Cleric supports forced sex and beatings on women

[Molly]

WIP, I have respected the content of your previous posts, but this time, I think that you, and Sam Harris have both missed the boat.

To be perfectly honest, I see the Muslim activists, Christian theocrats, and fascist and neofascist movements to all be nothing more than different coloured blocks in the same set. Each has their own (irrational) authouritarian view of the world, and they are simply squabbling among themselves as to which should be acknowledged as supreme. Reality is, they are all rediculously wrong, all for the same reasons.

That 'Muslim activists are generally part of the coalition of the left' strikes me as an utterly bizarre statement.

I'd say it is based in logic similar to Mr. Canadas insistence that I approve of the opinions of the Imam, simply because I disapprove equally of the dangerous flaws of his own creed (and conduct), (yet I would protect his right to believe it)..... and if it bears any hint of truth, it is simply because the fascists and the Christian theocrats are loud in our ears through numbers and proximity, jointly expressing more than enough disapproval for all of us.

We don't need to jump on that bandwagon for there to be plenty of folks on board already. (And some might even see a need to protect the right to hold that belief system, too.)

One of the major flaws that those three ugly sisters have in common is the belief that morality is anything other than subjective-- and to adopt 'objective moral standards' is to preempt their dominance by becoming them.

[Mr.Canada]

What the cleric said was wrong. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Thank you Smallc. You're the only one of my enemies in seven pages to openly condemn the man. I understand that the socialists hate me because I represent everything they dislike and are the exact opposite of me but sheesh.

If I'm right then I'm right. I'm not scared to admit when I'm wrong or when a socialist has a good idea. I wonder why they're so deathly afraid of that on an anonymous board? Paranoia will destroy ya.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

I'm not a socialist.

[Mr.Canada]

I'm not a socialist.

Fixed.

[Melanie_]

Ok, Mr. Canada, I'll agree with you 100% that this Imam is a nutbar, and raping and beating wives is a horrible thing. I'm glad to see you joining the feminist movement, and will welcome your support of women's rights in all future threads.

So, having said that, you post such drivel sometimes it is hard to even continue reading. Some examples:

There is a renewed push to have Sharia Law here in Canada and to make polygamy legal.

The most vocal people trying to make polygamy legal in Canada are the Christians in Bountiful BC.

Also, statements taken out of context, like this, just make you sound like an idiot.

[Oleg Bach]

I love the idea of GOD and of goodness. I have studied religion most of my life - and having read the Koran - a bit of the Tora - a dab of Budist thought and of course pragmatic Christiainity - I have come to the conclusion that religion is man made and inferiour - that it is EVIL....and those fixated on man made oppressive doctrines are jerks and brutes..where as the simple belief in God and goodness and understanding that God made good as well as evil and it is for us to sort out - as for Clerics who support forced sex and beatings on woman --- these are occultists! All dark power is conducted in secret and all religions are very secretive at the core...You can not take clerics anymore seriously than you can take lawyers or governments - they are all cultish and have hidded agendas that contain human rights abuses. This is the very nature of earthly power - religion is earthly ---It did not come from above. It comes from below - from man kind.....and mans base need to control others because he can not control himself!

[cybercoma]

It is disgusting, of coarse I don't support pedophilia in any form. This topic is about a Cleric not a Minister. If you wish to discuss it please start your own topic sir. You constantly make strawman arguments in every post of mine when you don't want to be seen agreeing with me. I find it funny.

Your example is actually a red-herring fallacy, not a strawman.

[Mr.Canada]

Your example is actually a red-herring fallacy, not a strawman.

The topic I made was about a Muslim Cleric he doesn't want to disagree with that so he talks about a Christian minister and disagrees with that instead. - I thought this was a strawman.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

The topic I made was about a Muslim Cleric he doesn't want to disagree with that so he talks about a Christian minister and disagrees with that instead. - I thought this was a strawman.

It's a red-herring since he's talking about something entirely different--presumably, to take attention away from the initial argument. A strawman is more correctly defined by arguing against an exaggerated or distorted form of your original argument.

[Peter F]

It's already been covered by Kimmy, but once again, this is not about resolving a private dispute. You don't need to go to court for that. If you have a dispute about your neighbour's fence, you can make a private deal without going to court. This issue is about legal recognition of systems of arbitration.

