Keep it in Amman, Akhmet, we don't want it here. That pretty much sums up the recent Swiss vote to ban construction of any further minarets, which passed with 57% of the Swiss vote. Of course, the bosses of the European Union will probably pressure the Swiss government to hold another vote, and a third and fourth if necessary, until they finally get the outcome they desire-much like they did in regards to the recent Lisbon Treaty, but that's beside the point.
It's not so much about hating Islam or Muslims, the way I see it. It's about limiting the capacity for increasing Islamization that any Swiss citizen sees on-going to a much greater extent in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries, and the Netherlands than they ever intend to put up with in Switzerland. They want to nip that stinking tulip in the bud, so to speak, and rightly so.
Good for them. What just happened in Switzerland is probably a pretty good barometer as to the sentiment of the majority of citizens in all the countries listed above. Read the on-line versions of any British paper, from the Guardian to the Times, and you will see the same sentiment expressed in reader comments on any story concerning a controversial story involving Islam and Muslim European citizens. Anti-Islamic bias is front and center in these comments, and has been for some time, and in most examples I have noted, they vastly outnumber the pro-Islamic sentiments.
Only, again, it's not about Islam, in my opinion, it's about simple respect for the host country and it's citizens, and it's culture and values. Unfortunately, the citizens of the lower and lower-middle class neighborhoods in these countries are the ones who bear the brunt of the problems, while the European elites who promote the excessively liberal immigration policies are safely ensconced within the safe confines of their upper class neighborhoods. They are not affected by the street crime, by the robberies, the murders, the increasing number of rapes conducted against women by uncouth savages who's hormones go into a murderous rage over a sight of bare female leg. Or for that matter, by an uncovered female head. How long will it take before European women are disfigured by acid thrown in their faces by disgruntled Muslim men, acting of course in the name of Allah?
If they are really sincere in their assertions that immigrant Muslims will over time acclimate to European life (otherwise known as "civilization"), and that ordinary Europeans should just give them time to adjust, then I personally think they should move a substantial number of them into their own upper class neighborhoods. And I'm not talking about the wealthier, higher educated Muslims, I'm talking about the common superstitious, insanely fanatical and/or criminal swine that passes for humanity through some simple incidental fact of DNA. You want them, you should have to live with them.
This is an embarrassment to the European elites, but they should take it as a wake up call. We are talking about a race of people who, of all the people on earth, are at the deepest core of their being, the most savage, bloodthirsty, murderous barbarians on the face of the earth. Because of this fact, their own leaders fear them and their potential for barbaric cruelty and inhumanity. Having some time ago recognized this fact, the leaders of these people have kept them pretty much docile and tame for the last sixty years. Prior to that, you would be hard pressed to find so much as a twenty year period, in all their two thousand plus years of recorded history, when they were not in one place or another burning, looting, raping, pillaging, and murdering each other.
And-loving it.
I am, of course, not talking about Muslims, but Europeans. If the leaders of Europe don't get their acts together, there might well, eventually, be a backlash the likes of which you could scarcely comprehend. And once the masses of Europe are sufficiently riled, they might not stop with the Muslims, most of whom frankly may not deserve such barbaric treatment. No, they might not stop until they reach the very elitists who put them in this position-who will deserve it.
And frankly, this time I hope we in the US are not persuaded to come to their rescue.
35 comments:
It's straight out religious discrimination. Nothing to do with political Islam.
I hate to tell you this, but religious Islam IS political Islam. Shari'a is a LEGAL system and its' "religious clerics" are its' lawyers and judges... Islam is not simply a "religious system" of vague hints at how to live a more meaningful or moral life.
If such an event occurs in Europe, America may not even be in a position to "help".
The Europeans have sucessfully thrown the mohammedans out before and can probably do it again with out American aid.
Btw-Disturbing post on the origins and such of Pan.
Huge-O is right, Ren. Islam was created in large measure as a means of uniting the various Arab tribes under one banner. It was and is nothing if not political. Other religions have adopted political aspirations as well, but Islam might be unique in being the only major world religion to be created chiefly for that purpose. The Swiss are well within their rights to oppose it's incremental increase in power and influence. They've seen enough going on around them and are familiar enough with history-real history-to know what the long-term probably results could be.
Tragedy 101-
Before when the Europeans threw them out, it was in the context of invading armies and warfare. Now it's not so clearly defined, and a good deal more devious. Where before they were trying to overthrow the system from the context of outside invaders, now they are using the subversive technique of immigration and citizen status. Throwing them out would be unprecedented, and in fact would be illegal. But it could very well turn out to be an example of a political tactic achieving more success than any military strategy could ever hope to attain in it's wildest dreams.
And, okay, I'll bite. What's so disturbing about Pan's origins? And which origin? There are two different versions of his origins, involving different parents, in one of which there is no father named, that I know of.
When the Europeans threw them out before, it was in the context of the Spanish Inquisition. The Moors ruled Spain and southern Europe for a long time.
***
As to what was disturbing. It was the appeal of the pagan gods story over the Jew/Christian God story.
The pagan gods to me are far more appealing, and less rational (They appear to be stories rather than fact. They are just a concept and can be left as that, without changing all aspects of life to conform.)
The Jew/Christian God, if one believes, one must change. "Faith without works is dead."
Tragedy 101-
I thought you were talking about the invasions into Eastern Europe. They were repulsed by the Poles in a battle that, had they won, would arguably have led to them conquering all of Europe.
