Religion of peace update...

With the government transitioned over to their own sovereign country (I know this can be debated, but follow along please) the bombs are still going off, killing their own countrymen. The news likes to downplay it as 'geez, they're having their own troubles over there' which is very disturbing. A death is a death. A human loss is a human loss. Just because they sit under a different flag it's suddenly not as important. Anyhow, back to my original topical statement. These bombs are killing the people who are in line for police and military, representatives, officials, etc who are probably of the same faith, no? They didn't ask the people in line what they believed in before driving a van loaded with explosives into them. This is not a war about religious extremists. It's a war about control. Religion yet again, sounds like the tool and excuse for these actions. Why does the media blame religion so much? Media doesn't want religions to exist. Watch carefully for it on TV, news websites, etc. They want no religion so what they say goes as truth. Yet another power game in the background with invisible hands moving around. Now I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist, no?

Bottom line: Religion is not what puts two people at war to kill each other. Christianity is looking to create more Christians and I have doubt there's any other relgions out there who aren't looking for people to share beliefs with them. How can you grow your numbers as a religion if you're killing them off? Very simply, you can't.


[edit on 11-3-2005 by saint4God]

"Malaysian Muslim leader: sexy dress a cause of crime"

Gee, why didn't we think of this before? Let's impose dress codes on everybody, so Muslims won't take immodest dress as an open invitation to rape. We don't want women raped, now do we? Next, let's impose "hate speech" laws so that non-Muslims won't be killed for offending Muslims by what they say - it's for their own good, you see? Yes, that's how this will work, let's just keep restricting civil liberties, so that Muslims will get along with us and we will get along with them. How easy it all is!

thestar.com.my.../2005/3/11/nation/10387065&sec=nation>thestar.com.my.../2005/3/11/nation/10387065&s ec=nation

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
... won't take immodest dress as an open invitation to rape...

So you admit there is immodest dress? Why in the world would any moral person encourage it then? Is not the government to represent the people of the nation? If the people of the nation say it's immodest then why would they encourage it as well? What does this have to do will killing people in another country?

It certainly doesn't matter that it was us infidels who contributed the most in $$$$ and man power to help the tsunami ravaged nations. Yet despite this we have yet another fine example of the tolerant and accepting nature of Islam:

insider.washingtontimes.com...

Excerpt:

"Aceh is mostly Muslim, and some church groups from Australia and the United States are too eager to be there and do their part," he said.

Mr. Sudarsono said his government had set March 26 some weeks ago as a target date for moving from the disaster-relief phase of post-tsunami operations to the reconstruction phase.

With that goal in sight, he said, the overwhelming presence of U.S. and Western relief agencies could make members of the local Islamic community uncomfortable, adding that they would be replaced by Pakistani and Saudi Arabian workers....

Why would they be "uncomfortable"? Maybe passages like these two have something to do with it:

98:6 Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
... won't take immodest dress as an open invitation to rape...

So you admit there is immodest dress? Why in the world would any moral person encourage it then? Is not the government to represent the people of the nation? If the people of the nation say it's immodest then why would they encourage it as well? What does this have to do will killing people in another country?

The point is that in the mind of this Malaysian leader, it is "immodest dress" that causes women to be raped. Not the sick minds of rapists. So instead of dealing with the real problem they would rather limit the civil liberties of women by forcing them into wearing clothes that his government deems "modest". BTW: What is "immodest"? Anything other than a hajib?

"What does this have to do will killing people in another country?"

What? Who said anything about killing people in another country? This thread is about the true nature of Islam in general with the name "Religion of Peace update..."

Topics may include murder and killing; but they're not limited to that.

BTW Saint4God, and anyone else lurking: This thread is admittedly one-sided. If anyone finds anything that they believe shows the peaceful, tolerant, and accepting side of Islam please post it here and discuss it. I would be very interested. Thank You.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The point is that in the mind of this Malaysian leader, it is "immodest dress" that causes women to be raped. Not the sick minds of rapists.

What does the sick mind of the rapists think? Does it matter what a person wears? I think people prejudge people by their clothing, though we try not to or like to pretend we don't.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So instead of dealing with the real problem they would rather limit the civil liberties of women by forcing them into wearing clothes that his government deems "modest". BTW: What is "immodest"? Anything other than a hajib?

Are the women unhappy with this decision? Again with the government representing the people, what percentage agree it's immodest? I don't know what is immodest, I just used your word. I also don't know what a hajib is, but from the way it's used, I'd say something very concealing. I personally think anything that says to a person "look at my sexy bod" rather than "I'm an interesting person with a mind, heart, and character" is immodest though this my opinion. If the eyes drop below the neck looking for bulges and curves then it's detracting from the real person. Be healthy and fit and free, but save the revealing look for someone special.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

"What does this have to do will killing people in another country?"

What? Who said anything about killing people in another country? This thread is about the true nature of Islam in general with the name "Religion of Peace update..."

Sorry, lemme re-phrase. How does 'dress' relate to Islam not being a nation of peace? Wouldn't dressing modestly to prevent rape be more of a move to peace and the protection of women? Our government intercedes (a lot more than we ask it to) on our behalf to protect us from all kinds of things from tooth decay to national security.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Topics may include murder and killing; but they're not limited to that.

Fair enough , didn't mean to get particular.


[edit on 17-3-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So instead of dealing with the real problem they would rather limit the civil liberties of women by forcing them into wearing clothes that his government deems "modest". BTW: What is "immodest"? Anything other than a hajib?

Are the women unhappy with this decision?

I don't know. One must assume, however, that the reason women (or men for that matter) wear what they wear is because it at least suits them (pun intended). Why do you wear what you wear? And how would you feel if your government labeled your wardrobe unamerican and therefore outlawed it because it "entices" men who are attracted to conservative women to rape them?

I want to make one thing clear here: Rape has nothing to do with attraction to women and everything to do with power and control over a woman because of a deep-seated hatred of women. Therefore, rape has NOTHING to do with a woman's attire. That is a fundamental problem of Islam and its attitude towards women. As the article shows, the blame doesn't rest on the rapist; but instead on how a woman dresses. Further showing the ignorance that is prevalent throughout the Islamic ideology.

Again with the government representing the people, what percentage agree it's immodest? I don't know what is immodest, I just used your word.

Actually, it's not my word--it's the word of the Malaysian government.

I also don't know what a hajib is, but from the way it's used, I'd say something very concealing.

I misspelled the word: It's actually hijab or hi-jab. It is a veil that can be used to cover only the head and eyes or, as in some countries, is used to cover the entire body like a potato sack. And it is an Islamic garment.

I personally think anything that says to a person "look at my sexy bod" rather than "I'm an interesting person with a mind, heart, and character" is immodest though this my opinion.

How would you feel, however, if the government deemed your attire, conservative as it may be, unchristian-like and banned it? How about the pool or the beach? Do you wear a bathing suit or a full dress? What if bathing suits were banned for religious reasons? What if you were not Christian (agnostic, athiest, or budhist instead) but forced, through various forms of subjugation, to live a Christian lifestyle? (Being a Christian this one may be a tough one for you to answer). Well this is happening all across the Arabian peninsula and southeast Asia through Islam which is a continuing growing threat.



[edit on 18-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I don't know. One must assume, however, that the reason women (or men for that matter) wear what they wear is because it at least suits them (pun intended). Why do you wear what you wear?

'Cause it looks cool. It sounds selfish, but nobody else cares, why should I really?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
And how would you feel if your government labeled your wardrobe

I would feel very little. I don't have to look at it, everyone else does.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
unamerican

Hehe, they probably do.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
and therefore outlawed it because it "entices" men who are attracted to conservative women to rape them?

Huh? I can't say I'm an authority on lust, but doesn't revealing -more- generate feeling of desire moreso than covering up? I think we may be getting to the heart of the issue here.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I want to make one thing clear here: Rape has nothing to do with attraction to women and everything to do with power and control over a woman because of a deep-seated hatred of women.

Now this I'd like to see the research paper on.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Therefore, rape has NOTHING to do with a woman's attire. That is a fundamental problem of Islam and its attitude towards women. As the article shows, the blame doesn't rest on the rapist; but instead on how a woman dresses. Further showing the ignorance that is prevalent throughout the Islamic ideology.

Oh. I read it as a 'for the protection of women' type of thing since one cannot absolutely control and prevent a rape. Our country is prime example of that.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Again with the government representing the people, what percentage agree it's immodest? I don't know what is immodest, I just used your word.

Actually, it's not my word--it's the word of the Malaysian government.

I sit corrected then. The Malaysian Government, representing the people, feel it's immodest. If they're representing the people who think that this is true, then perhaps there's something to be said about that. Coupled with reasoning and research, I think this is how a law should be formed. It'd be nice to see a side-by-side comparisson of 'modest' vs. 'immodest' attired countries.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I misspelled the word: It's actually hijab or hi-jab. It is a veil that can be used to cover only the head and eyes or, as in some countries, is used to cover the entire body like a potato sack. And it is an Islamic garment.

Thanks for the info . I think I've seen it but didn't want to assume. Learn new stuff everyday.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
How would you feel, however, if the government deemed your attire, conservative as it may be, unchristian-like and banned it?

Tickled pink that my government knew scripture. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, just answering honestly. Oh this is a human rights issue! Not an Muslim one, right?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
How about the pool or the beach? Do you wear a bathing suit or a full dress? What if bathing suits were banned for religious reasons? What if you were not Christian (agnostic, athiest, or budhist instead) but forced, through various forms of subjugation, to live a Christian lifestyle?

I'd hate it! Of course, when I was an agnostic I hated a lot of things that made sense.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
(Being a Christian this one may be a tough one for you to answer). Well this is happening all across the Arabian peninsula and southeast Asia through Islam which is a continuing growing threat.

I guess what I've discovered in this thread is that I'm for 'the majority' in the country in addition to rationale to why a law is to be put into place. I do agree oppression needs to stop, but if a government puts a law into place to protect people, that should take precedence. Also, you don't have to look overseas for oppression. Even talking to the people in your neighborhood, I'm sure you'd be surprised at how many people are "forced" into things. I enjoyed the questions, it made me ask a lot of them to myself as well & am looking forward to how all this pans out.

Originally posted by saint4God
I guess what I've discovered in this thread is that I'm for 'the majority' in the country in addition to rationale to why a law is to be put into place. I do agree oppression needs to stop, but if a government puts a law into place to protect people, that should take precedence. Also, you don't have to look overseas for oppression. Even talking to the people in your neighborhood, I'm sure you'd be surprised at how many people are "forced" into things. I enjoyed the questions, it made me ask a lot of them to myself as well & am looking forward to how all this pans out.

Sometimes, the "majority" is wrong and it is up to the government (and the courts) to make corrections. At one time the majority thought here that slavery was appropriate.

You say that making laws is good as long as it's there to protect people and you've stated that this could include regulating the type of clothing worn. What about making other laws? Such as Laws against dancing? After all it could lead to lude and lacivious behvior. Let's make it illegal to gamble everywhere since that could lead to other crimes. Let's outlaw booze/beer (prohibition) since those dull inhibitions. Cigarettes? Gone! The purpose of all these laws? To "protect" people or otherwise prevent "potential" crimes.

Two problems with this line of thinking:

1) All these do is restrict the civil liberties of everyone for the potential actions of just a relatively small few.

2) None of these or similar laws will do anything to prevent crime. Ie: We have laws against murder. Yet, the US has some of the highest murder rates in the world. In fact, criminalizing more activities only increases prison populations. Unless, of course punishment methods were changed to include public executions, severing appendages, public lashings etc. Then you might get a relatively "crime-free" country. But you can go to Saudi Arabia to get that.

So how does this tie into Islam? Some Islamic facist governments outlawed the very things mentioned in this post (Afghanistan for example). And this form of Islamic fascism is the fastest growing ideology in the word. Why? Not because of the guiding hand of Islam whose bond won't break; but because of the threat of the sword. And this "form" of Islam is supported by the Qu'ran.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Sometimes, the "majority" is wrong and it is up to the government (and the courts) to make corrections. At one time the majority thought here that slavery was appropriate.

Hmm.... weren't there more slaves than slaves owners? In that case the majority did think it was wrong, yes? As long as the right to vote is there, then the government is representative of the people. If and when I'm part of the minority, it would then be my job to utilize reason to convince the majority that this is wrong. I'd like to take more time to think about this one. Thanks for the re-positioning.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You say that making laws is good as long as it's there to protect people and you've stated that this could include regulating the type of clothing worn. What about making other laws? Such as Laws against dancing? After all it could lead to lude and lacivious behvior.

But does the majority + common sense = conclussion that this is lude and lacivious behavior?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Let's make it illegal to gamble everywhere since that could lead to other crimes.

Yay! Where's the petition for me to sign?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Let's outlaw booze/beer (prohibition) since those dull inhibitions. Cigarettes? Gone! The purpose of all these laws? To "protect" people or otherwise prevent "potential" crimes.

Both! Down with them! Hehe, did you expect to hear any different from my username? Cigarette smokers violate my right to clean air when they blow that garbage in my general vincinity. I'll have a glass of beer/wine every now and then but don't do the 'getting blitzed' thing. If I have to give that up for the greater good, no worries.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Two problems with this line of thinking:

1) All these do is restrict the civil liberties of everyone for the potential actions of just a relatively small few.

Are any of these 'civil liberties' good? If the answer is no, who would miss them? If yes, I'd like to hear the moral discussion about it. The dancing, yes that is physically and emotionally good for you and can be proven.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
2) None of these or similar laws will do anything to prevent crime. Ie: We have laws against murder. Yet, the US has some of the highest murder rates in the world. In fact, criminalizing more activities only increases prison populations.

Well duh, if nothing was illegal than nobody would be in jail . I'd like to see some substantiation to say there are more people doing an activity BECAUSE it's illegal to do so.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Unless, of course punishment methods were changed to include public executions, severing appendages, public lashings etc. Then you might get a relatively "crime-free" country. But you can go to Saudi Arabia to get that.

Is Saudi Arabia a relatively crime-free country? I've heard that it wasn't, yet I see bombs going off and gunfights on the news. Isn't Saudi Arabia an Islamic nation? I'm sorry for being dense, but I'm getting lost here. Can you reign me back in?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So how does this tie into Islam? Some Islamic facist governments outlawed the very things mentioned in this post (Afghanistan for example). And this form of Islamic fascism is the fastest growing ideology in the word. Why? Not because of the guiding hand of Islam whose bond won't break; but because of the threat of the sword. And this "form" of Islam is supported by the Qu'ran.

You've said the US has the highest murder rate, well, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" (Jesus from Matthew 7:3). I think we as a country need to straighten-up our own act. There's no greater nobility than serving as a role-model.

OK Saint; you're reeling me into this social discussion--even though it may be off topic. But I hope that at some point we can bring this thing home and somehow relate it to the nature of Islam. BTW: I'm doing this over a couple cocktails so my typeing might be a little off.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Sometimes, the "majority" is wrong and it is up to the government (and the courts) to make corrections. At one time the majority thought here that slavery was appropriate.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hmm.... weren't there more slaves than slaves owners? In that case the majority did think it was wrong, yes? As long as the right to vote is there, then the government is representative of the people. If and when I'm part of the minority, it would then be my job to utilize reason to convince the majority that this is wrong. I'd like to take more time to think about this one. Thanks for the re-positioning.

There may have been more slaves than slave owners but there were more whites than blacks. In fact, Blacks didn't even have a voice or a vote until 1965. There was an entire war fought (civil war) that centered around this issue. It was the only time in US history that we had TWO presidents. Not to denigrate your position Saint--but do you live in the US? The reason I ask is because you wouldn't have asked the question about the ratio of slaves to slave owners if you had a little more knowledge of US history. Please don't take this personally. I just thought the question was a little off-putting.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You say that making laws is good as long as it's there to protect people and you've stated that this could include regulating the type of clothing worn. What about making other laws? Such as Laws against dancing? After all it could lead to lude and lacivious behvior.

Originally posted by saint4God
But does the majority + common sense = conclussion that this is lude and lacivious behavior?

Sorry; I'm not good at verbal math equations. The problem is that somethimes the only thing that makes sense "common" is because the majority thought makes it so. This doesn't mean the majority is right. Case in point: Dare I say it? Um. Uh Should I? Uh GAY MARRIAGE!!! There, I said It! I'll move on....

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Let's make it illegal to gamble everywhere since that could lead to other crimes.

Originally posted by saint4God
Yay! Where's the petition for me to sign?

Becareful Saint--you may get what you wish for. Making gambling illegal would put an entire city out of business. MILLIONS out of work and scraping to get by. What does this get you? CRIME!! Just because it's against YOUR moral values doesn't mean it's against mine. Personally, I like to make the occassional juant to Vegas for adult fun. My wife and I both enjoy it.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Let's outlaw booze/beer (prohibition) since those dull inhibitions. Cigarettes? Gone! The purpose of all these laws? To "protect" people or otherwise prevent "potential" crimes.

Originally posted by saint4God
Both! Down with them! Hehe, did you expect to hear any different from my username? Cigarette smokers violate my right to clean air when they blow that garbage in my general vincinity. I'll have a glass of beer/wine every now and then but don't do the 'getting blitzed' thing. If I have to give that up for the greater good, no worries.

We tried it once and it didn't work. Booze was distilled and sold on the black market and there were thousands who were effected by poor distilling techniques (blindness and such) by people trying to capitalize on its Illegal use. As far as smoking: you get more polutants from gas burning engines than from second hand smoke. Let's outlaw gas burning engines and see what that does to our economy. If your beef is odor; then let's outlaw people in public who have BO. Personally, I'd rather smell smoke than someone with body odor.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Two problems with this line of thinking:

1) All these do is restrict the civil liberties of everyone for the potential actions of just a relatively small few.

Originally posted by saint4God
Are any of these 'civil liberties' good? If the answer is no, who would miss them? If yes, I'd like to hear the moral discussion about it. The dancing, yes that is physically and emotionally good for you and can be proven.

Yes--they're good!! I like to drink, smoke, gamble, dance, work hard to pay for my bad habits; and I promise: I have no interest in robbing, raping, pilaging, or otherwise engaing in any illegal behavior that adversly effects or negatively impact the rights and civil liberties of others. You take these things away I guarantee you would see anarchy at its worse.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
2) None of these or similar laws will do anything to prevent crime. Ie: We have laws against murder. Yet, the US has some of the highest murder rates in the world. In fact, criminalizing more activities only increases prison populations.

Originally posted by saint4God
Well duh, if nothing was illegal than nobody would be in jail

. I'd like to see some substantiation to say there are more people doing an activity BECAUSE it's illegal to do so.

Not because it's illegal. In spite of it being illegal. There is a difference. I'm not advocating that there shouldn't be laws. I'm simply saying you shouldn't attempt to legalize morality; because one person's morality may not be the same as another's. The test ought to be whether or not the actions of one person effects the rights and civil liberties of others.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Unless, of course punishment methods were changed to include public executions, severing appendages, public lashings etc. Then you might get a relatively "crime-free" country. But you can go to Saudi Arabia to get that.

Originally posted by saint4God
Is Saudi Arabia a relatively crime-free country? I've heard that it wasn't, yet I see bombs going off and gunfights on the news. Isn't Saudi Arabia an Islamic nation? I'm sorry for being dense, but I'm getting lost here. Can you reign me back in?

Suadi Arabia IS a relatively crime free country in terms of social crimes: burlgary, murder etc. As far as bombs and gunfights--well you'll need to post references here because other than the occasional terrorists attacks (which is rare) as a muslim you have no worries. There have more people killed in the US as result of terrorism than in Saudi Arabia.

Now we can have the same safety here--but it would require a SIGNIFICANT change in our social structure and reduction in our civil liberties to attain the level that Muslims have in SA. Would you really want that? Not me! I'll take my chances; maybe give up some liberties for air travel but personally, I like being able to travel between states without having to show my passport or go through some centralized ID process. Nor do I want MY government imposing laws on me based on Christianity.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So how does this tie into Islam? Some Islamic facist governments outlawed the very things mentioned in this post (Afghanistan for example). And this form of Islamic fascism is the fastest growing ideology in the word. Why? Not because of the guiding hand of Islam whose bond won't break; but because of the threat of the sword. And this "form" of Islam is supported by the Qu'ran.

Originally posted by saint4God
You've said the US has the highest murder rate, well, "why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" (Jesus from Matthew 7:3). I think we as a country need to straighten-up our own act. There's no greater nobility than serving as a role-model.

Our is not a perfect social structure. We have our flaws but at least WE, as a people, have power. You are right when you say we have problems here that need to be dealt with and perhaps our government has fallen short in dealing with those problems. But we are dealing with an enemy that if given a chance would obliterate our values. This enemy has taken advantage of our imigration system and our porous borders and they are in fact, here; waiting for the right opportunity to strike. This war must be faught both here AND abroad. If we lose this battle, then our social ills will mean nothing.

As far as being a role model: Freedom is not even in the equation as a model for lifestyle in the eyes of our enemy. What they perceive as freedom and what we perceive as freedom are two VERY different things. Our government has conveniently labeled our enemy as extremists. I submit that theirs in not extreme at all. This is why "moderates" have been unable or ill-equipped to properly defend their "religion".

Saint: You've read the posts here. Why don't you give your input, such as your opinion on the compulsion of religion diolouge between me an Babloyi?

You've seen two different interpretations of that Sura. Which do you agree with?

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
OK Saint; you're reeling me into this social discussion--even though it may be off topic. But I hope that at some point we can bring this thing home and somehow relate it to the nature of Islam. BTW: I'm doing this over a couple cocktails so my typeing might be a little off.

No worries, I'm having fun.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There may have been more slaves than slave owners but there were more whites than blacks.

I'm sure the non-slave owners would care less about the 'slavery is right/wrong' issue though, yes? I was counting them as a 'no vote' but I could certainly be wrong.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
In fact, Blacks didn't even have a voice or a vote until 1965.

*nods* Long overdue. By the way, can we give a few states back to the Native Americans please? We can start with mine.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There was an entire war fought (civil war) that centered around this issue.

Interesting. Here I thought it was about whether the states should function as a union or confederacy (aka the politics and governing powers). *scratches his head* Slavery hardly seems to be enough motivation to have a civil war, no?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It was the only time in US history that we had TWO presidents.

Hey! Cool factiod! The learning continues.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Not to denigrate your position Saint--but do you live in the US? The reason I ask is because you wouldn't have asked the question about the ratio of slaves to slave owners if you had a little more knowledge of US history.

*feels the slap* Doh! And I thought I did well in history. Ah well, I always liked the ancient empire stuff better. You're not going to tell my high school history teacher are you?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Please don't take this personally. I just thought the question was a little off-putting.

Just poking and prodding to understand all perspectives. I'll stop if it's annoying. I just thought you'd like some guests on your show.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You say that making laws is good as long as it's there to protect people and you've stated that this could include regulating the type of clothing worn. What about making other laws? Such as Laws against dancing? After all it could lead to lude and lacivious behvior.

I knew a crew from Puerto Rico that could dance a mean Salsa. I was getting uncomfortable just watching. That's what I get for the straight-laced Euro-American heritage I guess *shrug*. I dunno. I've never seen a rapist dance with someone first though.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Sorry; I'm not good at verbal math equations. The problem is that somethimes the only thing that makes sense "common" is because the majority thought makes it so. This doesn't mean the majority is right. Case in point: Dare I say it? Um. Uh Should I? Uh GAY MARRIAGE!!! There, I said It! I'll move on....

What does gay marriage have to do with protecting women? Hm. The government is to protect peoples' rights. Ours is of life, liberty and persuit of happiness. I don't know why a homosexual would want to be a primary part of a religious ceremony that celebrates the union between man and woman anyway. Maybe someone can explain the motive and start a separte thread.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Becareful Saint--you may get what you wish for. Making gambling illegal would put an entire city out of business. MILLIONS out of work and scraping to get by. What does this get you? CRIME!! Just because it's against YOUR moral values doesn't mean it's against mine. Personally, I like to make the occassional juant to Vegas for adult fun. My wife and I both enjoy it.

I'm not saying "shut down the city without a plan!". Do what all major corporations do. Vector the employees to growing businesses with similar skill sets. It sounds hard but a few interviews later the main thing that changes is location and W-2's. Didn't mean to kabash you fun, but could you also have fun without losing real money? The entertainment industry needs to be more creative for us post-teen peoples. Bars are freakin' boring unless the bands are really, really good!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
We tried it once and it didn't work.

Oh yeah. Just kidding, I realize . I don't expect the government to adhere to what I believe is right for the country all the time. I'm just glad I have the freedom to have the wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Booze was distilled and sold on the black market and there were thousands who were effected by poor distilling techniques (blindness and such) by people trying to capitalize on its Illegal use.

Maybe that should'a told us something hm?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As far as smoking: you get more polutants from gas burning engines than from second hand smoke.

Down with gas burning engines! We have the technology, we have the ability to offer U.S. companies the incentives to produce electric or at least hybrid vehicles. Come on, are we going to sell out to overseas labor markets again? Don't stop imports or add tax for products, FREAKIN' COMPETE like the good capitalists we are. As is, we're getting beat at our game and you know what? We deserve it. Buck up America, we need to get back in the race or we'll all lose our jobs.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Let's outlaw gas burning engines and see what that does to our economy.

Again, there's a smart was to do things, then there's the congressional way to do things.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
If your beef is odor; then let's outlaw people in public who have BO.

LOL! At least make a law saying it's okay to let people know when they need assistance in that area without retaliation. If I stink, I'd like to know it.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Personally, I'd rather smell smoke than someone with body odor.

I'm allergic to smoke (sinuses dry, crack and cause sinus infections). I'm not allergic to body odor.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by saint4God
Are any of these 'civil liberties' good? If the answer is no, who would miss them? If yes, I'd like to hear the moral discussion about it. The dancing, yes that is physically and emotionally good for you and can be proven.

Yes--they're good!! I like to drink, smoke, gamble, dance, work hard to pay for my bad habits; and I promise: I have no interest in robbing, raping, pilaging, or otherwise engaing in any illegal behavior that adversly effects or negatively impact the rights and civil liberties of others. You take these things away I guarantee you would see anarchy at its worse.

Wow, sounds a lot like a threat from a 'non-criminal'. I'm kidding! Please, take it as a little bit of fun. Besides, I didn't say they weren't enjoyable, I chose the word - good. I'm still not convinced these things are good but you're welcome to continue a persuasive argument.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Not because it's illegal. In spite of it being illegal. There is a difference. I'm not advocating that there shouldn't be laws. I'm simply saying you shouldn't attempt to legalize morality; because one person's morality may not be the same as another's. The test ought to be whether or not the actions of one person effects the rights and civil liberties of others.

According to the 1st amendment, our government cannot dictate morality by law. An Islamist nation (and historically Israel) says otherwise. I think it'd be best to take a critical look at what exactly they're dictating and whether it's more effective than our own government before jumping to conclussions. You did say the U.S. had the highest murder rate right? Our government should not prescribe religion or violate the first amendment but I would say murdering someone is an infringement upon their rights and that's exactly where they need to step in.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Suadi Arabia IS a relatively crime free country in terms of social crimes: burlgary, murder etc. As far as bombs and gunfights--well you'll need to post references here because other than the occasional terrorists attacks (which is rare) as a muslim you have no worries. There have more people killed in the US as result of terrorism than in Saudi Arabia.

Hm. Interesting. Amnesty International seems to think there is a lot of crimes against humanity (domestic torture, government silencing, disappearances) but they go unheard. It's hard to know what to believe these days without firsthand accounts I guess.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Now we can have the same safety here--but it would require a SIGNIFICANT change in our social structure and reduction in our civil liberties to attain the level that Muslims have in SA. Would you really want that? Not me!

Me either! I like my country a lot for the freedoms that it gives me. I'm not going to pretend we're without problems needin' fixin' though and point my finger overseas when the neighbor's dog is taking a dump on my lawn (figuratively and literally).

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'll take my chances; maybe give up some liberties for air travel but personally, I like being able to travel between states without having to show my passport or go through some centralized ID process. Nor do I want MY government imposing laws on me based on Christianity.

I'm down with it. I think we have a fine country. I think we can both agree on that.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Our is not a perfect social structure. We have our flaws but at least WE, as a people, have power. You are right when you say we have problems here that need to be dealt with and perhaps our government has fallen short in dealing with those problems. But we are dealing with an enemy that if given a chance would obliterate our values.

With their dress code right? Kidding! Kidding, sorry I'll stop.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This enemy has taken advantage of our imigration system and our porous borders and they are in fact, here; waiting for the right opportunity to strike. This war must be faught both here AND abroad. If we lose this battle, then our social ills will mean nothing.

Ever watch Lou Dobbs on CNN? I don't agree with his political convictions but he makes some great points. I'm with you. We need to fix our immigration policies. Now we're talking homeland! I think this is where your arguments excel!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As far as being a role model: Freedom is not even in the equation as a model for lifestyle in the eyes of our enemy. What they perceive as freedom and what we perceive as freedom are two VERY different things. Our government has conveniently labeled our enemy as extremists. I submit that theirs in not extreme at all. This is why "moderates" have been unable or ill-equipped to properly defend their "religion".

Saint: You've read the posts here. Why don't you give your input, such as your opinion on the compulsion of religion diolouge between me an Babloyi?

You've seen two different interpretations of that Sura. Which do you agree with?

Ouch! Er... you've put me in a tough spot. I see some of what you're saying a perfectly valid and some of what Babloyi says as perfectly valid. Basically I've read the passages posted here and have come to my own conclussions as to what they mean. I put myself into a 'new muslim' role, read the text and said to myself "This passage means...". I think this is going to throw me in the middle and make me very unpopular with both you and Babloyi.

Why I disagree with you: I think you're micro-tearing down the religion to everything being an act of aggression and hostility. I think you point overseas way too much when we have plenty of our own problems here. I think you're quick to jump on the law-makers for their Islamic decision before giving them a fair shake to see if it is indeed a good idea or not.

Why I disagree with Babloyi: The Qu'ran read to me to not make friends with Jews and Christians in the strictist interpretation. The 'things are different' now approach doesn't gel with me that well. I think if it is a divine book, what was morally right and true 2,000+ years ago would be right and true now too.

Why I agree with you: I feel that the Muslim texts gives their believers the right to use violence when necessary. The problem I have is it seems terribly subjective as to what 'when necessary' actually means.

Why I agree with Babloyi: I believe he's sincere in saying he's willing to befriend me, a Christian. I believe he's right when he says people use the Qu'ran for political gains and power which is corrupt.

Now that I've managed to tick off everyone at the negotiating table, I guess it's my turn to catch some heat. After all, it'd be only fair...

Hey Freedom, this is an interesting topic. What is your opinion on indecency laws?
Should people be allowed to walk around in public completely naked?
Ok, should people be allowed to walk around in public in their briefs?
Should people be allowed to walk around in public with just covering the "hotspots" (i dunno, wearing a thong and a Janet Jackson nipple ring )?

You see, there is no set limit where it stops becoming indecent and starts becoming a "restriction of freedom". I'd be interested to know how far the Malaysian leader is planning on "restricting" the clothing. The article didn't really specify. BTW, "hijab" is the head covering that leaves your face open, "abaya" is the "potato sack" (but still with the face showing). The clothing that only leaves a slit for the eyes is called a "burqa".

About civil liberties. I agree with Saint. Wouldn't it be so much better if things like cigarettes, alcohol etc. just weren't there? They serve no purpose but to destroy.

Saint, I was talking about the Hadith when I said that one needs to interpret them for today, not the Quran. Here, let me explain:
The Quran is (according to muslims) God's last written revealation to mankind. It was revealed directly to Muhammad, and is supposed to last us till the end, no matter if it was 1500 years ago, or 2000 years after.
The Hadith are the written traditions of the Prophet (what he did and said), written down much after he died, from the recollections of the people who were with him. The Hadith are not infallible, and are some Hadith that scholars have deemed "untrustworthy" by studying the chain of narration, and the authors.


[edit on 19-3-2005 by babloyi]

Saint; you are indeed a hoot!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
In fact, Blacks didn't even have a voice or a vote until 1965.

Originally posted by saint4God
*nods* Long overdue. By the way, can we give a few states back to the Native Americans please? We can start with mine.

Something just doesn't seem right about shedding blood and winning a battle for land and then giving it back. But what do I know--the Israelis are doing it.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There was an entire war fought (civil war) that centered around this issue.

Originally posted by saint4God
Interesting. Here I thought it was about whether the states should function as a union or confederacy (aka the politics and governing powers). *scratches his head* Slavery hardly seems to be enough motivation to have a civil war, no?

Actually the southern states didn't feel they had enough representation in the government. Abolition was the acid thrown in the chlorine that sparked their need for secession. Here's a link that explains this in pretty good detail: www.swcivilwar.com...

Originally posted by saint4God
I knew a crew from Puerto Rico that could dance a mean Salsa. I was getting uncomfortable just watching. That's what I get for the straight-laced Euro-American heritage I guess *shrug*. I dunno. I've never seen a rapist dance with someone first though.

You knew a "crew"? I believe somewhere in your post you used the word "vector". Are you a pilot?

Originally posted by saint4God
What does gay marriage have to do with protecting women?

Nothing. I think we've gotten off that topic

Originally posted by saint4God
Hm. The government is to protect peoples' rights. Ours is of life, liberty and persuit of happiness.

True. Don't gays/lesbians have rights?

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know why a homosexual would want to be a primary part of a religious ceremony that celebrates the union between man and woman anyway.

There are many gays/lesbians who are religious. Besides, marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony. Athiests get married--right?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Booze was distilled and sold on the black market and there were thousands who were effected by poor distilling techniques (blindness and such) by people trying to capitalize on its Illegal use.

Originally posted by saint4God
Maybe that should'a told us something hm?

I believe it did. Booze should be legalized.

Originally posted by saint4God
Down with gas burning engines! We have the technology, we have the ability to offer U.S. companies the incentives to produce electric or at least hybrid vehicles. Come on, are we going to sell out to overseas labor markets again? Don't stop imports or add tax for products, FREAKIN' COMPETE like the good capitalists we are. As is, we're getting beat at our game and you know what? We deserve it. Buck up America, we need to get back in the race or we'll all lose our jobs.

We have the technology but not the resources. Wind and solar make up only a tiny fraction of our energy resources. Hydro-mechanical (water through a dam) energy makes a lot more. The rest comes from Nuclear and petroleum/coal-burning plants. The notion that electric powered vehicles are pollution-free is a falacy. Electric powered vehicles create pollution at the source where electricity is made.

Hydrogen power is certainly promising but we don't have the resources to produce it without making polution in the process. Iceland, however, is slowly moving toward hydrogen power because they have geo-thermal energy to produce it. In about 15-20 years I believe they will be major exporters of hydrogen.

Originally posted by saint4God
Are any of these 'civil liberties' good?

Whether or not they are good I believe is a moot argument. I personally like to have the option of doing them and then choosing not to. I don't need the government choosing for me. As long as these activities don't adversely effect the rights of others then they should be legal.

Originally posted by saint4God
According to the 1st amendment, our government cannot dictate morality by law. An Islamist nation (and historically Israel) says otherwise. I think it'd be best to take a critical look at what exactly they're dictating and whether it's more effective than our own government before jumping to conclussions. You did say the U.S. had the highest murder rate right? Our government should not prescribe religion or violate the first amendment but I would say murdering someone is an infringement upon their rights and that's exactly where they need to step in.

Whether or not Islam, as a governing power, is more effective depends on what you're measuring it against.

I do agree, however, that murder does indeed negatively impact the rights of others and therefore is the reason that it's illegal.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Suadi Arabia IS a relatively crime free country in terms of social crimes: burlgary, murder etc....

Originally posted by saint4God
Hm. Interesting. Amnesty International seems to think there is a lot of crimes against humanity (domestic torture, government silencing, disappearances) but they go unheard. It's hard to know what to believe these days without firsthand accounts I guess.

That's why I said Social crimes. Human rights violations is another story

Originally posted by saint4God
Now that I've managed to tick off everyone at the negotiating table, I guess it's my turn to catch some heat. After all, it'd be only fair...

Not at all Saint. I value your opinions and respect your positions though I may disagree with some of them. This is what makes this interesting--it would be boring otherwise.

Now--off I go to do some ROP update fishing....

are you so sure the rest of the world can hardly wait for some US style freedom where teenage girls mostly look like cheap whores, get payed to "suck it" if they want to go to college and make their first porn when they turn 18.... And graduate by reading Cosmopolitan magazine tips on sex.

I am sure they feel really "liberated" when they turn 30, not to mention the feeling of achievement they have deep inside.

Youre talking like the only thing every woman in the world wants to look like a cheap hooker....

keep your ideals in your country...

nukunuku makes a good point, albeit in a harsh tone. What makes one version of "Freedom" more right than another?
I have a friend who is a stern advocate of hijab. I asked her why she wore one, and she told me that she was incredibley proud of the fact that it identifies her as a muslim. When she is meeting someone, their first thought is not "That is a fine @ss", and they are forced to look at her as a person, and not just a female. She considers herself to be "freer" because of her hijab.
One could say that she has been brainwashed by backward mentality, blah blah... but what makes people so sure that it is not THEY who have been brainwashed into thinking that to be free one must wear waist length skirts?

Welcome back babloyi...

Originally posted by babloyi
...but what makes people so sure that it is not THEY who have been brainwashed into thinking that to be free one must wear waist length skirts?

I highlighted the "must" in your quote because under true freedom that word doesn't apply to the clothes people wear. Freedom gives you the choice to wear or not wear whatever clothes you want.

nukunuku:

I'm curious. In your opinion describe what a "cheap whore" looks like. Is there a difference in the way cheap whore's look relative to expensive whore's? Is it your perception that all American teenage girls look like cheap whores and that all of them "suck it" to get into college? What if they did? Does that somehow affect your personal liberties? Do you even have any personal liberties? It sounds to me like you're just another anti-American taking a cheap shot without providing any references to back your opinion.

Now if you'll please excuse me; it's time to go fire up the gril to cook some steaks while I sip a cocktail by the pool.

I mised this post so I'm responding a little late.

Originally posted by babloyi
Hey Freedom, this is an interesting topic. What is your opinion on indecency laws?
Should people be allowed to walk around in public completely naked?
Ok, should people be allowed to walk around in public in their briefs?
Should people be allowed to walk around in public with just covering the "hotspots" (i dunno, wearing a thong and a Janet Jackson nipple ring

)?

I suppose this is where the "common sense" part comes in; though, again, what one person deems offensive another may not. We do have places here where people are allowed to be completely nude--they are called nudist colonies. And I can tell you that I'm not the least bit offended by the naked body. I also don't judge people by the way they dress--I accept them for who they are.

Originally posted by babloyi
BTW, "hijab" is the head covering that leaves your face open, "abaya" is the "potato sack" (but still with the face showing). The clothing that only leaves a slit for the eyes is called a "burqa".

Thank you for the correction babloyi

Originally posted by babloyi
About civil liberties. I agree with Saint. Wouldn't it be so much better if things like cigarettes, alcohol etc. just weren't there? They serve no purpose but to destroy.

Their purpose in not to destroy. And it's like anything else in life. If you do anything excessively your health can be damaged; smoking and drinking included. But again I like having the choice for myself and not the government choosing for me.

Are women in Muslim countries allowed to lead a prayer in mosques? Here's an article that sheds some light to that question:

cbsnewyork.com...

Excerpts:

NEW YORK (AP) A female professor led an Islamic prayer service Friday with men in the congregation despite sharp criticism from Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East who complained that it violated centuries of tradition.

Amina Wadud, a professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the service she was leading helped emphasize ``the belief in the reality that women are equal'' under Islam.

``Women were not allowed to (have) input in the basic paradigms of what it means to be a Muslim,'' she said, adding that while the Quran puts men and women on equal footing, men have distorted its teachings to leave women with no role other than ``as sexual partners.''

However, this event didn't go unoticed by some literalists:

``All she is doing is twisting the interpretation of Islam to suit her needs. This is blasphemy, pure and simple,'' said Mohammed Nussrah, a Brooklyn native whose family is Algeria. Nussrah, a member of a local Muslim group named the Islamic Thinkers, added: ``If this was an Islamic state, this woman would be hanged.''

``People in America think they are going to be the vanguards of change,'' Haddad said. ``But for Arab Muslims in the Middle East, American Muslims continue to be viewed on the margins of the faith.''

The sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque, the Islamic world's leading Sunni Muslim institution, said Islam permits women to lead other women in prayer but not a congregation with men.

Only a handful of protesters showed up outside the event and they conducted a counter prayer service on the sidewalk, led by a young American man who would only give his name as Nussruh. "These people do not represent Islam," said the clearly furious Nussruh. "If this was an Islamic state, this woman would be hanged, she would be killed, she would be diced into pieces."

www.kansascity.com...

Why would these protestors be so angry over this? I believe the Qur'an offers this guidance:

4:34. Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath men the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.