Wait a minute...this is not about resolving private disputes but is about systems of arbitration? Arbitration is all about resolving private disputes. Thats the sole purpose of arbitration: To resolve private disputes. Without arbitration and even with arbitration one could very well go to court to resolve a private dispute, yes even about my neighbours fence. The courtrooms of the land are full of cases regarding private disputes, thus Arbitration acts to try to move those disputes out of courtrooms and yet be resolved in a legally enforceable manner to (hopefully) the satisfaction of the parties involved.

And there are many concerns in England, where recognition of Sharia tribunals is being proposed, that immigrant Muslim women will find themselves railroaded into having their divorce, domestic violence complaints or inheritances settled by a panel of MEN, who are using a system that predetermines a woman is worth half of the value as a man.

Kimmy succinctly made that point in her post earlier. And a valid point it is, too.

However you are mixing up what would be arbitrated with things that are not subject to arbitration. Domestic violence is Assault, at the very least, and not a private dispute. It will fall within the realm of criminal law and not be subject to the hypothetical Sharia Arbitration as constituted under the Arbitration Act. Arbitrations cannot change a persons legal status. Arbitration cannot grant divorce or declare parenthood etc. Certainly these arbitrations would deal with matters of inheritance, division of assets etc. Now it may be that Islamic law does not treat the woman fairly in these matters - and yes, I can imagine, as Kimmy pointed out, that unscrupulous men would railroad the woman into going to the Islamic Arbitration rather than a secular court. Because these Islamic arbitrations, so I am told, would favour the male.

On the other hand - we have no such Islamic tribunals now so what do these unscrupulous men do? They certainly don't railroad the woman into going to court to resolve the dispute. Instead they would probably railroad her into settling out of court. or actually more likely remaining where she is and putting up with the bullshit.

Of the two choices presently available the secular courts are out. The woman is assumed to be railroadable and the men in her life would certainly railroad her to stay the hell away of a fair and just system to their advantage.

So her last option is settlement out of court wich she would be also railroaded into as advised by the men in her life and again certainly to their advantage.

Considering the conundrum this poor woman is in, an Islamic arbitration, assuming it was organized and administered as recommended by that crazy lefty Marion Boyd, could actually do the poor ignorant woman a service! She would be made aware of what her rights are under Canadian Law. She would be provided a lawyer to consult and advise her about what her options are. And even if she did submit to the Islamic Arbitration (that for some reason is assumed to be out to screw her over big time) and she doe's get royally shafted - the results of that arbitration are appealable to those fine secular courts that we all know and love.

So I think that despite the well known limitations of Islamic justice, this ignorant immigrant woman with no concept of the rights she enjoys in this country and subject to the whims of the menfolk around her, would be better off with the Marion Boyd religious based arbitration than without.

Should the British courts uphold the decisions of the tribunals, when even these spineless appeasers recognize that Sharia punishments would be too barbaric for jolly ole England:"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales." Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.

Well, if the punishments proscribed by a legal system are deemed too barbaric, why would you want to use it as a basis for any legally binding decisions?

What the hell is that? You know very well what the Lord Justice said. He said that if anybody thought that the British Sharia courts were going to operate outside British Law and prescribe good ol sharia punishments like stoneing or the chopping off hands then they were dreaming in technicolour! Thats a good thing actually. Yet you know this because you actually read the article. So I have to wonder why the hell are you carrying on as if there is some full fledged Sharia Courts being allowed? You know thats not true yet you keep coming up with this bullshit.

There's nothing stopping them now from entering into contractual business agreement, and they can have their mullahs or muftis, whatever, be the arbitrator and write up the contract. But why should our legal system recognize the Sharia tribunal as an independent legal body?

Independant Legal Body? You are jumping to conclusions. Sharia Tribunals would not have been independant legal body's. They would have been arbfitrators under the arbitration act. Are arbitrators independant legal bodies operating outside the law? Nope. You know that. So what kind of propaganda are you trying to pass off here as debate?

Which rules out about everything connected with Sharia Law, since it is theologically based, and Muslims consider it superior to civil law -- so they will feel pressured to turn to the Sharia tribunal, rather than the secular courts. Every decision by a Sharia panel would have to be thrown out as in violation of our Charter of Rights....so what's the point?