And of course most of us are familiar with Vlad the Impaler's campaigns against the Ottoman Turks. He actually ended up with his head soaked with honey and stuck on a pike outside the gates of Istanbul for his troubles, but at least he did succeed in limiting their incursions from advancing further into Europe. He doesn't have to be a vampire to be turning in his grave right now.
As for the pagan gods, their appeal is easy to understand. Most of them are archetypes. They stand for forces of nature that have a powerful impact on people's lives and emotions.
Are they "real"? I guess that depends on your definition of reality. But what they stand for is very real. It doesn't take much to see how they impact your life, for good or for bad. But you can learn from them, and that is including about your self, and how to improve your life.
The difference, and the good news is, this does not require a slavish, fanatical devotion to a cult leader or following, or even to a god, it just requires that you be true to your self, try to improve where and what you can, and strive to be the best person you can be. Which isn't as easy as it sounds, believe me.
You have no credibility left after this post. You are arguing for religious segregation and arbitrary limitation of religious practice. In effect, you are arguing against the American Constitution as well as separation of religion and state (i.e., that the government should not directly or indirectly endorse any particular religion).
Your credibility-suicide gets even better. To the extent that Middle Eastern countries discriminate against Christians or other religious minorities, such behavior is wrong--except under your theory. If Turks, Egyptians, and Syrians wanted to follow your ideology of discriminating against religious minorities, then they are justified in expelling all Christian minorities within their lands and discriminating against them.
If Europeans have a problem with minorities, it's really simple. Don't let them in. Restrict immigration based on some neutral characteristic, like requiring college degrees or bringing in at least 10,000 Euros. That way, Europe can avoid being hypocritical (i.e., All people are equal, but some are more equal than others), or actively sanctioning anti-minority discrimination.
You would have done well during the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. Your centuries-old tribal mindset would have fit right in. It's a shame, too. I was reading through your site and was beginning to take you seriously.
K Yew-
I stand by the post in it's entirety. To begin with, the US Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with Swiss law. I have this strange idea you would object strenuously to any imposition of American values, including the constitution, on any Muslim nation, so why should you suggest the Swiss adhere to our constitution?
Another point, this was as much a warning to European leaders as anything else. They have made it clear they do not respect the wishes of voters, not only in this matter, but in myriads of other issues.
If European leaders, or for that matter American ones, don't respect the legitimate rights and concerns of it's citizens, including the majority as well as the minorities, why should the citizens worry about religious freedom-especially for a lot as savage as these Muslims?
It's been made pretty clear by now, to a Muslim, you are a Muslim first, you are a citizen of any particular country second (at best).
If the nations in which Muslims have come to reside refuse to rein them in, don't be surprised when the citizens of those nations take matters into their own hands.
In the best of possible scenarios, this will not have to extend past the ballot box. But, in the event it does, whose fault will that be?
Will it be the fault of the Muslims who commit murder, rape, and mayhem and make unreasonable demands on the host nations while trying to impose their own culture and values, including but not limited to sharia law?
Will it be the fault of European and potentially American leaders who allow this to happen because they are too weak, impotent, corrupt, or politically correct to do anything about it?
Or will it be the fault of us "bigots" when we have had enough and decide to do something aboutit?
So now you're advocating vigilantism against a group of people based on their religion. Replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and dial it back a few decades, and I'm sure we can find something similar to your post in the original German.
K Yew-
Hitler really had his hands full with those suicide bomber Jews and those radical Cohen priests and rabbis inciting their followers to fly planes into buildings and saw off folks heads, huh?
Yeah, bullshit.
What I'm advocating is for American politicians to do their fucking jobs and protect the American people and the law abiding citizens of the world against the criminal scum of society, including but by no means limited to Islamic radicals.
But thanks to people like you and your politically correct Hug-A-Thug social policies, I don't expect that to happen any time soon. People like you put me and my family at risk, so as far as I'm concerned, I don't owe you a god damned thing in the way of an explanation, but I will give you an example of how your idiotic policies "work".
There's a potential international incident brewing now over a filthy Islamic heroin smuggler who was executed by the Chinese, because he boarded a plane in Poland with a suitcase full of heroin and ended up in Beijing, where he was tried, convicted, and as far as I'm concerned, rightly executed.
If it weren't for the politically correct, Hug-A-Thug social policies people like you advocate, he would have been caught at the Polish airport, and detained, tried, and would probably be sentenced to a few weeks in prison, this being Europe.
Of course, if they had done that, you civil rights phonies would be crying racism because he was "profiled" because he was a Muslim.
Instead of apologizing that an Islamic scumbag with a suitcase full of heroin, enough to kill more than twenty-five thousand people, made it to China because of their systemic failures, the British had the unmitigated gall to object to this incoherent savages execution on the grounds that he was allegedly bi-polar.
And the merry-go-round keeps going round and round. If that little now dickless wonder from Nigeria had succeeded in blowing up that plane over Detroit, the silver lining to that tragedy would be it might actually open people's eyes a little to the "progressive" nonsense that allowed it to happen.
And if any such future attempt is successful, I can promise you, the American people are going to hold you people accountable for helping it happen, and rightly so.
There's not much to say to someone whose policies would have favored WWII Japanese internment camps, the Night of the Broken Glass, or any other collective punishment based on perceived danger.
