact, our First Amendment guarantees it, to anyone that wishes to follow it, provided so doing does not infringe or usurp the right of anyone else.
In that regard is has legal protection comparable to that of Kosher law, and similar religious standards.

"rather than the Constitution??"

I hope you already know the answer to that question, and are merely probing me out of curiosity.

But any Constitutional scholar would simply point you to the supremacy clause, Art.6 sect.2 of the United States Constitution for the answer to that question.


ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



at then inquires:

"Poor you. And speaking of Jim Crow in this case is STUPID, and IRRELEVANT.

Explain how Sharia law is anywhere close to:

Jim Crow laws, in U.S. history, statutes enacted by Southern states and municipalities, beginning in the 1880s, that legalized segregation between blacks and whites. The name is believed to be derived from a character in a popular minstrel song."

Equality under law, as I've already explained.

You can't see a connection between denying a dark-skinned American access to public accommodation including a water fountain, a Woolworth's lunch counter, etc.
and compelling a woman to wear a sack, denying her the right to obtain a driver's license, etc.?

Sharia law is, in many ways, violates the Constitution of the United States. Comparing Sharia to Kosher is like comparing apples to oranges. Kosher laws in the Bible have to do with what you can and cannot eat and how food is prepared. Sharia Law criminalizes things that the Constitution grants as rights... for instance, the right of women to vote (19th Amendment). The First Amendment prohibits any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. I think that Sharia law does that, Islam is the law of the land and the punishment for apostasy under Sharia is death.

Since women would be not be equally protected as men under Sharia Law, that is in effect a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Criminal cases must be decided in courts that are set up by the government per the constitution. Everyone has a right of Habeus Corpus and to a jury trial by your peers... don't think the Sharia Law guarantees that.

Oh... and then there's that pesky 8th amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.... like cutting off a hand for theft or woman's nose for adultery in Sharia Law.

No law is above Federal Law, sorry, that is part of the Constitution too per the Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2)....


And just how Sharia law guarantees a woman's right to an abortion which the Supreme Court guarantees (although many of us disagree with it, we don't burn women at the stake for having one)

So, just HOW is Sharia Law constitutional?

[sear]

"Let's finish this right here, right now. You came back to defend Sharia law as somehow sanctioned, granted, and legalized by the Constitution of the United States of America." at #11

It's not clear to me to whom this comment is addressed.
But if it's intended for me:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #1: Ratified December 15, 1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

If you have any information that Sharia Law is exempt from the protection of this clause, please let us know.
Until then, I believe we can continue to believe the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, remains "the supreme Law of the Land".

"Comparing Sharia to Kosher is like comparing apples to oranges." KM #12

Apples & oranges can both be stored in the refrigerator.

As vividly different as Sharia and Kosher are from one another RELIGIOUSLY, they are still both protected by exactly the same law, Art.#1 quoted above.

"Sharia Law criminalizes things that the Constitution grants as rights... for instance, the right of women to vote (19th Amendment)."

Right.
That's why I explicitly made two points bearing DIRECTLY on that.

a) "... provided so doing does not infringe or usurp the right of anyone else." sear [that addresses your voting example]

b) the supremacy clause. Obviously our Constitution would not be supreme, if Sharia law trumped it. It doesn't.

[aboutime]

"Let's finish this right here, right now. You came back to defend Sharia law as somehow sanctioned, granted, and legalized by the Constitution of the United States of America." at #11

It's not clear to me to whom this comment is addressed.
But if it's intended for me:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #1: Ratified December 15, 1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

If you have any information that Sharia Law is exempt from the protection of this clause, please let us know.
Until then, I believe we can continue to believe the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, remains "the supreme Law of the Land".

"Comparing Sharia to Kosher is like comparing apples to oranges." KM #12

Apples & oranges can both be stored in the refrigerator.

As vividly different as Sharia and Kosher are from one another RELIGIOUSLY, they are still both protected by exactly the same law, Art.#1 quoted above.

"Sharia Law criminalizes things that the Constitution grants as rights... for instance, the right of women to vote (19th Amendment)."

Right.
That's why I explicitly made two points bearing DIRECTLY on that.

a) "... provided so doing does not infringe or usurp the right of anyone else." sear [that addresses your voting example]

b) the supremacy clause. Obviously our Constitution would not be supreme, if Sharia law trumped it. It doesn't.

