?Impact

I see, so context is important and not isolated verses. Shall you tell us the context in the Quran for the verses you quoted? b.t.w. What is the moral of the story Jesus is telling? Reward those who have the most, and kill those that don't supplicate themselves before you?

It would be interesting to see the demographics of politicians, are you aware of any studies?

and the Bible speaks for Christianity. The Old Testament is the most violent scripture around, far worse than the Quran. Christians will not denounce it, only make excuses for it. Well, it is not just the old Testament, but the New Testament as well. Note the red text, the words of Jesus Christ commanding the slaughter of non-believers. - Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Yes 2 years does seem very short, especially in modern times with billion dollar elections. Since the big parties control the big money, this propagates that system. The Senate does have some powers like confirmation of appointments as is going on now that the House does not have. It also has higher age and longer citizenship requirements than the House. There are similar powers in passing bills, with the exception of raising taxes which must be done by the House.

It is the liberal left that created western civilization, the conservative right wing were dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way

Sharia law is a far right regressive position.

Do you have any confirmation of that? There has been lots of speculation, but I have seen nothing to confirm his religion if any.

In practice that sounds like Canada, with the boys short pants in the PMO proposing most of the legislation. Yes we get the odd backbencher bill through, but they generally are very limited in scope.

a significant percentage of those drug abusers got started because some drug company convinced doctors to prescribe them addictive pain killers to begin with.

Criticize all you want, just don't try and stop them from wearing the ducks because if they aren't hurting you by wearing the ducks then it's not really your business. You complain about that all the time about everyone that isn't your shade of blue anyway.

No, you are free to say religion is stupid and criticize people for the practice of religion. What is worthy of scorn however is if you criticize people for being neighbors because they also practice a religion. Do you see the distinction?

I think there are both benefits and problems with federalism, and how it is implemented. For example I think our single criminal code across the entire country is far better than the American 51 criminal codes. Not everything needs to be done at a federal level, it is far more efficient to implement many things at lower levels of government. You can also band together several sub-sovereign jurisdictions into a bloc for certain services (e.g. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). It is all about achieving the right balance, and how you let that evolve over time. Transportation safety for example makes sense at a federal level, but actual implementation of transportation systems is often better served at state/provincial or municipal levels.

L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs - The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Wow, Donald Trump was telling the truth all the time. Former President Obama confesses to wiretapping.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Other than the biological function of feeding a baby through the first year or so of life, dads can serve the role of raising children with excellent results. They can comfort them, they can teach them, they can encourage them, they provide security, etc.

So you are saying dads are incapable of filling that role? What about dads rights? ...and obligations. While I see a level of biological discrimination, it seems to me that Sharia pushes that into sexual discrimination that is beyond the biological differences.

The suspect in the recent bomb threat at Concordia University in Montreal that caused it to shutdown for most of March 1st is out on bail. Hisham Saadi, 47, is facing charges of inciting terrorism fears, transmitting death threats, and mischief. We know that he is from Lebanon, but we do not know his religion if any. He is not scheduled to reappear until April so it will be some time until we learn any more. What seemed to provoke him to create his anti-Muslim threat was students using the sink in the public (university) washroom to wash their feet prior to prayer. This is a common ritual that Muslims practice, and also serves a practical purpose as they want to keep their prayer mats clean. There is no excuse for the threatening letter an subsequent turmoil it caused and if found guilty then Mr. Saadi deserves appropriate sentencing. That being said, it still raises the question about accommodating religious practices in public institutions like universities and the impact on other patrons. Should prayer be treated like any other student extracurricular activity, and in this case one that may need special facilities. Generally universities allow clubs and groups to operate subject to certain rules, like being open to the larger student body. I a few cases there is discrimination, and certainly controversy surrounding that discrimination (e.g. hours a gym is only open to female students). Some clubs only require a room of appropriate size to meet, and other require special facilities. Generally athletic oriented activities have change rooms and showers, some technical clubs might require a lab or at least place to keep their rockets, etc. I believe other faith groups, and certainly political groups operate in most universities. If given enough demand, should universities (generally operated through a student union) accommodate Muslim students for prayers, perhaps by having facilities like the fountains in/outside some mosques to allow them to perform their cleansing ritual.

... and so are moms

...and why not dad?

Yes, I saw that. In fact he was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public. Court appearance is on Monday.

Oh, come on. Are we going to play that old new testament/old testament game when you refuse to denounce the old testament and don't respond to passages in the new testament that are equally bad including the one I cited yesterday that is also the spoken word of Jesus.

Certainly there have been historical and cultural differences between men and women, but do those hold true today. Yes, the biological differences do mean women must bear the children but all the responsibilities of working and providing for a family can be indistinguishable in the modern world. Very few jobs require women to go out and plough the filed while they are pregnant, they can work in an office right up until delivery without any complications and return fairly shortly after. There are technology solutions like breast pumps that allow them to address their biological function in those months after work, and even far better social solutions like employer daycare or the father taking care of the children and bringing them to mom for feeding. Do the above cited verses of the Quran have applicability in the modern world?

There is a difference between testimony under oath and cross examination and stories one tells. I don't accept the 911 truthers, but they sure can spin a yarn. That being said, we all know that there are countless examples of faulty eyewitness testimony, why should we believe ones that have been recorded 2000 years ago?

Again that gets back to my earlier question way back at the start of the thread. Yes, Sharia has its foundation in the Quran but there are many other parts of what man considers Sharia law that go beyond the Quran. Some of them are based on the recorded life of Muhammad (sunnah), others are based on interpretation through deductive reasoning (qiyas) and consensus amongst men (ijma). That is further complicated by the many diverse legal bodies (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari). Some Muslims make a distinction between Sharia as the divine law of God that they must follow, and fiqh as the interpretation of that law by man. That is why I keep asking, but not getting a clear answer on, is Sharia something one must follow as a Muslim or is it something that one man enforces on another. I accept the first, and reject the second.