German propagandists, like you, just wanted to get the criminals: "There is no crime in which the Jew is not involved. Just as was once the case in Germany, well over half of all those engaged in financial crimes, cases of fraud, bankruptcy, corruption, and stock speculation are Jews." And don't forget about the old card of immigration: "Look around and see how the emigrants are increasing; even London has noticed." (By now, you must be thinking, "Great minds think alike," eh?)
Your bile is old. Only someone with complete disregard for history and real safety would take you seriously.
It takes a real fool to compare Jews in Europe during the Nazi regime to Muslim terrorists, who have committed real and DOCUMENTED crimes and atrocities. On the other hand, you're probably one of these half-wits who think the government was behind 9/11.
I don't care whether you take me seriously or not. Like I said, I stand behind every word I wrote, and I'm not changing my position one iota.
What's more, you are a fucking liar. You ended your first post here with the statement that you had read through this blog and was beginning to take me seriously until you read this post.
How that proves you are a fucking liar is if you really have read this blog to any extent, there should be nothing in this post that should come as a shock.
Since you don't take anything I say seriously, kindly find another conservative blog to troll. I'm on to your game. Go somewhere and make yourself useful. I hear the ragheads of CAIR are always in need of another useful idiot.
You're making this way too easy. Your response to me is a series of non-sequiturs. First, you talk about "documented" crimes vs. undocumented crimes. All you're really saying, however, is that when 0.001% of the world's one billion Muslims commit crimes/terrorism, such outliers are sufficient to authorize collective punishment against the other 99.999%. Why not extend your argument to African-Americans and the Roma, too? Why stop at Muslims? I'll tell you why--the Roma aren't large enough to register on your mental screen, and you probably know some good African-Americans. If you had more self-awareness, you'd know that you're just castigating a group of people b/c you've never met any of them. I bet if you took a trip to Indonesia or Malaysia and exposed yourself to some religious diversity, 99% of your beliefs would change. Of course, such a trip will never happen...you probably don't make enough money to be able to travel much. At the end of the day, your lack of travel experience--not documented evidence or logic--is responsible for much of your beliefs. Way to transcend your place and time, buddy. You need to realize most of your beliefs are a product of living in a non-diverse, less-than-affluent place (a small city in TN). Don't blame me or Muslims. Blame your mother and/or father for not giving you a passport and making you use it when you were younger.
Second, you bring up some government conspiracy about 9/11. I did not mention 9/11 at all.
Third, you assume I was shocked by your posts. I never said I was shocked. (And I quite like the short film you posted about the teenage boy "preparing" for fatherhood.)
Anyway, we're done. You have no more credibility. I might come back to see what's going on here purely for entertainment value.
K Yew-
You haven't said one thing in any of your posts here I haven't read innumerable times, here and elsewhere. Just typical left liberal claptrap, nothing original whatsoever.
You know nothing about me, where I've been and who I've known. I am not impressed with your trips to the various Potemkin villages of the world where you go to get your leftist ego stroked, assuming you've actually been anywhere.
Bottom line, no not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, and the rest don't matter, because at the end of the day, they won't do anything constructive to fight the radicals in their midst, other than to mouth lip service. Even when they do that much, there's usually some caveat involved that manages to put the onus of responsibility on the West, American in particular. So fuck them all.
Like Huge-O Chavez said in an above comment, Islam is as much a political movement as it is a religion, and as such it and it's adherents deserve the same degree of scrutiny and suspicion as communists and neo-Nazis. People such as yourself, in other words.
You're just a leftist idiot stooge.
Oh, and by the way-most thieves aren't gypsies, but most gypsies are thieves.
Jackass.
I was wrong--I am still having fun.
1. We can assume you've spent most of your life in TN and have not traveled much--your silence on the issue of traveling outside of North America is revealing. As I said before, stop blaming Muslims for your parents' failures. 100 yrs ago, people in your town felt the same way about black people as you now do as Muslims. The ignorance stay the same--only the target changes. Again, the lack of a passport and sufficient travel experience are the major reasons for your belief system. Own up to the problem, get a passport, save your pennies, and get out more.
2. After you call me unoriginal, you bring out the tired "argument
that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims." I've dealt with this "argument" before, so thankfully, I can do a copy-and-paste job from previous ownings of ppl like you. Enjoy:
So, you have access to a list of crimes committed all over the world, broken down by religious affiliation? Or are you just pulling your "facts" based on arbitrary mass media accounts? You have made a statement that is impossible to verify, b/c no reliable evidence exists to support it. Let me explain why your comment lacks credence, common sense, and logic. Here are some other lovely "facts" we can agree on if we go by mass media accounts:
(WARNING: heavy sarcasm to follow...)
1. You can be sure whenever a crime is committed against a gay person in America, a white Christian is behind it. Remember Matthew Shepard? Clearly, gay people need to avoid white Christians if they want to feel safe, right?
2. Whenever there is corporate embezzlement in America, you can be sure a Jew (Madoff) or Christian (Pendergest-Holt) is behind it. Last time I checked, no devout Muslims have committed securities fraud...well, at least that's what the television told me (note the dripping sarcasm)
3. Whenever an American president lies to the American people, whether it's about WMDs or Watergate, we can be sure he's a white Christian. Obviously, we need to stop electing white Christians as presidents.
I could go on for days, but just like you, I don't know if any of the above statements are actually true. They might sound true, but only a dimwit would actually believe such statements without reviewing actual statistics...which don't exist for the type of comment you made.