Again, you assume every decision would be thrown out. I assume that is because you don't consider muslim jurists to be capable of understanding the concept of Justice. If we were in Somalia or Nigeria or Afghanistan or numerous other places that the wold has forgotten I would be able to see your point. But we arn't in those places. We are in Canada.

And finally, regarding your "spineless appeaser" remark. Good for appeasment. I love appeasement. Appeasment can be a good thing.

[WIP]

WIP, I have respected the content of your previous posts, but this time, I think that you, and Sam Harris have both missed the boat.

To be perfectly honest, I see the Muslim activists, Christian theocrats, and fascist and neofascist movements to all be nothing more than different coloured blocks in the same set. Each has their own (irrational) authouritarian view of the world, and they are simply squabbling among themselves as to which should be acknowledged as supreme.

All the more reason to hold them to the same standards and not look the other way when Muslim fundamentalists are calling for the subjugation of women. It wouldn't be tolerated from Christian fundamentalists. Just because it is a Christian theocrat pointing fingers, it doesn't change the facts of the case.

That 'Muslim activists are generally part of the coalition of the left' strikes me as an utterly bizarre statement.

The problem is it goes beyond concern over torture, illegal detention, secret prisons, and U.S. MiddleEast policy to an attitude of many socialists, that every enemy of the U.S. is an oppressed victim of colonialism. The attitude of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was most recently played out in the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza. Because Israel is a U.S. ally, the left was immediately condemning Israel as the aggressor, even though they had endured months of random rocket attacks and attempts to dig tunnels behind Israeli lines. No Israeli military response would be acceptable to doctrinaire socialists.

I'd say it is based in logic similar to Mr. Canadas insistence that I approve of the opinions of the Imam, simply because I disapprove equally of the dangerous flaws of his own creed (and conduct)

I don't want to join ranks with Christian theocrats on this issue either, since they are not motivated by a desire to maintain separation between religion and state, but instead just want to fight their theocratic rivals; nevertheless, condemnation of the Imam is warranted.

We don't need to jump on that bandwagon for there to be plenty of folks on board already. (And some might even see a need to protect the right to hold that belief system, too.)

Oh, but we do! That's why Harris voiced his despair that secularists are afraid to criticize Muslim theocrats -- right now, the only ones challenging them are the fundamentalists and the neofascists in Europe.

One of the major flaws that those three ugly sisters have in common is the belief that morality is anything other than subjective-- and to adopt 'objective moral standards' is to preempt their dominance by becoming them.

I strongly disagree here! The flaw is that liberalism has embraced relativism so completely they are afraid to make almost any moral judgments. When you say that morality is purely subjective, you are moving down the road towards eliminating any shared concepts of right and wrong.

The problem with religion-based ethical systems is not that they claim to be objective -- the problem is that they claim to have a standard that is intrinsically perfect, and rigidly adhere to it, regardless of what the benefits and harms are of their revealed "truth." An actual objective standard for ethics and moral systems is based on evaluating the consequences of rules, and making alternations when and where necessary. Making morality subjective just feeds their conclusions that religion or religious beliefs are necessary for morality.

[WIP]

Domestic violence is Assault, at the very least, and not a private dispute. It will fall within the realm of criminal law and not be subject to the hypothetical Sharia Arbitration as constituted under the Arbitration Act. Arbitrations cannot change a persons legal status. Arbitration cannot grant divorce or declare parenthood etc.

Wrong! Here's how it works in the real world, once you filter through all of the bullshit and doubletalk:

Islamic sharia law courts in Britain are exploiting a little-known legal clause to make their verdicts officially binding under UK law in cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence.Cases handled by the courts so far include Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours, he said.

But as well as civil disputes they have also handled six cases of domestic violence.

In all six cases, he said, sharia judges ordered husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders, but issued no further punishment.

All the women subsequently withdrew their complaints to the police, who halted investigations.

Mr Siddiqi claimed the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

But critics fear Muslim women victims will be pressured into accepting a sharia court settlement, and husbands will escape with lighter punishments than in a mainstream criminal court.

In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter - in keeping with sharia law.

Islamic sharia courts in Britain are now 'legally binding'

And the maddening thing is that after all of the time and energy spent debating rights and freedoms, there are so many lefties who are willing to roll out the welcome mat for the establishment of a barbaric, feudal system of laws that Muslims will be obligated to accept as more authoritative than civil law!

[BigAl]

Homosexuality isn't illegal. Rape and beating a women is. Sorry they don't match up sir. I find it funny that not one poster from the left will criticize this Cleric as he's a minority. Priceless. So do you support this Clerics actions then or not?

That's a slippery slope. Do I condone rape and assault? Clearly not. My point is I don't think it's fair to represent an entire faith based on the skewed opinions of one obviously unbalanced individual (or even a few). Hence why I don't judge all Christians based on YOUR views.

[Mr.Canada]

That's a slippery slope. Do I condone rape and assault? Clearly not. My point is I don't think it's fair to represent an entire faith based on the skewed opinions of one obviously unbalanced individual (or even a few). Hence why I don't judge all Christians based on YOUR views.

I see what you're saying and agree that we mustn't paint them all with the same brush, no doubt about it. My point is that it's becoming more common place in the West as well. 20 years ago, did we ever hear anything about this? No. Now we hear these stories much more frequently. It's becoming increasingly common in the west. Not in the Middle East but in the west!

[M.Dancer]

20 years ago, did we ever hear anything about this?

Yes, but instead of obscure muslims clerics it was presiding judges ruling on cases of spousal abuse. It hasn't been that long since it has been ruled that in fact, a husband can be charges with the rape of his wife.

[BigAl]

I see what you're saying and agree that we mustn't paint them all with the same brush, no doubt about it. My point is that it's becoming more common place in the West as well. 20 years ago, did we ever hear anything about this? No. Now we hear these stories much more frequently. It's becoming increasingly common in the west. Not in the Middle East but in the west!

Okay, fair play. But that's a natural progression, isn't it? 20 years ago there were far fewer immigrants from that part of the world coming to Canada...and our policy in this country is generalized freedom (of expression, of religion, etc.) It makes sense that when you're transferring barrels of apples from one place to another, a few bad apples will make it into those barrels. To be clear, I certainly don't agree with the idea of beating and raping the women of your culture, and on some level it's sorely tempting to pass judgment on these people for their admittedly backwards views on the subject, but that is also a slippery slope -- where does our interference end? When we homogenize everyone, when we decide that anybody who doesn't live "our" way is living the "wrong" way, and we set out to correct it? I hate to state the obvious, but that sounds suspiciously like a final solution to me. You dig what I'm saying?

[Mr.Canada]

Okay, fair play. But that's a natural progression, isn't it? 20 years ago there were far fewer immigrants from that part of the world coming to Canada...and our policy in this country is generalized freedom (of expression, of religion, etc.) It makes sense that when you're transferring barrels of apples from one place to another, a few bad apples will make it into those barrels. To be clear, I certainly don't agree with the idea of beating and raping the women of your culture, and on some level it's sorely tempting to pass judgment on these people for their admittedly backwards views on the subject, but that is also a slippery slope -- where does our interference end? When we homogenize everyone, when we decide that anybody who doesn't live "our" way is living the "wrong" way, and we set out to correct it? I hate to state the obvious, but that sounds suspiciously like a final solution to me. You dig what I'm saying?

That's what I'm talking about Al. I don't believe it to be a few bad apples at all but just moderate Muslims who are behaving as if their in their home nation. I agree it's a slippery slope as for decades it's been fashionable to publicly slam white people and placate minorities sort of patting their hand saying "there, there now". Obviously no sane person can support rape and assault. I find it strange that not many wish to criticize a minority Muslim when their ideals clash so much with ours. While at the same time the left will use any small item to thrash Christianity. I see a huge double standard.

[Peter F]

Wrong! Here's how it works in the real world, once you filter through all of the bullshit and doubletalk:

...

And the maddening thing is that after all of the time and energy spent debating rights and freedoms, there are so many lefties who are willing to roll out the welcome mat for the establishment of a barbaric, feudal system of laws that Muslims will be obligated to accept as more authoritative than civil law!

Muslims are obligated to accept? They are not obligated to accept. If a muslim doesnt want to have the dispute resolved based on Islamic principles then he or she can file the case in a civil court. If, however, they beleive it would be proper and right for them to have the dispute resolved according to Islamic so-called law then they have every right to do so (assuming they can get the other party to agree).

It matters not one whit that you consider it barbaric and fuedal. What doe's matter is that the parties involved believe it will resolve thier dispute in a proper and morally acceptable manner. That you don't like it doesn't mean squat.

[Molly]

"It wouldn't be tolerated from Christian fundamentalists."

That's just not true either. It IS tolerated from Christian fundamentalists in North America ..every ...day - if not exactly those words, then beyond all doubt, the spirit of those words. 'Submission' goes routinely without challenge. Stories like that of my neighbor are not at all uncommon. Unnumbered oddball sects maintain all sorts of bizarre sexist heirarchical rules that they justify with whatever mythology they espouse! I have a neighbour just a couple of houses down who is a scripturally-justified servant and walking uterus; one of my daughters best pals has parents doing their best to scuttle her athletic and professional endeavours, insisting that as female, she's on a freight train to Hell for daring to have a life... It's just not true WIP, it's just NOT TRUE!

"nevertheless, condemnation of the Imam is warranted."

Well, duh! Did you see any defense of him in this thread? I saw condemnation after condemnation--- just not in isolation.

[Mr.Canada]

Muslims are obligated to accept? They are not obligated to accept. If a muslim doesnt want to have the dispute resolved based on Islamic principles then he or she can file the case in a civil court. If, however, they beleive it would be proper and right for them to have the dispute resolved according to Islamic so-called law then they have every right to do so (assuming they can get the other party to agree).

It matters not one whit that you consider it barbaric and fuedal. What doe's matter is that the parties involved believe it will resolve thier dispute in a proper and morally acceptable manner. That you don't like it doesn't mean squat.

I disagree with you sir. I don't see the rape and beating of wives to be "a proper and morally acceptable manner". I'm sorry that you feel this way.

[Mr.Canada]

"nevertheless, condemnation of the Imam is warranted."

Well, duh! Did you see any defense of him in this thread? I saw condemnation after condemnation--- just not in isolation.

You're wrong. Only Smallc has had the courage to speak up against this Cleric. The rest including you want to create your red-herring and bash Christianity instead out of fear of bashing your kind and gentle Muslims. I have barely read anyone who disagrees with him just lots of Christ bashing yet Christianity isn't under attack either, lol yeah right.

[Peter F]

I disagree with you sir. I don't see the rape and beating of wives to be "a proper and morally acceptable manner". I'm sorry that you feel this way.

Hey I got an idea. Why don't you ask me if I support (insert crime against humanity here); Then when I ignore you you can claim proof that secular-antiachristian enemies-jack layton supporting-Sid Ryan loving-socialists support (insert crime against humanity here).

Ready? GO!

[WIP]

"It wouldn't be tolerated from Christian fundamentalists."

That's just not true either. It IS tolerated from Christian fundamentalists in North America ..every ...day - if not exactly those words, then beyond all doubt, the spirit of those words. 'Submission' goes routinely without challenge. Stories like that of my neighbor are not at all uncommon.

Like I said before, I'm old enough to remember when these attitudes were mainstream -- either condoned or tolerated by authority. There was no such thing as rape or sexual assault within marriage until very recently, and an attitude of whatever goes on behind closed doors is no one else's business, prevailed in regards to domestic violence or child abuse, was the common wisdom, and interwoven with "traditional values," so you don't need to tell me that fundie outrage is hypocrisy in this theatre, since this is what they would take us back to! Their outrage over the Imam is motivated by the desire to attack a religious adversary.

But that does not mean we should go light on the Imam either just because he is also being attacked by Christian fundamentalists!

Unnumbered oddball sects maintain all sorts of bizarre sexist heirarchical rules that they justify with whatever mythology they espouse!

And one of the oddball sects would be the FLDS polygamous community in Bountiful, B.C.; and when I first read about the case, I was dismayed to discover that much of their support comes from liberals who can maintain with a straight face that it is an issue of freedom of choice for the women in the cult! And they will maintain this doctrine of non-interference inspite of child-brides and lost boys who are excommunicated solely because a polygamous community soon has too many males.

"nevertheless, condemnation of the Imam is warranted."

Well, duh! Did you see any defense of him in this thread? I saw condemnation after condemnation--- just not in isolation.

