you poor souls are getting overrun and just can't come to grips with it. You may as well just go in to the "towel" business.
Printable View
you poor souls are getting overrun and just can't come to grips with it. You may as well just go in to the "towel" business.
Foustina, I got a chain letter as well, thought you might enjoy this although you may have already seen it, but even if you have it's good for another read.
It proves how north america was a much better place before all you immigrants arrived. :p :
Where White Man Went Wrong
Indian Chief Two Eagles was asked by a white government official, "You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done."
The Chief nodded in agreement. The official continued, "Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?"
The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied. "When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex."
Then the chief leaned back and smiled. "Only white man dumb enough to think he can improve system like that!"
http://www.businesspundit.com/where-...en-went-wrong/
Cameltoe A lot of truth in that. But look at this great heritage in Euro that is getting thrown under the bus. And I din't know that you are so safe down there.
Property law, I believe, is another reason. I don't consider any of this to be a particular threat to anyone or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
It is nice to read that, in holding your decidedly racist view about Muslims in Europe, you are lining yourself up alongside the opinions held by such a mentally stable, greatly respected world figure as... Colonel Gadaffi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11139345
So if "all parties" agreed that it is OK to punish a woman for wearing lipstick by "PUBLIC" flogging you are OK with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
And how are we to decide who is OK with that? A woman living in fear of having her children taken away if she doesn't agree is suppose to have her consent taken at face value?
We were talking about the Sharia law, not about wearing lipstick. You don't know anything about the Sharia law. Not even the Muslims agree what it is and how it should be interpreted. Or can you give me a quote from the Sharia law that talks about lipstick and is agreed by all Muslims?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Pick whatever violation you want under "Sharia" law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Are you OK with it even though one of the parties involved might be accepting under duress?
Like I said, coercion can also occur under "normal" law. No system is perfect. "Might be" is not enough a reason to dismiss it. Innocent until proven guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
A couple of points.
Try living in any Muslim country where Sharia law is practiced and ask for either common law or civil law (French) in a dispute and see how far you get.
Secondly if you come into my country as an immigrant or refugee I expect you to live under my country's laws. If you find my country and its laws unacceptable to you, get the heck out. You came here of your own free will knowing the kind of law practised here, or you should have.
Two sets of laws for different people is not going to work.
Slightly off topic but Canada has had several so called honour killings, which I and our Courts call murder. These are not by any means all Muslims.
One recent case was because a teen age girl wanted to dress like her school mates. Her father and brother were convicted of murder. They openly confessed to the murder because the girl had 'dishonoured' the family!
Under what you call "normal" law there are protections in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
So if a case is tried under "Sharia Law" how is society suppose to know if no duress is used?
And if the Catholic Church in Finland decided to re-institute the Inquisition and flog those convicted of heresy are you OK with that as well?
The meaning of the word does not change, whether we are discussing a medical procedure or a cultural/religious procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I'm sure that our friend Roamy could find some sort of chain email that would "prove" that Muslim men are more prone to psycho-pathologies. Can we use Dr. Roamy as a reliable source? ;) :DQuote:
Neither is there evidence that they are traumatised. One would expect there to be certain psychopathologies to be more common in Muslim and Jewish males or in any other male that was circumcised at birth. This isn't the case.
My apologies. It's not my intention to twist your words or put you in a box. But whether the practice of genital mutilation is religious or cultural, I really don't see how that makes a difference. Why would we say that what is done under the cover of a religion is alright, but what is done within a (long established) culture is not? As for male circumcision having some sort of medical benefits, that isn't really true. The studies that I've read are inconclusive at best. In the early part of the last century, scientists and doctors had studies which showed it to be an acceptable treatment for "self abuse"... just as they produced studies which showed hysterectomies (female castration) to be an acceptable treatment for "hysteria". And there are still people who believe the studies from the 19th century, that criminal behavior can be predicted by head size and facial characteristics. Taken from a piece I just pulled up on the topic:Quote:
You misunderstand me.
That Jewish and Muslim males should be circumcised preferably just after birth is written in stone in their religions. That girls should be circumcised is not found in any Christian or Islamic religious text at all. I do not mind Jews and Muslims circumcising their babies if its a core part of their religion, especially since circumcising males has also been shown to be beneficial in medical terms. However there is no religious or cultural defence for a barbaric act performed on young girls without their consent and it should be stamped out.
And anyway, Jews and Muslims certainly didn't have the ability to perform meaningful medical studies when they popularized this now antiquated practice. In the U.S., parents are now joining the 21st century and beginning to reject this needless mutilation on their newborns. Where it was once performed on the majority of newborns, it is now done on a minority and the rate continues to fall. Perhaps other countries and cultures will follow... and I mean for female and male children. It's typical of societies for people to believe things without really knowing why they believe them. We are no different.Quote:
The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.
So I go back to my bottom line once again: I do not agree with mutilating infants or young people without their consent or against their will. But as far as I'm concerned, adults can pretty well do as they please... as long as they are not harming others. They can worship that holy rock, as long as they don't hit anyone with the rock after their prayer.
If they only flogged each other, then why not. What they do in their own bedrooms is not my business. The Catholics have weird customs I don't understand anyway, and I guess I don't have to. I myself don't expect the Spanish Inquisition any more than I expect the Sharia law.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Good points. Also lobotomy has been shown to be an effective treatment in some psychosis, but it's still not used in modern times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy
It would probably also have health benefits to surgically remove the appendix and the tonsils from every baby, just in case.
Say what you want the Muslims are a "cult" to their own. They are taking your countries and soon you will probably want to be "bailed out again" Since WW2 you have be given the opportunity to preserve the cultures of the famous
"Europe" You have failed. Look at yourselves a mere shell of the wonderful people who lived in front of you a created such wonderful countries. Portugal, Spain, Italy being overrun by immigrants who are totally ruining your culture.
In my eyes we the same as you are totally pathetic. Our children will pay the price for our irresponsible actions. One thing we can probably all agree on is there in no "shame" in this era!!
You really are somthing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Do you have a contract with the Daily Mail?
Yea and Blair likes me too !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225
Except he talks about radical Islam. You are talking about all of Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Blair is not as radical as Fousto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
where do you think they recruit from?? the mormons? :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
There might be something in that theory. They recruit Mormons to pester people from door to door until they are so fed up with it that they convert to radical Islam just to get rid of the Mormons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Well I think they would have better luck if they gave up a couple of those virgins in the recruitment process