Well, our Muslims are obviously better than yours.
What do you mean, “has to bend over and take it”? AFAICT, the Canadian justice system isn’t “bending over and taking” anything in connection with this case.
Rather, the Ontario Court of Appeal is deliberating on what would be the best way to handle the veil issue in order to be CONSISTENT with the “western traditions” of the Canadian justice system.
Shit on toast, Valteron, you really can’t even tell a positive from a negative on this issue, can you? Most proponents of civil liberties would probably consider it a good thing that a Canadian secular court is giving thoughtful consideration to a situation involving a potential conflict between freedom of religion and the rights of the defendant.
But not you. As soon as you see the word “Muslim” in any news story, you seem to go into full-on “OMG NO THEY’RE DESTROYING OUR CULTUUUUUUURE!!!” mode, irrespective of what’s actually happening in the news story in question.
Maybe it’s a lucky guess. I figure someone who spews impotent rage like you do doesn’t have the guts to do anything in public.
Good idea. Al Qaeda has multiple sleeper cells monitoring the SDMB at all times.
Yeah, they don’t pass laws against doing nothing.
By the way, Valteron, you are spelling that k-word wrong. Kafir is a nonbeliever. Kaffir is a racial slur. I know how diligent you are about the facts so I thought I should call that to your attention.
I do notice that you’ve not answered the question about if you know any muslims personally, as has been asked by a couple users.
Maybe you should get to know someone before you hate them?
Just sayin’…
And before you start spouting that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, look up the facts. Hitler was definitely not an atheist. Stalin was, and so was Pol Pot. But there is no evidence their crimes were the result of their atheism. When Stalin starved millions in the Ukraine, for example, he did not do so because he was an atheist. He did so because he wanted to punish the Ukranians for withholding harvests and refusing to go along with his collectivization of farms. His problem was not that he failed to believe in God. His problem was too much belief in his ideology, Communism.
Hitler was also a vegetarian and a non-smoker (who correctly believed that smoking causes cancer, BTW). But I do not put his crimes down to non-smoking and vegetarianism.
That is NOT the same as people being strapped with explosives and told that a Allah will reward them in Paradise, of telling people they must wage Holy War against the infidels. In these cases, religion is a direct, obvious motivating force behind these crimes.
Okay then! As long as your intimate knowledge of my activities is as well-based in fact as most of your opinions.:rolleyes:
I didn’t say Al Qaeda, did I? Of course, maybe I am being paranoid. Not like they would kill hundreds of people and burn embassies over cartoons or sentence someone to prison for naming a Teddy Bear “Mohammed”. Or force a novelist to go into hiding in fear for his life and kill a couple of his translators. Or kill a film-maker like Theo van Gogh. You’re right, I must be delusional.
Actually, they’re just different transliterations of the same word.
That’s more than intimate enough.
So now we know Valteron doesn’t handle rhetorical devices very well either.
You’re definitely being paranoid. To which you can add stupid, ignorant, and exceptionally pompous. You’re not Theo van Gogh or Salman Rushie. People have heard of them. You’re not even a teacher with a classroom. You’re some jerk on a message board. If you can’t manage to act like a decent human being with a functional sense of judgment, at least get over yourself.
Obviously. But the one-f spelling seems to be associated mostly with the original word, and the two-f spelling appears to be associated with its use as a racial slur.
One of them was a North African Muslim I have known since 1978. I became friends with him and we would sit and discuss and laugh about things. Back in those days you could probably count the Muslims in our city on your fingers. He said in fact that he had rejected Islam since he moved to the west.
As time went by and the Muslim community in my city grew by leaps and bounds, he suddenly “rediscovered” Islam because it was “dangerous” for him to be known as an apostate, as he confided to me. The pressure from the newly-arrived Muslim community was too great to resist.
He is straight and I am gay. We had never discussed that difference much, but suddenly it made a big difference. I no longer see him any more, but I think he is still in town, active in the “Religion of Peace”.
I also work with one or rtwo Muslims, but the less they know about me, my beliefs (or my atheism) and my private life, the better it is. They usually end up figuring out I am gay and atheist anyhow, and then our relationship becomes “strictly professional”.
Hello, goodbye, that sort of thing.
