|
Black Baby Goku posted:It's not fit for western society. Let it stay in tribal third world hellholes. It literally predates the U.S. in American jurisprudence. You've probably never noticed because its mostly confined to weird insular groups like Mennonites, Amish, Puritans, Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, etc.
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Cool, so something that predates something else, and is bad, in all ways, especially with how religion treats women, children, ect, especially backwards loving religions and sects whatever you want to call it. Let them just do their own thing and say gently caress it? God, are you mentally unwell? It can't stay somewhere else if it's been here all along. It's literally so deeply ingrained it's become completely invisible. These statements are all wrong, btw, except that we should just let people do their own thing. gently caress it, welcome to America.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This hand wringing over Sharia law isn't exactly on topic. I would agree that it's not a good thing to have people settling their disputes at private religious courts but given that "they're gonna impose Shariah law!" gets used all the time as a right wing scare tactic maybe instead of making GBS threads up a thread on Islamophobia ya'll could start a new discussion thread specifically on private religious arbitration. It's certainly a topic worth debating. I disagree, as it is obviously and blatantly one of the main tactics used by Islamophobes in America today. Nobody is trying to ban the practice of Jewish arbitration, even though many aspects of traditional Jewish Law are clearly misogynistic by modern American standards, for example the requirement of male consent to divorce. And yet Oklahoma has banned Sharia, despite having only like, 5,000 Muslims. The ban was immediately struck down btw, for obviously violating the Constitution. Why this hand wringing all of a sudden? The same reason the Republican Governors are lashing out at refugees. In the current climate of fear, everyone's looking for a way to target Muslims specifically. Opposing Sharia Courts is just another dog whistle. Squalid fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:The same criticisms of Islam apply to Christianity in America because they're both irredeemable garbage and preach poison. The current stream of right wing drivel getting barfed up about Islam is applicable to the Mike Huckabee crowd. The believers are pretty much just distinguishable from the taliban by their weight. Which is why it's pathetic seeing people coming in here to attack the practice of "sharia" in the United States. While they claim to preach secularism, they're actually playing right into the hands of Huckabee and his lot, if only through ignorance of how sharia courts and other methods of religious arbitration actually function. They have no serious policy or reform recommendations because they are merely grasping for any available line-of-attack , their criticisms are devoid of substance and driven by vague feelings of hatred and fear. Those opposing Sharia in this thread should stop to inspect who their allies are in this fight. Fine upstanding characters like David Yerushalmi, who drafted many state bills banning sharia. He's an associate of Pam Geller and Terry Jones the Koran burning pastor, with charming opinions like the following: quote:There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect [sic] on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically? Which brings us back to to the subject of the thread: Islamophobia. How disturbing is it to hear politicians openly advocating for a Christian only refugee policy? Not even the the Evangelical Churches of America are willing to accept such a cruel policy, they at least accept that Christian charity must be extended to all, regardless of faith. Rejection of Muslims refugees, bans on Sharia and headscarves, opposition to mosque construction, extra-legal violence and intimidation, all are apart of a coherent xenophobic movement targeted against Muslims. It should be given no more credit than 19th century fears of the Chinese or Catholics. Squalid fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:gently caress you, dad What's a bad idea? Do you have any examples of the horrors wrought by sharia courts on innocent Americans? Why are you following an agenda set by Christian supremacists? The so-called secularists who denounce Islam are dupes of the religious right. Every American court to review bans on Sharia have found them to violate the First Amendment, without which atheists would likely be banned from all civic life. For all my country's faults I'm proud America has robust safeguards against this kind of nonsense. Our secular tradition still stands strong against the modern wave of bigotry. Mutation posted:Would it be alright to bring up examples of leftist Islamophobia from forums outside of SA? It couldn't be worse than the last few pages of this thread. Squalid fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Just because politics makes for strange bedfellows doesn't mean you have to support sharia law arbitration in America. If you oppose anything because an rear end in a top hat supports it, you're being reactionary and irrational. But again, why are you picking on sharia specifically? Why not attack all religious arbitration generally? Why would a secularist challenge the first amendment freedoms that protect us from theocracy?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:To clarify, I didn't know religious arbitration was common in America. The issue of sharia being used as well was brought up, so that's why it catches flak. It's brought up because the radical right wing is looking for every possible means through which to attack Islam specifically. The fact that many self-proclaimed secularists blithely join them as they attempt to erode the separation of church and state is a symptom of the Islamophobia that has crept into the modern discourse. When the inconsistency and hypocrisy of targeting Islam specifically is brought up, it's easy to hedge and call for the destruction of Catholic Canon law, setting aside the obvious infeasibility of such a project. But that's not what the public debate about. The public debate is about Islam, and how to marginalize Muslims. When secularists join in this project, they are serving the agenda of the Christian Right. We should take a principled stand and call for equal treatment of all religions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Oh, I see. I'm not doing that. It just did it unconsciously last page when you said Average Bear posted:Just because politics makes for strange bedfellows doesn't mean you have to support sharia law arbitration in America. If you oppose anything because an rear end in a top hat supports it, you're being reactionary and irrational. You targeted Islamic arbitration specifically, rather than religious arbitration generally for opposition. When you realized the hypocrisy of this you rightly broadened your criticism. Unfortunately the real-world debate is not about banning religious arbitration in general, but about whether we should target Muslims alone. We should rightly oppose all attacks on sharia specifically for being hypocritical and incompatible with secular values.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:But sharia law also has laws and punishments completely obsoleted by modern secular law. Like, all of them. There was never any chance of these being instituted in America, and I doubt there was a chance in any western nation. These things are already illegal. So why do we need to make them double illegal? In reality, Islamic laws are most often used for incredibly mundane things in the U.S, like settling a divorce amicably. As of the last article I read, there were no actual organized sharia courts anywhere in the United States, although Imams do sometimes play a role in arbitration of personal matters like divorce. as Helsing pointed out I may have taken my point a little too far. Not all aspects of governance in Islamic countries is necessarily right, and we don't have to go to bat for customs that we find immoral. However we should be careful not make quick judgments in fear or ignorance. I also think fears about integration are overblown. We in the United States often forget there are dozens or even hundreds of insular religious communities scattered throughout our country. Many have existed for hundreds of years, retaining extreme religious beliefs and sometimes even refusing to adopt the English language. In particular I'm thinking of the various Anabaptist denominations including the Amish and Mennonites. Many Anabaptist communities have retained German as the language of common expression since their arrival in the 17th century. Their culture is highly distinct and heteronormative. Yet nobody is terrified about the Amish menace to American culture, they keep to themselves and do nobody harm. Neither have I ever suffered from the ultra-Orthodox Jew's insistence on wearing furry hats. As far as I'm concerned these people can stay particular forever, and it is hard to argue the United States has suffered from this multiculturalism. Admittedly you could to argue members of these cultures pay a price themselves, but that's a slightly different argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
I think we in the west need to ask ourselves how we ended up in a discursive environment where politicians want to be seen condemning Islam, why we pass unnecessary legislation banning nonexistent sharia courts, why we have to tell Muslim women what they can and cannot wear, or tell Muslims where they can or cannot build Mosques. I wonder why so many people feel the need to come into threads like this oh-so-eager to tell us all about how terrible Islam is, I want to know why on November 20 Bill Maher was conflating Islam with the separate traditions of FGM and honor killing when even the most superficial investigation would have disproved the link. I want to know why posters like Average Bear, who clearly had no idea what religious arbitration is, felt the need to condemn it. When did this fear and hate creep into my country? Where did people like my dad get the idea that Muslims are encouraged to lie and cheat unbelievers, and how did he come to believe it so strongly that he refused to buy a used car from a man with an Arabic sounding name? That was an instance of prejudice, and its wasn't the only one committed against Muslims in America. We need a plan to reverse the creeping bigotry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Good. You come across the same as someone desperate to distinguish between Ephebophilia and Pedophilia. The pedantry over the utility of the term Islamophobia is especially pointless given that as you already said: "Words can change their meaning."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What is your opinion about these mosque closures? Do you believe it's good, or do you think it's horrible oppressive Islamophobia from those Kolonialist Kuffar Krusaders the French? The way you're jumping on that "Good" to liken me to a pedophile apologist seems to imply it's the latter. Didn't read the article, haven't heard anything, don't have an opinion. I just quoted your most recent post to comment on the extended conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Morroque posted:In some ways I was hoping I was wrong, but in another way I'm still not entirely convinced. It feels like there is this odd disconnect between what a real group on the ground in Syria and Iraq are doing, versus how figures in the western media are all talking about and promoting involvement in the war. I must have heard seen/heard the word "ISIS" more times than I would've liked in the last few months, but this is the first I've ever heard about the Yazidi. Well they were actively threatening attacks on western states and are better positioned to make good on threats compared to groups like Boko Haram. Can't discount the fact that America was already involved in Iraq when ISIS took off, and our politicians/public/media probably felt especially responsible for events there. You know among many other reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Well, yeah. Evolution says we have to be altruistic, so I think it's as good a moral guide as any religion. Evolution also "says" that if you're in a group with altruists you should abuse the hell out of their generosity and take 'em for all they're worth. Not very instructive, imo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:This is pretty frightening stuff. Youre a goddamn retard "The African Journal of Urology posted:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Da Mott Man posted:What? Russian Muslims or Chinese Muslims or maybe just even Arab Muslims? Some of us are smart enough to actually know what the gently caress the difference is between religion and race. what abou t the Jewish race sometimes when it comes to ethnicity (race is a synonym for ethnicity) these lines are blurry.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:gently caress the posters in this thread Go cry in your trump hat you baby
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 06:58
|
|