Political Crossfire Forums

[emerald]

Quote: So it's more of a traditional peice of clothing. I think I get it now....

pretty much, it just differs from country to country as to how a muslim woman chooses to dress and what is accepted/or not in their societies.

Quote: Really, wich Islamic nation forbids the wearing of a veil?

Tunisia for one does not allow women to even wear the head scarf in public places, let alone a veil. i think in turkey women in the public sector or gvt sector are also not allowed to wear the head scarf. in egypt certain university courses entail that a woman does not wear islamic dress. and i'm pretty sure other north african countries have similar policies.

[Lucky Luke]

Angelicus wrote: "Your thread is very clear Angelicus, a Muslim cleric said something and you extended his views to all Muslims."

NO, you yourself infer that, whats the problem, have a guilty conscience?

Those words are the words of one cleric Angelicus, not the words of Islam. Many Muslim countries forbid the wearing of the veil in public places making your claim absurd.

Really, wich Islamic nation forbids the wearing of a veil?

Oh and it wasn't my claim to start with, I'm not the one who said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, the imam you are attempting to justify and defend did.

Those are your words Angelicus, you extended the cleric views to all Muslims, how can you deny what you wrote?

Angelicus wrote: "the words of one cleric"

I guess you missed the qoutations from the Quran itself.

Go re read them and then tell everyone about "the words of one cleric".

This attitude towards women is not simply isolated too just "one cleric".

I note that you have already being told of some of the Islamic nations that forbid the wearing of a veil, how come you did not know this Angelicus?

Your claim is when this cleric said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, he repeated the Muslim line on how should women being dressed and what men should do if they don't.

You are just wrong Angelicus, as wrong as this cleric, even more as this cleric has unreservedly apologised, will you?

:-D
:-D

[Dark Party]

wyldejackyl wrote: He lives in america, where it's *never* the "victim's" fault. Some burglar falls on a kitchen knife? It's not his fault. Some guy is lazy and doesn't want to work? It's "society's" fault he's unemployed. Someone's poor..it's because they are a drunk, and that's not their fault either. Someone takes a shower with a toaster..it should have had a warning label on it. Did you know electricity is dangerous? I'm reminded of that every time I buy an extension cord now. I think that's who Kamel's talking about.

What you're talking about isn't reality. People like you are fond of pointing to the McDonald's case where a woman was burned by the coffee, sued and won.

People like you say: "Coffee is hot! How can she sue! Ridiculous! The courts have gone crazy!"

But that's because you don't understand the whole story.

McDonald's kept its coffee usually hot (several degrees higher than average coffee temperatures) because it would keep longer and they wouldn't have to make more coffee -- thus saving money.

McDonald's was fully aware that the coffee was too hot because hundreds of customers had been burned. But the company refused to lower the temperature because it was cheaper to pay-off the injured people rather than change corporate policy.

Finally, a woman -- an old woman -- spilled the coffee on her lap and recieved third-degree burns that required several operations on her private area (including plastic surgery). She was hospitalized for weeks and in pain for months.

So McDonald's got whacked with a multi-million dollar pay-out (later reduced to several hundred thousand dollars)

Here's more info on the case: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

You guys like to point to specific case -- which goes against the grain -- and make it seem like our system is in chaos and no one takes responsibility for anything.

But it's a crock.

[Enlightened Despot]

Alizard wrote: emerald wrote: Quote: So what's new?

exactly. there are many people who hold that view, rightly or wrongly.

But when it is codified into the tenets of a religion about 1.6 Billion people follow..... that makes it a big problem.

Who said it's codified ? The cleric had an opinion. If you read the article there (or in Australian was outrage among muslims...in Austraila who have demanded his resignment. If this was accepted or codified people would not call for his resignment would they ?

Think about it...

[Margo]

emerald wrote: stupid comp and triple post

What are you referring too?

[emerald]

Quote: What are you referring too?

sorry, just my computer was acting up and i ended up posting the same thing 3 times :?

[Margo]

emerald wrote: Quote: What are you referring too?

sorry, just my computer was acting up and i ended up posting the same thing 3 times :?


:grin: I've had the same thing happen - Yikes!

[Snake]

Dark Party wrote: What you're talking about isn't reality.... Wow, you completely missed the point with that McDonalds crap...

Talk about crack in the black community. Who's fault is crack? It's that damned government that made them smoke that sh*t. Who's fault is it that some lazy douche doesn't have a job? It's gotta be society, even though tere's nothing wrong with the guy physically or mentally (aside from being a lazy douche). That's the kind of crap I'm talking about. Nobody wants to take responsability for anything, they just want to pass the blame on to somebody. Watch some day time tv if you ever get a chance. It's nothing but who's my babies daddy and a bunch of lazy tw*ts that want a damned handout. That's the sh*t I'm talking about.

[Angelicus]

Lucky Luke wrote: Angelicus wrote: "Your thread is very clear Angelicus, a Muslim cleric said something and you extended his views to all Muslims."

NO, you yourself infer that, whats the problem, have a guilty conscience?

Those words are the words of one cleric Angelicus, not the words of Islam. Many Muslim countries forbid the wearing of the veil in public places making your claim absurd.

Really, wich Islamic nation forbids the wearing of a veil?

Oh and it wasn't my claim to start with, I'm not the one who said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, the imam you are attempting to justify and defend did.

Those are your words Angelicus, you extended the cleric views to all Muslims, how can you deny what you wrote?

Angelicus wrote: "the words of one cleric"

I guess you missed the qoutations from the Quran itself.

Go re read them and then tell everyone about "the words of one cleric".

This attitude towards women is not simply isolated too just "one cleric".

I note that you have already being told of some of the Islamic nations that forbid the wearing of a veil, how come you did not know this Angelicus?

Your claim is when this cleric said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, he repeated the Muslim line on how should women being dressed and what men should do if they don't.

You are just wrong Angelicus, as wrong as this cleric, even more as this cleric has unreservedly apologised, will you?

:-D
:-D

Really, again where exactly did I post this:

"Your claim is when this cleric said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, he repeated the Muslim line on how should women being dressed and what men should do if they don't."

Thats your own inference. Not what I wrote.

What I wrote was a repeat of what your buddy the "cleric" said. If you don't like that, I'd suggest you take it up with your cleric buddy.

Not those of us in the rest of civilized society that take exception to what this cleric is preaching.

Oh and by the way, thanks for exemplifying my point about the lack of, and misdirection of, the condemnation Lucky Luke, instead of being outraged that a man in a position of leadership like this Imam is or would teach and propose such an idea, your more outraged that someone dared speak up and call him on it. How typicaly "moderate" of you.

[Lucky Luke]

Angelicus wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Angelicus wrote: "Your thread is very clear Angelicus, a Muslim cleric said something and you extended his views to all Muslims."

NO, you yourself infer that, whats the problem, have a guilty conscience?

Those words are the words of one cleric Angelicus, not the words of Islam. Many Muslim countries forbid the wearing of the veil in public places making your claim absurd.

Really, wich Islamic nation forbids the wearing of a veil?

Oh and it wasn't my claim to start with, I'm not the one who said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, the imam you are attempting to justify and defend did.

Those are your words Angelicus, you extended the cleric views to all Muslims, how can you deny what you wrote?

Angelicus wrote: "the words of one cleric"

I guess you missed the qoutations from the Quran itself.

Go re read them and then tell everyone about "the words of one cleric".

This attitude towards women is not simply isolated too just "one cleric".

I note that you have already being told of some of the Islamic nations that forbid the wearing of a veil, how come you did not know this Angelicus?

Your claim is when this cleric said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, he repeated the Muslim line on how should women being dressed and what men should do if they don't.

You are just wrong Angelicus, as wrong as this cleric, even more as this cleric has unreservedly apologised, will you?

:-D
:-D

Really, again where exactly did I post this:

"Your claim is when this cleric said that women who don't wear veils deserve to get raped, he repeated the Muslim line on how should women being dressed and what men should do if they don't."

Thats your own inference. Not what I wrote.

What I wrote was a repeat of what your buddy the "cleric" said. If you don't like that, I'd suggest you take it up with your cleric buddy.

...........

And again here is what you wrote Angelicus:

Angelicus wrote: "the words of one cleric"

I guess you missed the qoutations from the Quran itself.

Go re read them and then tell everyone about "the words of one cleric".

This attitude towards women is not simply isolated too just "one cleric".

You repeated what the cleric said and told us that it was what the Muslim faith was all about when I pointed to you that was the views of one cleric and not of the Muslim community.

Some here tried to tell you that in fact those views are to be found in many people of a certain age of any faith.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Angelicus wrote:
...............

Not those of us in the rest of civilized society that take exception to what this cleric is preaching.

Oh and by the way, thanks for exemplifying my point about the lack of, and misdirection of, the condemnation Lucky Luke, instead of being outraged that a man in a position of leadership like this Imam is or would teach and propose such an idea, your more outraged that someone dared speak up and call him on it. How typicaly "moderate" of you.

If you took exception to what the cleric said like I did, you should read how he apologised for what he said.
However it doesn't give you the right to extend this cleric views to all people of a Muslim faith. I would be wrong if I posted here that all Christians were told to abuse children by the Pope, this is why I did not extent my outrage to all Christian people but only to the Catholic Church.

:-D
:-D

[Revenant]

Lucky Luke wrote: Angelicus wrote:
...............

Not those of us in the rest of civilized society that take exception to what this cleric is preaching.

Oh and by the way, thanks for exemplifying my point about the lack of, and misdirection of, the condemnation Lucky Luke, instead of being outraged that a man in a position of leadership like this Imam is or would teach and propose such an idea, your more outraged that someone dared speak up and call him on it. How typicaly "moderate" of you.

If you took exception to what the cleric said like I did, you should read how he apologised for what he said.
However it doesn't give you the right to extend this cleric views to all people of a Muslim faith. I would be wrong if I posted here that all Christians were told to abuse children by the Pope, this is why I did not extent my outrage to all Christian people but only to the Catholic Church.

:-D
:-D

This attitude towards women is not simply isolated too just "one cleric".

He didn't extrapolate to all people of the muslim faith, you just interpreted it that way.

He could've meant two muslims, three muslims, a dozen muslims, 10,000 muslims, but you assumed he extrapolated to include the entire muslim community.

Really, you don't know what he meant, all you have is assumptions.

[Lucky Luke]

Revenant wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Angelicus wrote:
...............

Not those of us in the rest of civilized society that take exception to what this cleric is preaching.

Oh and by the way, thanks for exemplifying my point about the lack of, and misdirection of, the condemnation Lucky Luke, instead of being outraged that a man in a position of leadership like this Imam is or would teach and propose such an idea, your more outraged that someone dared speak up and call him on it. How typicaly "moderate" of you.

If you took exception to what the cleric said like I did, you should read how he apologised for what he said.
However it doesn't give you the right to extend this cleric views to all people of a Muslim faith. I would be wrong if I posted here that all Christians were told to abuse children by the Pope, this is why I did not extent my outrage to all Christian people but only to the Catholic Church.

:-D
:-D

This attitude towards women is not simply isolated too just "one cleric".

He didn't extrapolate to all people of the muslim faith, you just interpreted it that way.

He could've meant two muslims, three muslims, a dozen muslims, 10,000 muslims, but you assumed he extrapolated to include the entire muslim community.

Really, you don't know what he meant, all you have is assumptions.


I guess you missed when he claimed that those views were to be found in quotations from the Quran itself.

And this was after I tried to limit this thread to the words of one cleric Revenant, Angelicus' answer is clear he extended the views of this cleric to all others who read the quotations he saw in the Quran.

