Politics And Current Events

[Freddy Rumsen]

[Sarcastic]

lol ^ pretty much, it seems.

[Sarcastic]

You let my post asking if you could explain my politics to see if you're right slide? Why not just see if you can? I can't extend the same courtesy of letting your assertions slide? Nope, you're right.

I would vote Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders because I think the Republican candidates are insane, and these two have at least a shred of conviction in what they believe. Would they accomplish much of anything on their agenda? No, but they'd bring a more substantive conversation to the table. I've also said I would have voted McCain if he hadn't picked Palin. I've also voted Republican in local elections.

Bernie Sanders is one of my 2 or 3 possibilities (if I'll vote at all), but this past week he said something totally weirdo. That he considered global warming as world's biggest threat, even bigger than the current situation with terrorism. I get the global warming stuff, but come on.

[Sarcastic]

Christians and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists all, for the most part, have a common set of values with respect to crime, punishment and women’s rights. There exists a pluralism where those followers can co-exist, even if their faiths differ. Sure their are dietary differences, but those are minor.
. . . .

Excellent point. Look, I’m a registered libertarian, and I try as hard as I can to have a live-and-let-live attitude in regard to everyone. I generally don’t care what religion anyone practices. But I must admit that I am highly circumspect when it comes to Islam.

As EPP indicates, a lot of time conflict between Muslims and other groups is called a conflict of “culture.” But the term culture encompasses a lot of things. Food, dress, music, language—all that stuff can be considered culture. And people with vastly different cultural preferences can still get along fine. Take the Amish, for example. They flat-out reject a great deal of what many would consider modern American culture, but it rarely generates any conflict.

A subsidiary of what one could consider culture would include a society’s view of the rule of law. And when it comes to that facet of culture, Islam differs sharply from the “liberal” (in the sense of classical liberalism) tradition that underpins what I would call the “Western” legal tradition—the predominant legal tradition in the world. Classical liberalism is the fundamental underpinning for how Western-style nations view things like individual rights, personal liberties, equal protection, and similar things.

This difference is demonstrated by two declarations of human rights. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the “Most Translated Document” in the world is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the UDHR is a document deeply steeped in classical liberalism. It states, among others, that everyone has the “right to life, liberty and security of person,” that “all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law,” that everyone “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” which “includes freedom to change his religion or belief,” that people have a right to “freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state,” that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression,” and that “everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.” The UDHR is a deeply liberal document.

In response to the UDHR, a group of Islamic nations promulgated the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. The Cairo Declaration is roughly analogous to the UDHR, but a closer examination reveals sharp differences. For example:

- Article 6 says that “Woman is equal to man in human dignity,” but the Cairo Declaration is very clear to avoid saying that women have equal rights.

- Article 12 says that the freedom of movement and selection of residence is subject to “the framework of the Shari'ah.”

- Article 22 says that free expression does not extend to expression that “would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.” The free exchange of information further “may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”

- Article 23 says that the right to participate in public office must be “in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah.”

- Most importantly, Article 24 functionally negates all of the other articles and says that “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.”

Essentially, the Cairo Declaration cannot say that all people have equal rights, because Shariah manifestly says that all people do not. Muslims are afforded more rights than non-Muslims, and men are afforded more rights than women. Neither can the Cairo Declaration say that people have freedom of movement, because Shariah law bars non-Muslims from living in the Holy Places. Neither can the Cairo Declaration provide free expression, because Shariah forbids anything that would insult Muhammad or Allah. There are other deep differences, if you compare the two documents.

This is not a simple “cultural" matter along the lines of “they wear funny clothes” or “they eat weird food” or “they speak their own language.” Islam and the Western tradition have fundamental differences as to what it means to be a human being and what rights accompany the human condition.

That's good info I didn't know. Kinda explains some things. Like umm... OK, you know how Muslims set up their communities over in Europe (some call it zones or no-go zones), where they actually do the decency patrols and harass people walking by if they're drinking beer or if a girl is wearing less than a ski outfit. I saw a video on youtube where a girl - I think she was a reporter - held a discussion with those guys and said that it is her right to wear what she wants and that it is the freedom they have in the country...... the guy responded saying what about HIS freedom to tell a woman what not to wear. That's what you're dealing with. Can that co-exist with Western culture? I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

Now. Obviously, a good portion of Muslims are not like that. I even remember posting a live music video from Damascus (LGP), where you had people at a club, with alcohol set up on tables and a gorgeous model dancing with the singer who invited her on stage. I'd invite such folk to my home too (like shaf would). Feed them some ham for a laugh. Problem is that even a small number of crazies can do tremendous damage. How do you deal with that and why do they seem to overpower the normal folk if they're supposedly the minority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7T6bhNlmpw

I've been a fan of Arabic music for a long time. The musical scale they use is beautiful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yliYydM5h3o

[Shyster]

I saw a video on youtube where a girl - I think she was a reporter - held a discussion with those guys and said that it is her right to wear what she wants and that it is the freedom they have in the country...... the guy responded saying what about HIS freedom to tell a woman what not to wear. That's what you're dealing with. Can that co-exist with Western culture? I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

But that attitude is not necessarily incorrect under Sharia. Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (English: Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper) is a standard reference manual of Sharia law for the Shafi'i school of Sunni Islam. There's an English translation available, which has been certified by multiple Islamic authorities to be an accurate translation of the source. You hear a lot out there about Sharia law, but it's not all that clear what Sharia really encompasses. Reliance of the Traveler allows you to go to a definitive authority. I bought a copy a few years ago.