You really need to read the constitution....for the FIRST TIME. Coming here, and declaring the constitution...1st amendment, gives SHARIA law precedence over the U.S. Constitution is...on it's face...Loony as hell. The first amendment, as stated, does not have anything to do with FOREIGNERS coming here to practice THEIR LAWS from their home nation. Truth is. NON CITIZENS, or people from around the world who come here to become citizens...RAISE THEIR HANDS, AND SWEAR TO OBEY the constitution. And they also promise to FOLLOW U.S. Laws. There is no exemption to follow OTHER laws, like Sharia.
So, when you challenge me, or anyone else here. You owe it to yourself to assure you aren't speaking from your ASS.

[sear]

"Coming here, and declaring the constitution...1st amendment, gives SHARIA law precedence over the U.S. Constitution is...on it's face...Loony" at

We are in absolute 100% accord on that.
ANYone that would ever make such a silly suggestion should be laughed out of the thread, and perhaps the forum.

But I have repeatedly asserted PRECISELY the opposite, initially in post #8,
and then reinforced it (for emphasis) in post #13.

"The first amendment, as stated, does not have anything to do with FOREIGNERS coming here to practice THEIR LAWS from their home nation. Truth is."

Whatever you say.
Our first article of amendment in our Bill of Rights protects such enumerated rights as the rights of free speech, and freedom of religion.

I have NEVER said Sharia trumps the Constitution.

PRECISELY the opposite. I couldn't have been more explicit about it than in post #8, where I quoted the supremacy clause.

"NON CITIZENS, or people from around the world who come here to become citizens...RAISE THEIR HANDS, AND SWEAR TO OBEY the constitution. And they also promise to FOLLOW U.S. Laws. There is no exemption to follow OTHER laws, like Sharia.
So, when you challenge me, or anyone else here. You owe it to yourself to assure you aren't speaking ..." at #14

Right.
Be sure and let us know as soon as that begins. OK?

Meanwhile, it's not clear to me why you're stating facts I've known for most of my 62 years, and pretending you're educating me. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG ABOUT MY POSITION.

And you are persuasively refuting an argument I have never made.

So at, is English your 2nd language? Is there some other linguistic deficiency I should accommodate in my future posts in this forum?

Re-read post #8 in this thread.
You can see I have not edited it.
And you can see I have NEVER implied or asserted Sharia trumps the supremacy clause.

[aboutime]

"Coming here, and declaring the constitution...1st amendment, gives SHARIA law precedence over the U.S. Constitution is...on it's face...Loony" at

We are in absolute 100% accord on that.
ANYone that would ever make such a silly suggestion should be laughed out of the thread, and perhaps the forum.

But I have repeatedly asserted PRECISELY the opposite, initially in post #8,
and then reinforced it (for emphasis) in post #13.

"The first amendment, as stated, does not have anything to do with FOREIGNERS coming here to practice THEIR LAWS from their home nation. Truth is."

Whatever you say.
Our first article of amendment in our Bill of Rights protects such enumerated rights as the rights of free speech, and freedom of religion.

I have NEVER said Sharia trumps the Constitution.

PRECISELY the opposite. I couldn't have been more explicit about it than in post #8, where I quoted the supremacy clause.

"NON CITIZENS, or people from around the world who come here to become citizens...RAISE THEIR HANDS, AND SWEAR TO OBEY the constitution. And they also promise to FOLLOW U.S. Laws. There is no exemption to follow OTHER laws, like Sharia.
So, when you challenge me, or anyone else here. You owe it to yourself to assure you aren't speaking ..." at #14

Right.
Be sure and let us know as soon as that begins. OK?

Meanwhile, it's not clear to me why you're stating facts I've known for most of my 62 years, and pretending you're educating me. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG ABOUT MY POSITION.

And you are persuasively refuting an argument I have never made.

So at, is English your 2nd language? Is there some other linguistic deficiency I should accommodate in my future posts in this forum?

Re-read post #8 in this thread.
You can see I have not edited it.
And you can see I have NEVER implied or asserted Sharia trumps the supremacy clause.



Since it is obvious to most of us here, that you have no intention of admitting you might be totally wrong about the 1ST Amendment, and to whom it applies.

