The original Muslim immigrants arrived before fundamentalism took root in their home countries. Then, we took in Muslim immigrants who ran away from said fundamentalism. Today, it’s harder to separate the fundamentalists from the others.
There are Salem witch trials occurring? Didn’t know that. How about slavery, beheading, amputation? Which religious doctrines ever, and still, endorse those acts?
Please give us your definition of American values so we know specifically what we're talking about, rather then using a slogan as a punching bag.
It's not that simple at all, but that's fine. What's your excuse when two men are in the tribunal? Is that ok?
That's true to a point, but plenty of them are running away from fundamentalism. For example, the real Syrian refugees (not the "migrants" that are exploiting the Syrian refugees) are relatively secular Muslims who don't want their heads cut off by ISIS. They practice their faith, but generally they're not radical. If a country truly wanted to assimilate them rather than use them as multicultural virtue signaling pawns, they wouldn't be that difficult to assimilate.
? Mr D I do not understand what you are asking.. two men? Each could approach the tribunal. The tribunal is made up of men. But men and women who want to bring grievances before them are not treated the same
Hypocrisy is not anathema to Americans? It is quite clear that what Progressives stand for are not what Catholics from Mexico and Muslims from abroad are about. I wasn't judging my Muslim friends. I was speaking absolute facts concerning their views. And we both know that being pro-choice, homophobia and misogyny is something Liberals fight very hard about and rightfully so. How did I disrespect my Muslim friends? By telling the truth? I have a problems with religious zealots of all stripes. I don't pick sides. I don't ignore one group and vilify another out of political expediency. Kamala did and does.
Yes. Not every dispute is between a man and a woman. Men sue other men every day. That is because the Koran doesn't treat them the same way. The Bible doesn't either. It confers different rights and responsibilities on husbands and wives. If a husband and wife decide to submit their dispute to their pastor to decide, I have a hard time seeing why that's your business.
The reason that Islam is different from the other religious you mention is that when we talk about Muslims who have assimilated, we're talking about Muslims who have essentially rejected one of the primary and core tenants on which Islam was established. (And btw... kudos to them for that! Not criticizing them, just saying!) Mohammed called for and sought the violent spread of Islam throughout the world and the rejection of any other worldview. It is a religion under which the majority of its followers around the world still embrace honor killings and terrorist attacks on civilian populations. They don't do this because they are twisting the Koran. They're doing it because they're accepting the Koran at face value. To my knowledge, there's no other non-cult religion that was established with that goal in mind. When Christians adopted that philosophy, they did it in opposition to scripture. Any attempt to treat Islam in the exact same way as other world religions has to at least acknowledge that fact.
My ex-wife is a Christian zealot. She has told both our children she loves God more than anyone including them and that they should love God more than they love anyone including her. I suppose that means America is down the list for her. I've mentioned this before; we were divorced in 2016. She appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas to have me (wait for it) declared her husband for life based upon the blood covenant she says we made when we took our vows back in 1994. She lost both times. Last Friday I received word that she has filed with SCOTUS. My attorney's think it's completely "nutty" and can't believe she found an attorney to go along with all of this. She has had two other attorney's drop her as a client. I expect SCOTUS will swat this one away. But this is a white Christian woman, born in the US trying to make new law. Now THAT is out there. Just my luck that I'm the one who married her.
I can't speak for the rest of her actions, so I'm not defending any of those, but teaching that our love for God should trump anything else isn't some out-there radical teaching from the Bible. It is (or should be) mainstream Christian teaching. Jesus: Matthew 10:35-38 (ESV Strong's) 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Granted, he's talking about the specific issue that Jewish families would be divided over one's decision to follow Jesus as opposed to adhering to the law of Moses. But the principle's pretty clear: God comes first above all others. The difference is that loving God does not mean shirking responsibilities toward family or country, and in fact the New Testament clearly teaches that anyone who will not provide for his family is "worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8). The point is, you love and prioritize all those things above yourself, but God is at the top of the list. The part about compelling someone to stay married when that person decides to leave is flat-out un-Biblical and is nowhere in scripture. (Esp. see 1 Corinthians 7:15.)
She has been told by Jesus that I'm a believer so that is how she justifies ignoring this passage. Her pastor has written her a long letter asking her to stand down. She has ignored him and everyone else. As for loving God she has made it quite clear to everyone that she would cut them out of her life very easily. God is first and it's on a level that we ALL (including her mother and three sisters) consider it to be pathological.
Yeah when you start throwing in the "very easily" part... I don't think the point was to RELISH the idea of doing it - makes it sound like more of a threat or a brag than a statement of commitment! That's definitely not a healthy (or I think a Biblical) way to approach it.
Mr D The difference is, as you know, either the man or the woman can take their concern directly to the Pastor or Rabbi. A muslim woman can not.
Originally I thought I was marrying up. She was a very attractive, active, well-traveled attorney. We went to church on Sundays like millions of people in the US. We were Protestant. Then, long story short, the control issues became too much for me. I have my reasons for leaving and I'm comfortable with them though not proud of it because I'm not proud of a failed marriage. The religious issues have now become the entire problem but the root of it is the same; control. Think about what I said: She has filed appeals to have me declared her husband for life. By law. I'm not kidding either. Her entire family is distraught over this. Our children are coping as best they can. My son (22 years old) barely speaks to her now (he stays with me 100% of the time during summer and other breaks during the college semesters). My daughter is ready to jump ship (she's 15) but is coping as best she can. It's more embarrassment for her as opposed to outright abuse. I'm not pursuing custody at the moment. She is a good mother to the extent of care, a safe home and her rules. It's just the religious stuff is so nutty. Anyway, I'm hoping SCOTUS will reject it quickly as did the Texas Supreme Court.
By I am sorry you and your kids are having to go through this. I know you understand she is using her religion to be in control.
I don't deny that there's a difference. There certainly is. My issue is a matter of assimilation. Muslims have some crazy views, but millions of Christians visit Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and other places that have large Muslim populations and don't get their heads cut off. There are quite a few Muslims in Spain, but they're pretty peaceful. The point is that they can be assimilated if the host nation is serious about it and doesn't celebrate and fetishize Islam. To be fair, we reject other worldviews. We don't sever heads and murder non-Christians because Christ told us to "teach all nations," not kill them. Furthermore, we know that a true conversion has to be sincere, so it wouldn't do any good to try to force anything on anybody.
Actually I don't know that to be true, but if it is, she can go to civil court. And again, I'm assuming you don't consider it your business to stop two men from going to a Sharia tribunal.
Mr D? You do not know a female can set up a meeting with her Pastor if there is a council or board of deacons who hear cases or Rabbi who heads up a council for disagreements? BTW Of course a muslim woman can go to a civil court. The issue is she is treated differently before a sharia council than a man or two men. Which is against our laws.
Then do you know that a woman is not treated the same as a man at a sharia council? Her words are not given the same value as a man's.
I'm not a Sharia expert, but I assume a woman isn't treated the same as a man at least not in every respect. The idea that women and men are the same or should be treated the same is a secular, Western legal construct. Religious institutions (including Christian ones) do not view them as the same. Like I said earlier, they have different rights and duties. If someone wants the secular model, then don't agree to a Sharia tribunal.
I watched this when I saw some twitter activity on it, and my initial response was that in terms of the actual message, I get it, and it wasn't that bad. I don't think it was necessarily intended to say "men are garbage and need to get their act together." It made an effort to say "some are doing this..." and I think in their mind it was more of a pep talk than anything else. The problem is that when we're getting bombarded by messages that masculinity is toxic - and people say "not all of it" but can't really tell you what is masculine that's positive other than spinning what we typically consider "feminine" qualities - it's easy to read between the lines on some of the comments. "We've looked the other way..." "we've let this go on..." Why are you lumping ME into this??? Do you know me? Do you know how I live or how I raise my kids or how I treat women? Basically, the question is this: what percentage of men are out there abusing women? What percentage are assaulting? What percentage are degrading? What percentage are oppressing? Is it 75%? 60%? 40%? We would never generalize about female behavior or minority stereotypes the way we do about men. We certainly would not publicly lecture half the population for not doing better if that half were female. We absolutely wouldn't lecture a minority community for proportionately high failings in its own membership. That would be unthinkable. (And BTW, did you notice they were very careful to make sure that there were no minority men shown as doing objectionable things. It's only white men who are guilty of this particular outrage.) So while I get the message, it was delivered in the same typical tone-deaf SJW PC style that does more harm than good.
