Argus Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Didn't answer my question, so I'll assume that you agree with me. No. I asked you to support the inference in that question. Evidently, you don't wish to do so. What do you mean by comparable ? And what is the point of this inquiry with regards to the topic at hand ? I gather the point is that you wish to defend Islamism, as you usually do. In this case, in order to defend Islamism, you are suggesting that Christianity contains the same sorts of universal laws on government, family law and criminal law as the Koran. I'm waiting for you to support that with evidence. You've indicated that you want to restrict immigration from Muslim countries yet you say it's for economic reasons - then why not express your concern in economic terms rather than xenophobic ones. First of all, I have, as you know full well, repeatedly expressed my concerns in economic terms, with supporting evidence. Second of all, I have said economics are a part of, but not the whole of my concerns. Thirdly, your contention that my concerns expressed here are 'xenophobic' arise from your own nearly anarchistic social beliefs. You have previously stated, if I'm not mistaken, that the more immigrants the better, even if they be millions, that people should be allowed to come and go as they please wherever in the world they wish to. Surely you'd acknowledge only a minuscule percentage of Canadians would agree with you, and as such it is your own beliefs which are fringe and untenable, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 It is long. I find videos to be an uneconomical way to go through arguments. There's too much filler. In other words, the more any person looks to an ancient book like Leviticus, Revelation, or The Koran as a guide for moral behaviour the more likely that person is to hate gays, and infidels and etc.... And the more likely that person will act on that hate if that person is surrounded in a culture of like minded people where bad behaviour happens too frequently. Sure. I think we're on the same page in that we don't believe there are differences between peoples, really, other than the degree to which they've been drawn into progress, secular thinking and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 No. I asked you to support the inference in that question. Evidently, you don't wish to do so. I asked: "Are you saying now that Christianity doesn't include the precepts of a legal system ?" Draw your inferences after you answer, please. I gather the point is that you wish to defend Islamism, as you usually do. No, but feel free to leap as far ahead as you like. There are states that incorporate Sharia to greater degrees and there are states that incorporate it as much as we incorporate the old testament I suppose. In this case, in order to defend Islamism, No, I don't want to defend anything. I'm trying to pin you down as to whether you think Muslims are genetically inferior, temporarily misguided, or ... You're so slippery on what you actually think that I have to ask continually. For example, you want to restrict immigration from Muslim countries for economic reasons. Is that right ? But economics is not "the whole of your concerns". Therefore it's not economics. Or is it. You could express a criteria here quite simply, or just continue to accuse me of defending Islamism... that would probably work for a while longer. I do believe the more immigrants the better (can you see the differences in how I embrace clarity of my position, leaving them open to attack, changing of the topic and so on) and I think that would be a great discussion for another thread. Surely you'd acknowledge only a minuscule percentage of Canadians would agree with you, and as such it is your own beliefs which are fringe and untenable, not mine. In this respect, I would definitely agree. How could I not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I find videos to be an uneconomical way to go through arguments. There's too much filler. How convenient..... Anyway this thread has been derailed enough. We have freedom of religion in Canada and as long as a person can be identified in a reasonable manner then a person should be accommodated for their religious dress. Just like a person should be allowed to draw their version of Mohammed without being harmed for it. That is, people have a right to feel offended and to willingly, or not, offend people in a free society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I asked: "Are you saying now that Christianity doesn't include the precepts of a legal system ?" Draw your inferences after you answer, please. My answer was to ask you if you were suggesting Christianity had those same sorts of laws. I am no biblical scholar so thought perhaps you knew something I didn't. But as you seem reluctant to deal with that I'm guessing not. No, but feel free to leap as far ahead as you like. There are states that incorporate Sharia to greater degrees and there are states that incorporate it as much as we incorporate the old testament I suppose. No one has mentioned state laws. We are discussing the religion itself. No, I don't want to defend anything. I'm trying to pin you down as to whether you think Muslims are genetically inferior, temporarily misguided, or ... You're so slippery on what you actually think that I have to ask continually. You are being disingenuous. What you clearly want to do is smear me with various epithets you wish you could use but feel you oughtn't to because you are a supposed 'facilitator', thus this suggestion of yours that I might dislike Muslims out of 'genetic inferiority' which is nothing I've ever even hinted at in any posting on the issue over ten years on this site. It must be hard for you being a 'facilitator'. You're a typical knee-jerk liberal and are outraged that I don't respect some other culture or religion. I can see you want to call me names and spit the typical liberal venom at my heresy in not admiring all cultures and peoples's equally. But you're reduced to making straw-man suggestions about how maybe I think muslims are 'genetically inferior' which is clearly suggesting I'm some sort of White supremacist type. Calling me names, though, doesn't hide the paucity of logic in your position. For example, you want to restrict immigration from Muslim countries for economic reasons. Is that right ? But economics is not "the whole of your concerns". Therefore it's not