I will simply leave you to your ignorance, and I will remember this image, whenever I see your name here on DP.
FOND MEMORIES OF YOU...and YOUR ENDLESS ARROGANCE.
http://icansayit.com/images/troll.jpg

[sear]

Thanks at.

I appreciate your magnanimity.

For the rest of you:

The formula for refutation and correction is extremely simple and unambiguous.

#1)
Quote the contested assertion verbatim.

#2)
Explain why it is in error.

#3)
Provide a correction, with explanation if necessary.

We all know at won't do that here, because I never said Sharia trumps the Constitution. I was extremely careful to avoid even the appearance of making any such absurd assertion.

[sear]

PS

Monday evening NBC-TV News ran a segment on an equal Pay & equal rights for women issue.

The US Women's hockey team, one of the most successful teams for the U.S. at the Olympics want pay parity with men hockey players.

The women are threatening to walk away from the world championship unless they're compensated like the men.

source: NBC-TV News 17/03/27

88888888888888888888 OK. So much for the news report 888888888888888888888888888

If it were a competition among typists with equal output, might the women have a fair case? If women could type as many words per minute as a man, why not pay parity there?

BUT !!

While some may consider these men & women hockey players athletes, are they not also in a substantial sense entertainers?

Well?

Movie actors are entertainers too.
But not all actors are paid as well as the Oscar winners, the huge box office draws like Bradley Cooper, or Scarlet Johansen.

So what's the right thing to do in this case?

Reagan busted up PATCO.

Should the women's boycott be allowed to go unanswered; leaving them to disenfranchise themselves?

Or should the compensation packages for these men & women that represent the U.S.A. be regularized, made uniform?

Or might there be a third way? That both men & women in this sport / league be compensated in proportion to their audience draw, or their medal performance, or some other quantifiable standard?

[Drummond]

Thus my insightful satirical reply.

Did, and have already posted it.

But for those to whom my sharp satirical point was obscure, I'll spell it out.

Any society that compels its women when seen in public to wear a sleeveless sack, and have a male chaperone, but does not impose corresponding limitations on men, discriminates against women.

And as our own Jim Crow experience confirmed, social equality is preceded by equality under law.

Translation: it was somehow 'necessary' to find a 'clever' way to state the bleedin' obvious ... !! ....

... yes ??

Sorry -- some of us are way ahead of you. OF COURSE Islam discriminates against women. Those who still practice it subscribe to its seventh century, so-called 'values'. It's a 'religion' that takes its people back to a darker, more primitive and less humane time.

The whole creed is retrogressive (and that's putting it diplomatically). Jihads are pretty much as popular today as they were back then.

So, perhaps you could enlighten us on a point, Sear. Kindly explain to me why the Left does its utmost to preach TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE of their creed !!!

[aboutime]

PS

Monday evening NBC-TV News ran a segment on an equal Pay & equal rights for women issue.

The US Women's hockey team, one of the most successful teams for the U.S. at the Olympics want pay parity with men hockey players.

The women are threatening to walk away from the world championship unless they're compensated like the men.

source: NBC-TV News 17/03/27

88888888888888888888 OK. So much for the news report 888888888888888888888888888

If it were a competition among typists with equal output, might the women have a fair case? If women could type as many words per minute as a man, why not pay parity there?

BUT !!

While some may consider these men & women hockey players athletes, are they not also in a substantial sense entertainers?

Well?

Movie actors are entertainers too.
But not all actors are paid as well as the Oscar winners, the huge box office draws like Bradley Cooper, or Scarlet Johansen.

So what's the right thing to do in this case?

Reagan busted up PATCO.

Should the women's boycott be allowed to go unanswered; leaving them to disenfranchise themselves?

Or should the compensation packages for these men & women that represent the U.S.A. be regularized, made uniform?

Or might there be a third way? That both men & women in this sport / league be compensated in proportion to their audience draw, or their medal performance, or some other quantifiable standard?


You should just come out here, and tell all of our female members how you also support FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. Which, in your view, would be EQUAL to what some MALES get shortly after birth. Now that would be LIBERAL EQUALITY.

[sear]

"Sorry -- some of us are way ahead of you." D

Most I would say. We learn from our betters, my main reason for benefiting so much from posting at a site with so much talent. My continuing sincere thanks to those that contribute to the effort.

"OF COURSE Islam discriminates against women." D

Thank god it's the only religion that does!

"Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you so much for trying to educate people regarding god's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:12 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
But I need some advice from you, regarding some of the other specific laws and how best to follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the lord (Leviticus 1:9), the problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as suggested by Exodus 21:7. What do you think a fair price would be? I know I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 19:24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking. But some women take offense. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I obliged morally to kill him myself, or may I hire a hit-man?
I know you have studied these things extensively, and so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that god's word is eternal, & unchanging."

"Those who still practice it subscribe to its seventh century, so-called 'values'." D

In Islam, there are radicals and moderates alike, just as there are in Catholicism, and the GOP, etc.

"Kindly explain to me why the Left does its utmost to preach TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE of their creed !!!" D

Multiple reasons of course, but in significant part due to their lefty leaders, including President Bush (younger).
That President Bush was very quick to publicly announce that he was not waging War against Islam.

at #20

Thank you for so heroically championing this noble cause.
You have done so with but one error:

" you also support FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. " at

a) No.

b) I've never made any such assertion, either by implication, or specification.

c) My position is, I'm stridently opposed to any involuntary genital mutilation, regardless of gender or motive.

I'd be amused if you'd quote my posted words to justify what you seem to believe legitimates your bizarre accusation.
But I know you won't, because I know you can't, because I know I didn't, because I don't, and never have.

And thank you for being such an articulate spokesperson for "LIBERAL EQUALITY". Your leadership in that role is to this point universally unchallenged here.

[Drummond]

"Sorry -- some of us are way ahead of you." D

Most I would say. We learn from our betters, my main reason for benefiting so much from posting at a site with so much talent. My continuing sincere thanks to those that contribute to the effort.

Oh, good. Then, we'll make a Conservative out of you yet !!


"OF COURSE Islam discriminates against women." D

Thank god it's the only religion that does!

Yours misses the point, I think. Islam demands total adherence to its creed. It is intolerant of those who depart from it to any great degree, or, those who go too far in opposing it. Ever heard of 'Fatwas', for example ? Ever heard of death threats made against those who dare to print disparaging cartoons against the Prophet Mohammed, or burn a Koran ? Ever heard of honor killings ?

These are intolerances and sheer barbarisms which have NOT become the hallmark of present-day Christian, or Buddhist (etc etc) religions. Such people have progressed, move on. Islamists have NOT however ... these things still happen, and this is because of the nature and repressive diktat that Islam specializes in.

Which brings me, to ...


"Kindly explain to me why the Left does its utmost to preach TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE of their creed !!!" D

Multiple reasons of course, but in significant part due to their lefty leaders, including President Bush (younger).
That President Bush was very quick to publicly announce that he was not waging War against Islam.

So, do you yet have an answer for me ?? 'Multiple reasons', you say ... but you don't specify what they are, or defend any of it. Trying to make a case for 'Bush 43' following political correctness, says precisely nothing for why the Left has created such a climate in the first place. Because here's the point .. it is THE LEFT who've been cheerleaders for all of this tolerance and 'required' acceptance, and still continue to be.

I'm still waiting for you to explain WHY they're so much on board when it comes to pushing the tolerance and acceptance line. When what they want tolerated and accepted does not, ITSELF, show any such tolerance and acceptance of others !!!!

[sear]

"I think. Islam demands total adherence to its creed. It is intolerant of those who depart from it to any great degree, or, those who go too far in opposing it." D #22

a) In the Holy Bible they're called "the ten commandments", not -the 10 suggestions-.

b) The Dr. Laura quotation in #21 should make the point that Islam isn't the outlayer in that regard.

c) It may seem to you that some in Islam do. They may.
But as I asserted in post #21, there are extremists in other organizations too.

But D, the radicals are the ones that make the newspaper. They're the exception.
It is a fundamental blunder to characterize a whole population based upon characteristics of the exceptions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"Sorry -- some of us are way ahead of you." D

Most I would say. We learn from our betters, my main reason for benefiting so much from posting at a site with so much talent. My continuing sincere thanks to those that contribute to the effort.

"OF COURSE Islam discriminates against women." D

Thank god it's the only religion that does!


"Those who still practice it subscribe to its seventh century, so-called 'values'." D

In Islam, there are radicals and moderates alike, just as there are in Catholicism, and the GOP, etc.

