Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Expert military historians have estimated 1,000,000 American casualties to have been the cost of an invasion of Japan.

The propaganda, it's relentless. It's even got that great logician, OmSigDave buffaloed.

@failures art,

Quote:

They define the history of violence where religion is involved Foofie. the Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? Salem Witch Trials? Irish Republican Army?

Huh!??

1 Reply

@failures art,

You're missing the distinction, a rather large one, Art, between civil and criminal law.

And you've still not answered my question. Why do you keep providing cover for things that you admit are war crimes?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Average Muslims have no duty to accommodate such bigotry---not legally, and not even as a point of courtesy.

Actually, I was, a few times, going to mention what seemed to be a fairly pervasive theme running through this thread, ie. accommodating bigots: the "they're not building it on ground zero"; "they've already got a mosque"; "you can't even see ground zero from where they want to build", as if any of that matters one iota.

No one has to/should ever accommodate bigots.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

The propaganda, it's relentless.

YEP, orpeations Olympic and Coronet were made up by STephen King.

Do you recall what you had for breakfast this morning?

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

The fear, in my opinion, is that Christians do not have a history of violence to get their way, nor to convert folks, and Islam does

Are you really that ignorant?

Christians do not have a history of violence in the name of their religion? How about the Crusades. The Inquisition. Their past wars with Islam. Driving Jews out of Christian countries, or killing them, if they wouldn't convert. Most anti-Semitism, in fact, and historical persecution of the Jews through the millennia has come from Christian violence toward Jews as a religious group. Christianity has been one bloody religion, with the violence done in the name of their religion.

And the clash between Muslims and Christians over the building of those mosques, including the one in NYC, is because the Christian evangelical religious right is trying to stomp out Islam as a religion. They keep sending their religious missionaries into the Muslim world, into places that really don't want or allow them, allegedly as health care workers or some other "cover", but their goal, in most instances, is really to seek converts to Christianity. They proselytize constantly. Much more than the Muslims do. And that winds up generating a lot of hostility toward the West and the U.S. because they see us as a threat to their culture, their religion, and their way of life, in their part of the world.

A good part of what motivated the 9/11 attacks was political and not religious. They didn't like American foreign policy. And, after our forays into Afghanistan and Iraq, they like us even less now than they did then. By "they" I mean the more radical extremist Muslims.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Average Muslims have no duty to accommodate such bigotry---not legally, and not even as a point of courtesy.

Actually, I was, a few times, going to mention what seemed to be a fairly pervasive theme running through this thread, ie. accommodating bigots: the "they're not building it on ground zero"; "they've already got a mosque"; "you can't even see ground zero from where they want to build", as if any of that matters one iota.

No one has to/should ever accommodate bigots.

There's plenty of arguments to go around. You can believe both that the bigots are wrong on their own terms, and that even if they weren't, nobody has an obligation to meet the terms bigoted people are trying to set for them.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
They define the history of violence where religion is involved Foofie. the Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? Salem Witch Trials? Irish Republican Army?

Huh!??

Would you like me to Wiki that for you? The IRA identified as a Catholic force. They would kill protestants. It's relevant to Foofie's claim.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You're missing the distinction, a rather large one, Art, between civil and criminal law.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that civil law has limited authority, and a civil court could not rule to chop someone's hands off or stone them to death.

JTT wrote:

And you've still not answered my question. Why do you keep providing cover for things that you admit are war crimes?

I answered your question ages ago when I told you I don't have **** to prove to you. I don't "provide cover" for any war crimes.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I don't "provide cover" for any war crimes.

Yes, you clearly do. Every time they are mentioned you create one diversion or another. That's providing cover for war crimes.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

By "they" I mean the more radical extremist Muslims.

That's naive to say the least, Firefly.

0 Replies

@JTT,

That's it? I'm a part of a diversion?

A pathetic charge.
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

No, I'm not. I'm saying that civil law has limited authority, and a civil court could not rule to chop someone's hands off or stone them to death.

No, you didn't say that, Art. This is what you said.

Quote:

To help me here OE, I need some context. To what extent could a third party sentence a person? Fines? Imprisonment? Torture? Mutilation? Execution?