He can tell us what he meant if he wishes about what Muslim people are finding in the Quran and if he was wrong to say what he said, Angelicus can unreservedly apologise just like the cleric did.
:-D
:-D

[Gaea]

Kamel wrote: ilovebushnotdick wrote: i repeat: did you actually hear what poop been a dick say? Yeah, the pope says Islam brought nothing but evil or something, so the muslims go out, riot, burn sh!t and kill a nun. Purely rational and justified imo....

So what's the difference between that and the Fundalmentalist in the US saying that Gays are sinful because it says so in the Bible and then some punks in Wyoming think its okay to go out and beat up a young gay man and tie him to a fence post leaving him to die? Then to top it off, an even more extreme Fundamentalist group protest at his funeral?

Everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens his mouth another Gay gets attacked in the good ol USof A.

I think all extremist religions should be squelched into oblivion. This is the 21st century, not 300 AD for crying out loud.

[Snake]

Ok? When did I say that any of that was acceptable? There are good muslims and there are good christians.

[Angelicus]

Moot wrote: Kamel wrote: ilovebushnotdick wrote: i repeat: did you actually hear what poop been a dick say? Yeah, the pope says Islam brought nothing but evil or something, so the muslims go out, riot, burn sh!t and kill a nun. Purely rational and justified imo....

So what's the difference between that and the Fundalmentalist in the US saying that Gays are sinful because it says so in the Bible and then some punks in Wyoming think its okay to go out and beat up a young gay man and tie him to a fence post leaving him to die? Then to top it off, an even more extreme Fundamentalist group protest at his funeral?

Everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens his mouth another Gay gets attacked in the good ol USof A.

I think all extremist religions should be squelched into oblivion. This is the 21st century, not 300 AD for crying out loud.

Since you bring it up, lets use that as an example Moot.

When Mr. Shepard was killed what happened?

We as a society/community hunted down who did it, and put them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. We punished and said as a community that those who act out that way are wrong, and won't be tolerated in our society.

We didn't make justifications or excuses for what they did.

We overall didn't say, as this cleric has done, "well he was gay so he deserved it".

The difference clear enough for you now?

[Lucky Luke]

Angelicus wrote: Moot wrote: Kamel wrote: ilovebushnotdick wrote: i repeat: did you actually hear what poop been a dick say? Yeah, the pope says Islam brought nothing but evil or something, so the muslims go out, riot, burn sh!t and kill a nun. Purely rational and justified imo....

So what's the difference between that and the Fundalmentalist in the US saying that Gays are sinful because it says so in the Bible and then some punks in Wyoming think its okay to go out and beat up a young gay man and tie him to a fence post leaving him to die? Then to top it off, an even more extreme Fundamentalist group protest at his funeral?

Everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens his mouth another Gay gets attacked in the good ol USof A.

I think all extremist religions should be squelched into oblivion. This is the 21st century, not 300 AD for crying out loud.

Since you bring it up, lets use that as an example Moot.

When Mr. Shepard was killed what happened?

We as a society/community hunted down who did it, and put them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. We punished and said as a community that those who act out that way are wrong, and won't be tolerated in our society.

We didn't make justifications or excuses for what they did.

We overall didn't say, as this cleric has done, "well he was gay so he deserved it".

The difference clear enough for you now?

What this cleric said did not cause women to be raped or rapists to not be punished Angelicus. Furthermore you are still missing the part where he unreservedly apologised Angelicus. And more importantly the Muslim faith and the Muslim people did not support what the cleric said nor did they cover up any crimes committed because of what he said, in fact no crimes have been committed as far as we know between the time he said it and the time he unreservedly apologised.
Now to find a religion that practice rape cover up, lies and protection of the rapists see Rome Angelicus.
:-D
:-D

[Gaea]

Angelicus wrote: Moot wrote: Kamel wrote: ilovebushnotdick wrote: i repeat: did you actually hear what poop been a dick say? Yeah, the pope says Islam brought nothing but evil or something, so the muslims go out, riot, burn sh!t and kill a nun. Purely rational and justified imo....

So what's the difference between that and the Fundalmentalist in the US saying that Gays are sinful because it says so in the Bible and then some punks in Wyoming think its okay to go out and beat up a young gay man and tie him to a fence post leaving him to die? Then to top it off, an even more extreme Fundamentalist group protest at his funeral?

Everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens his mouth another Gay gets attacked in the good ol USof A.

I think all extremist religions should be squelched into oblivion. This is the 21st century, not 300 AD for crying out loud.

Since you bring it up, lets use that as an example Moot.

When Mr. Shepard was killed what happened?

We as a society/community hunted down who did it, and put them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. We punished and said as a community that those who act out that way are wrong, and won't be tolerated in our society.

We didn't make justifications or excuses for what they did.

We overall didn't say, as this cleric has done, "well he was gay so he deserved it".

The difference clear enough for you now?


I wonder if it ever occured to the Muslim cleric that most cats are finicky eaters?


Anyway, I also said that everytime a Jerry Falwell or James Dobson opens their mouth some poor Gay person in the good ol US of A gets attacked. Its called Gay bashing and it doesn't usually make the headlines like that poor kid in Wyoming did.

The following are U.S. hate crime statistics collected by the FBI under The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990:
Hate Crimes Based on Sexual Orientation

1995: 13% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
1996: 12% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
1997: 14% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
1998: 15% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
1999: 17% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
2000: 16% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
2001: 14% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
2002: 17% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
2003: 17% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
2004: 16% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias

http://gaylife.about.com/od/hatecrimes/a/statistics.htm

As you can see the statistics show a consitent and definite increase in sexual-oriented bias hate crimes since people like James Dobson have been pushing their anti-gay agenda. Even more so, since Bush got into office.

[Enlightened Despot]

I am going to end the Angelus argumentation with this

But Muslim community leaders rounded on Sheik Hilali for his comments, insisting that he no longer deserved his title as Australia's mufti.

It's there read it all by clicking on the link.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1932071,00.html

[wyldejackyl]

Dark Party wrote:

What you're talking about isn't reality. People like you are fond of pointing to the McDonald's case where a woman was burned by the coffee, sued and won.

People like you say: "Coffee is hot! How can she sue! Ridiculous! The courts have gone crazy!"

But that's because you don't understand the whole story.

McDonald's kept its coffee usually hot (several degrees higher than average coffee temperatures) because it would keep longer and they wouldn't have to make more coffee -- thus saving money.

McDonald's was fully aware that the coffee was too hot because hundreds of customers had been burned. But the company refused to lower the temperature because it was cheaper to pay-off the injured people rather than change corporate policy.

Finally, a woman -- an old woman -- spilled the coffee on her lap and recieved third-degree burns that required several operations on her private area (including plastic surgery). She was hospitalized for weeks and in pain for months.

So McDonald's got whacked with a multi-million dollar pay-out (later reduced to several hundred thousand dollars)

Here's more info on the case: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

You guys like to point to specific case -- which goes against the grain -- and make it seem like our system is in chaos and no one takes responsibility for anything.

But it's a crock.

Perhaps this could have all been prevented, on the other hand, by the dumb bizzo putting the coffee in the cup holder and NOT in her lap to begin with? That's like claiming a saw is too sharp when you cut your finger off. Don't blame the people that make the saw..blame YOURSELF for putting your finger in the way! It s*cks that she got her woohoo burned by scalding hot coffee, but the fact is, coffee is hot. Any idiot knows that. It hurts no matter how hot it is..thus..handle with care.

I see nothing wrong with McDonald's saving money by putting hot coffee into cups, so long as it doesn't impact the taste. What people do with it once they leave the drive-up window is ENTIRELY their problem. It's not like the cup exploded all over her on its own.