"Kindly explain to me why the Left does its utmost to preach TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE of their creed !!!" D

Multiple reasons of course, but in significant part due to their lefty leaders, including President Bush (younger).
That President Bush was very quick to publicly announce that he was not waging War against Islam.

at #20

Thank you for so heroically championing this noble cause.
You have done so with but one error:

" you also support FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. " at

a) No.

b) I've never made any such assertion, either by implication, or specification.

c) My position is, I'm stridently opposed to any involuntary genital mutilation, regardless of gender or motive.

I'd be amused if you'd quote my posted words to justify what you seem to believe legitimates your bizarre accusation.
But I know you won't, because I know you can't, because I know I didn't, because I don't, and never have.

And thank you for being such an articulate spokesperson for "LIBERAL EQUALITY". Your leadership in that role is to this point universally unchallenged here.

This is my first reply to you after many days of reading your posts, thus I will start out being civil (giving respect ), and continue to do so unless I am given cause to alter that course.

As you post verses from the bible, from the Old Testament, you (deliberately?) ignore the entirety and importance of the New Testament --which is the basis for Christianity.
By taking that course. which clearly points to a clear bias and a deliberate attempt to post only a partial truth you can not seriously expect informed members here to be swayed to your position and accept the comparison and implications that you think you have made....

The Old Testament in the bible is merely a historic record of how foolish it was to try to gain salvation for mankind by mankind by its own hand..
Christ came to give the true path and shine Light upon the previous doomed to failed attempt by mankind(Jews) to gain eternal life by DEEDS ALONE..

PERHAPS I WILL POST MORE LATER IF WARRANTED BUT THIS SHOULD SUFFICE TO MAKE THE DESIRED POINTS I DESIRE TO PRESENT NOW.
Primary one being -- if you want to prove your "horse fastest""--first you must race that horse against the best race horses around, to get to the truth of it.. Which can not be done with preset advantages and /or omitting to present all the facts..-Tyr

[sear]

"As you post verses from the bible, from the Old Testament, you (deliberately?) ignore the entirety and importance of the New Testament --which is the basis for Christianity." TZ

Indeed.
And my bias may well be difficult for some to decipher.
It might for very obvious example seem to some as my own religious intolerance for the religions of others.

Not so.

a) I'm not religious.

b) When I go a church or synagogue, it's not out of my own religious conviction, but for social reasons; a wedding, Easter service w/ friends, whatever. *

"By taking that course. which clearly points to a clear bias and a deliberate attempt to post only a partial truth you can not seriously expect informed members here to be swayed" TZ

1) I believe you infer what I did not imply.
It's a mistake to infer a bias in me by such omission.
If I were to post in comprehensive legalese, my posts would be unreadably long. THEY'RE ALREADY TOO LONG!!
The omission, one I absolutely do not deny, was as much for brevity as anything else; not religious agenda.

2) My attitude toward religion / theology / philosophy / discipline is complicated, & extensive. Here's a useful primer:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." sometimes attributed to Seneca the Younger (c.3 BCE - CE 65)

TZ adds:
"The Old Testament in the bible is merely a historic record of how foolish it was to try to gain salvation for mankind by mankind by its own hand..
Christ came to give the true path ..." TZ

My parents were both members of a church. They even demanded that I attended "sunday school", rather more a baby-sitting service than vector for religious education. I have attended a few superb Bible-study sessions, genuinely excellent. But I valued them more as an education in scripture than religious enlightenment. I don't believe a serpent can talk, and I don't believe a virgin can be pregnant. I have no wish to base my outlook on life on such notions.

"and shine Light upon the previous doomed to failed attempt by mankind(Jews) to gain eternal life by DEEDS ALONE.." TZ

Right.
I get it.
You like the New Testament. The Jewish tradition ignores it. I've got no dog in that fight. Please do not project.

* I was married in judges chambers, before traffic court. It was a legal technicality, not a religious expression.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"As you post verses from the bible, from the Old Testament, you (deliberately?) ignore the entirety and importance of the New Testament --which is the basis for Christianity." TZ

Indeed.
And my bias may well be difficult for some to decipher.
It might for very obvious example seem to some as my own religious intolerance for the religions of others.

Not so.

a) I'm not religious.

b) When I go a church or synagogue, it's not out of my own religious conviction, but for social reasons; a wedding, Easter service w/ friends, whatever. *

"By taking that course. which clearly points to a clear bias and a deliberate attempt to post only a partial truth you can not seriously expect informed members here to be swayed" TZ

1) I believe you infer what I did not imply.
It's a mistake to infer a bias in me by such omission.
If I were to post in comprehensive legalese, my posts would be unreadably long. THEY'RE ALREADY TOO LONG!!
The omission, one I absolutely do not deny, was as much for brevity as anything else; not religious agenda.

2) My attitude toward religion / theology / philosophy / discipline is complicated, & extensive. Here's a useful primer:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." sometimes attributed to Seneca the Younger (c.3 BCE - CE 65)

TZ adds:
"The Old Testament in the bible is merely a historic record of how foolish it was to try to gain salvation for mankind by mankind by its own hand..
Christ came to give the true path ..." TZ

My parents were both members of a church. They even demanded that I attended "sunday school", rather more a baby-sitting service than vector for religious education. I have attended a few superb Bible-study sessions, genuinely excellent. But I valued them more as an education in scripture than religious enlightenment. I don't believe a serpent can talk, and I don't believe a virgin can be pregnant. I have no wish to base my outlook on life on such notions.

"and shine Light upon the previous doomed to failed attempt by mankind(Jews) to gain eternal life by DEEDS ALONE.." TZ

Right.
I get it.
You like the New Testament. The Jewish tradition ignores it. I've got no dog in that fight. Please do not project.

* I was married in judges chambers, before traffic court. It was a legal technicality, not a religious expression.

Your post is fair enough to give some clarity as to your position, attitude and personality, although quite limited it currently is by necessity and brevity in back and forth replies....

Are you a dogmatic atheist and/or a nihilist too? Or perhaps just indifferent and jaded?

I did not project , no more than your reply seem to infer, -thus came my reply(questions), seeking greater clarity..

This medium being very slow and cumbersome to get to the proper understanding of messages, comments posted.
At least as in doing so without numerous interchanges.....--Tyr

[sear]

"Are you a dogmatic ..." TZ

Pragmatic, I should think. I don't think like a believer. I try to think like an engineer, and in social environs, like a comedian.

"atheist" TZ

The prefix "a-" means without. It's a negative. It's an a position on "belief", a state of mind which is by definition not necessarily welded to reality.
I prefer to not define myself in the negative, or by what I believe.

If asked to classify it, I'd suggest "agnostic", which is merely a confession of ignorance. I simply don't know, and don't much care.

"and/or a nihilist too?"

Astronomer / Professor / Author Bob Berman has expressed some topsy-turvy notions about reality and perception.
I try not to over-think it.
My perceptions of solutions (a glass of water) tend to solve my perceptions of problems (thirst).
As long as that continues to be the rule, I'm not too particular about whether it's fairly accurate, or completely and utterly different.

"Or perhaps just indifferent and jaded?"

I'm not indifferent to humans, myself included. I live quite comfortably (perhaps a tepid hedonist by some very low standard), donate to charity (both time & $money), and am registered as an organ donor.

But I've taken on some of the early signs of what I call "doctoral dispassion".
It's what happens when the intellect encroaches on, begins to control emotion.
Maybe that's what "jaded" means. I'm not sure.

I'm not indifferent to humanity. I weep for the human misery in Syria that's now stretched out for over half a decade.


God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference."


"I did not project" TZ

Project in the sense of inferring that my failing to post from both OT & NT reflected my religious agenda bias for one against the other.
I understand others make such distinction.
I don't. It's all The Holy Bible to me.

[aboutime]

Hey "Bully"....what makes you think you can fool us with a new ID on DP?

[sear]

"TRUMP WON! GET OVER IT LIBERALS!" at #28

The most recent polling data I've seen indicates Trump is at public opinion approval statistical lows unprecedented in modern public opinion polling.
iirc it's at around a 3rd, though it may have dropped since he washed out on one of his major campaign promises (Obamacare repeal); and is about to wash out on another *.

So far I wouldn't consider the Trump administration's impact a cataclysm.

BUT !!

It's early.

Let's see what the mood is like in late October of 2020.

* - I'm gunna build a wall. Mexico is gunna pay for it. -

HORSE HOCKEY !!

"I'm not going to pay for that %$#@ wall!" former Mexico President Vicente Fox ~160225, commenting on Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump's claim that as U.S. president he'd build a multi-$Billion dollar wall on the U.S. / Mexico border, and get Mexico to pay for it