U.S. Shari'a watch

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby bignaf » Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:18 pm

It looks like those imams deliberately tried to get suspected (loud prayer, adverse talk about USA) in order to create this lawsuit and make it easier for a future terrorist attack to happen. I really hope this law passes, and that Homeland security is looking into the connections of these imams (and CAIR for that matter...). very dangerous!
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby Haggis@wk » Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:24 pm

foot-washing basin

Consider some less-talked-about signs of accommodation: Minneapolis Community and Technical College is poised to become the state's first public school to install a foot-washing basin to help the school's 500 Muslim students perform pre-prayer rituals. "We want to be welcoming," MCTC President Phil Davis said, noting a student was hurt trying to wash in a regular sink.



I find this incredible. So that whole “Church/State separation thing” doesn’t include Islam?

I can only surmise from this that the Muslim students are already given some special dispensation three or four times a day to pray while they are in school.

I can remember when my kids' high school had to even stop the "quiet time" 2-5 minute break in the morning because it was inferred that students would be praying.

And it's going to get worse.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby bignaf » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:05 pm

Haggis, Note that after your post telling me not to post because I can't validate my statements, I posted two posts validating my statement ("muslims of different types") and pointing out that your validation was false. in case you missed that...
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:24 am

Big,
I wasn't disputing your numbers and my 99.9% was an exaggeration but the point remains; by a significant percentage almost every dollar spent on Mosques and clerics in this country is from Saudi Arabia.

And the salient point is that the prevalent form of Islam practice in the U.S. is radical Wahhabism
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby bignaf » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:05 pm

if so, your salient point does not contradict mine. my point was that there are changes in the makeup of the muslim population, resulting in more problems relating to observance.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm

bignaf wrote:if so, your salient point does not contradict mine. my point was that there are changes in the makeup of the muslim population, resulting in more problems relating to observance.


The only problems I see are a hardening of interpretation by clerics that have been here for years.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby analog » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:46 pm

Surprising as this is to me, I supppose it'll become commonplace......

Image

Image


Jefferson was a champion of religious tolerance. His 1777 Draft of a Bill for Religious Freedom states…

…that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.


To quote my hero Red Green, "I'm a guy and I can change.... I guess."

But right now doesn't it just amount to fanning a fire?

a.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:50 pm

Debra Burlingame has a column in the New York Post about the disgraceful response of House Democrats to the transportation security bill amendment that protects people who report suspicious behavior from being sued by the likes of CAIR: Lawsuits first, safety second.

This is the kind of no-brainer legislation that every member of Congress should vigorously support. Yet House Democrats reacted to King’s proposal as if he’d thrown a bomb into the House chamber itself.

According to witnesses in the gallery and on the floor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi displayed a classic deer-in-the headlights look as the Democratic leadership went into a huddle - plainly eager, not to embrace this common-sense measure, but to sidetrack it.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took the floor to oppose King’s motion - and to defend the lawsuit against John Does. “We should be tolerant,” he argued; people shouldn’t be singled out because they “look different.”

In fact, the flying imams triggered concerns by a variety of unusual actions, as well as words that roused the concern of another Arabic-speaking passenger. Witnesses say that House members started booing Thompson.

Finally, a member of the leadership realized how this would look to Americans watching on C-SPAN: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) was seen staring at Thompson and repeatedly drawing his hand across his throat - an urgent signal to get off the floor.



And we should all believe that Democrats are tough on defense
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:33 am

I’m speechless

The task force's eventual objectives on American campuses include the following, according to the website: permanent Muslim prayer spaces, ritual washing facilities, separate food and housing for Muslim students, separate hours at athletic facilities for Muslim women, paid imams or religious counselors, and campus observance of Muslim holidays. The task force is already hailing "pioneering" successes. At Syracuse University in New York, for example, "Eid al Fitr is now an official university holiday," says an article featured on the website. "The entire university campus shuts down to mark the end of Ramadan." At Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Mich., "halal" food -- ritually slaughtered and permissible under Islamic law -- is marked by green stickers in the cafeteria and "staff are well-trained in handling practices."

At Georgetown University, Muslim women can live apart in housing that enables them to "sleep in an Islamic setting," as the website puts it. According to a student at the time the policy was adopted, the university housing office initially opposed the idea, on grounds that all freshman should have the experience of "living in dorms and dealing with different kinds of people." That might sound appealing, Muslim students told a reporter in an article featured on the website. But in their view, the reporter wrote, "learning to live with 'different kinds of people' " actually "causes more harm than good" for Muslims, because it requires them to live in an environment that "distracts them from their desire to become better Muslims, and even draw[s] weaker Muslims away from Islam."
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:55 am

That's so weird. Instead of founding and supporting a Muslim University, they want to Muslimify the public ones. Unbelievable.

Tax-supported public schools should not accomodate any single religious faith more than they do others. I don't mind if the cafeteria chooses to offer halal food, so long as they also offer food for every other variety of faith that has dietary laws. Alternately, religiously observant muslims can do what people who observe kosher law, or 7th day adventist rules, or practicing vegetarian hindus, or PETAfied vegans do - find a suitable commercial food source or prepare and pack your own food. Sheesh.

About the dorms - no way. University dorms are the university's dorms and the school needs to be able to have one set of rules for everyone. Folks with special requirements need to take responsibility for arranging their own non-dorm housing.

We don't do "separate". It's a terrible, horrible, bad idea and I won't have it. See any modern history source on the subject of "civil rights", "segregation", and "separate but equal".
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:02 am

Next they'll want their own drinking fountains. Sheesh.

Maybe they could go the South. Folks down there didn't mind offering seperate facilities for those that are different, at least until they government told them they couldn't do that any more... :roll:
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:13 pm

I'm mystified at the school's attitude over this. If you substituted any other religion's name for "Muslim" the actions would be a non-starter.

I can only assume the school authorites are afraid that Muslims will react differently than, say, Seventh Day Adventists. If so, that's also racist thinking that if the school doesn't accomodate the Muslims they'll blow something up.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby Shapley » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:54 am

A follow-up to an earlier post:

Cab Drivers Who Refuse Fares Face Penalties
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:23 am

I find I'm getting less and less tolerant of other people inflicting their religious beliefs on me. Cabbies that won't transport some fares (and, according to that posted link of Shap's, put some passengers out of the cab short of their destination!), pharmacists who won't dispense some medications, grocery checkers who won't check some groceries.

Dang it, if you won't do part of the job, you're not qualified to hold the job. In every single job I've ever had, the ability to do the job was a job qualification, and refusal to perform the duties of the job was cause for termination. Employers must make reasonable accomodation for their employees' religious beliefs, it's true, but in my opinion that reasonable accomodation would be more on the order of arranging the weekly schedule to accomodate various religious services, as much as possible.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby piqaboo » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:38 am

What she said.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby jamiebk » Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:04 am

Progress is being made: Read on.....
########################

Minnesota's Muslim cab drivers face crackdown
Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:59 AM ET

MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota's biggest airport will face new penalties including a two-year revocation of their taxi permits if they refuse to give rides to travelers carrying liquor or accompanied by dogs, the board overseeing operations ruled Monday.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission, responding to complaints about the liquor issue, voted unanimously to impose the new penalties beginning in May.

A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants. Many say they feel the faith's ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it.

Some also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.

The new rules cover any driver who refuses a ride for unwarranted reasons, including those who refuse to take short-haul passengers in favor of more lucrative longer trips. They can still refuse fares for certain reasons, including threats to their safety.

Under the new regulations a first offense would result in a 30-day cab license suspension and a second in a two-year taxi license revocation.

The current penalty only requires that cab drivers who refuse a fare to go back to the end of the taxi queue, costing them time and money.

Since January 2002, the commission said in announcing the new rules, there have been about 4,800 instances where cab drivers refused to pick up people with alcohol in their possession. Travelers arriving from international destinations often bring back duty-free alcoholic beverages many in easily identifiable packages.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby OperaTenor » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:40 pm

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:I find I'm getting less and less tolerant of other people inflicting their religious beliefs on me. Cabbies that won't transport some fares (and, according to that posted link of Shap's, put some passengers out of the cab short of their destination!), pharmacists who won't dispense some medications, grocery checkers who won't check some groceries.

Dang it, if you won't do part of the job, you're not qualified to hold the job. In every single job I've ever had, the ability to do the job was a job qualification, and refusal to perform the duties of the job was cause for termination. Employers must make reasonable accomodation for their employees' religious beliefs, it's true, but in my opinion that reasonable accomodation would be more on the order of arranging the weekly schedule to accomodate various religious services, as much as possible.


You'll soon be able to add doctors and health care providers to this list.

Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure

Since this will be interpreted to include Intact D&E, which is the prevalent method and presents the lowest risk to the mother, you'll soon see doctors and health care providers opting out of performing them in favor of riskier procedures, such as abdominal extraction, or inducing self-termination, both of which put the mother at far greater risk. This idiotic and evil legislation doesn't draw any distinction, so it will be broadly interpreted.

Time to write our Congresscritters(tip of the hat to Selma) and urge them to repeal this idiocy.

:rant:
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:34 pm

The partial birth abortion ban was specifically written to prevent the use of intact D & E to kill babies. Prohibition of the proceedure would not be an incorrect application of the law, but a fulfilment of the laws intent, which is a good thing, IMHO.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:31 pm

A really fine day for the politicians who think they are doctors.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:24 am

I’m not sure why OT thought this was the appropriate venue for his rant but..

The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly between pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and almost no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[6]
(from Wikipedia)

Although the pro-choice groups clamors for women’s right to choose, this issue is one where even the most ardent supporters are reluctant to look each other in eye when they talk about it.

Many ordinary Americans are so uncomfortable to even debate it they default to the lunatic fringes of both sides which always means hyperbole and over heated rhetoric.

Even the politicians deliberately flip flop.

HARRY REID ON THE SUPREME COURT'S ABORTION RULING:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was among those who denounced yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Commenting on the decision, Reid said "A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," indicating his desire that there has been a fifth vote to invalidate the statute, as Justice O'Connor had provided the fifth vote to invalidate Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in Stenberg v. Carhart.

What is curious about Reid's statement, as NPR and some news outlets have noted, is not Reid's criticism of Alito -- Reid opposed Alito's confirmation -- but the fact that Reid supported, and voted for, the federal statute upheld in yesterday's decision. . . .

So, despite his repeated support of legislative restrictions on abortion, Reid's latest comment suggests that he believes the Supreme Court's decision was regrettable and wrongly decided, and that a law that he supported is unconstitutional. To me, the latter is of greater concern. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if a member of the Senate believes a law is unconstitutional, he or she should vote against it.


So, I guess the question is “Do you support a woman’s right to have an abortion after, say, the 27th week?”
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron