TBD on Ning

It’s a difficult year for the Arab Spring... Including here in America.

If the 2011 revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen were largely bloodless victories, they were clouded by the civil war in Libya and fears that building new democratic states could prove more difficult than toppling dictators.


Egypt's powerful military warned on Monday it will intervene if the Islamist president doesn't "meet the people's demands," giving him and his opponents two days to reach an agreement, as thousands of protesters massed for a second day calling on Mohammed Morsi to step down.


The secularists and Islamists who united to topple Mubarak fell out over a perceived power grab by new Islamist President Muhammad Morsi, leading to deadly violence between supporters of the two camps.  Secularists say the Islamist-dominated Constitutional Committee rushed through the constitution, which they say fails to protect women and minority groups.


Don’t we have the same problem here -- where a Tea-Party loaded Congress and SCOTUS fail to protect women and minority groups?


Religion, Sharia or Christian, it’s all the same.


Views: 241

Replies to This Discussion

Maybe a tie?

North Carolina's Anti-Sharia Bill is Now Also Anti-Abortion

  • Dislike
The Atlantic Wire

" data-id="f3bea3e8-5cbc-3103-90c2-58b2ecb8e4ac">http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/theatlanticwire/North_Carolina_s_..." alt="North Carolina's Anti-Sharia Bill is Now Also Anti-Abortion" height="188px" width="300px"/>

View gallery

North Carolina's Anti-Sharia Bill is Now Also Anti-Abortion

The North Carolina Senate is not only considering an anti-Sharia (or Islamic law) bill passed in the state's House earlier this year, they've tricked it out with a whole new issue. House Bill 695, which began as a cookie-cutter ban on the use of foreign law in family law and custody cases, now would implement several restrictions on abortion services in the state. 

RELATED: The Culture War Did Not Go Away While We Were Talking About Spending

The abortion provisions were tacked on to the bill late on Tuesday, which was then re-named the more omnibus-friendly "Family, Faith, and Freedom Protection Act of 2013." Those provisions are familiar to trackers of conservative legislation concerning abortion. They include measures already making their way through the state's legi....

RELATED: Texas to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

The newly dual-issue bill would restrict health care coverage for abortions on plans offered through an Exchange, ban sex-selective abortions, require physicians to be present during a chemical (pill) abortion, and require clinics performing abortions to meet the requirements of an ambulatory surgical center. Currently, according to the News-Observer, just one clinic in the state meets that requirement. North Carolina passed an earlier set of anti-abortion laws in 2011

RELATED: Controversy Is Garry Trudeau's Winning Media Strategy

Originally, the bill was a pretty standard piece the newest iteration of anti-Sharia legislation: without naming Sharia, or Islamic law by name (a 2010 ballot measure doing so was eventually ruled unconstitutional in Oklahoma), the bill used a template drafted by anti-Sharia activist David Yerushalmi to restrict the use of "foreign law" in North Carolina courts. Anti Sharia activists believe that Islamic law poses a threat to the U.S. constitution and to American citizens (presumably, the non-Muslim ones), and have pushed for state laws banning it. Opponents to the bills note that the measures are directed specifically at restricting Muslims in spirit if not in letter, could interfere with due process, and might have implications for the state's international business relationships due to the vague wording of the measures. In any case, the less-specific bills are having a much easier time getting through state legislatures. Oklahoma, even after the overturned ballot measure, now has such a law on the books.

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

Posted: 01/24/2013 10:21 am EST  |  Updated: 01/25/2013 5:45 pm EST

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday.

“The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state,” he said. “According to Republican philosophy, victims who are ‘legitimately raped’ will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case.“

The bill is unlikely to pass, as Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature.

so quick now tell me the difference between sharia and these fuckwits?

did you actually read the articles? they are terminal fuckwits....honestly

it doesn't seem to bother you that a certain portion of our population attempts to deprive people different from themselves (i.e. women, people of color, immigrants etc) of their civil rights and that same old white rightwing fundamentalist tribal mentality is manifest as a policy of xenophobia that they expect the government to adopt and follow...now you can insult me all you want even tho it is cute and between the lines but i really think you need to go figure out what would jesus do....i doubt he would be so unctuous or obsequious to fuckwits

If the spirit of Christ loves people everywhere why are his Jesus Freaks suppressing the black vote, hating the black president and his supporters, treating all women as chattel, and trying to start war with Muslims; men, women, and children?  

Christian deeds far outweigh their phony words.

Let's have a test; can you say something nice about Hillary Clinton?

You got me; well done lol... :)

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.“
                                                                          Edmund Burke

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
                                                                           Desmond Tutu

Once again, it isn't the words, it is the belief that is important as to what is given or not given to those that have received the belief as compared to those that did or do not "get it".

This is all premised on the superior belief of some force or divinity being the driver of what is held to be both true and righteous.  And what should be done to those that are not "true and righteous" or as true and righteous, the non-believers and infidels and otherwise threats to the faith.

Usually tolerance is a tactic, not the winning strategy of making those that are not believers, "conversos"  or otherwise marginalize, neutralize and eliminate those that do not believe as do the true and righteous.  However, in western, liberal democracies, reasonable religious tolerance is the law and in a way a substitute for belief itself as to some greater force in the business of human pursuits of such things as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And as such not a satisfactory replace for the true belief as inspired by whatever deity or deities are ascribed the words and thoughts. 

What we have is a tension of truth and true believers that has been in existence since mankind started business, and won't be resolved, or resolved easily as to who is right, so help us god.

"What we have is a tension of truth and true believers that has been in existence since mankind started business"

The brains of mankind have invented a "God" or "gods" since "mankind started business".  But in the last decade(s) so much evidence has been collected that ridicules the concept of a "God" or 'gods, only the most stubborn refuse to see the light at the end of this very long tunnel of living in the dark.

Wasn't this settled in Time magazine's April 8th, 1966 issue, that god was dead, about fifty years ago?

And yes, even if dead, would and does god resonates in what mankind has always had to live with, what happens when you die and, when dead, is there a way to get out of this alive, one way or another, sorta.  

The other godly issue is there a right and a wrong, and if so, which is which, and to what degree and to whom does one look to as to limits and punishment if one doesn't play by the whatever rules or behaviors are held to be right and righteous.

If not god, then chaos? Or was that covered by an issue of Life?  Inquiring minds want to know.




© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service