If your religion mandates the beating of your wife, would that make wife beating laws targeted at your religion? If your religion mandates you be drunk all the time, would that make drunk driving laws targeted at your religion? If your religion mandates that you not wear clothing, would that make laws against public nudity targeted at your religion? The fact of the matter is, none of the places you call "free countries" put such religious riders on their laws. The law is the law. Most of this stuff revolves around public safety, often at the expense of individual rights. When I grew up, I could wander down the street with a cup of beer in my hand, drive without a seat belt, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and do all kinds of things that I would now receive a fine for(A bigger fine than the one stipulated by this French law no less). I'm not a huge fan of any of these laws btw. Going a step further, the impact to wearers of Burqas, as well as people who would like to be able to roam into banks wearing ski-masks unmolested, is a cultural one, not a religious one. Like millions of Muslims in America, and hundreds of millions of Muslim households world wide, my household has no burqas. The full face covered burqa is a throw back to only a few nations on this planet with the most horrible records for brutality towards women. If we as Muslims were to rush to say an assault on the burqa is an assault on Islam, we might as well make the argument that an assault on wife beating, child molestation, and bigamy is an assault on Islam. To be fair to myself, I didn't make any claims as to what the law was for. I simply pointed out that the law does not mention women, religion, or Islam. I pointed out that anarchists wear masks while vandalizing private property as one example of a legitimate target for the law. There could be many others.
It's been well known for years, to get away with smoking marijuana one only had to claim they were Rastafarian, so religion does play some part of mitigating certain crimes. If they openly flout this law (and put up with the now sanctioned jeers), I think the courts may take a different view than the politicians.
And yet the pot smoking laws don't specifically mention religion. Were those laws targeted at Rastafarians? The religious loophole used by pot heads to break the marijuana laws may be the single best example of how religion is used as an excuse to break the law. Before many US states were leaning toward legalization, groups of stoners living in Co-ops would hide behind a religious shield despite the obvious reality they were not religious in the slightest. While I think it will be funny when the anarchists show up at the next WTO summit wearing burqas while destroying private property and trying to claim religious freedumb, it is still no excuse for breaking the law. With pot smoking in particular, I suspect the quantity of people who have on occasion smoked weed is well in excess of 50% of the population. Legislation that makes criminals out of more than half the people in your society is a tough thing to keep on the books without good cause. Obviously that line of reasoning does not apply to the few masked people roaming the streets of France. You mean the politicians will recant their laws because of political pressure from a few people? Glad to see you looking for someone to surrender to again. It makes you consistent. Regarding the "Now sanctioned jeers", at least in the US the jeers are constitutionally protected. I might point you to the people who have been protesting the funerals of homosexual soldiers in the US. Perhaps your recommendation is that we round those people up and arrest them?
And twisting my words makes you consistent. I mean no matter how much the politicians jump up and down it will be the courts where the real judgement will be handed down.
Didn't answer my question I see. Would the answer make you a hypocrite? I'm guessing yes. Regarding the courts in France, I have no idea how they work. Are you saying you do? Can you put together a coherent argument, citing examples from France as to why a law with clear public safety implications would be overturned based on the complaints of a few people from oppressive cultures? On a completely separate note, I have to say that France with Sarkozy at the helm may shed its reputation for "surrender at all costs" for good, much to the chagrin of people like yourself. I wonder if we could trade the French Obama for Sarkozy. I'd be willing to throw in Frank, Weiner, and Pelosi to sweeten the deal (/in my best beavis voice: He... heheh..... hehhehehe..... I said Frank and Weiner)
I didn't realise there was a question but now you point it out, actually the people protesting at the returned soldiers funerals should be shot. Is that what you wanted to hear or did you want me to include homosexuals because you think it's hip? As to the rest of your rant, you've outdone yourself. I'd say 'lost it'. My argument is NO MATTER WHAT THE POLITICIANS (or the media) SAY, IT'S THE COURTS THAT WILL DECIDE, on a case by case basis. THAT's SAYING, if the courts decide, as they do for other crimes, which i've pointed out they do for dope, they will let the people off with no punishment, or certainly not the punishment prescribed by political bullies. It's not up to courts to turn around a law, that's the pollies job. A court makes decisions based on laws created by politicians, taking all the relevant facts and mitigating circumstances into account, at least that's how it works here. Edit: - Now I have a question for you. Seeing you shoot down anyone supporting the Muslim faith and I've never seen you stand up for any particular Muslim belief but claim to be one of them often, which part of the Muslim religion do you identify with?
No, I threw the question in there to get you to admit you have no issue stepping on some minority, so long as it is a minority you disagree with. Thanks for coming clean. So judicial activism to subvert the rule law is what you are recommending here (so long as the activist judges are taking your side of the issue at hand). Very interesting. It always amazes me how quickly some people are to throw the process under the bus when it suits their needs, when it is the very process that protects their individual rights the other 99% of the time.
lol, you call that an argument? Or is that your way of backing down? Let's see, find something NOBODY could possibly agree with (except the crazies) and if he answers that the way anybody would then I win. lol, too funny. Not worth a retort from me. Now I did add a question to my last post, in case you missed it. You don't have to answer if you're unsure.
Bushranger you're quite often failing even in the most simplistic arguments . You keep posting non-sense and when your arguments are annihilated you resort to trolling and insults . To be quite honest I'm not sure why you keep posting when time and time again all you do is get nuked and then get angry . Have you ever considered that P&R isn't your playground ?
I know you dislike reading, so I'll clip this in for you and perhaps you won't just gloss over it: It would seem that our Supreme Court justices overwhelmingly agreed with the right of the anti-gay protesters to protest those funerals, and I don't appreciate you calling the justices of our high court "Crazies". One could consider your call to have the protesters "shot" a call to violence, which is not protected speech. I understand why you chose not to address the question. Your call to violence against those you disagree with demonstrates your hypocrisy with crystal clarity. I'll answer your question with a similar question. How long have you been sodomizing small animals? Again, I know you don't like to read, so even though I'm about to clip in the relevant quote which demonstrates how bogus the premise of your question is, I'm not sure you will absorb it. So ignoring the bogus premise of your question, I fall into the group of Muslims in America, and world wide that does not force their wives to wear a burqa. In America, that puts me in with 99.99999% of American Muslims. If you want some further clarification, I fall into the group of Muslims in America that does not want Sharia, or any other clergy enforced legal system, in lieu of the legal system we already have. FYI, that also lumps me in with the large majority of Muslims in America and other civilized nations. If you like primitive and backward cultures so much, why don't you, as a homosexual, go move to one of them and see how you fare.
Wow, 10 points for spelling. Things are looking up for you, or did someone help you out? Now as for your rant, please provide examples of my 'nonsense' & 'nuked' and 'insults'. I see neither. In fact IMHO I could have typed the exact same paragraph to describe your presence here.
here is my 2 pence worth i am not too happy about the ban as it is more or less trageting muslims its quite simple and everyone can see that but on the other hand the women should not be forced to wear a bura as it does not say any where in islam that they have to have there face covered if they want to then they should be allowed to
/**I want to wear my ninja suit at the mall . I also want to keep my gun in my pocket so it can be seen by everyone **/
France is a secular republic for over 200 years . No one gives a dam if something is against a religion . Abortions are against Christianity but you don't see Christians killing people for it .
No they are not. There is nothing in Bible or New testament about that. All bible says about the topic is that if you beat up (somebody else's) wife to the point of her losing an unborn child, you have to give her husband some cash as a fine/compensation. And that is it. So?
this is irrelevant for the issue of France banning face covering in public. the point is that religious norms are irrelevant for modern, civilized societies.