I'm fairly positive that the American legal framework would not allow for civil disputes to carry-out sentences that violated the state or federal law. What detail am I missing here?

First, it had nothing to do with American law. Note the operative words, "in Britain" and "English law".

Second, these words, "regulate civil disputes" and "in a civil dispute" should have clued you in to the fact that the discussion was in fact about civil law.

Parts of the discussion in Britain revolves around the fact that Jewish courts already exist in England. They can regulate civil disputes in accordance with Jewish law, because English law allows any third party to arbitrate in a civil dispute, provided both parties to the dispute agree upon having that party taking on the case.

-> website of the London Beth Din

In America, things are a bit different. Torture and mutilation have traditionally fallen under the purview of the executive branch which often sub-contracts it to the CIA and on occasion, to the US military.

Some think that this goes a bit beyond the bounds of the rule of law but who are we to quibble, right, Art?

1 Reply

@failures art,

If you are suggesting that you can and do do better than simply diverting attention away from the rapes, the torture, the mutilation and the murders of innocents, then fine, have at it.

As you said, I'm not your moral compass. I can only point up the hypocrisy. It's up to you to change it. Maybe it'll inspire you to develop a more effective program to bring the Department of Defense under your watchful eye.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that civil law has limited authority, and a civil court could not rule to chop someone's hands off or stone them to death.

No, you didn't say that, Art. This is what you said.

Quote:
To help me here OE, I need some context. To what extent could a third party sentence a person? Fines? Imprisonment? Torture? Mutilation? Execution?

I'm fairly positive that the American legal framework would not allow for civil disputes to carry-out sentences that violated the state or federal law. What detail am I missing here?

First, it had nothing to do with American law. Note the operative words, "in Britain" and "English law".

Second, these words, "regulate civil disputes" and "in a civil dispute" should have clued you in to the fact that the discussion was in fact about civil law.

Parts of the discussion in Britain revolves around the fact that Jewish courts already exist in England. They can regulate civil disputes in accordance with Jewish law, because English law allows any third party to arbitrate in a civil dispute, provided both parties to the dispute agree upon having that party taking on the case.

-> website of the London Beth Din

I am aware they were talking about the UK. The implication was that this could take place in the USA. What I said didn't contradict itself. Civil courts have a limit on their authority. They can't issue a sentence which would ultimately violate the federal constitution. In other words, if a sharia civil court was established in the USA, and it attempted to sentence a person to a beating or execution, they would violate the federal law.

I'm not sure if in the UK if their legal framework is the same in this matter, but the fact that they allow third party civil courts doesn't mean that sharia law can be put into effect because it calls for punishments which would violate UK law.

JTT wrote:

In America, things are a bit different. Torture and mutilation have traditionally fallen under the purview of the executive branch which often sub-contracts it to the CIA and on occasion, to the US military.

Some think that this goes a bit beyond the bounds of the rule of law but who are we to quibble, right, Art?

Nice attempt to create a diversion.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

If you are suggesting that you can and do do better than simply diverting attention away from the rapes, the torture, the mutilation and the murders of innocents, then fine, have at it.

These things can be talked about JTT. Your mistake is thinking that you define how they must be addressed. You're no more passionate, because you can demonstrate misplaced zeal.

JTT wrote:

As you said, I'm not your moral compass. I can only point up the hypocrisy. It's up to you to change it. Maybe it'll inspire you to develop a more effective program to bring the Department of Defense under your watchful eye.

It's up to a lot of people JTT, and for my part I'll not betray my own values. That's all that can be expected of me. Cultures don't change over-night, and your calling for a radical uprising style of be ultra pissed off and that'll show 'em just isn't going to ****. If you think that's what sows a seed of change, you're wrong. You seem to think that being on the inside is the best place to do damage, I see it as the best place to do some healing. The war brass lack empathy, not the righteous retribution you thirst for.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

They can't issue a sentence which would ultimately violate the federal constitution. In other words, if a sharia civil court was established in the USA, and it attempted to sentence a person to a beating or execution, they would violate the federal law.

I'm not sure if in the UK if their legal framework is the same in this matter, but the fact that they allow third party civil courts doesn't mean that sharia law can be put into effect because it calls for punishments which would violate UK law.

You're still confused. Maybe Ican can help you.

Civil courts do not issue sentences. Civil courts entail that there are two parties that have a dispute. Civil courts aim to resolve that dispute. There is a decision, but there are no sentences.

The USA already has arbitration for some civil disputes; OmSig mentioned this.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
They can't issue a sentence which would ultimately violate the federal constitution. In other words, if a sharia civil court was established in the USA, and it attempted to sentence a person to a beating or execution, they would violate the federal law.

I'm not sure if in the UK if their legal framework is the same in this matter, but the fact that they allow third party civil courts doesn't mean that sharia law can be put into effect because it calls for punishments which would violate UK law.

You're still confused. Maybe Ican can help you.

Civil courts do not issue sentences. Civil courts entail that there are two parties that have a dispute. Civil courts aim to resolve that dispute. There is a decision, but there are no sentences.

The USA already has arbitration for some civil disputes; OmSig mentioned this.

Sharia law doesn't settle disputes in this way. It finds a guilty party and has specific punishments (read: sentances) for them. Many of those punishments would violate federal law, so how can sharia law be put into practice even as a third party civil court? If the punishments would be illegal, then it can't do them. If it can't do them, then it's hardly sharia law.

I suppose if stoning a person to death is replaced with a monetary fine, then there's nothing I can say, but I'm pretty sure that fines are within the authority of a civil court's ability to use in settling disputes. It's a pretty dramatic difference between paying money and having your hands hacked off. Beyond that, it's not as if a Muslim will be able to drag a non-Muslim women into civil court for the way she dresses herself. Nope.

A
R
T

0 Replies

Sharia Law vs Civil Court

Take a theft for example.

If a store owner in the UK said to the British court that they'd like to take the matter to a third party civil court and put the thief to trial by Sharia law, the punishment is having your hands chopped off.

1) If a civil court can't give out sentences, how can it give this kind of sentence?
2) How could the person who chops off the hand go unpunished from the UK justice system for assault (or whatever crime best fits here)?

Sharia law could demand the thief's hands be removed, but it lacks the authority to fulfill this punishment.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

It's up to a lot of people JTT, and for my part I'll not betray my own values. That's all that can be expected of me. Cultures don't change over-night, and your calling for a radical uprising style of be ultra pissed off and that'll show 'em just isn't going to ****. If you think that's what sows a seed of change, you're wrong. You seem to think that being on the inside is the best place to do damage, I see it as the best place to do some healing. The war brass lack empathy, not the righteous retribution you thirst for.

What a lot of hocus pocus bullshit, Art, much of it doesn't even reach comprehensible levels. What, for instance, does "The war brass lack empathy, not the righteous retribution you thirst for" mean?

Quote:

These things can be talked about JTT.

That's utter nonsense. These things are not talked about. Look at the US media. They are complicit in the crimes that the USA has committed. They make the Nazi propaganda system look bush league.

Point to ONE thread where these things are talked about, Art. What stands out in such stark relief is how these things are not talked about.

Why on earth should a country that constantly touts itself as a rule of law country need seeds of change to bring war criminals to justice. More silly diversions!

Why in god's name should a country that practically invented the rules for countries' behavior vis a vis other countries need seeds of change to enforce those very laws?

Why is it so damn difficult for you[and others] to admit, when the facts are widely known, not to mention voluminous in nature, that the USA has committed terrorist actions, that the USA has committed war crimes, that the USA is, right this very minute, engaged in terrorist acts against other countries, that there are numerous individual war criminals from privates up to ex-presidents walking the streets of America?

Why would it be, why should it be difficult for a person to be honest enough to look at the facts and then demand that these, why do I feel it's needed to remind you, ILLEGAL actions stop, that those who have committed the crimes be brought to justice.

Wanting all war criminals/mass murderers/... to be brought to justice is not misplaced zeal. It's basic human decency.

Another nice diversion, Art. You should look to get into CIA work. Your talents are being wasted at defense.

0 Replies

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know