Heartland

EvilBastard wrote: That really depends on what you mean by "Sharia law".

Let's focus on the one that's being used as the basis of law in many Islamic countries today. Especially for family affairs, such as inheritance.

Here's a detailed list of the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicati ... by_country

EvilBastard wrote:

NoWayJose wrote:So... what percentage does the sister get today, under Sharia law?

How long is a piece of string? ...

Well, I've made the effort to look it up. It's still 1/3.

Actually, in several Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia, there are movements calling for equal inheritance rights. Seems like those people are more progressive than you are.

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: That really depends on what you mean by "Sharia law".

Let's focus on the one that's being used as the basis of law in many Islamic countries today. Especially for family affairs, such as inheritance.

Here's a detailed list of the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicati ... by_country

EvilBastard wrote:

NoWayJose wrote:So... what percentage does the sister get today, under Sharia law?

How long is a piece of string? ...

Well, I've made the effort to look it up. It's still 1/3.

Actually, in several Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia, there are movements calling for equal inheritance rights. Seems like those people are more progressive than you are.

So, you don't like the interpretation of sharia as practiced in various countries. That's perfectly understandable - I'm not a huge fan of it either. What's your point? Not sure how our sentiments towards the laws applied by countries we don't live in has much of a bearing on the discussion as to whether or not 5-year olds should be handcuffed by CBP, but please elaborate.

EvilBastard wrote:as to whether or not 5-year olds should be handcuffed by CBP.

I think we can agree that this is rather bad judgment. But then again, there have been similar gaffes by US law enforcement officials in the past, so this isn't exactly a new development.

It's not really a case of bad judgement - it's a case of government agencies not recognising that they answer to the Judicial, not the Executive, branch. CBP, DHS, and every other Alphabite department is required first and foremost to follow the law. If a federal judge says "release these people", and an agent claims that the Executive Order holds more weight than the law, then that agent and that agency are in violation of the law.

What's clear is that these agencies are not aware of their responsibilities. It transpires that Rep. Judy Chu and Rep. Nanette Barragan called CBP at LAX to request a meeting with officials concerning the detention of an Iranian woman. CBP refused to meet with them to discuss the court order mandating the release of all those held under the EO, saying "We report to Donald J Trump" and then hanging up.

Perhaps this is a case of whoever picked up the phone not understanding that he was not exempt from following the law. Perhaps it's a case of the front line of various agencies (DHS, TSA, CBP) feeling that they now have carte blanche to live out whatever bigoted fantasies they nuture. And putting handcuffs on a child is some twisted f**king fantasy if you ask me.

I don't believe that this is bad judgement - it is a symptom of a deeper problem, of a lack of respect for the very laws upon which the US was founded. Either a stop is put to it in short order or we can expect more of the same. A constitutional crisis looms - and this is not hyperbole.

Again, I think that getting hung up on Islam vs. Christianity is taking focus away from the pressing issues.

The human capacity for self-delussion and "evil" is what leads us to religion, trump, pride in non-accomplishments, 5 year olds in handcuffs, a system of privillage and a million breeds of blindness. I can't stand to listen to liberals defend Islam. It is a stupid religion and you can't defend it. Same with all of them. (And yes, Wicca too and I will likely stick a protest sign deep in my eye the next time that a chant to the earth mother/water goddess starts up at a demonstration.)

Look at the people as victims of brainwashing or of the brainwashed. And do it with compassion. If we all had that for each other, maybe we wouldn't need to invent imaginary friends.

It does seem ironic that we're discussing the relative merits of religions we don't actually believe in.

Also, I have seen the Wiccan Goddess described as Jehovah in a frock.

We've all agreed that the handcuffing of children was not a good thing. OK, I'm happy we have reached a sensible conclusion.

markfiend wrote:We've all agreed that the handcuffing of children was not a good thing. OK, I'm happy we have reached a sensible conclusion.

Only some children, and only by some some people. Parents who handcuff their children to the crib so that they can get 20 minutes of peace and quiet I'm prepared to tolerate. As my parents were fond of telling me, this house isn't a democracy, it's a parental dictatorship - we decide what's best for you, and that's what happens. It's a wonder I grew up as balanced and well-adjusted as I did!

People, PLEASE be reasonable!

Handcuffing will only make the noises more shrill. Benadryl.

Chaotican wrote:People, PLEASE be reasonable!

Handcuffing will only make the noises more shrill. Benadryl.

EvilBastard wrote:So maybe we should ban stupid people - how about that?

THAT would be lovely. But, again, that gets into IQ testing and its merits (or lack thereof), the potential for abuse stemming from the arbitrary application of the term "stupid," pesky eugenics, who'd get to do the deciding, etc. That probably wouldn't go over too well. I was listening to an NPR bit yesterday on the history of eugenics in the U.S., incidentally, and it was more than a bit disturbing.

adarkadaptedi wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:So maybe we should ban stupid people - how about that?

THAT would be lovely. But, again, that gets into IQ testing and its merits (or lack thereof), the potential for abuse stemming from the arbitrary application of the term "stupid," pesky eugenics, who'd get to do the deciding, etc. That probably wouldn't go over too well. I was listening to an NPR bit yesterday on the history of eugenics in the U.S., incidentally, and it was more than a bit disturbing.

IQ tests only "measure" your intelligence against that of the population, which is not really what we need - even the most "intelligent" people can be stupid.
I think we can all broadly agree on what stupidity entails - we could boil it down to a single question, maybe, "Do you believe that it is appropriate to carry out acts of physical violence against people whose opinions, religious beliefs, skin colour, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, or habitual mode of dress you disagree with?"
Anyone who answers "yes" isn't allowed in. Anyone who answers "no" and who then commits an act of violence for these reasons is sentenced to 10 years of working for the very group of people that they assaulted - a muslim charity, an AIDS hospice, a right-wing website, the Klan, whatever. Minimal burden on the prison system, and they get to learn some empathy.

Talking of IQ...
Who could forget the infamous Bowling Green Massacre?

Pista wrote:Talking of IQ...
Who could forget the infamous Bowling Green Massacre?

That's just psychosis, silly...

adarkadaptedi wrote:

Pista wrote:Talking of IQ...
Who could forget the infamous Bowling Green Massacre?

That's just psychosis, silly...

Maybe she's getting confused with a different massacre. Her boss is probably quite a fan of the guy who is reported to have said "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Ah good old "Baghdad Kellyanne"

markfiend wrote:Ah good old "Baghdad Kellyanne"

As I remarked to my father when he mentioned that he thought she was a bit saucy, "She's a bit of an old bag, dad."