Anyway, I hope you've learned something today. Get a passport. And if you have kids (God forbid), don't repeat the same mistakes your mother made--get them a passport when they're young.
Unfortunately for your argument, neither Christians nor Jews, as individuals or groups, have anything to prove to the majority of Americans. Muslims, both as a group and as individuals, have a hell of a lot to prove, because they adhere to a faith that encourages violence as a religious and political as well as military tactic. Bottom line-most Americans don't trust them, and that not only includes most Republicans and Independents, but a significant number of Democrats (maybe most of them) as well.
It doesn't matter if it's fair or not fair. All that matters is it is a fact. You are an apologist for a religion that justifies killing Jews and Christians, the subordination of women as property, and the execution of homosexuals.
It doesn't matter that Jews and Christians might have believed these things at one time in some distant or not too distant past.
The thing is, Muslims believe them NOW. They practice these things NOW. Things like throwing acid in women's faces because they've seen a glance of her thigh. Or murder their own daughter because she's had sex-or maybe because she's been raped.
Such things are not only common place in the Muslim world, they are accepted practice based on the teachings of the Quran. Fuck them and fuck you for enabling them.
It's none of your business where I've been, but I've traveled throughout the states and lived in different kinds of neighborhoods, and met a variety of people, including Arabs, mostly Palestinians. They were mostly Christians, though, but that's irrelevant. People tell you what you want to hear, or what they think you want to hear, so I haven't missed anything regardless.
And you're right, I've never been out of the states, but here's another old saying for you-you don't have to eat shit to know you don't like the taste of it.
If I do ever have kids, by the way, I'll teach them to be good citizens and loyal Americans. I bet that really gives you nightmares, doesn't it? Actually, that's something most religions teach outside of some fringe groups. And of course, there's Islam, whose loyalty to anything will always come a distant second at best to the Quran, which will sooner or later conflict with any secular law in any location.
Even Satanism, at least the LaVeyan branch, teaches a person should be a law-abiding citizen and obey the laws of the land, be a productive citizen and not engage in criminal activity, such as theft, murder, rape, or child or animal abuse. It's pretty fucking sad when people that belong to one of the world's largest religions can't even legitimately claim to be as trustworthy or as admirable as a fucking Satanist.
You've been unable to draft any direct responses to my statements. Your method of discussion is a form of verbal cowardice, where you bring up unrelated topics (Satanism? Really?) instead of engaging in actual debate. (BTW, I got another one for ya: "Not all people who lack passports are from Covington, Tennessee, but most people in Covington, Tennessee lack passports." Does that mean that ppl in your city lack a broader understanding of the world? I don't think so--I'm just using your own "argument" against you.)
Anyway, I will let you have the last word. May God/Allah/Yahweh be with you.
P.S. If a woman deigns to sleep with you and an "accident" happens, make sure you teach your kids about why the original Americans came here. I think it had something to do with religious persecution and being able to practice their religion without unreasonable government interference. Cheerio.
You're so full of shit I bet if you took a strong laxative you'd lose ninety percent of your body weight. I stand by everything I said.
I would recommend reading this book:
"The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media and That Veil Thing" by Sumbul Ali-Karamali.
Your local library might have it, or request an inter-library loan.
I don't have any connection with the book or author. It's written by an American Muslim, and gives a good introduction to Islam. The text is accessible and answers a lot of questions. :)
I find I learn more from such books, than the media. The media likes to sensationalise stuff plus short segments distort. I've seen this through personal experience of other issues, and it gets super frustrating.
@Pagan Temple, I assume you're Pagan (from the name of this blog). Am I right in understanding that a central pagan belief system is around 'if it harms none, do what you will'? If so, that's cool, and a good belief to have. Would be nice to see some stuff coming out of Paganism, that bridges gaps with Islam.
I worry about all the hostility that exists in the world, it has the potential of harming people who come under certain labels.
For the record, I'm not a Muslim. If something is up, I'm here to learn. I also live in Europe.
Peace.
Alison-
Islam conflicts with the constitution of my country, in a myriad of ways. They are not alone. There are some sects of Christianity, some Pagan, and maybe some Buddhists who do as well.
Where Islam is unique is that there are no significant branches of any status to speak of that does not conflict with the constitution of my country.
They should all be run out of here. As far as I'm concerned, a person or groups First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, or any constitutional right guaranteed to any citizen, ends when they purposely set out to limit or put an end to my own or others constitutional rights.
I don't believe in democracy as most liberals perceive it. I believe strictly in adherence to the Constitution of the United States, and I am of the mind that those who do not respect it and adhere to it and especially those who would seek to subvert it to their own ends against others should be stripped of their citizenship and exiled.
This goes not just for Muslims, but for any religious sect or denomination who tries to subvert the rule of law and the constitution of my country. It also goes for any political group, such as greens, commies, and neo-nazis. Sorry, but there's just no place for them here.
To answer your question, yes I am pagan and I adhere to the Rede, but the Rede was never meant to be a suicide compact. "Harm none" also means not to harm yourself, which means you are actually compelled to defend your self, your family, loved ones, friends, home, and community, and by extension your nation from it's foes. If violence is the only way you can do that, then that is unfortunate, but there it is.
That's the way I interpret the Rede anyway. Others might not see it that way, but in the event that the established meaning is decided to be different from my own, I guess it's time for me to shop around for a new faith.
