Originally Posted by SDW2001
I understand that is your view of the Tea Party movement. Here, it's quite different. The "media" wants to portray it as you stated. But the reality is far different. It's a loose coalition of fiscally conservatives with libertarian leanings who eschew social wedge issues. Granted, you have factions where this is not the case.
Well...I wouldn't know how it is over there...the news reports we get here in Europe are kind of worrying.
That's what I thought. Pre-1970s or so.
Wait.... you said this:Oh, do tell. Tell me when Afghanistan was "very Western." When?
You didn't say this:Oh, do tell. Tell me when Afghanistan AFTER THE 70S was "very Western." When?
So one wonders, is it 'as you thought'? It should be because it could not have been any other time at all - the Russians and then the US arming the Mujahedeen, then the US generally running amok and now the Wahabis.
Depends on your view. Obama, while not a Chavez or Castro-like radical, is definitely the most Left-wing president we've ever had. He has a fundamentally view of the country as compared to past presidents. What we're seeing now is that most Americans--even those who voted for him--don't like that view.
No way. Not even as much as Carter and he was a centrist. You may not like - I don't like it but let's not assume that means he is equal to everything else you don't like.
I also don't like broccoli but I am pretty sure Obama is not a green vegetable of that specific strain.
Again, we're playing semantics here to a degree. Though, I'd agree in the absence of those three points, one isn't "radical" per se.
No SDW - YOU are playing Semantics. When you say 'radical' you mean something specific - when some, me for instance, uses it in it normal generic usage you widen the frame.
I am a radical. You said Obama was one. Neither of us are Islamists. Radical is 'a good thing' imo - you may differ, but again, don't lump it in with other things you find horrendous just because of it.
I don't know about that. I think you're right in many cases. But I think people (Westerners, let's say) also see other problems not related to sect. I think they see Muslim countries where personal freedom is severely restricted. I think they see cultural aspects with which they have a problem (women's rights, restrictions on personal behavior and even dress, etc). If you're talking terrorism, then I'd basically agree.
But that's my point...there ARE no 'Muslim countries' so you cannot say that the freedom being curtailed is Islamic.
Take this Egypt example: Mubarak oppressed and tortured and suppressed freedom. He did this to MUSLIMS. But was his a Muslim country? No.
The only ones you can point to are Iran and Saudi - and as I say, these are abominations.
Just because a populace is majority Muslim does not mean that Muslims suppress freedom if they are subject to a dictatorship.
Oth, why not look at countries that DO NOT suppress behaviour and women's rights? Syria, Turkey, Jordan etc... again, repressive to greater or lesser degrees but again secular and again these issues are not as pronounced as you claim.
I disagree. Laws created under a specific religious doctrine inherently prevent freedom, especially for those who do not practice said religion. Freedom does not mean merely freedom to choose...that would be democracy.
They may prevent YOUR freedom because you are not a Muslim. They may prevent MY freedom because I am not a supporter of Shari'a (though I would argue that even so they do not restrict my freedom and in some cases - divorce, finance etc could actually enhance it) but that does not mean there are not people who would feel free under such a regime and actively choose it.
I wouldn't but I know there are people who do. I know many women who claim to feel freer wearing niqab
for example and who am I to argue if this is what they say?
In theory, perhaps. But this is simply not the case in practice, and I think you know it. Tell me about how Christians and Jews are treated in Egypt, and then get back to me.
Actually I don't know it. I know that in Wahabi States - you know who - Churches and Christianity are banned and I know that where Wahabi doctrine is exported they want to do this too.
Some Wahabis have tried to spread to Egypt, I do not deny this and it is these who have attacked the Copts.
Don't take my word for it though: ask yourself this - as Wahabism does believe this and as it is known to have been invented in the 18th century - what was Islam's attitude to Christians and Jews for the 1200 years before?
They lived side by side throughout the Islamic Empire and the Churches and Synagogues throughout the region are the evidence. The only reason they don't still is most have taken up the option to return to Israel.
Btw, did you know Iranian Jews have the right to visit Israel whenever they like? They always seem to return though. One wonders why...surely they do not have to? Why do they just not get to Jerusalem and claim asylum saying 'Iran is a very, very bad place and Mr A is trying to wipe us off the map?'.
Damn...was just working myself up for a rant.....
Then it shouldn't be implemented. If it is implemented, it's therefore oppressive.
Bad logic. Tax laws are oppressive. Smoking laws are oppressive. But in essence I agree it should not be implemented....
You speak here in a theoretical sense. Sharia might not be practiced as it's "supposed to be," but that's academic. If it's not being practiced as it should be ANYWHERE, then how does the theory even apply? It is what it is. It's sort of like communism in that regard (and that regard alone). It might be one thing in theory, but in reality it's something totally different.
It depends what you think Shari'a is. Not knowing that (though I could hazard a guess) I can't really dissect it...I would say though that there are many very rational and useful things in Sharia'. As I've said before, the West has adopted many of these already without accreditation and even the Archbishop of Canterbury (he's a Christian btw) has called for it in some cases:Link
Understood. The issue I see with Sharia is that it is a legal construct (not just legal, obviously) that is based on a singular religion. As an American, I believe strongly that laws should be primarily secular, even if some of their roots might be loosely based on religious principles (many in the US say we were founded on "Judeo-Christian principles," for example...but I think these is more of cultural foundation than a religious one).
I agree - though I don't accept many secular laws myself and find the people who make them often idiotic. But Sharia' IS essentially Judaic law. There are aspects I agree with and aspects I don't.
In the UK there are already separate Jewish Courts and I think the understanding is that they can enforce (some) laws on the proviso they do not over-rule British law.
Look at it this way: What if, say, Great Britain, decided to incorporate a sort of Christian version of Sharia law. Let's say that certain laws were based on a code of conduct expressed in the bible. All citizens would then be required by law to:
- Go the Church on Sunday
- Observe Easter, Christmas et al.
- Read from their Bibles 5 times per week
- Not engage in homosexual relations
- Avoid all alcohol, drugs and tobacco
- Not take the Lord's name in vein
Violation would require jail time. These laws would apply to all citizens, including Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. Now, I'm not saying Sharia correlates to all of the above. But the concept is the same. You're applying one religion's precepts to all people. Not only that, you're enforcing them as law. How is Sharia any different?
It's not the same though....the Jewish Courts in the UK have no jurisdiction over non-Jews and the same applies in Muslim areas with the exception of Saudi and, to a much lesser extent, Iran. So Shari'a would not apply to a non-Muslim. It doesn't even in Dubai for example - though there are laws that are not Shari'a that one could break and get into trouble - but these are cultural: sex in public for example.
For example, in Syria a Muslim would not sell alcohol. There is no punishment but they just would not do it. The Christians do though so it is available.
In Saudi you cannot get alcohol but then you can't have a Church either - both these are questionable and borderline un-Islamic. Iranian Jews are allowed alcohol but no Muslims are. If you are caught drinking there you may run into trouble but that is because it is State/National law...the same could happen in a dry State in the US. It is not Shari'a.
Actually alcohol is not banned in the Qur'an - it merely says there is some good in it and some bad so it is better to avoid it. It was legal under Abbasid rule. The Qur'an also states that Jews and Christians are believers and allows them freedom of worship - in fact it is forbidden to try to convert them.