« Another example of "Stolen Valor." | Main | “Iran’s First Great Satan was England.” - Richard Sale »

13 December 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JLynn

A friendly reminder to Geller and Spencer:
The Bolshevik Jews built the gulags in the Soviet Union only to end up in it themselves a few years later.

William R. Cumming

I understand over 1000 different religions in USA. Not sure how many have federal tax exemption under 501(C)(3)? I know the decision on Scientology took over 20 years to wend its way through the courts and bureaucracy.

Byron Raum

Aren't the extremist families being visited by the FBI, rather than TLC?

Jane

Of course,if you were going to do a show on ordinary Christian families, you'd have to include someone like Timothy McVeigh to be sure that the show was fair and balanced.

The beaver

Looks like Kayak.com has joined those nuts from Florida !!!

Amir

I'm sorry i don't get the point.
Sharia is simply the path a Muslim believer follows. The "type" of Sharia is based on the sect of Islam.

A Sunny believer will follow his path (Sharia) , and a Shiite will follow his version of Sharia.

so what am i missing ?

turcopolier

All

Amir seems to be an Israeli who lives in the US. his questions deserve a serious answer. pl

optimax

The other day John Haggee came into my livingroom wearing a prayer shawl over his shoulders. He said the shawl was designed by God, the same type worn by Jesus, made in Israel and could be purchased through his ministry. It was tempting but I'm a Pendleton man.

A couple of weeks ago I invited Pat Robertson over and he told my how it was necessary for the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

I'm just glad I won't be fooled by American-Muslims into thinking they are just like me so they can force Sharia Law on all of us good people.

I've never trusted any group with name "family" in it since Charles Manson was featured in Life.

M

Amir: groups like the FFA claim that Muslims want to implement Shariah in the US, meaning that all American women will be forced to wear burqas, etc. Hence, laws proposed in some states which ban any acceptance of Shariah, without defining what that term means.

In practice, such a law might prevent a Muslim from writing a will which complied with religious guidance, for example.

Amir

M. Thanks for clarifying.
I understand both sides.
In Israel the religious orthodox enjoy the freedom to worship, they do not control the way of life, and most of the society is secular. You can eat pork as much as you can buy, including in Jerusalem.
However in the religious neighborhood of "100 Shaarim", they insist there will be a separation between man and women in the streets, in buses etc.
That is against the Israeli law and causes a lot of problems but since it's "their" neighborhood and they are the majority they use the freedom of worship as an excuse.
Same thing is taking place in Muslim neighborhoods all over Europe.
Any group who will try to live their life according to a set of rules which is contradictory to current civil law, will run into the same problem. How do you balance between the two ?


confusedponderer

Amir,
you know the answer to your question already: You balance by drawing a line right where one group's desire, indeed, right, to live their life according to a set of rules becomes contradictory to civil law, criminal law, and unbearably infringes upon the rights of others.

Where two equal rights conflict, there has to be compromise. It is best achieved with the state being a neutral arbiter.

The religious orthodox of about any persuasion have almost always never really liked that since that is almost always to much compromise for their tastes. That is why they want to make their views law. This isn't any different with the religiously orthodox in Israel, Iran or the so-called "American heartland".

Also, you somewhat play down the influence religious conservatives have in Israel. Given the fact that they have come to determine and attest Jewishness, they decide over matters of nationality. That is pretty fundamental influence for fundamentalists.

Amir

Re setting the balance, that is easier said then done. For example there are special Sharia courts which devout Muslim may choose to go to to attend to his / her problems. The court rulings may not be in accordance with civil law. If you'll ban Sharia (or religious) courts you will be banning a big part of the freedom of worship. So what do you do ? where is the line ? I treat religious as a tradition, i may even go to synagogue around the high holidays the line for me is very obvious. But orthodox believers (Jewish, Christians or Muslims) have a different view on the matter. I think that being secular / traditional you and I can't fully understand the complication a believer would have with the introduction of religious laws into the civil code. I think that any religious law's should be prohibited, whether it's Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other variant.