economics. Or is it. Once again you're being dishonest. We've had multiple discussions on the economics of immigration and on the economic failure of immigrants from the middle east and western asia, complete with government statistics. You know this very well. The only reason it hasn't come up in this thread is because the subject matter hasn't leant itself to that. The discussion is focused on the impact of the niquab and what it means. I do believe the more immigrants the better (can you see the differences in how I embrace clarity of my position, leaving them open to attack, changing of the topic and so on) and I think that would be a great discussion for another thread. The difference in our positions on immigration is not one of openness as I've made my position VERY clear for quite some time. The difference is I back up my position with evidence, statistics and economics. Yours, meanwhile, is based on philosophy and emotion, with nothing to support it but that you like seeing quaint ethnic costumes and going to ethnic restaurants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 How convenient..... Convenient is right. I've had people insist that I sit through multi-hour videos 'proving' 9/11 was an inside job. I can be convinced by a few well supported bullet points, I don't need a deep voiced narrator and dramatic music... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 My answer was to ask you if you were suggesting Christianity had those same sorts of laws. The old testament prescribes stoning, etc. No one has mentioned state laws. We are discussing the religion itself.You asked WHERE: "Can you show me where anything comparable to Sharia law can be found? Not to mention the sections of the Koran which deal with family law and civil government?" You are being disingenuous. What you clearly want to do is smear me with various epithets you wish you could use but feel you oughtn't to because you are a supposed 'facilitator', thus this suggestion of yours that I might dislike Muslims out of 'genetic inferiority' which is nothing I've ever even hinted at in any posting on the issue over ten years on this site. I'm looking for answers in the cloud of your evasiveness. But you're reduced to making straw-man suggestions about how maybe I think muslims are 'genetically inferior' which is clearly suggesting I'm some sort of White supremacist type. I know you're not that. I don't know what you are, though, unless you state it clearly. The difference in our positions on immigration is not one of openness as I've made my position VERY clear for quite some time. Your dislike for current immigration policy is clear, but what is not clear is how you propose to restate immigration criteria to address your 'concerns'. Go ahead ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 The old testament prescribes stoning, etc. You asked WHERE: "Can you show me where anything comparable to Sharia law can be found? Not to mention the sections of the Koran which deal with family law and civil government?" I think it was exceedingly clear I meant 'where in Christianity'. And you still haven't answered it. Where is the comparable civil, family and criminal code advocated by the Christian faith? Stop weaseling away and deal with the question. I'm looking for answers in the cloud of your evasiveness. You're flinging insinuations out there hoping something will stick. Your dislike for current immigration policy is clear, but what is not clear is how you propose to restate immigration criteria to address your 'concerns'. Go ahead ! And how is a topic on the niquab the appropriate place for something like that? This whole off subject thread was mostly spawned by your indignation at a few comments I made with regard to the niquab, mainly that I don't question the judgement but we could do with a lot fewer such people coming to Canada. Now you want to completely take over the topic for immigration policy discussions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Convenient is right. I've had people insist that I sit through multi-hour videos 'proving' 9/11 was an inside job. I can be convinced by a few well supported bullet points, I don't need a deep voiced narrator and dramatic music... Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I think it was exceedingly clear I meant 'where in Christianity'. And you still haven't answered it. Where is the comparable civil, family and criminal code advocated by the Christian faith? Stop weaseling away and deal with the question.Catholics who divorce are shunned from communion unless they grovel and lie in court and get an annulment. Unbaptized babies are doomed to limbo. Pretty archaic, but we tolerate that in Canada. As Michael pointed out, stoning, taking out people's eyes, etc are in the bible. I think you take an inflammatory position don't distinguish between extremist fanatics and moderate Muslims. And how is a topic on the niquab the appropriate place for something like that? This whole off subject thread was mostly spawned by your indignation at a few comments I made with regard to the niquab, mainly that I don't question the judgement but we could do with a lot fewer such people coming to Canada. Now you want to completely take over the topic for immigration policy discussions? You throw out a zinger like that, you have taken over the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Canadians take off the scarf to drive and when indoors in public. Big difference. Not the same thing at all.They all do? Nope. A few dont, and a few keep the burqa on. So much for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Interesting how this discussion has gone from the (legal) actions of one woman in wishing to wear a scarf on her face to a full blown condemnation of a religion. The bigots always reveal themselves. In related logic, the Pope must be and is a pedophile. No wait, all Catholics are pedophiles. That's better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Interesting how this discussion has gone from the (legal) actions of one woman in wishing to wear a scarf on her face to a full blown condemnation of a religion. The bigots always reveal themselves. In related logic, the Pope must be and is a pedophile. No wait, all Catholics are pedophiles. That's better. Don't know who your wild exaggeration is referring to. I think all parties have acknowledged that niqab wearers are but a tiny, microscopic splinter of Islam. Perhaps you don't understand that? Your shameful and damning words do more damage than the original argument which actually has merit that both sides have cases for defending or opposing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Catholics who divorce are shunned from communion unless they grovel and lie in court and get an annulment. Unbaptized babies are doomed to limbo. Not equivalent in even the slightest. Every religion has such rules. I'm talking about laws which dictate that a woman's word in any sort of trial is worth one quarter that of a man, for example, or that a thief should have his hand cut off or an adulterer or homosexual be stoned to death. As Michael pointed out, stoning, taking out people's eyes, etc are in the bible. They're in the bible but they are not anything accepted in the Christian religion, having been interpreted as parables by the Christian hierarchies. I think you take an inflammatory position don't distinguish between extremist fanatics and moderate Muslims. I distinguish between observant Muslims, who, being observant Muslims, have extremely regressive social views, and the fanatics who commit acts of murder. You throw out a zinger like that, you have taken over the topic. Nothing at all zinger-like about my preference to have fewer Muslims immigrating to Canada. It's based on sound reasoning. And my opinion is hardly unique. Macleans did a survey in 2013 which said 54% of Canadians held an unfavourable opinion towards Muslims. I haven't found anything taken last year, but given what happened there's no question that number will have risen markedly. Edited March 2, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Interesting how this discussion has gone from the (legal) actions of one woman in wishing to wear a scarf on her face to a full blown condemnation of a religion. The bigots always reveal themselves. Typical sniveling complaint from the lefties who haven't got anything to contribute but insults. Edited March 2, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Typical sniveling complaint from the lefties who haven't got anything to contribute but insults. Do you have any self awareness of the insults you throw out here at other members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Do you have any self awareness of the insults you throw out here at other members? I have an awareness of the insults thrown at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 I have an awareness of the insults thrown at me. That's not what I asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Do you have any self awareness of the insults you throw out here at other members? How could he not...admitting it is something else of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think it was exceedingly clear I meant 'where in Christianity'. And you still haven't answered it. Where is the comparable civil, family and criminal code advocated by the Christian faith? Stop weaseling away and deal with the question. You can't unilaterally decide that your communication was clear. Now that I understand that "where" to you means "where in Christianity" (?) I can tell you that there are prescriptions in the bible that call for onerous punishments. Fundamentalists will believe the old testament too. And how is a topic on the niquab the appropriate place for something like that? Ok, another thread then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 You can't unilaterally decide that your communication was clear. Now that I understand that "where" to you means "where in Christianity" (?) I can tell you that there are prescriptions in the bible that call for onerous punishments. Fundamentalists will believe the old testament Michael, it is not the same thing im sure you know that. At present we have a number of nations that use some form of Sharia Law which is based on the tenets of the Koran. To the best of my knowledge we have zero countries which use literal biblical old testament laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 At present we have a number of nations that use some form of Sharia Law which is based on the tenets of the Koran. To the best of my knowledge we have zero countries which use literal biblical old testament laws. 1. Maybe but that's not what Argus was asking. Thanks for backing up my point, though, that asking "where" means "where" geographically, although Argus said it was "exceedingly clear" that it meant something else. 2. Our laws are based on the bible, which came from the laws of Babylon etc. Please see the controversy regarding the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in the southern US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Some of our laws perhaps but we aren't using literal punishments for crimes as cited in the Bible. That's whsts hsppening in Sharia Law states. I dont get how you can that because we have a law against murder that that is akin to stoning an apostate for example. Do you not see a difference? We have evolved, our laws reflect that. ISlamic States aren't interested in evolution of thier laws. They use a literal law as prescribed in the Koran. If we were stoning people in Canada youd have a point. But we dont. The court house removeal of the commandments is old news. Very old. Like yesrs old. I think it was in the news in like 2008 or esrlier as I remember seeing it then if that's what you are referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Some of our laws perhaps but we aren't using literal punishments for crimes as cited in the Bible. That's whsts hsppening in Sharia Law states. Isn't capital punishment in the bible ? Do you not see a difference? A difference between what exactly ? We can look at similarities, or we can look at differences. I'm on this thread because of the assertion that "It leads directly to oppressed women and Islamist flying planes into buildings. " which is literally a causal effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Hmm...bigoted huh? Well maybe since none of these newbies have told anyone what to do and how to do it then what is one left with? That's funny, i don't ever remember the girls being forced to the back of any of my classes while the were menstruating. http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/girls-should-not-be-segregated-on-public-school-property/ But i know, it didn't really happen, special case, not school run, bla bla bla, more excuses, etc etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.