Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a local community decides they want to disallow businesses to open on Sunday, Saturday, or any other day of the week, that's really something the local community can decide. It's none of my business, if Anytown, USA decides to do commerce however they wish.
If Dearborn, MI, which has a large population of Muslims, decides to make laws that are friendly to Muslims, so be it.
In the same way, California has some idiotic laws that will prevent me from ever moving to California.
Since I live near and travel through Dearborn quite often, (I have a few relatives still living there) a few EXAMPLES would be appreciated if you are to be taken seriously...
Since I live near and travel through Dearborn quite often, (I have a few relatives still living there) a few EXAMPLES would be appreciated if you are to be taken seriously...
Do some googling. There have been Christian evangelists arrested at Muslim festivals. I have no problem with them holding a muslim festival, or them passing any laws favorable to Muslims, IF no other rights are violated. How about.....maybe if they decided to limit food sales during daylight hours during Ramadan? No idea if they'd actually do that...but it's merely a thought. IF the city of Dearborn decides to do that, that's their business. I would not consider that a violation of my rights if they chose to do that.
Do some googling. There have been Christian evangelists arrested at Muslim festivals. I have no problem with them holding a muslim festival, or them passing any laws favorable to Muslims, IF no other rights are violated. How about.....maybe if they decided to limit food sales during daylight hours during Ramadan? No idea if they'd actually do that...but it's merely a thought. IF the city of Dearborn decides to do that, that's their business. I would not consider that a violation of my rights if they chose to do that.
I'm glad it doesn't bother you, but Muslim enclaves like Dearborn are often given as examples of "sharia law in America" by alarmists from your corner of the peanut gallery. Such fear-mongering must embarrass you. I know similar kinds of publicity stunts used to embarrass me, back in the day.
My personal take is that I don't think Dearborn should pass the Muslim equivalent of "blue laws". What is the problem with Muslims not buying food during daylight hours of Ramadan of their OWN VOLITION, with any sanctions being imposed by the local Mosque? What is the problem with Christians not buying liquor on Sundays of their OWN VOLITION, with any policing and sanctions being imposed by the local church? I mean, I don't see what EITHER prohibition proves or accomplishes, but this is not a civil matter, it is a religious matter, to be managed at the religious level.
The problem is when a pastor or imam decides to impose their extra-societal rules on people OUTSIDE their legitimate scope of responsibility by passing some sort of law that applies to people besides their own group.
I'm glad it doesn't bother you, but Muslim enclaves like Dearborn are often given as examples of "sharia law in America" by alarmists from your corner of the peanut gallery. Such fear-mongering must embarrass you. I know similar kinds of publicity stunts used to embarrass me, back in the day.
They are, yes. And one instance of that was Dr. Nabeel Qureshi being wrongly arrested and having his rights violated. That would be an example of a violation of rights.
But deciding to limit commerce? That's certainly within the rights of the local community.
Quote:
My personal take is that I don't think Dearborn should pass the Muslim equivalent of "blue laws". What is the problem with Muslims not buying food during daylight hours of Ramadan of their OWN VOLITION, with any sanctions being imposed by the local Mosque? What is the problem with Christians not buying liquor on Sundays of their OWN VOLITION, with any policing and sanctions being imposed by the local church? I mean, I don't see what EITHER prohibition proves or accomplishes, but this is not a civil matter, it is a religious matter, to be managed at the religious level.
I don't think they should, either. And frankly, I agree -- I also believe that if Christians wish to simply not buy it, it's their choice. But if a community wishes to do that, they have the right to do so.
The question though, is whether or not a law is invalid simply because it might agree with the wishes of religious people? I see no issue with coincidence.
Quote:
The problem is when a pastor or imam decides to impose their extra-societal rules on people OUTSIDE their legitimate scope of responsibility by passing some sort of law that applies to people besides their own group.
Agreed. And I am not suggesting that any pastor or imam has the authority to decide law. It's up to the elected officials in the particular city or community.
But fighting over who has the best primitive god concept is akin to two children fist-fighting over whether or not Superman can beat up Mighty Mouse -- or whether Gandalf can beat Harry Potter in a magic duel -- or whether Marvel or DC have the best comic books.
I don't think they should, either. And frankly, I agree -- I also believe that if Christians wish to simply not buy it, it's their choice. But if a community wishes to do that, they have the right to do so.
The question though, is whether or not a law is invalid simply because it might agree with the wishes of religious people? I see no issue with coincidence.
No, there's no problem with genuine "coincidences". Secular laws should be passed with a rationale that speaks to the societal harms it seeks to prevent, or the benefits it seeks to produce, without appeal to religious dogma or custom. The problem is when a religious majority is also a political majority, and is blind or indifferent to the human and civil rights of the minority, and puts personal beliefs over secular society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Agreed. And I am not suggesting that any pastor or imam has the authority to decide law. It's up to the elected officials in the particular city or community.
In theory, if every citizen were a properly informed voter, and always voted, any law that did not violate the constitution or other higher legal requirement or violate the human or civil rights of anyone could be passed, and no one would be disenfranchised thereby. That doesn't mean the law is good policy or will not have unintended consequences, of course, but you can always correct mistakes.
The problem is that many people aren't informed and don't vote, many legislators are corrupt, lying sacks of you-know-what, tribalism runs rampant, and we've blown past many taboos such that we have little confidence anyone's telling the truth about their motives. And nowhere have I seen these problems more pronounced than in Christian-majority enclaves like Alabama has exhibited in recent weeks, for example.
Basically we're to a point that it's tribe over humanity, party over principle, and dogma over rational discourse, unfortunately.
Interesting. Did you actually read and try to understand what I wrote, or did you just go off on what you THOUGHT I must be saying? You might make more sense and impact if you actually did read and understand what you are reacting to..
My education levels are clearly not as superior as yours and I've never been one for cryptic messages so, rather than being a pompous prat by playing the - 'you simply don't understand what I said' card, perhaps you could explain to such an uneducated moron as myself (preferably in words of one syllable) exactely what you did mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
<--- Sometimes a little bitty facepalm emoticon just doesn't do justice to the facepalm some quotes really deserve.
Try this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Apparently I DID touch a nerve.
Wow.
The words that say....
'Wow!! I got my arse handed to me on a plate there!!!'
If a local community decides they want to disallow businesses to open on Sunday, Saturday, or any other day of the week, that's really something the local community can decide. It's none of my business, if Anytown, USA decides to do commerce however they wish.
If Dearborn, MI, which has a large population of Muslims, decides to make laws that are friendly to Muslims, so be it.
In the same way, California has some idiotic laws that will prevent me from ever moving to California.
Ok. Or so you say. In my experience you are quite capable of protesting that you woulr NEVER think or say this or that - and then you do.
Jowver, I was replying to Ozzy posting that he'd never heard of opposition to Sunday opening and I was (just for information) recounting the only (and rather futile) resitance to Sunday opening that I could remember.
You conceited little pup . No I'm jot going for you just because Shirina delivered all our Christmas presents in one go. But she had you bang to rights. The 'I don't do that - so your argument is a strawman" which it wouldn't be even if it valid. And as I recall, the only reason for the long response is because your post was an overlong filibuster. So, if the hope that nobody will refute you because it's too much trouble for so little result is frustrated by someone refuting every false and dishonest point - why then, you play the 'I sure rattled your bars' ("I annoyed you, therefore, you must secretly know I'm right") card. Shirina was right - shameless dishonesty is far too often the stock in trade of the Christian apologist. It certainly is yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
<--- Sometimes a little bitty facepalm emoticon just doesn't do justice to the facepalm some quotes really deserve.
. No I'm jot going for you just because Shirina delivered all our Christmas presents in one go. But she had you bang to rights. The 'I don't do that - so your argument is a strawman" which it wouldn't be even if it valid. And as I recall, the only reason for the long response is because your post was an overlong filibuster. So, if the hope that nobody will refute you because it's too much trouble for so little result is frustrated by someone refuting every false and dishonest point - why then, you play the 'I sure rattled your bars' ("I annoyed you, therefore, you must secretly know I'm right") card. Shirina was right - shameless dishonesty is far too often the stock in trade of the Christian apologist. It certainly is yours.