As for your ending comment, DO me a favor, I spent most of my life in Israel. I didn't played down anything. Religious power of the Orthodox is very limited, and it is around some aspect of Jewish life. One can become a citizen of the state of Israel without being a Jew, so your statement is flat out wrong. The Orthodox were given the power to accept new members to the Jewish Religious tribe, mostly for traditional reasons.

turcopolier

Amir

"One can become a citizen of the state of Israel without being a Jew" That's true. a lot of Palestinian Arabs are Israeli citizens and they are treated as second or third class citizens, harassed by the police for trivial reasons and mocked by teen aged israeli soldiers at check points. I've been there. pl

Amir

Pat,
What one has to do with the other ?
First of all, Israeli Arabs are not going through checkpoints, hence are not being bothered by any one.
You may have been there, but the situation there is extremely hard to comprehend.
The Israeli Arabs for the most part do not want to be a part of the state of Israel, and not to long ago (60 years) were actively fighting against the Jews.
It's easy to blames us for not integrating them, but what do you know for example about the municipality tax collection revolt in the Israeli-Arab municipalities ? You should look into it. I'm sure you know that part of one local taxes is being returned to him in form of services. and everyone heard the Israeli-Arabs are getting a lower level of services, but who knows anything about the tax collection rates among them ? Willing to bet (and i am not trying to be disrespectful or offensive in any way) you know nothing of the subject.
I'm not saying Israel is a perfect place, far from it, but the situation is way more complicated then what is being shown via the media outlets in the US or anywhere else for that matter.

turcopolier

Amir

You are funny. i drove from Jerusalem to Janin last year and watched a lot of palestinians go through checkpoints. the same thing is true on the road to bethlehem. you are just another propagandist. you characters are always the same, always with the air of superiority and the sneering racist bullshit. goodbye.

Arun

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nothing-anti-muslim-about-gingrich-s-comments-shari-says-anti-islamist-muslim-activist

Quote:

CNSNews.com) – Newt Gingrich’s stance on Islamic law (shari’a) is not “anti-Muslim” as charged by some Islamic critics, an American Muslim activist said Thursday.

Instead it is those critical of Gingrich – the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – whose actions and motivations should be examined, in the view of M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant, anti-Islamist American Muslim who is founder and president of the non-profit American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).

“CAIR again proves that along with other Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in America, they are simply grievance mills which irresponsibly derive their fuel from exaggerating Muslim victimization,” the Phoenix, Ariz.-based doctor told CNSNews.com.

CAIR earlier this week slammed Gingrich after the Republican presidential candidate, asked during a South Carolina campaign event whether he would ever endorse an American Muslim running for president, replied, “It would depend entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up shari’a.”

“A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued. “A person who belonged to any kind of belief in shari’a – any kind of effort to impose that on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat.”

He went on to point to the application of shari’a in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

CAIR in response called Gingrich “one of the nation’s worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry” and said he “looks like a relic of an ugly era.”

“Any Muslim knows that shari’a is much a part – is completely a part of Islam and you can’t separate the two,” CAIR legislative director Corey Saylor told Iran’s state-funded Press TV. Saylor added that Gingrich’s comments amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of a religious test for public office.

Invited to comment on Gingrich remarks and CAIR’s criticism, Jasser said, “There is nothing anti-Muslim, implied or otherwise against the free exercise of religion by Muslims in America from anyone who simply states that we Muslims need to come to terms with modernity and separate mosque and state.”

“That is in fact the mission of our American Islamic Forum for Democracy,” he said.

Jasser said Gingrich had “correctly contextualized his comments with the way shari’a is implemented in Saudi Arabia’s hate-filled public policy.”

Saylor’s comments, Jasser said, “demonstrate exactly how irrational Islamist groups like CAIR can get when they are directly confronted with the incompatibilities of Islamism and its instrument of shari’a with western society and modernity.”

“One would be hard-pressed to find any public repudiation of Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s interpretation of shari’a by CAIR.”

Jasser stressed that public participation in the U.S. government of Muslims – or adherents of any religion – should never be subject to a “faith litmus test.”

“However, Islamism and its inherent desire to implement the public (not the personal) doctrine of shari’a as an instrument of an Islamic state, whether Muslims are a minority or a majority, is a dangerous theo-political ideology that is very relevant to the qualifications and disqualifications of any Muslim running for office or sensitive government appointment,” he argued.

“Mr. Gingrich is accurate in making that distinction.”

End quote.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad