dialamah

Really? You don't think the OP, an avowed Christian, doesn't hold the belief that women should be expected to dress modestly, because you know - men can't handle seeing female skin without potentially losing control? Yeah, that's pretty sad. We're definitely better than many other countries when it comes to not blaming women for men's sexual misbehavior, but it's still an issue far too often.

I think there's merit in the idea that generally speaking and especially in third-world countries, women are disadvantaged in many ways and that climate change will exacerbate this disadvantage. However, I also think that who will get hurt worse is essentially irrelevant if climate change poses a big enough threat to essentially wipe humans out. So yeah, let's not get bogged down by details about gender disparity in the face of a life-threat.

I agree that it's a ridiculous notion, and it makes me angry that so many people hold such stupid notions. Because I was raised to believe that discriminating against people based on their religion is wrong, regardless of how ridiculous I consider their beliefs. Covering one's face to control lust in men is as stupid an idea as telling women they need to wear longer skirts or shorts and show less cleavage or shoulders to control lust in men. If the people who object to the niqab because of it's misogynistic implications aren't also objecting to statements like "Look at how she's dressed; she's just asking for it" or "Well, what did she expect going to a bar/party dressed like that" or policies of "Girls at school have to dress in a manner that won't distract the boys with their bodies" then they are hypocrites.

Could win money on the predictability around here. You'd be one of the top performers.

When one systematically talks about those "horrible people over there", while ignoring, excusing or dismissing their own identical behavior, there's a word for that too. See if you can figure it out.

I agree that cruelly killing innocent animals for a religious festival is wrong. And, almost unheard of - Islam is certainly the only religion that feasts on animal meats for their religious festivals. Sure, we kill turkeys for Christmas and Thanksgiving, after raising them in horrific conditions, but that's different because ... well, it's not on the streets, right? http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hor http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247849/The-truth-free-range-turkeys-Christmas-dinner.html http://www.mintpressnews.com/torture-and-terror-why-thanksgiving-is-tough-for-turkeys/173729/ Then there's innocent chickens and innocent cows and innocent pigs, also raised in horrific conditions - saving money while feeding the masses - but since it happens behind closed doors and it's 'not for religion' it's ok to ignore that while criticizing a religion we particularly dislike. https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/animals-factory-farms

Taqqiya in the quran was for a specific purpose. If there are people claiming to be Muslim who use taqqiya to justify lying at any time for any reason, then they aren't really Muslim. Isn't that how your argument goes for those Muslims who practice peaceful Islam? Dhimmi is historical, according to the wiki article you linked. If we can't hold historical behavior against Christians, I don't see why its ok to hold historcal behavior against Muslims.

So your contention is that Muslims are being persecuted? From your link: Or perhaps it's just more anti-Islam rhetoric; again from your link:

Climate change study cancelled due to Climate change: not enough ice. http://glbn.ca/W8wXy2

Well they created Islamic terrorists for us, and are now standing down.

Speaking of Sharia law, this is from a friend who is a Canadian and is Muslim: SHARIAH LAW: Word for all those so damned worried about Shariah Law. Unless you are Muslim, it does not pertain to you. As Muslims living in any country, we go by the laws of the country. All Shariah Law concerns is the conduct of Muslims, in prayer, marriage, divorce, inheritance etal. For example in Islam when a person weds there is a Nikkah - marriage contract. It is the same as a prenuptial for others defining the context of the marriage such as dowry etal. Again for the fear mongers out there do your research and stop spreading lies and fear as SHARIAH LAW only applies to Muslims.

Given the origin of the article and the very obvious slant, I thought a little more research was warranted. This bill was a response to recommendations made after an investigation into a 7-year-olds death at the hands of legal guardians. She had more than 70 wounds and a ruptured liver. http://lisagelman.com/childcustody/child-protection-law-ontario-katelynns-principle-bill-89/ A less biased review of this law is found here: https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/01/06/bill-89/ Given that kids kill themselves due to non-acceptance of LGBTQ identification I can see why some people might think moving these kids from a home in which their parents rejects them could be a good idea. The new bill also apparently makes a child's religion less of a factor when placing them in care. Perhaps that is in their so that Muslim kids could be placed with non-Muslim families. Personally, kids in care so often ends in disaster, I think there should be less removing and more oversight, education and support of families who show problems. On the other hand when a kid dies at the hands of the parents or foster parents, social services is blamed. They really are in a no-win situation.

Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975 - 2015 Saudi Arabia ... 19 Terrorists, 2369 deaths United Arab Emirates, 2 terrorists, 314 deaths Egypt, 11 terrorists, 162 deaths Lebanon, 4 terrorists, 159 deaths Kuwait, 2 terrorists, 6 deaths Cuba, 11 terrorists, 3 deaths Etc. Almost no terrorists have come from banned countries; almost all terrorists have come from countries not on the banned list. The ban list is just a sop to Trump supporters and does nothing to make America safer.

Why isn't SA included in the ban?

I'm not as against Trump as you think. His reduction of funds to women-centered organizations has resulted in increased private funding to them. He has inspired the rest of the world to commit to addressing climate change, and persuaded Canada to look elsewhere for trading partners and France to reject Le Pen. Those are all positives, imo. With his current trajectory, he stands a good chance of making the world great again, even if the US succumbs to massive and blatant governmental corruption. Look at all those straws!

Even if those prostitutes did pee on him, I don't think he should be impeached, just mocked. But giving away secrets to Russians and attempting to interfere in an investigation: imagine the outrage among Trump supporters if Obama, Hillary or (on this side of the border) Trudeau had done that.

This is way more entertaining than if Clinton had won. For one thing, it highlights the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who screamed bloody murder if Hillary blinked wrong, but Trump? He can grope women, give classified info to the Russians and try to influence an investigation - no problem. The only defense they have at this point is "but Hillary..." - a presidential candidate who lost to the Republicans preferred immoral and corrupt non-politician/reality tv star.

If I say to someone, "I want your loyalty", personal is implied even if not explicitly stated. When my boss says to me "I hope you'll be able to do this" I know he doesn't mean "but it's fine if you don't." Are you saying Comey should have found a way to follow Trump's directive? You may be right that this will lead no where, but it makes it obvious that Trump has no compunction about using his considerable power and authority to influence the American justice system in his favor. His supporters have two choices here: admitting Trump is corrupt or admitting he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing.

Please notice that as Rue presented his POV without name calling and character assassination, I responded in kind merely presented my point of view. If you can't tell the difference between expressing one's own opinion and an 'attack' that is your problem.

I don't like niqabs either, they make me uncomfortable, especially with those long black dresses. But I do support the right of people to wear what they want without suffering legal penalties, as well as social ones. I also do not think my comfort level should dictate what someone else is allowed to wear. If criminals wearing niqabs became a common feature of crimes, that might be a reason to disallow them. But as that has not happened with balaclavas I fail to see how there is any justification for disallowing niqabs.

Climate change. The above are just distractions. Someone has written a book calling Boomers sociopathic cause we've essentially lived our generation without care.

Yeah. At least Argus waits to see a headscarf before condemning* someone. Gotta give him credit there. *Condemning does not equal wishing death on someone.

Someone else worried about Muslims ... Though he/she is a little bit confused.

The kids tweeted on his behalf, I understand?

What is sensible about the killings in the States?