MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Here, we understand the difference between leavin' nutjobs be and lettin' nutjobs rule the roost.

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:37 am

So, we give 'em wide lattitude. We even hire and lend 'em power. It's with the understandin', of course, the nutjobs can be as unamerican as they like as long as America remains 'American'.

That's what spooks some folks: some of our nutjobs aren't adherin' to the the 'contract'.

Now, you're right, Flash: the salafist/shariaist (like the socialist/communist) will never exercise any real power here (not without tossin' out our battered Constitution in its entirety & murderin' millions of folks like myself), but they sure do make a lotta noise and the small inroads they make can be alarming (cuz one doesn't expect Minnesotaians to hire a shrew like Omar [or for Vermontians to take a dink Sanders seriously]).

Such folks (and the nutjobbery they promote) are a function of the meanderin' road that was laid the first time a 'peasant' told a 'noble' to go screw himself. They're remnants of pre-history, vestigal bits we've yet to excise. Like tonsils, like the appendix, we hang on to 'em only cuz, for the most part, they're inconsequential.

But like tonsils, like the appendix, nutjobs sometimes get all inflamed. The choice, then, is simple: excise the redundant, failin' flesh or get sick & mebbe die. Bein' squeamish chickenshits, we put off surgery hopin' like idiots the pain & discomfort will pass.

Mebbe it (they) will.

If they don't: there's the ballot box (and, if that doesn't work, the :gun: ).

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:07 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:22 pm
Provide full quotes with context...
I did, earlier. Remember the "nasty" quotation? Definitely ad hom.

I'm bored.

Bye.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: make of this what you will

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:07 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:22 pm
Provide full quotes with context...
I did, earlier. Remember the "nasty" quotation? Definitely ad hom.

I'm bored.

Bye.
Yeah, I already explained why that isn't ad hominem. So, sorry that is one more thing that you can't get a handle on. When I have a little more time, I guess it has become necessary to open a thread on the subject of ad hominem, and how not to falsely diagnose them.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:18 pm
You'd best go reread the definition, if you still suppose that. What it really means is that "You are a ______!" is never an answer to an idea.
There's nothing wrong with insulting someone, in addition to tearing down that person's argument.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Belinda » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:56 pm
Belinda wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:37 am
Imitating Muhammad is idolatry as Muhammad is not Allah.
You can't "imitate Allah." He's not visible, according to Islam. But in Islam, you are told you can and should imitate Mohammed.

Mohammed is said in the Shahada, the most "sacred" claim of Islam, to be the final "prophet" of Allah, and thus his visible spokesperson and ultimate representative for emulation.

The Quran Academy says, "Allah Himself praises as the best of all characters (Khulkhun Azeem) and as the best of role models in the entire Universe (Uswathun Hasana)." And PBS (no conservative source, for sure) says, "Muslims to this day revere Muhammad as the embodiment of the perfect believer and take his actions and sayings as a model of ideal conduct."
I have noticed that some if not many Muslims idolise Muhammad, and the Koran too. If I were looking to be adopted into some religious sect i'd not choose Islam for that reason. It's indecisive at best.

In support of Trinitarianism Jesus has claimed "only God is good". I gather some Trinitarian sects do idolise Christ , and even his mother, as though they are of more account than God. However the successful thing about Xity is it's based upon a life of a man-god, and not a man as was Muhammad. Muhammadanism is vulnerable to being politicised more so than Xity.

A practical point of good governance is to tolerate a section of society if they are not doing any harm. President Trump is simply inefficient , to agitate when the situation requires calming.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:45 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:44 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:18 pm
You'd best go reread the definition, if you still suppose that. What it really means is that "You are a ______!" is never an answer to an idea.
There's nothing wrong with insulting someone, in addition to tearing down that person's argument.
You're right that the critique of the argument is what matters. I agree. But it's not quite right to say there's nothing "wrong" with lapsing into insults and ad hominem remarks.

What's wrong with it is fourfold: first, obviously, it's rude; secondly, it's obscurantist -- it's a way of hiding the real issue behind a spat; third, and most importantly, it's entirely irrelevant to the accuracy of the idea; and lastly, it's boring...very boring.