Then again, when you consider that 72% of Brfitish Muslims actively support killing or imprisoning gays in the UK (I have no similar figures for Canada, sorry), it is kind of hard to be friends with people who think you should be dead or in jail.
Do any of our Jewish members out there have Nazi friends or do any African-Americans have KKK friends, may I ask?
[quote=“Marley23, post:149, topic:542367”]
That’s more than intimate enough.
So now we know Valteron doesn’t handle rhetorical devices very well either.
[QUOTE]
Let me get this right: If I say a Muslim fanatic could want to kill me, I am being paranoid and full of myself. But if Marley says Al Qaeda, he is just using a “rhetorical device”. And how famous or well-known were the Japanese and Italian translators of “The Satanic Verses” in your opinion?
Yes.
Yes.
Did they translate the books anonymously on the internet?
I forgot to mention there is a Muslim couple on our street. The wife wears a black Burqua and veil, and seems to have another kid in the stroller every year. I think they are up to three kids in three years.
I have never tried to talk to her because as far as I am concerned, if she wishes to remove herself from normal social intercourse with her fellow Canadians, I am not going to force myself on her. Besides, I have been told by others who have rung her doorbell that she does not answer the door to anyone, male or female, while her husband is away.
In fact, I was told by a Montreal fireman that there is a major problem of Muslim men in Montreal who lock their wives into their apartments dusing the day, by installing a lock that locks the door on both sides. This is a major concern for the Montreal FD, but nobody wants to talk about it for fear of being called “racist”.
Nobody can remember the black-veiled woman on our street ever being out without her husband beside her, so it is possible she is locked in while he is away at work, although I have no proof of this.
Since you go on to say you don’t know them, this probably shouldn’t count. So you’re still at one.
Well, that just makes it all the more necessary to get out on the streets of Manhattan and protest the construction of a community center by a liberal Muslim organization that advocates for women’s rights in Islam!
Seriously, Valteron, can you not see the cognitive dissonance you’re engaging in here?
Taqqiya (the Muslim art of lying to advance the cause) strikes again. It amazes me how easily you people are fooled.
Look at those words of yours. . . .“advocates for women’s rights IN ISLAM” (emphasis mine).
It is like the slave owner before the civil war who said that nobody was more devoted to just treatment of the black folk than he was. Of course, his definition of just treatment was another matter, since he believed in slavery. But he was quite sincere in what he said.
You may be interested to know that most Islamic nations refused to sign the Universal Declarations of Human Rights, because it provides for all sorts of freedoms and equalities that Islam cannot stomach. Instead, they came up with the “Cairo Declaration” that provides an Islamic declaration of rights which must be consistent with Sharia law.
Similarly, a recent news story out of Britain says that Muslims have started a campaign to improve their image with the British public. Ingenious but misleading ads are now being run that say something to the effect that Mohammed considered women’s rights were sacred. Of course he did! He and his sexist crew had reduced women to chattels or children who must be in the control of a husband or male relative, but had granted their prisoners some rights within this patriarchal prison. You see, the add does not say WHICH rights we are talking about, does it?
A woman has the right to inherit only a small proportion of the family estate, much smaller than the portion received by male hairs. I am sure that Mohammed would have considered this “right” sacred indeed.
It’s the Atheist Inquisition!
If they claim to be liberal Muslims, they are lying to advance the cause. If they claim to be reactionary Muslims, by golly they’re surely telling the truth.
All I am saying is that you should ask yourself specifically what rights of women they are advancing before you award them full marks for being so liberal and modern. It is like when Muslims say they hope our children and theirs will live in Peace some day. That has a secondary meaning to Muslims, namely, the “peace” of everyone having submitted to Islam.
You appear to be ignorantly unaware that the Universal Declaration is not a legally binding document and thus does not have ANY signatories. It was ratified by proclamation with 48 votes in the UN.
The following countries voted for the Universal Declaration:
Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.
The following countries abstained:
Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, as well as Yugoslavia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
There were no votes against.
So tell me, Valteron as between the list of votes for the Declaration, and the abstentions, which list contains the “most” muslim nations?
God you’re pathetic.
I suppose that’s not an unfair assessment, but considering you’re not actually bothering to ask what rights they’re advancing, you’re still being a dick. No matter; I’ve done the legwork for you.
Here’s a 2002 Frontline interview with Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who leads the Cordoba Initiative. And here are his comments, in relevant part: