craig440
College Starter
My dog
Posts: 547
|
Post by craig440 on Nov 4, 2015 19:00:53 GMT -5
I tried to look up the site you were talking about. I can't find that one. I can't find that exact site. Maybe give us a link. How is it face book related?
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Nov 4, 2015 19:08:12 GMT -5
Sharia law is way more than what you wear. Do you want to allow Sharia law into Canada? Just asking. And your constant HATE for religion, isn't that being as you say a bigot? Hate is hate. Canada does not have Sharia law as does not the USA. Why would you want to allow it? Isn't that what the refugees are fleeing? Why allow them to bring it to Canada? And as far as wars go. Both world wars, Vietnam, Korean war, and the Iraq war had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with government, oil, and territory. So why don't you hate organized government? You seem to blame everything on religion. The Islam religion is barbaric. Don't you see that? People talk about the republicans having a war on women, how about the Islam's? There is no comparison. So some republicans want to stop abortion. Islam will behead women or mutilate them. I don't get your compassion for allowing Muslims to infiltrate your country. The base of it is barbaric. Of course not all Muslims are barbaric, but to allow Sharia law into Canada would be a huge mistake in my mind. It sounds like the mods in your other site were out of line. But if I was a mod on ANY site, I sure wouldn't use my name. Did you use your real name? I assume not. So did you? If not, which I again assume you are the hypocritical one. I knew I should just read not respond. haha. Because here comes the spinning. Hope all is well with ya Saska. Last time we talked you were having a rough time. But answer my few questions please. Did you use your real name? Would you be alright with Muslims setting up Sharia law courts in Canada? Please don't write a long response in your first response post. Just answer the two questions. Then you can explain(spin, justify) in your next post. I just want the two answers. I hate religion, but I don't hate religious people. As such, I am not a bigot. I am intelligent enough to understand that while religion can be used for all sorts of terrible purposes, most people don't use it as such. The wars you mentioned were fought over various reasons which included religion in some cases. Most wars are fought over money and power. What's the easiest way to get money and power? Religion. Convince people you control their afterlife, convince them you have all the answer people are constantly looking for, and you can send people to fight and kill. That works better than anything else. As for Sharia Law, I am 100% against letting it take over our country. The issue is that people are trying to push for laws that restrict clothing to women only who are fleeing a place that already tells them what to wear. You are right that government already restricts clothing in terms of nudity and I'm completely against treating men and women differently. If men can go around topless, women should be able to as well. What I am saying, which goes completely against Sharia Law, is that people (women in particular in this case) should be able to choose what they wear. I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to wear a niqab, but I also don't think we should force them not to. In our countries, women have the right to choose what they wear whether we like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Nov 4, 2015 19:25:12 GMT -5
I tried to look up the site you were talking about. I can't find that one. I can't find that exact site. Maybe give us a link. How is it face book related? www.facebook.com/Citizens-for-a-sharia-Free-Canada-1494223777541562/?ref=ts&fref=tsIts a Facebook page. The moderators aren't Facebook admin people, they are just normal people who set up their own page. There are multiple people running the site (as I learned through personal messaging with them) and they refuse to attach any name to what they post. They claim to be fighting a good fight but are too cowardly to even identify themselves. The he basis of this whole "fight" stems from a woman who wanted to take our ceremonial citizenship oath wearing her niqab which was completely within our laws. Our PM tried to change the Law and our Supreme Court shut him down because what he was trying to do goes against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The woman was still required to provide photo identification and show her face prior to the ceremony. What she wore during the oath did not matter. The people on that site are sharing stories about Muslims to try to inspire hatred towards Muslims. We are not at risk of being overtaken by Sharia Law, but we are at risk of being ruled by a fear mongering mob if we let people like the bigots on that site continue to grow and spread lies and hate.
|
|
craig440
College Starter
My dog
Posts: 547
|
Post by craig440 on Nov 4, 2015 19:25:37 GMT -5
The problem in some instances with the burka, where you can only see the eyes, is security. How can someone dressed like that go into a bank or a store for that matter? You have no idea who is in there or their intentions. If that dress is allowed then robbers and criminals have a free range. This is the western world. It would render all security cameras useless. You can't identify anyone. Heck the liquor store down the street won't allow you to wear a holloween mask into their store.
I have a friend who lives in Hawaii. He is gay. His friend wears a burka. She was brought up that way. But she takes it off and shows him her face at home because he is gay. In my opinion she needs to learn to trust men. Just because we can see your face is not a recipe for rape. Which is what she was taught as a child.
Again, this is not a third world country. She came from one. Does not mean she can't learn to trust.
|
|
craig440
College Starter
My dog
Posts: 547
|
Post by craig440 on Nov 4, 2015 19:33:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. So you are banned from there? I haven't read much yet.
|
|
craig440
College Starter
My dog
Posts: 547
|
Post by craig440 on Nov 4, 2015 19:41:59 GMT -5
I see many Muslim women these days wearing scarfs over their head, but I have not seen but maybe one burka. I have no problem with the scarf. The burka I did.Oh and by the way, you stated something awhile back about me saying my town was mostly white after complaining about the Middle Eastern invasion of my town. The refugees live in El Cajon which I grew up in. I live in Santee, next town over. Different town.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Nov 4, 2015 20:35:45 GMT -5
The problem in some instances with the burka, where you can only see the eyes, is security. How can someone dressed like that go into a bank or a store for that matter? You have no idea who is in there or their intentions. If that dress is allowed then robbers and criminals have a free range. This is the western world. It would render all security cameras useless. You can't identify anyone. Heck the liquor store down the street won't allow you to wear a holloween mask into their store. I have a friend who lives in Hawaii. He is gay. His friend wears a burka. She was brought up that way. But she takes it off and shows him her face at home because he is gay. In my opinion she needs to learn to trust men. Just because we can see your face is not a recipe for rape. Which is what she was taught as a child. Again, this is not a third world country. She came from one. Does not mean she can't learn to trust. If the women were allowed to take ID photos with a burka or niqab on, or were not required to show their faces when ID is required, that would be a problem. But the law does not allow that. Their faces must be shown on their ID and they must show their face whenever ID is required. I agree reed that it would be nice for those women to learn to trust me. The way to do that isn't to force them to remove the clothes they are comfortable in though. It's to show them that we don't force anything on them and they are free to choose whatever they want to wear.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Nov 6, 2015 0:05:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Nov 6, 2015 0:24:36 GMT -5
Just an interesting tidbit from studying Arabic:
It's not actually called "sharia law." And there's a few reasons. First it's pronounced al-sh-ree, like alshree, one and half syllables. It's one word, not two. There's no "law" after words.
Fun fact: sharia is the arabic word for street. So your literally saying "street" and then "law" which means nothing in Arabic since it's English.
If you want to talk about streets, that's sharia, although it's two sylabbles (shar-ya, not shar-i-a). The law system is pronounced al-shyree. I would write it, but it uses non-english characters so you couldn't read it anyway.
The most important thing about Al-shyree? It's practiced only in tiny pockets of the Arabian peninusla and northern Africa. It's not any nation's legal system. Americans like to imagine that only white countries have justice systems, but Syria has a constitution just like we do. So does Iran and Lebanon and all those other "muslim" countries (don't even get me started on that misnomer).
Even further contributing to conservative ignorance about al-shyree is that it's not what people here think it is. They're basically thinking of Hammurabi's code. Actual al-shyree varies from country to country but is primarily about land ownership, family inheritance and religious codes governing worship. There are some judicial elements regarding criminal law in al-shyree fi al-saud (Arabian Sharia law), but that isn't official, and it isn't characteristic of all al-shyree since these codes are enforced in places outside Saudi Arabia that have nothing to do with law.
It really says it all though that it's commonly accepted to just add "law" after a word that means "street" and convince 150 million or more Americans that it's the law code of the middle east. American ignorance of eastern culture is astounding, and my understanding is extremely limited even, so to be that far below what I've learned in less than a year is pretty striking.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Nov 6, 2015 0:29:16 GMT -5
Even ignoring the fact that the thing you're naming doesn't exist, and that it's entirely different than what you think it is, try imagining this situation:
A single town in, let's say Idaho, passes a law about, let's say, the estate tax.
Decades later, America goes to war and occupies a country.
Conservatives panicking about "sharia law" would be like citizens of the occupied country panicking about replacing their entire constitution with that ONE law from Idaho.
|
|