Personally, I just can no longer be bothered with it. It's a colossal waste of time.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:57 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:17 am
I have noticed that some if not many Muslims idolise Muhammad, and the Koran too.
In North America, and in the cases you personally know, you might be right. You're definitely not in reference to elsewhere. It's more than "some." It's a basic prerequisite (or as they say "pillar") of their "faith."
Muhammadanism is vulnerable to being politicised more so than Xity.
It's more than that. Islam recognizes no secular-sacred division in regard to the public square. It is, from the start, not merely a "religious" ideology, but a political program as well. Islamists know you cannot separate the two, in Islam, without Islam not being Islam anymore, at least not by all the definitions conservative Islamists recognize.
A practical point of good governance is to tolerate a section of society if they are not doing any harm.

That is true. But I think 9-11 or the Charlie Hebdo murders are good examples of "harm." So would be forcing non-Muslims to follow Sharia religious observances, mandating rituals, the oppression of women, denial of education, female circumcision, killing "infidels," tyrannizing dhimmis, eliminating religious objectors, arranging child brides, or slavery...So long as these things are not being done or advocated in America, we'd be fine, and I'm all for tolerating it. But I don't think you're for tolerating these things either, are you?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:24 pm

Here's as fair a solution as one could possibly find. It's 100% guaranteed non-racist, congenial to all well-meaning Muslims, and devoid of secret motives.

Ban Sharia Law.

Now, who wouldn't happily get on board with that?

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by wtf » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:24 pm
Ban Sharia Law.

Now, who wouldn't happily get on board with that?
Funny you should ask. A while back I seem to recall a news story. Someone wanted to ban Islamic courts. You know who filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the Muslims? You'll never guess. Orthodox Jewish rabbis. Turns out that in orthodox Jewish communities such as parts of Brooklyn NY, there are rabbinical courts that decide certain issues. For example if an orthodox Jewish couple wants to get divorced, they can't just file papers with the government. They have to get permission from the rabbinical court. And the rabbis know that any law against Islamic courts would affect rabbinical courts too.

A cursory Google search brought up some references, although I couldn't find the specific court case I remember.

https://www.amazon.com/Sharia-Tribunals ... 0190640286

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/ ... ontext=blr

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 pm

wtf wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:24 pm
Ban Sharia Law.

Now, who wouldn't happily get on board with that?
Funny you should ask. A while back I seem to recall a news story. Someone wanted to ban Islamic courts. You know who filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the Muslims? You'll never guess. Orthodox Jewish rabbis.
Curious.

Well, it need have no impact on voluntary association at all. Sharia Law pertains to public political matters. Orthodox courts can remain voluntary and private.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:24 pm
Here's as fair a solution as one could possibly find. It's 100% guaranteed non-racist, congenial to all well-meaning Muslims, and devoid of secret motives.

Ban Sharia Law.

Now, who wouldn't happily get on board with that?
Duh, it's unconstitutional under at least the 5th and 14th in the USA, and similar constitutional laws apply in all western democracies.

You could throw some red meat to an audience of bigots if you like by making a special law to single out Sharia anyway, even though Sharia is already impossible under the constitution of every western state.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:34 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:25 am
...it's unconstitutional under at least the 5th and 14th in the USA, and similar constitutional laws apply in all western democracies.
Of course it's unconstitutional, and contrary to the Bill of Rights too. But not everybody knows the role of the foundational documents the same way. Some see them as provisional and not binding -- hence, we have gun-law debates, for example, despite the fourth article in the BoR.

Rather than changing anything, I'm simply suggesting a bulwarking of article 3: government reaffirming the illegitimacy of making laws concerning religion, so that private conscience is reaffirmed and given some special legal teeth against Sharia. By declaring what never will be allowed in America, America sets clear terms for the integration of Islam: it will never be officially buttressed, and never become enforced public policy in any way, but will remain a matter of private conscience permanently.

Who wouldn't want that? And if they don't, then WHY don't they?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1750
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:34 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:25 am
...it's unconstitutional under at least the 5th and 14th in the USA, and similar constitutional laws apply in all western democracies.
Of course it's unconstitutional, and contrary to the Bill of Rights too. But not everybody knows the role of the foundational documents the same way. Some see them as provisional and not binding -- hence, we have gun-law debates, for example, despite the fourth article in the BoR.

Rather than changing anything, I'm simply suggesting a bulwarking of article 3: government reaffirming the illegitimacy of making laws concerning religion, so that private conscience is reaffirmed and given some special legal teeth against Sharia. By declaring what never will be allowed in America, America sets clear terms for the integration of Islam: it will never be officially buttressed, and never become enforced public policy in any way, but will remain a matter of private conscience permanently.

Who wouldn't want that? And if they don't, then WHY don't they?
I don't think you will find much sympathy in the Supreme Court for the view that the constitution is non-binding in any way.

You are telling us that the 1st amendment of the US constitution needs amending so that people already guaranteed that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof feel they have freedom of religion?

What exactly would it take to assuage your fears here? At some point, are you not going to have to realise that all the stuff you are afraid of is absurd and impossible?

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Belinda » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:03 pm

I have noticed that some if not many Muslims idolise Muhammad, and the Koran too.
In North America, and in the cases you personally know, you might be right. You're definitely not in reference to elsewhere. It's more than "some." It's a basic prerequisite (or as they say "pillar") of their "faith."
There's a difference between idolising as in 'as good as God' and idolising as in 'very good instances of God's word'.
Muhammadanism is vulnerable to being politicised more so than Xity.
It's more than that. Islam recognizes no secular-sacred division in regard to the public square. It is, from the start, not merely a "religious" ideology, but a political program as well. Islamists know you cannot separate the two, in Islam, without Islam not being Islam anymore, at least not by all the definitions conservative Islamists recognize.
Yes, I guess so-called moderate Muslims put the laws of their nation first.

A practical point of good governance is to tolerate a section of society if they are not doing any harm.

That is true. But I think 9-11 or the Charlie Hebdo murders are good examples of "harm." So would be forcing non-Muslims to follow Sharia religious observances, mandating rituals, the oppression of women, denial of education, female circumcision, killing "infidels," tyrannizing dhimmis, eliminating religious objectors, arranging child brides, or slavery...So long as these things are not being done or advocated in America, we'd be fine, and I'm all for tolerating it. But I don't think you're for tolerating these things either, are you?
But modern slavery, oppression of women, denial of education, arranging child brides, and female circumcision are not particularly Islamic. Infidels traffic slaves and deny education. Female circumcision pertains to some ethnic groups and is not Islamic. Eliminating religious and non-religious objectors is what dictators of all sects and none routinely do.

I'd not like to be any sort of religionist but if I had to choose one of them I'd choose C of E or some other form of mild liberal Protestantism.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: MUSLIM SENATORS IN THE US...WTF !

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:29 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:10 pm
I don't think you will find much sympathy in the Supreme Court for the view that the constitution is non-binding in any way.
I would hope not.

But then, how has gun ownership become at all controversial, if the founding documents are so highly secured? And, for that matter, how has the idea of state's rights being submerged in a general vote become discussable? It seems many Americans are no longer clear on what is constitutionally guaranteed to them, and what the rationale for it was. So perhaps it's time for a refresher on that.
You are telling us that the 1st amendment of the US constitution needs amending so that people already guaranteed that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof feel they have freedom of religion?
Feelings are irrelevant. Facts matter. What they need is to be clear that there is a non-negotiable barrier to Sharia. Conservative Muslims most certainly believe that our freedoms are erodible from within, and that Sharia can be brought into play at least locally, if not yet nationally. How else can they secure universal dar-el-Salaam, and eliminate dar-al-Harb?

Unless they give up the hope of world domination in the name of Islam, they're going to have to undermine those constitutional guarantees. And they've made some considerable inroads in achieving that, in many Western nations. There are "no go" areas in many cities now, where de facto Sharia enforcers wander the streets. And the governments do nothing to prevent it.

They know what they are committed to. Our problem is that we don't. We're not sure the constitution is inviolable. In fact, several people in the US have been arrested just for handing out copies of the constitution, :shock: so how secure can American commitment to it be?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests