"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
listen, yes there are born-agains that want to change the way the entire US is ran. that is fair. if they can get the votes, god bless. and if someone can convince the US voters to turn to sharia, I'll help hook up the speaker on my town square for the prayer calls. Of course, since at least 50% of the population would be voting in their last election if it passes, I kind of doubt it'll go through.

what I was posting about is a group saying "let us out of your laws, and let ours apply, cause, you know, we're different*". That would be like the born agains saying "okay, W couldn't get rid of abortions, so here's what we'll do, when Billy Bob kills one of them abortion docs, he doesn't go before your Courts, we'll figure out what to do with him- it really is a matter for his religion". so far I haven't heard too much talk about us going down that road.

Apparently you missed the speech, widely rerported, where Huckleberry asserted that America needed to amend the Constitution to meet God's standards, since God wasn't going to amend his standards to accommodate the Constitution. I'd say there's at least one candidate that's at least halfway down that road.

* Wonk, the jews don't need the governement to bless gets, etc. because none of it is enforceable to anyone who doesn't want to follow the law. say if a woman can't get a get, do you think a state judge won't marry her to the next guy?

Congratulations. You got the exact point I was making, even if you didn't think I understood it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Apparently you missed the speech, widely rerported, where Huckleberry asserted that America needed to amend the Constitution to meet God's standards, since God wasn't going to amend his standards to accommodate the Constitution. I'd say there's at least one candidate that's at least halfway down that road.

this is my last post on the subject, becasue I know you get actually mad. If Huckabee can amend the constitution- so be it. If the Imans can convince the entire USA to follow sharia, cool.

my little analogy was what might be the parallel for Huck having a law that applies to him and his kind, but not us.

Congratulations. You got the exact point I was making, even if you didn't think I understood it.

except, and listen closely, if the UK govenrment sets up separate courts, they have power. See?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay. I know that you're joking and you find this terribly funny. I don't. I'm not telling you I think you should stop because it's offensive or bigoted. I'm suggesting you should stop because it's shopworn and lame.

Helpfully yours,

TW

It's pressures such as this for Hank to change his routine that causes the schtick to move from plain old, we'll-be-beheaded to we'll-have-to-face-Mecca-and-THEN-be-beheaded. Subtle shifts, but important ones that dramatically increase the humor quotient. Future historians, take note.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's pressures such as this for Hank to change his routine that causes the schtick to move from plain old, we'll-be-beheaded to we'll-have-to-face-Mecca-and-THEN-be-beheaded. Subtle shifts, but important ones that dramatically increase the humor quotient. Future historians, take note.

here is my nod to the new code, going forward, I will ignore the bottom 10%.

just an aside, before you call someone a bigot, you really should be sure of what you're saying, because to do that incorrectly is about the best way to make a lifelong enemy.

I have said nothing about any people, merely complained of a legal system the inevitably harms women. Anyone who actually reads anything about what goes on in countries that follow that law knows this. we have stopped posting the stories because they offend people here, just like Beslam photos offend. that doesn't mean they aren't true.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not forgetting them. The point was it's possible, whether by treaty or law, to carve out a portion of the country/society and limit the applicability of state and federal law.

I think that there should be societal acceptance for such religious customs, but that who purport to follow them should still be required to abide by the law of their jurisdiction. I agree that it's possible. I just don't think it should be done.

I grant you have found the one exception that I can agree with. In any state where the governing powers have invaded, subjugated, and laid waste to the society that was existing in that state prior to such invasion, it is appropriate to carve out that population and its descendants from a portion of the conquering nation's laws.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we didn't really carve out their reservations, we carved around them taking everything else. I mean they once were the "federal law" for all of this country.

Not sure the difference is relevant. They're citizens of the United States who are not bound entirely by the laws of the United States or the state in which they are located, but rather their own tribal law, at least if other criteria are met.