Under Book M, sections m2.3 to m2.9, it is unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his "unmarriageable kin" (Section m2.8 notes that the Hanafi school* permits a man to look at a woman's face and hands to the extent he needs to deal with her, such as for business purposes.) Thus, those women who walk around uncovered are causing Muslim men to break religious law because by doing to they are pretty much forcing the men to look at them. So to protect themselves, Muslim men have to be able to tell women to cover up.

Women should be covered up anyway. Under Book W, Section w23.1, when woman are in the privacy of their home, they must at a minimum cover themselves from the navel to the knees (boobs can be on display). For prayer, all but the face and hands must be covered. For outside the home, everything must be covered (except for the face and hands for Hanafis).


* There are four schools of Islamic law in Sunni Islam: Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali.

[Sarcastic]

I saw a video on youtube where a girl - I think she was a reporter - held a discussion with those guys and said that it is her right to wear what she wants and that it is the freedom they have in the country...... the guy responded saying what about HIS freedom to tell a woman what not to wear. That's what you're dealing with. Can that co-exist with Western culture? I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

But that attitude is not necessarily incorrect under Sharia. Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (English: Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper) is a standard reference manual of Sharia law for the Shafi'i school of Sunni Islam. There's an English translation available, which has been certified by multiple Islamic authorities to be an accurate translation of the source. You hear a lot out there about Sharia law, but it's not all that clear what Sharia really encompasses. Reliance of the Traveler allows you to go to a definitive authority. I bought a copy a few years ago.

Under Book M, sections m2.3 to m2.9, it is unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his "unmarriageable kin" (Section m2.8 notes that the Hanafi school* permits a man to look at a woman's face and hands to the extent he needs to deal with her, such as for business purposes.) Thus, those women who walk around uncovered are causing Muslim men to break religious law because by doing to they are pretty much forcing the men to look at them. So to protect themselves, Muslim men have to be able to tell women to cover up.

Women should be covered up anyway. Under Book W, Section w23.1, when woman are in the privacy of their home, they must at a minimum cover themselves from the navel to the knees (boobs can be on display). For prayer, all but the face and hands must be covered. For outside the home, everything must be covered (except for the face and hands for Hanafis).


* There are four schools of Islamic law in Sunni Islam: Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali.

This hard form of Islam has no place mixing into Western culture. It's incompatible and should not be tolerated. But how do you enforce it. Liberal Europe is all about tolerance, even if this tolerance means cutting down on womens' rights or overall rights of native citizens. It's so bad, they set up laws that pertain specifically to criticizing Islam under the guise of racism.

Look this up, guys. Germany's schools sent out letters to kids' parents not to allow girls to wear short skirts to school, because it may "offend" Muslims.

[Factorial]

https://twitter.com/HistOpinion/status/ ... wsrc%5Etfw

[Factorial]

Related to the above, I'm not sure why we ever let in any people from the former Easter Bloc countries since the fall of the Berlin Wall. They were raised under Communist rule and for all we know when they get here they'll try to bring their communism with them. There could be sleeper cells looking to undermine the American way.

[columbia]

[columbia]

Related to the above, I'm not sure why we ever let in any people from the former Easter Bloc countries since the fall of the Berlin Wall. They were raised under Communist rule and for all we know when they get here they'll try to bring their communism with them. There could be sleeper cells looking to undermine the American way.

See: Daniel Ivandjiiski, son of a Bulgarian security and disinformation officer.

[Factorial]

Looks like Dr Ben's map of New England is a bit off.

[columbia]

So much for that moral compass.

[count2infinity]

Any facebook masochists like myself that keep the crazies around on their newsfeed just to see what they say? I notice a lot of the "WE NEED TO HELP OUR OWN BEFORE WE TAKE IN REFUGEES!" crew are the same people that post non-stop about the nanny state and how government assistance programs are going to ruin this country. It's kind of weird.

[NTP66]

Any facebook masochists like myself that keep the crazies around on their newsfeed just to see what they say? I notice a lot of the "WE NEED TO HELP OUR OWN BEFORE WE TAKE IN REFUGEES!" crew are the same people that post non-stop about the nanny state and how government assistance programs are going to ruin this country. It's kind of weird.

I know a few of them, and I'll likely remove them come election time. The best is a guy who is now a nurse, but absolutely hates helping people, and has zero compassion for anything. The irony.

[NAN]

Which one of you voted "Yes" to let PA accept terrorist.

[Factorial]

Which one of you voted "Yes" to let PA accept terrorist.

I'm hoping some with restaurant experience will settle in the Lancaster area. We need more and better Middle Eastern food choices.

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/HistOpinion/status/ ... wsrc%5Etfw

[Freddy Rumsen]

Looks like Dr Ben's map of New England is a bit off.

This was a big subject on twitter yesterday and nearly all the pol analyst folks were beside themselves trying to figure out how in the world they could make a map like that. It is not like there are not a billion free templates to use in google image.

[columbia]

#bashthemedia

[Freddy Rumsen]

Real Clear Politics average Iowa Poll

24% Trump
24% Carson

13% Rubio
12% Cruz

25% Bush Fiorina Jindal Christie Kasich Huckabee Paul Santorum Graham Pataki combined

[columbia]

So The Shrew will drop out after South Carolina?

[ExPatriatePen]

So The Shrew will drop out after South Carolina?

You're worse than Trump

[Freddy Rumsen]

So The Shrew will drop out after South Carolina?

Santorum?

[columbia]

So The Shrew will drop out after South Carolina?

You're worse than Trump

Thank you

[shmenguin]

i was questioned here a couple weeks ago for saying carson wasn't a compassionate person.