Why Do Liberals Defend Islam?

[Boxlicker101]

Well, if you're going to start saying I don't have to follow US Law because my Bible tells me otherwise, then you're going to have to give that same "freedom" to Islam, Buddhism, whatever else.

And so if the Hobby Lobby people get to impose their religious "beliefs" on their employees, you better start preparing yourself for Sharia.

Few, if any, actually say that, and if somebody did, and acted on that belief, they could go to prison. Personally and for a variety of reasons, I have no use for any major religion.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Isn't it funny that Liberals can go all day with Christians on the debate about Islam. Because all they have to say is, "LOOK CHRISTIANITY IS WORSE!"

You see, they can't do that with an atheist. When an atheist argues against Islam, then we're just racist. Because... it's obviously irrational to HATE any religion. Unless it's Christianity. It's 100% cool if it's Christianity. But if it's Islam, it's racist.

https://i.imgflip.com/16ymp0.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.resourcesforlife.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20151116mo1957-george-w-bush-quotes-about-islam-and-muslims-960x540.jpg

 

[TheWhiteBull]

http://www.resourcesforlife.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20151116mo1957-george-w-bush-quotes-about-islam-and-muslims-960x540.jpg

I find conservative defense of Islam to be much worse actually (at least in the U.S.) because it involves aiding/abetting regimes like the Saudis, the Mujahideen, etc.

Liberals tend to defend Muslims because the viewpoints and lifestyles of American Muslims differ quite drastically from those of a large number around the world, which I feel gives them a naive impression.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Sounds about right for the 2000s. Of course a politician in office would say some bullshit like that. You didn't actually believe him, did you?!

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Chris fears the Moose-lambs

He thinks (desires) they're going to kidnap him and probe every orifice

Sounds about right for the 2000s. Of course a politician in office would say some bullshit like that. You didn't actually believe him, did you?!

 

[Chris_Michael]

Chris fears the Moose-lambs

He thinks (desires) they're going to kidnap him and probe every orifice

NO! Not the pee hole! NOT THE PEE HOLE!!!!

 

[Libsam]

The difference between Christianity and Islam, Christianity has gone through several reformations, over many centuries, in a more liberal direction. A recent example, the Pope came out and pretty much said that judgement of LGBT and abortion should be left to the infallible God, not flawed humans.

Islam is going backwards. Reformist thought within Islam used to be tolerated, but more recently, in the past 3-4 decades, some reformist were sentenced to death under sharia law. The sunnis and shias are currently at war with each other, when they used to be at peace with each other.

The problem is that Islamic scripture is extremely political.
Christianity: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.

To the OP.
Why Do Liberals Defend Islam?
Because they are minorities in Western society. Minorities are the Liberals stock-in-trade, it's their only constant.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Why Do Liberals Defend Islam?
Because they are minorities in Western society. Minorities are the Liberals stock-in-trade, it's their only constant.

OMG Quote worthy!

Preach it, brother! PREACH! AMEN! HALLELUJAH!!

https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/08/20/636073319269964372-1004465242_636070880568707835-891859851_tumblr_m1obf8Zpmb1qgerbz.gif

 

[oggbashan]

Muslim communities in Great Britain and parts of the US have Sharia Courts. I view that as a breakdown of the Church-State Barrier in a way.

I'll say it again:

Sharia Courts in the UK are used by MUTUAL CONSENT to arbitrate between individuals. In UK law they have no more legal force than an agreement between parties in a dispute to allow a UK version of Judge Judy, or an independent person, or even a toss of a coin, to decide a disagreement.

If both parties agree to using a Sharia court, or to a toss of a coin, the outcome of the decision is binding on both parties. A Sharia court has no more legality than the coin toss.

BUT - some Sharia courts could be biased against women and women are advised NOT to agree to resolving a marital dispute through a Sharia court. Unless the woman agrees beforehand, the Sharia court's decision is not binding on her. As within other communities she could face pressure to accept the rules of that community. That is duress and if proven the arbitration's decision would be overruled by a UK court. In many disputes Sharia (or the coin toss) is not appropriate anyway and UK courts should be involved from the outset.

Christian churches and Jewish synagogues (and Masonic temples and Residents' Associations and...) also have similar limited methods of settling disputes within their remit.

The Sharia courts operating in the UK (and the Christian and Jewish ones) are nothing like Sharia as expressed by IS or fanatics in some Muslim countries.

Sharia just means 'law'. What version of law, or sharia, applies depends on the country in which you live. In the US it is federal or state laws. No version of sharia can override those. In the UK it is parliamentary legislation or common laws. No version of sharia can override those. The law of the land is paramount.

 

[urguyscott]

The leftist or liberals or progressives or pro communists do not believe in any religion. They say they believe in the Muslim religion, but the ones they back are the fake Muslims, the radical bandits that like the KKK and Black Muslims in this country use religion as a shield. Liberals are always the first to attack any religion in this country. They are bigots and by definition "religious bigots" because their anti religion beliefs are so strong that anyone who questions them or has other beliefs they feel should be burn at the stake.