I saw a reluctance to condemn his statements, and an immediate response of attacking fundamentalists because of their motivations -- this can make it appear that misogyny from a Muslim spokesman will not be treated as seriously as it would if it came from the pulpit of a Christian evangelist.

[WIP]

Muslims are obligated to accept? They are not obligated to accept. If a muslim doesnt want to have the dispute resolved based on Islamic principles then he or she can file the case in a civil court. If, however, they beleive it would be proper and right for them to have the dispute resolved according to Islamic so-called law then they have every right to do so (assuming they can get the other party to agree).

It matters not one whit that you consider it barbaric and fuedal. What doe's matter is that the parties involved believe it will resolve thier dispute in a proper and morally acceptable manner. That you don't like it doesn't mean squat.

When it involves a lifetime of religious brainwashing and pressure from most of the Muslim clerical establishment, it will be interpreted as obligation by adherents who fear endangering their imaginary souls. There is another thread pointing to a survey that indicates a majority of Canadian Muslims want some form of recognition of Sharia Law -- it's time to grow a backbone:

In particular, 53 per cent of Muslims think sharia law should be recognized as a legal basis for settling family disputes, while an overwhelming majority of the general population disagrees. Of those surveyed, 55 per cent of Muslim women and 59 per cent of Muslims aged 18 to 29 indicated their preference for sharia law. Remember, this survey was conducted one year after the Ontario sharia controversy.

Previously, you indicated that no sharia ruling that violates equal rights would be accepted -- now, you are backtracking to allow someone accept unequal justice if they have agreed to it. Pretty soon, if secular society refuses to make any moral judgments, by default, the only ones who will be doing so, will be the fundamentalists.

[Peter F]

When it involves a lifetime of religious brainwashing and pressure from most of the Muslim clerical establishment, it will be interpreted as obligation by adherents who fear endangering their imaginary souls.

Oh yes. Quite true. But the difficulty here is that the adherents think their souls are actual real things and not imaginary. Since they believe their souls to be actual real things they are behaving entirely rationaly to fear for their souls.

Yet, strangly enough, in this real world there are actual muslims who have been subjected to a lifetime of religious brainwashing and pressure etc etc, who nevertheless reject the very same Sharia courts when given the choice between that or secular courts. Whats up with that?

This seems to contradict you concept of imams having some sort of monolithic power over the sheeps. Perhaps the lifetime of religious brainwashing pressure isnt all that cracked up to what you think it is. A bunch of Muslim women, also raised in a lifetime of religious brainwashing-etc, and also beleiving in the fallacy of a 'soul' , actually lobbied against the establishment of Sharia arbitration in Ontario.

It seems that these mindless sheeples may not be so mindless after all. Despite the insanity of believing in a farcical God and fearing for thier nonexisting souls, they somehow or other manage to actually take care of themselves.

I really don't think there is much call for you to be babysitting these crazy fools.

There is another thread pointing to a survey that indicates a majority of Canadian Muslims want some form of recognition of Sharia Law -- it's time to grow a backbone:

In particular, 53 per cent of Muslims think sharia law should be recognized as a legal basis for settling family disputes, while an overwhelming majority of the general population disagrees. Of those surveyed, 55 per cent of Muslim women and 59 per cent of Muslims aged 18 to 29 indicated their preference for sharia law. Remember, this survey was conducted one year after the Ontario sharia controversy.

Yes, backbones are required... to accept that some folks might actually have a concept of living that is disagreeable to you actually does require some backbone. Perhaps you should grow one instead of demanding we impose our beleifs upon others.

Previously, you indicated that no sharia ruling that violates equal rights would be accepted -- now, you are backtracking to allow someone accept unequal justice if they have agreed to it. Pretty soon, if secular society refuses to make any moral judgments, by default, the only ones who will be doing so, will be the fundamentalists.

Nice try...but again, here's the goon: They don't agree that it is, as you say, 'unequal justice'.

As for refusing to make moral judgements: Poppycock. I make moral judgements all the time. I've got one for almost everybody on this board. Ive got one for my neighbours, my co-workers, my drinkin buddies, the strippers down the way, my MP, my MLA, the Catholic Church, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper and yes, even you. Fear not; the fundies will never be alone making morale judgments.