TBD on Ning

Is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by exedir on July 1, 2013 at 6:24pm

The question was about religion, and as to fear, fear of another religion and what that has to do with race.

Of course this relates to beliefs, and not just religious beliefs but cultural beliefs and supremacy of one way of life over all others, as a necessary standard to both promote and protect that one way of life from other beliefs and practice that impune or threaten both primacy and domination of a culture and religion.

Almost to an historical imperative, societies have come and gone, even though they believed that they were destined and the designated people of gods that made them both special and above all peoples as to their beliefs, their practices and their way of life as a divine right, and therefore, an obligation to maintain not withstanding what others might believe or practice. In fact, that they were designated to destroy and otherwise eliminate all other practices and beliefs as a requirement of their culture's and religion's need for primacy, domination and domenion over all the rest.

Not much has changed.

The United States was founded on a premise of freedom of religion and that has been made to include, freedom from religion. And yet, beliefs abide, not by all, but by some as to the residual correctness and righteous of their beliefs and way of life even though those beliefs and ways of life are not held to by others, and in some cases, not by many others. And in some case those beliefs and ways of life are antagonistic and in opposition to some and in some cases, many of the beliefs and ways of life held to by most of the people. The American idea was that as a people, living amongst each other, some sort of consensus and tolerance would emerge, that from many, one, with a legal framework guaranteed to all would be created to collect and allow multiple beliefs and cultures to coexist and prosper.

Or so it was, that American had a cross ....oh, er.... to bare.

Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on July 2, 2013 at 7:57am

Well said Ex :)

Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on July 2, 2013 at 10:00am

"Supreme Court justices were originally appointed for life in order to ensure their independence from politics. But when it comes to the core political strategy of the Republican Party, the five Republican appointees are, in effect, an extension of the GOP." Roger Reich...

i.e.; Christians are using our laws to force us be like them; that's dictatorship just like Sharia Law is, don't you think?

Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on July 2, 2013 at 3:19pm

Permalink Reply by Ioruach on July 3, 2013 at 8:25am

When the damn fools put money in his collection plate, they are just getting what they deserve.

Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on July 3, 2013 at 9:04am

geee this is like shooting fish in a barrel....

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.

Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on July 3, 2013 at 9:06am

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

Like
Dislike

Abby Ohlheiser 14 hours ago North Carolina

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.

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....

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.

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.

Permalink Reply by Lifesighs on July 3, 2013 at 7:34pm

Really it's all about fear and power, you have to kill all those other people with a different religion because (ee gads) they might be right..then what will happen? They'll come get us and take everything away. Boo!

Ack! Fundamentalists are all scared shitless cowards so they try to control everything they're scared of like women for example.

Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on July 6, 2013 at 9:40am

Permalink Reply by exedir on July 6, 2013 at 6:22pm

Fear is controlling, is always controlling.

Most of us ultimately don't really enjoy risk, to be made uncomfortable or have to deal with challenge. Of course, there are some that don't mind doing the same to others as to their interest in dealing with risk, making others uncomfortable and forcing challenges on others.

As to why this happens, well, weakness is not a survival mechanism, it is however it is a flag to attract attention and domination of which only strength is the antidote, otherwise capitulation the result.

Permalink Reply by Merry on July 6, 2013 at 3:16pm

UGH, just read this/ I think it's pretty bad no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Or who your "imaginary friends" are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/nigeria-school_n_3554393.html

Permalink Reply by Ioruach on July 7, 2013 at 12:26pm

Terrible! The story found its way to my morning Sunday paper as well. While one may look back in history and on the atrocities committed over the years, it may look on the surface that civilization has come a long way. Then you read a story like this, and you wonder. What goes on inside the skulls of those who do these things?