And native americans never created a "federal" law any more than the colonies did.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that there should be societal acceptance for such religious customs, but that who purport to follow them should still be required to abide by the law of their jurisdiction. I agree that it's possible. I just don't think it should be done.

So no Peyote smoking, Antonin?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I grant you have found the one exception that I can agree with. In any state where the governing powers have invaded, subjugated, and laid waste to the society that was existing in that state prior to such invasion, it is appropriate to carve out that population and its descendants from a portion of the conquering nation's laws.

FYI, Hank--that's a basis for a distinction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
While that may be true, it has absolutely no relevance to the quote I was addressing. The Archbishop of Canterbury was not suggesting that Britain exempt Muslims from their system of law entirely and allow them to operate under Sharia in all matters. And to the extent he was suggesting that Sharia should be allowed to trump the UK's marriage and lending laws, I said that I thought the idea was a bad one. My reference to Jewish tribal customs in marriage and divorce was offered as my idea of the limit to which the state should go in recognizing and accommodating conflicting religious laws.

So, I guess my question to you is, what was your point here?

I found what I thought was an attempt to make a thin comparison quite lacking. Frequently, there are what I would call apologists on this board who would try to compare Sharia to Judaic or Canon law, and they are nothing alike. I'd go even one step further and say the noxious edicts of the Southern Baptist Convention don't meet the offensiveness and violence of Sharia.

But you're right, that probably was more sopaboxery than a proper response to your post.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is my last post on the subject, becasue I know you get actually mad. If Huckabee can amend the constitution- so be it. If the Imans can convince the entire USA to follow sharia, cool.

my little analogy was what might be the parallel for Huck having a law that applies to him and his kind, but not us.



except, and listen closely, if the UK govenrment sets up separate courts, they have power. See?

I get it. Read my original post more closely. I said that I thought it was a bad idea to set up separate courts.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So no Peyote smoking, Antonin?

Only on the reservations.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I found what I thought was an attempt to make a thin comparison quite lacking. Frequently, there are what I would call apologists on this board who would try to compare Sharia to Judaic or Canon law, and they are nothing alike. I'd go even one step further and say the noxious edicts of the Southern Baptist Convention don't meet the offensiveness and violence of Sharia.

But you're right, that probably was more sopaboxery than a proper response to your post.

I wasn't offering up a comparison. I was giving an example of what I feel should be the limit with respect to accommodation of religious tradition.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
While that may be true, it has absolutely no relevance to the quote I was addressing. The Archbishop of Canterbury was not suggesting that Britain exempt Muslims from their system of law entirely and allow them to operate under Sharia in all matters. And to the extent he was suggesting that Sharia should be allowed to trump the UK's marriage and lending laws, I said that I thought the idea was a bad one. My reference to Jewish tribal customs in marriage and divorce was offered as my idea of the limit to which the state should go in recognizing and accommodating conflicting religious laws.

So, I guess my question to you is, what was your point here?

I think his point was that the Archbishop of Canterbury is both an ass and a dhimmi.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here is my nod to the new code, going forward, I will ignore the bottom 10%.

just an aside, before you call someone a bigot, you really should be sure of what you're saying, because to do that incorrectly is about the best way to make a lifelong enemy.

I have said nothing about any people, merely complained of a legal system the inevitably harms women. Anyone who actually reads anything about what goes on in countries that follow that law knows this. we have stopped posting the stories because they offend people here, just like Beslam photos offend. that doesn't mean they aren't true.

I've not called you a bigot, Hank. I'm making a joke about your inane and continued drumbeat of jokes about how we'll all be converted to Islam, or die, in a too-soon dystopian future. One that would be accelerated, naturally, under a Democratic administration.

Now, if your point is that no, no, today's discussion is a serious and almost scholarly one, focused on the unappetizing impacts of sharia upon women in particular, and any comments beyond those points is out of bounds and must be viewed with a skeptical eye, then might I suggest a new avatar to reflect the seriousness with which you're now carrying yourself. Perhaps a professor of some sort.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Only on the reservations.

What about sacrificing chickens?