Finally, don't take everything you read at face value. Anything you want to know about Islam you can read directly from the source. Like most religious writings from the distant past, it means exactly what it says it means.
Like all religions, there are some kernels or truth and wisdom, but there is also more than enough to warrant grave concern, to say the least.
The implications of the application of Shariah Law within host countries where Muslims are for now the minority are grave when seen in the context of what might transpire probably when not if they become a majority. That is what you should be concerned about, not some touchy-feely love thy neighbor snake oil some Muslim organizations and individuals want to sell you.
Bottom line, Muslims are loyal first and foremost to their faith, and any secular law that conflicts with that faith is going to get short shrift real fast. A quick perusal of those countries where Islam has become a large percentage of the population will infer that the larger are their numbers, the greater the problems.
That tends to be their fault. By the way, look at the Middle East. Most of the countries where Muslims and Arabs are the predominant if not sole residents were not always their lands. The vast majority of them have been ethnically cleansed or their original inhabitants, or they have been relegated to a small percentage.
A perfect example of this is Iraq, once the home of Chaldaens and Assyrians, each of whom now make up about one percent each of the Iraqi population.
The remainder of the original population did not just vanish into thin air, I promise you. Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, make the Europeans look like pikers when it comes to colonialism and Jim Crow, and when it comes to ethnic cleansing they make Hitler look like an amateur. If you don't believe that, look at Darfur.
This just isn't their past, this is their present. Sorry, I don't want them here.
Pagan Temple thank you for your reply, of which you've brought up many points.
Could you please clarify how "Islam conflicts with the constitution of my country, in a myriad of ways". I would be interested in knowing more as to how you see this. Thanks.
Alison-
If followers of Islam were merely content to practice the main tenets of their faith, there would be no problem, even with the proselytizing. But as was previously pointed out, Islam is a political every bit as much as a religious system, maybe more so.
Shariah Law in almost every one of it's applications is counter to the ideals of the American constitution. There are no second class citizens in my country based on race, religion, or gender. Islam, the way it is either practiced or accepted by the vast majority of it's adherents, would change all that, in regards to women, the rights of children (especially girls), homosexuals, and other religious groups and adherents.
We just can't put up with that here, and what I have listed is just the beginning. We cannot under any circumstances condone a movement that utilizes violence under the least of pretexts, whose leaders issue fatwas of death sentences against cartoonists or those who criticize or even mock their faith.
In my country, no ideology is considered beyond critique or satire. They can not accept that. Thus, they have to go.
There are some Christians and Jews, and those of other faiths who act the same way, but they are relegated to the fringe of their faiths, a decided minority.
In Islam, they are not the fringe, they are the mainstream, that is the problem. There is something vile and disturbing about a faith that will condone, or at the very least accept, that a man should have the right to murder his own daughter if she is raped by one or more men.
Shariah law accepts this, and even if most Muslims do not act in this way, neither do they do a damn thing about it. Those few who so much as speak out against it are themselves on the fringe of the faith, and are taking their own lives in their hands.
Islam has millions of miles of colonized real estate where they have practiced their abominations for centuries, including ethnic cleansing of at least eighty percent of the nations in which they now live as the majority or sole occupants.
I can promise you, they do not want to try that shit in the United States of America. It is decidedly in their best interests that they stay the hell away from here, regardless of what many of our weak-kneed, gutless politicians might say.
Thanks for answering my question.
Is the real problem here that you're scared Shariah law will become mainstream in the US (and thus want to stop it now). And don't like countries that practice it?
Other thing, what sources are you using to understand what the Shariah law says. I would be interested. Thanks.
Alison-
Yes, that's a big part of it. Islam is a political, militant religion, from it's foundation, and shariah law is religious law based on the Quran, but applied to all levels of society. It has no place in the US, even in those few instances where it might actually be of minimal concern, or for that matter even positive.
It is just not the law of the land, and should never be permitted to become the law of the land, certainly not here in the US.
I say this even were it proposed that it would be applicable to Muslims alone. Sorry, but Muslims are not special cases who need or deserve their own laws and traditions which supersede US secular law. We can't have that here, even under minor circumstances.
If a Muslim couple gets a divorce, then they are going to have to go through our civil courts, just like any other group does. They do not get their own Islamic judges to decide who gets the property, and who gets to keep the children and who has to pay child support.
If a Muslim male murders his wife or daughter, he had damn well better be able to prove self-defense, or his ass is going to fry if I have my way about it, and I can damn well promise you that decision will be made by our secular courts, not by a bunch of long bearded savages in robes who will probably decide he was well within his rights to do as he did before the actual "trial" ever begins.
When anybody is caught committing a crime here, and the Muslim community deigns to take it on themselves to handle the matter by way of shariah law, then from that moment on Islam shows itself to be exactly what it is-a criminal conspiracy no different than the Italian mafia, and any who are involved need to be dealt the same kind of justice-secular American justice.
But it's more than just shariah law, Islam in general is a criminal conspiracy much akin to the mafia. Just because it veils itself under a religious dogma doesn't change that fact one iota.
If they really want to become American citizens, then they can stand in line like everyone else, and when they are "profiled" in airports and bus or train terminals, they should (and do) understand there is damn good reason for that, instead of crying like banshees that their rights are being violated.
What rights? The right to skate through security because they are wearing Muslim garments, or the right to act like asses to try to intimidate other people on planes so they can make a big deal out of people refusing to get on planes with them? That has actually happened here.
