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.
What are you not understanding? It doesn't matter where people live who practice the die-hard "culture" or "laws" - they still kill their daughters in the NAME of their religion while they LIVE in the US. They HONOR their RELIGION before taking any consideration into any US law. And then it's some big honor to go to jail for killing your daughter...?
Did you miss the news where some Muslim father ran his daughter over with a vehicle (killing her) and the stupid US liberal judge said, "Ah, it's what his religion tells him to do." So it's ok"? But don't wear a cross in a public school - it might be offensive!!!
Just a touch? How hard to you have to rub two stones together to power up a house?
Who electrocutes someone in 2010? Why don't you look it up? This is not a death penalty/means of punishment for those who committed crimes violent enough to end up on death row debate vs. stone aged ways of dealing with a rape victim/domestic violence thread by a certain religion.
Wake up.
i did miss that news. feel free to share it. the laws apply to him if he lives here.
i guess it depends on the type of stones.
and still - i'm not discussing the crimes that warrant death penalty. in my opinion, none does. in your opinion, i'm sure some do. in someone else's opinion, even more do.
i'm simply saying i think that electrocuting and stoning are both pretty archaic methods. even if one is more advanced than the other - both belong in the past.
i found the stories. looked like it happened in 2009, and the defense attorney tried to use a bunch of distraction arguments. couldn't find anything about whether he was convicted, but he was charged with murder - so looks like the US laws do apply to him as well.
They don't seem interested in having a real debate. They've used the same talking points despite the "evolution" of the discussion and will call anyone prejudiced for disagreeing. It also has been shown that they can't back up their claims. What really troubles me is that they think Islam had nothing to do with 9/11, which is one of the most outrageous statements I've read on C-D.
Anywho, I wish supporters of the mosque would have at least some sensitivity when it comes to the location.
Your view of sensitivity, however, isn't necessarily that of everyone. I am a WTC survivor, and I don't find the mosque's location insensitive. Neither to do the families of the dead who support it. We don't connect this mosque to the 9/11 attacks, and that is the difference.
If it is built, the GZM gets to be a recruiting tool for Musilm terrorists and if it does not get built it becomes a recruiting tool for Muslim terrorists.
So if its a wash let's go with the majority of public opinion.
Days of minority opinion ruling the majority need to come to a close.
Minority opinion is valuable to temper and influence mainstream views but no way should the many be sacrified for the few. An intelligent statesman or politician should be able to address the concerns of the few without cutting the flesh of the many.
Since the conversation has moved into citing religious text and painting Islam as a religion of hate and terror, I thought it would be interesting to point out some facts. If we look back over the past millenia or two, one thing is clear, as far as the comparison between Islam and Christianity goes, Islam by it's teachings and actions has always been the more tolerant and peacful religion.
One premier example of this is the citing on the Koran of the "people of the book". The Koran specifies that those who follow Abrahamic religions (Christians, Jews and Sabians) are not "infidels" but are instead simply followers of true religions that have not heard the word of Mohammad and may have been corrupted in their beliefs. The Koran specifies and Muslims have for centuries followed strict tolerance of these groups even in conquered lands not stripping them of their identity or forcing their conversion. They believe that while these people have not reached the same level as Muslims do to their rejection of the Koran, they do believe in the same God.
Here are some Koran passages regarding "people of the book":
Quote:
And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. [Qur'an29:46]
Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn .(3:113-115)
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3:199)'
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Qur'an2:62]
Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God. [Qur'an3:64]
The scritpure writings that refer to "non-believers" and "infidels" are not referring to Christians, Jews, etc. They are referring to Pagans and any group that does not accept the "true God of Abraham". These passages are perverted by both the terrorists and people with agendas in the west to be made to appear to call for "jihad" on non-believers and kill them. The Koran, however, defines non-believers quite differently as I have pointed out. Additionally Islam in practice has even extended througout history to include Zoroasterism and Hinduism as protected religions in conquered terriroties. Hinudism is an interesting example as it shares nothing in common with the other religions covered. It simply comes down to the fact that Islam at it's core has a strict tolerance and apprecitation of other religions and their view on the world.
Another interesting fact is that the first move towards religious tolerance in western Europe was spawned by Caliph Umar in Spain when he published the first treatise regarding how the "people of the book" should be treated and guaranteed them the freedom to practice their religion. This was interesting as the Visigoths who were the ones conquered by the Muslims and practiced a Christian sect religion were given freedom to worship. Conversely had they been conquered by Catholics, they would have been killed if they failed to convert on the spot. Caliph Umar is also the gentleman who spared all Christian and Jewish sites within Jerusalem from destrucion when the Muslim army conquered the area. This document went on 1,000 years later to serve as inspiration to America's Founding Fathers when crafting the Constitution.
Throughout the centuries of Muslim rule across their territories they allowed other religions to co-exist with the only penalty being a tax and that these people were not allowed to hold public office. This is in direct contrast to the Christian armies that ruthlessly slaughtered any non-Christians in their path. Cordoba Spain was the greatest center of religious thought and learning in the western world during the Muslim rule.
Moving on Saladin and Richard I reached an agreement and truce that would open Jerusalem and all the holy cities to people of all religions and leave them unhassled on their pilgrimages. A truce that was honored until being broken by future Crusaders.
The light of world knowledge and science was kept alive by Muslims during the European Dark Ages and their research and texts helped spur the Enlightenment and guarantee that classical ideas and knowledge were not lost.
The current policial situation has caused many people to take the Koran and use it for their own purposes on both sides. When it comes down to it, Islam has a long history as a religion of peace and tolerance and to say otherwise is a distortion of the facts.
Your view of sensitivity, however, isn't necessarily that of everyone. I am a WTC survivor, and I don't find the mosque's location insensitive. Neither to do the families of the dead who support it. We don't connect this mosque to the 9/11 attacks, and that is the difference.
I thought about this matter a little more over the weekend, and I came to the conclusion that something else was driving my reasoning with regard to believing that a Mosque should be built near the former WTC site. In addition to what I articulated earlier, I think it is consistent with my belief as an independent conservative, that the Constitution is sacrosanct as it pertains to common law. Accordingly, the mosque should be allowed to be built, because you have the twin driving forces of 1) freedom of religious practice and assembly, combined with 2) private property ownership clause goes to the essence of the First Amendment. To disallow this mosque, in addition to showing that we are a tolerant society, also flies in the face of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. And I think that's what was at the core of my belief last week, but wasn't something I thought out clearly until the weekend.
I hope this somewhat clarifies what I was thinking earlier. I think it is the right move, for a variety of reasons. I think many people who otherwise identify or consider themselves as conservative should think this out, and apply it to this case.
I thought about this matter a little more over the weekend, and I came to the conclusion that something else was driving my reasoning with regard to believing that a Mosque should be built near the former WTC site. In addition to what I articulated earlier, I think it is consistent with my belief as an independent conservative, that the Constitution is sacrosanct as it pertains to common law. Accordingly, the mosque should be allowed to be built, because you have the twin driving forces of 1) freedom of religious practice and assembly, combined with 2) private property ownership clause goes to the essence of the First Amendment. To disallow this mosque, in addition to showing that we are a tolerant society, also flies in the face of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. And I think that's what was at the core of my belief last week, but wasn't something I thought out clearly until the weekend.
I hope this somewhat clarifies what I was thinking earlier. I think it is the right move, for a variety of reasons. I think many people who otherwise identify or consider themselves as conservative should think this out, and apply it to this case.
Agree 100%, but can't rep you right now.
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.
Muslims and Dems infiltrated and hijacked