Like the radicals in the mid east and the Mao Chinese among other communists and Nazi countries, they try to rewrite history, destroy their past and sell their own people into slavery.

I saw some fool from the left say the left protects Buddhists and other religions. Well that is an out right lie or they would be all over the Chinese Communists for what they have done to Tibet and to the Muslims minority in China as well if it was true. And they never come out to protect any other religion. The reason they are on this "fad" is that the people they do want to protect are the radicals, not the poor Muslims who have been persecuted and killed and forced from their home lands by these same radicals leftist murders.

And remember, even the leftist who don't believe in the Constitution do believe in this. That religion and state are separate. That means, as our forefathers intended it to mean, is no state religion. Those who say it is OK to have Sharia Courts along side our Judicial Courts are preaching a state religion. Segregation among the people. So you want a court for just Christians? For just right handed people? For cat lovers? Where will you stop?

No the left could care less about any religion or any human rights or civil rights of anyone in the world. A one world dictatorship where only the leaders are rich fat cats and everyone else lives on $29 a month and a ration food card. (Ever wonder why the Chinese leaders all have off shore bank accounts? It is because all money made by any Chinese worker goes to the state. To the leaders and then to the off shore accounts. Or why the Russian leader is one of the richest men in the world while the Russian people go poor?) It is for the same reason that the Clinton's and the Obama's are rich. They got their money from corruption and the blood and tears of the people.

 

[Chris_Michael]

I'll say it again:

Sharia Courts in the UK are used by MUTUAL CONSENT to arbitrate between individuals. In UK law they have no more legal force than an agreement between parties in a dispute to allow a UK version of Judge Judy, or an independent person, or even a toss of a coin, to decide a disagreement.

If both parties agree to using a Sharia court, or to a toss of a coin, the outcome of the decision is binding on both parties. A Sharia court has no more legality than the coin toss.

BUT - some Sharia courts could be biased against women and women are advised NOT to agree to resolving a marital dispute through a Sharia court. Unless the woman agrees beforehand, the Sharia court's decision is not binding on her. As within other communities she could face pressure to accept the rules of that community. That is duress and if proven the arbitration's decision would be overruled by a UK court. In many disputes Sharia (or the coin toss) is not appropriate anyway and UK courts should be involved from the outset.

Christian churches and Jewish synagogues (and Masonic temples and Residents' Associations and...) also have similar limited methods of settling disputes within their remit.

The Sharia courts operating in the UK (and the Christian and Jewish ones) are nothing like Sharia as expressed by IS or fanatics in some Muslim countries.

Sharia just means 'law'. What version of law, or sharia, applies depends on the country in which you live. In the US it is federal or state laws. No version of sharia can override those. In the UK it is parliamentary legislation or common laws. No version of sharia can override those. The law of the land is paramount.

This is Islam. You know, the religion that tells their followers to behead those who "backslide," to use a Christian term. If a Muslim doesn't comply with Sharia, they might as well be considered an apostate, and that would make them a couple of things separated - 1. A head and 2. A body.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Raving loon

The leftist or liberals or progressives or pro communists do not believe in any religion. They say they believe in the Muslim religion, but the ones they back are the fake Muslims, the radical bandits that like the KKK and Black Muslims in this country use religion as a shield. Liberals are always the first to attack any religion in this country. They are bigots and by definition "religious bigots" because their anti religion beliefs are so strong that anyone who questions them or has other beliefs they feel should be burn at the stake.

Like the radicals in the mid east and the Mao Chinese among other communists and Nazi countries, they try to rewrite history, destroy their past and sell their own people into slavery.

I saw some fool from the left say the left protects Buddhists and other religions. Well that is an out right lie or they would be all over the Chinese Communists for what they have done to Tibet and to the Muslims minority in China as well if it was true. And they never come out to protect any other religion. The reason they are on this "fad" is that the people they do want to protect are the radicals, not the poor Muslims who have been persecuted and killed and forced from their home lands by these same radicals leftist murders.

And remember, even the leftist who don't believe in the Constitution do believe in this. That religion and state are separate. That means, as our forefathers intended it to mean, is no state religion. Those who say it is OK to have Sharia Courts along side our Judicial Courts are preaching a state religion. Segregation among the people. So you want a court for just Christians? For just right handed people? For cat lovers? Where will you stop?

No the left could care less about any religion or any human rights or civil rights of anyone in the world. A one world dictatorship where only the leaders are rich fat cats and everyone else lives on $29 a month and a ration food card. (Ever wonder why the Chinese leaders all have off shore bank accounts? It is because all money made by any Chinese worker goes to the state. To the leaders and then to the off shore accounts. Or why the Russian leader is one of the richest men in the world while the Russian people go poor?) It is for the same reason that the Clinton's and the Obama's are rich. They got their money from corruption and the blood and tears of the people.

 

[sr71plt]

This is Islam. You know, the religion that tells their followers to behead those who "backslide," to use a Christian term. If a Muslim doesn't comply with Sharia, they might as well be considered an apostate, and that would make them a couple of things separated - 1. A head and 2. A body.

