Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
I just find it really odd that
Cobble and Montrose are in essence defending
a religious code which has been interpreted in many countries around the world as
1. Treating women as chattle
2. Denying the existence of gays
3. Denying the religious expression of others
(try building a Synagogue in Mecca)
again, my sources are in question:
here’s the Imam himself in
What’s Right with Islam:
“At the core of Shariah law are God’s commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law – that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.”
…now to prove my point once and for all with cobble and montrose.
SUBSTITUTE CHRISTIAN LAWS AND THE BIBLE FOR MUSLIM AND QURAN
and you will see what I am getting at.
your postion is one of political correctness.
I find it odd that the two of you are alright with your fellow women being subjugated around the world.
Is that custom ok with you?
And while I don’t agree with a lot of tenents of Sharia law, as I know it, which ain’t much, again, you are messing with people’s rights to practice their religion. Are we going after orthodox Jewish laws, some of which are just as medieval and unfair to women? Or fundamentalist Christian laws, also not bastions of fairness or tolerance. How about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons and other fringe “Christian” sects that practice shunning and other forms of humiliation and forms of psychological blackmail to keep their followers following the straight and narrow? I’m sure there are some things in the Hindu religion and even Budhddism that are seen as “unfair” to outsiders.
Either we have freedom of religion, or we don’t. It goes without saying that within that freedom, murder, honor killings, genital mutilation, the killing of female or imperfect children, all those things that are against our civil laws, are not allowed. But beyond that, we should not have the right to tell people what to wear, how they should choose their husbands or wives,or what they eat. It’s not cut and dry, or easy to do this, as, for example, the treatment of women in some religions makes my blood boil. But we must respect people’s rights.
quote:
In PS, all the Muslim shopowners always sold beer. Now many of them don’t.
OMG me and a friend of mine tried to beer once at a one of those bodegas (tho i think it was in prospect heights? not 100 percent sure) anyway we were SHOCKED they didnt sell beer, and we went to another one and they didnt sell it either and they acted like we were in there trying to crack or something!!! hahahah. i mean whatever, people have the right to sell what they want, but still… talk about not honoring the true spirit of saint bodega!
Thanks denton. That would reinforce my previous view then -I don’t think of it as a good thing. Don’t see why they had to force the issue if they did it consciously and could build easily elsewhere. If they wanted to force debate by their decision to site it here then they shouldn’t be suprised when there is indeed a debate.
But they should not be stopped from building it at this point IMO. I doubt that they are glorifying 9/11 either, btw.
I just find it really odd that
Cobble and Montrose are in essence defending
a religious code which has been interpreted in many countries around the world as
1. Treating women as chattle
2. Denying the existence of gays
3. Denying the religious expression of others
(try building a Synagogue in Mecca)
Etson – does it change your mind that Rauf was in Tribeca long before 9/11?
cobble;
again, my sources are in question:
here’s the Imam himself in
What’s Right with Islam:
“At the core of Shariah law are God’s commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law – that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.”
…now to prove my point once and for all with cobble and montrose.
SUBSTITUTE CHRISTIAN LAWS AND THE BIBLE FOR MUSLIM AND QURAN
and you will see what I am getting at.
your postion is one of political correctness.
I find it odd that the two of you are alright with your fellow women being subjugated around the world.
Is that custom ok with you?
If you are really interested in the Mosque situation, take 12 minutes out of your life and watch this.
Even if you hate Olbermann, watch it because the substance of all the issues surrounding this is touched on.
Legion…you are indeed scary and your views here on this thread are truly un-American. And I don’t go around saying that much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
“you’re all so damn sexy when you try to save the world.”
I wear my underwear on the outside when I try to save the world. Helps me get in the mood.
And while I don’t agree with a lot of tenents of Sharia law, as I know it, which ain’t much, again, you are messing with people’s rights to practice their religion. Are we going after orthodox Jewish laws, some of which are just as medieval and unfair to women? Or fundamentalist Christian laws, also not bastions of fairness or tolerance. How about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons and other fringe “Christian” sects that practice shunning and other forms of humiliation and forms of psychological blackmail to keep their followers following the straight and narrow? I’m sure there are some things in the Hindu religion and even Budhddism that are seen as “unfair” to outsiders.
Either we have freedom of religion, or we don’t. It goes without saying that within that freedom, murder, honor killings, genital mutilation, the killing of female or imperfect children, all those things that are against our civil laws, are not allowed. But beyond that, we should not have the right to tell people what to wear, how they should choose their husbands or wives,or what they eat. It’s not cut and dry, or easy to do this, as, for example, the treatment of women in some religions makes my blood boil. But we must respect people’s rights.
quote:
In PS, all the Muslim shopowners always sold beer. Now many of them don’t.
OMG me and a friend of mine tried to beer once at a one of those bodegas (tho i think it was in prospect heights? not 100 percent sure) anyway we were SHOCKED they didnt sell beer, and we went to another one and they didnt sell it either and they acted like we were in there trying to crack or something!!! hahahah. i mean whatever, people have the right to sell what they want, but still… talk about not honoring the true spirit of saint bodega!
*rob*
Can we please ban women from wearing rompers.
They’re ridiculous looking.
Thanks denton. That would reinforce my previous view then -I don’t think of it as a good thing. Don’t see why they had to force the issue if they did it consciously and could build easily elsewhere. If they wanted to force debate by their decision to site it here then they shouldn’t be suprised when there is indeed a debate.
But they should not be stopped from building it at this point IMO. I doubt that they are glorifying 9/11 either, btw.