It is just best for all concerned that they remain within the confines of the more than plentiful real estate they have already colonized, looted, and ethnically cleansed over the previous centuries. Maybe they can make a go of it in Darfur, once their Arab brethren in Khartoum finish exterminating the poor black Darfurans whom they murder by the thousands on average on a daily basis.
And of course, there's Israel, which they are also determined to acquire at all costs and ethnically cleanse of all Jews-a tiny little sliver of land about the size of Connecticut compared to their own surrounding lands, which make up at least fifty times as much real estate.
What makes them so special in their own minds is they think their so-called God and religion gives them the right to do these things. They are the same wherever they go, as they have been throughout the ages. If you people in Europe don't awaken to that fact, you will eventually learn it the hard way.
Hey, your comments are going all over the shop, I can't keep up with you! Please, one thing at the time, cos you're making my head spin.
1. At school, I took English lessons to understand Shakespeare. Most kids do. Cos Shakespeare isn't exactly easy to understand, right? The English is old, and sometimes it felts like you're reading double dutch.
Shakespeare's texts are over 400 years old, and need analysis. We recognise this when our kids get taught.
The Qur'an, Bible and other texts are much older. I don't think anyone can just read the text straight off and understand it without context or looking at the whole. It requires study / guidance.
There is another issue with most ancient texts, none of them were written in English. When translation happens, the meaning can get distorted and sometimes doesn't happen.
2. My next question: does the US have tribunals? E.g. military tribunal. Or a Mining tribunal (to regulate coal stuff). The US might have a different name for tribunals, but they usually exist in most countries.
E.g. you need to be in mining for a Mining Tribunal to apply.
Note: these tribunals don't override the law of the land, they are *voluntary* arrangements.
I am asking all this, because specific law to apply for specific things is not a new thing for most countries. You already have it. :-)
3. I want to ask you about being a Pagan. Pagans have been persecuted, right? And not cool. Could you tell me more about this.
4. Do you agree that Pagan beliefs do have some influence on all of society? E.g. we all love Summer Solstice. Winter Solstice got hyjacked by Christianity, but most homes over here still celebrate. E.g. bring mistletoe, holly into the house - all Pagan traditions.
Heck, Pagan stuff influences our concept of time, how we divide it. Roots that were in Paganism gets into law books worldwide.
How many months of the year, how many days per month, all gets legally regulated. Lawmakers got that guidance initially from Paganism. So the history of the Pagan system has influenced our law, and everyone lives with it worldwide. Including USA. Agree with me, or not?
Allison-
Granted, there can be misunderstandings in studying ancient texts, but Islam's history speaks for itself. Their history of colonization, Jim Crow, and ethnic cleansing is unparalleled in world history. The only way to understand that in context is to see it in context of their faith. Their history is disturbing, and it goes on to this day.
2. The US has military tribunals, and they have laws for specific activities such as mining, to use your example, but how and why should that apply to Islam? There are laws that protect religious liberties and set boundaries of social conduct in the context of those rights. Islam and its adherents should be held to the same standards of accountability as all the rest of them.
Otherwise, why not give other groups the right to "voluntarily" run their own justice systems? What about drug addicts, or drunk drivers? Why not serial killers? How about rapists and pedophiles?
At the very least, if Muslims are allowed to establish their own courts, why not other religions, such as Catholicism?
3. Modern pagans have not been persecuted, unless you call being laughed at persecution. Ancient pagans tended to be the persecutors, not the other way around. I make no excuses for either. Ancient peoples turned from paganism because it had nothing to offer them. You had to be rich or connected to be a member of the vast majority of pagan cults.
Christianity came along and was open to anybody of all classes, even slaves and freedmen. That is an important point, because in ancient Rome it was the freedmen (former slaves who won their freedom) who controlled the day to day operations of the empire. They were the business owners, civil servants, attorneys, physicians, etc.
When the aristocracy made Christianity the state religion, they were not persecuting anyone, they were just jumping on the bandwagon for the sake of unity and cohesion within the empire.
For the most part Christians persecuted mainly other Christians whom they considered heretics, not pagans.
4. I agree, pagan traditions have had a remarkable influence on our times. British law and American law is based on Roman law and on Greek concepts of democracy.
In the US, we have a system called separation of powers. This provides a balance between the different branches of government in order to keep any one from gaining too much power over us.
This concept of separation of powers originated in Sparta, so even that can be said to be a pagan tradition.
Finally, our system of federalism might be said to have a pagan origin as it is modeled after the American Indian Five Nations of the Iroquois.
There is much more, as you noted our calendar, many of our holidays, our culture, etc., which owes as much or more to pagan traditions as it does "Judaeo-Christian" heritage.
Having said all that, all this nonsense about this so-called persecution suffered by pagans at the hands of Christians is a lot of snake-oil meant to sell books about paganism, most of which is the same old recycled crap, and to establish a pride in a history that for the most part never really existed outside of a few fever dreams.
Thus you have myths like the "Burning Times" and "witch trials", all of which resulted in a deaths of very few (if any) actual witches and pagans, but mainly a few disoriented individuals that maybe kept a few more cats than might be healthy and talked to themselves when they didn't think anybody was looking.