And God's chosen people crossed the Jordan and slew all of the Canaanites and seized the land as God-given theirs.

You sort of have a very selective world view. And you're a real screamer, yes you are. I still think you aren't old enough to be on Literotica.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'll say it again:

Sharia Courts in the UK are used by MUTUAL CONSENT to arbitrate between individuals. In UK law they have no more legal force than an agreement between parties in a dispute to allow a UK version of Judge Judy, or an independent person, or even a toss of a coin, to decide a disagreement.

If both parties agree to using a Sharia court, or to a toss of a coin, the outcome of the decision is binding on both parties. A Sharia court has no more legality than the coin toss.

BUT - some Sharia courts could be biased against women and women are advised NOT to agree to resolving a marital dispute through a Sharia court. Unless the woman agrees beforehand, the Sharia court's decision is not binding on her. As within other communities she could face pressure to accept the rules of that community. That is duress and if proven the arbitration's decision would be overruled by a UK court. In many disputes Sharia (or the coin toss) is not appropriate anyway and UK courts should be involved from the outset.

Christian churches and Jewish synagogues (and Masonic temples and Residents' Associations and...) also have similar limited methods of settling disputes within their remit.

The Sharia courts operating in the UK (and the Christian and Jewish ones) are nothing like Sharia as expressed by IS or fanatics in some Muslim countries.

Sharia just means 'law'. What version of law, or sharia, applies depends on the country in which you live. In the US it is federal or state laws. No version of sharia can override those. In the UK it is parliamentary legislation or common laws. No version of sharia can override those. The law of the land is paramount.

Without disagreeing with you, that should be informed consent. I can't imagine any woman agreeing to be governed by the decisions of a Sharia Court in any matter involving a man, especially a husband or member of his or even her family.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

If you want to go way back in history, what about the millions of Hindus murdered by Muslims in the areas that are now Pakistan, Iran, etc. I don't know if this was the worst ever, because nobody knows how many were killed or enslaved.

Well, if nobody actually knows how many, then your "millions" of Hindus murdered carries the same ephemeral absolutist weight as this sign:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5705/22112660901_18205c140d_c.jpg

I can rhetorically say there were just hundreds murdered and it's not wrong.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/7b0b490433c05ab0db19b5fa504e5a7d/tumblr_mpmgbiI9Xz1r3fr0eo2_400.gif

How now, brown cow?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, if nobody actually knows how many, then your "millions" of Hindus murdered carries the same ephemeral absolutist weight as this sign:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5705/22112660901_18205c140d_c.jpg

I can rhetorically say there were just hundreds murdered and it's not wrong.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/7b0b490433c05ab0db19b5fa504e5a7d/tumblr_mpmgbiI9Xz1r3fr0eo2_400.gif

How now, brown cow?

Exact figures are not known, but it was probably the worst series of atrocities in history. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-mass-murder-of-Hindus-by-Muslim-invaders-historically-proven

 

[Sweetsweatymango]

I don't see many Christians yelling out "Christ is right!" Before blowing themselves up and killing innocent people. Moslems are just fucked.

 

[sr71plt]

Right, like you, that guy in Portland was more interested in expressing his hate of Muslims than his love for Christ.

 

[Sweetsweatymango]

Right, like you, that guy in Portland was more interested in expressing his hate of Muslims than his love for Christ.

Moslems are fucked in the head, same goes for you. Nobody takes your dribble seriously. Another left wing crackpot.

 

[oggbashan]

Without disagreeing with you, that should be informed consent. I can't imagine any woman agreeing to be governed by the decisions of a Sharia Court in any matter involving a man, especially a husband or member of his or even her family.

True. There are organisations in the UK who support women who are oppressed by their community's values.

BUT - there are sharia courts and sharia courts. They differ almost as much as the various sects of Islam. In the UK most sharia courts are aware of their limitations and there have been several cases where the man has been shocked by the sharia court's decision against him. A couple of cases have informed the 'husband' that the traditional 'divorce' by saying "I divorce thee" three times is NOT valid in the UK. The husband has to apply for divorce through the normal divorce court unless the marriage was a sharia marriage ONLY. Even then he is supposed to accept responsibility for his ex-wife and children - under sharia law. He can't walk away.

Even in some Arab countries it isn't as simple to divorce under sharia as some people think. It depends on the state law and the version of Islam.

 

[phrodeau]

This is Islam. You know, the religion that tells their followers to behead those who "backslide," to use a Christian term. If a Muslim doesn't comply with Sharia, they might as well be considered an apostate, and that would make them a couple of things separated - 1. A head and 2. A body.

Every word of that is equally true of Judaism, and you are perfectly aware of that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Every word of that is equally true of Judaism, and you are perfectly aware of that.

How many apostates are killed by Jews? Are those instructions actually in their sacred texts.

 

[phrodeau]

How many apostates are killed by Jews? Are those instructions actually in their sacred texts.

Yes, they are.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, they are.

Thousands of years ago they might have, but what about currently? Can you tell me any recent examples where such drastic measures were used?