Take all that kind of nonsensical talk with the grain of salt it deserves. It only makes real practicing pagans look foolish. Some of these people see the rest of us as a bunch of marks. They have an agenda, some leftist, or maybe environmentalist wackos practicing a form of Trotskyist style entryism just because they think they saw us coming and they see some potential there for their own benefit.
1. Re tribunals, because it is an example of how certain groups (or parts) can have certain laws applied to them. When people elect to do this, it doesn't mean they don't follow the law of the country too (or that country's law isn't supreme).
I'm just saying it already happens in the US, Europe etc.
When there's a suggestion of people wishing to adhere to Sharia law, in the west (not that it has happened) it would work very similar to how tribunals work. It is not a new concept, and has been around for for centuries.
2. Catholics already have their own courts: the Ecclesiastical courts. Their jurisdiction (power) is narrow, and doesn't replace the law of the land. It cannot override the law of the land either. Also see Canon law too.
3. Groups to "voluntary run" their own systems. Unfortunately, you listed those associated with criminal activities which are not good examples.
Devolving rights for certain groups already happens in law. Take for example the 'Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' (international law). Australia, Canada, NZ and I think the US too.
4. Thank you for explaining some of the history around Pagans as you see it. For the record, my ancestors are Celts, so I have an interest.
5. If a handful of people are being a pain and interpreting their religion as they see fit .... is it fair to be harsh on the rest of the population?
Most Muslims I've had the fortune to meet are cool people.
One of my closest friends is a Muslim. We've been friends for 17 years and in that time I've come to know his family very well. My friend is a Consultant Surgeon, you call them an Attending in the US. Since he is a surgeon, he saves people's lives every day of the week. My friend has been extremely kind to me.
Because my friend was brought up via Islam, is it right he should be labelled as a 'criminal', 'terrorist', etc?
Do you think a constant stream of negative stuff might hurt him?
Alison-
I don't know your friend and can't speak for him, but you can't turn a blind eye to the very real dangers posed by Islam just because it might inadvertently hurt some innocent individuals. The law exists to protect their rights as well and imperfect as it is, if they are really being abused they can and should turn to the secular authorities.
As for him being a surgeon and saving lives every day, the terrorists in Britain who blew up buses, or tried to, were also physicians. Just because someone holds an apparently honorable and respectable position doesn't necessarily mean they are beyond reproach or above suspicion based solely on that. Nor does it particularly mean anything that he treats you nice.
The question is, how would he act if he were stopped at an airport and questioned, or searched. Would he act like I would, and take it while not liking it out of the understanding that it is an unpleasant security necessity in today's world, or would he act like a prick and demand special rights and threaten to sue the government or the airlines, out of some misguided notion that no one has the right to profile him because he is a Muslim?
How does his supposed rights to not be profiled at an airport as a potential security risk based on the grounds that he is a Muslim come close to the level of my rights to not worry about the plane I am flying on not being blown to smithereens, based on past events?
As for group rules, sure there are different rules for belonging to certain groups. Catholic Priests can, if they so determine it appropriate, determine a marriage between two Catholics to be null and void, though I have maddeningly forgotten the exact term for it as of now.
At the same time, the Priest does not have the right to determine how the property is divided, or who gets custody of the children, or who pays child support, and how much will be paid to the custodial parent.
My understanding of shariah law is that is precisely what is involved, for just one example, and that just can't be allowed to go on in the US.
If a shariah court wants to kick somebody out of the Muslim faith, fine. They are probably doing the person one hell of a big favor. But if they take it beyond that, to the point where they are abusing, persecuting, or harming the person in some way, they are going to have a big damn problem over here, one I can promise you they do not want.
Forget Islam for a second (I'll come back to your other points later), I've got a story to tell you.
I'm a deaf person. It's just who I am and I carry on my life largely minding my own business. Back in 2002, the Washington Post carried an article on a deaf couple that conceived a baby via IVF. The donor sperm that they used, happened to come from a person who was deaf. When talking to the reporter, the couple just happened to make the comment that they didn't mind the baby being deaf. The reporter took their comments, and made it into something else. In other words, deaf people want to *deliberately* create deaf babies. You know, like put a knitting needle in every baby ear style and make the whole world deaf. This story line will have sensationalised or spiced up the writing a bit. Good for the reporter, because they want to advance their career and get a bigger pay packet next year. As for as the newspaper is concerned, as with all businesses they exist to make money. People prefer to buy/read sensationalist stuff, it makes their mundane lives more interesting.
What happened then? What was supposed to be a local story for DC, hit every newspaper globally. As well as TV, radio, magazines. Picture = all deaf people want to create deaf babies. Horror! Collectively, deaf poeple were terrible people. So there I am totally minding my own business in another country (not even thinking about babies), and this gets thrown in my face. My only association, my ears just happen not to work.
Fast forward to 2008, and the UK parliament passes a law around IVF. The new law bans deaf people from being egg or sperm donors. If I want to get pregnant, I would not be allowed to ask a deaf friend to help me out. In fact I could not be an egg donor either. The other people banned, if you have severe refractive errors, in other words you need to wear glasses.
How did parliament make this law? It believed stuff that it read in the newspaper, and wrote law on the back of this. They did not (a) consult with relevant parties direct and (b) ignored academic research. Academic research has shown that 0.001% (or a similar low number) of deaf people would do this. That's like *one* person (if that) and even then they couldn't be sure; and law with huge implications. You know, writing law on the back of media sensationalism isn't the brightest of ideas. Reality and what the media says = two very different things. Result: it will cause heartache for some people. The journalist who once wrote original article eight years ago, will have forgotten it. It served a purpose at the time, but the longer term consequences for some people are massive.
Having experienced first hand how the media can hurt people; I take *any* story that is printed with the largest pinch of salt ever. If they can do it to deaf people (usually off most people's radar), they are capable of doing it to anyone. Islam included.
Learning from real people, and independent research ... I get to absorb far cooler stuff. Just going by the media, I think it's being used.
Someone out there taking advantage and insulting my intelligence for their gain (you know, to make a profit). I don't want to be a machine, I want to learn about all perspectives ... if you get me?
Alison-
How many deaf people have purposely done anything to make their babies deaf again? I seem to have missed all the stories about the horrible deaf people who have been proven to have done this.
Granted, here in the US, there is a large number of deaf people who have consciously chosen to remain deaf, when they could solve the problem with a simple surgical procedure involving a Cochlear implant.
There is a significant number of deaf people who have their own culture. Their own language, associations, political activism, art, etc. They don't want to join the mainstream world.
That is probably what the British parliament is trying to put the kibosh on. I've said for years now that in a good many ways European laws have become every bit as repressive, and oppressive, as a good many things you might see in the People's Republic of China.
I would point out that deaf people are not a large percentage of any population, so it is easy to pick on them. We don't do that kind of thing in the US. Yes, deaf people face an unfortunate degree of discrimination. Yes, things could be made better for them. But this?
In the wholly unlikely event our Congress passed a bill like that and our President signed it into law-neither of which would ever happen here, regardless of party in power-our Supreme Court would rightly declare such a numbskull law unconstitutional, and that would be the end of it.
Maybe deaf parents might be forbidden from preventing their child from receiving a Cochlear, but as far as forcing an adult deaf person to "not be deaf", or forbidding him or her from having children, or from being egg or sperm donors, or not allowing them to receive an egg from another deaf person, etc., that would never happen here.
That it happens anyplace in Europe does not surprise me in the least.
Maybe if you got all your deaf friends together and planted a few bombs and walked up and down the streets waving placards proclaiming "Death To Europe" and "We Will Destroy You" and "Death To Those Who Insult Deaf People", you would probably have those laws overturned overnight, especially if such demonstrations culminated in riots with destruction of property.
Just to make sure you get your point across, make sure you issue a fatwa against any deaf person who receives a Cochlear implant. Catch him out and rip the damn thing out of his head.
Not only would such laws eventually be overturned, you would have every European leader on the continent rushing to bow down and kiss your ass and passing all kinds of anti-discrimination laws and hate-speech laws to kow-tow to you as quickly as possible.
Of course, the caveat to all this is you first need to figure out a way to become like between ten and twenty percent of the population of any given European country.
We just don't do that kind of thing over here, and there's only so much most of us will put up with, which explains why most of our ancestors left Europe to begin with, and why most of us would never go back, or want to be like that here.
If I were you, I would give serious consideration to immigrating here. No, we are not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, nor will we ever be, but we are damn sure better than that, at least for now.
Thanks for your reply. Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday, I had issues with my wifi.
Okay. Am gonna put another spin on this just because! :)
Within deaf space (particularly where sign language is used): barriers that are common in other spaces .... don't exist. Deaf people see another person who signs first, and that all that matters. They really don't give two hoots about who else the person may be.
This means, you get a Jewish person from Israel being best mates with an Arab or Muslim right next door. The common denominators are (a) deafness and (b) ability to use sign. You see, language can bind people.
Hold that thought for a minute. :-)
Deaf people as far as I am aware have not blown up any planes, trains or automobiles (correct me if I'm wrong).
So. From the above two statements, could it not be said that: (a) all terrorists are hearing people (history has proven it) and (b) all hearing people, by default they are hearing ... need extra screening at airports. Deaf people do not need any screening, because they've not been terrorists to date.
See my line of argument, and how you could cut it apart? :-)
That's pretty lame, Alison, sorry. Muslims have a history that demolishes any kind of argument like that. I want to point out here, I don't dislike them because I dislike the fact that they pray towards Mecca five times a day and believe there's no God but Allah and Muhammed is his messenger, and that you should go to Mecca once in your life if it is at all possible.
I dislike them because the religion, whether you want to see it or believe it or not, in the minds of many of them advocates violence towards anyone they perceive as a danger. And if you are not a Muslim, at least twenty percent of them consider you a threat for that reason alone.
There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Twenty percent of one billion people is two hundred million people. If you put all of those radical, fundamentalist Muslims in a country of their own, they would make one of the top ten largest nations in the world in population.
And actually, the total Muslim population of the world is more like 1.4 billion, I just rounded it off to the nearest billion. So actually there's more like two hundred eighty million radical Muslims. At least.
I am talking about people who will either gladly kill you or who will commit terrorist acts in the name of their faith, or who willingly support them in one form or another, such as financially and politically, many times openly, but sometimes secretly.
That's nothing to take lightly, especially since the other eighty percent won't really do anything concrete to oppose them. A few of them talking nice to you every now and then don't count.
All I want them to do is obey the law of whatever nation they live in and respect the rights of other members of society, something they seldom if ever do in nations where they are the majority by the way.
Excuse me for not being concerned for the poor little oh so put upon Muslims of the world, but frankly, they lost their right for any sympathy from me a long time ago.
Post a Comment