Reply With Quote
You made another ridiculous statement with nothing to back it up with. Nothing new. gfy, little .TB!GFY, REALLY!
TB!
You made another ridiculous statement with nothing to back it up with. Nothing new. gfy, little .TB!
I agree.
That said, I don't care overmuch if they do impose sharia. It is their country. Yet it appears to bother people like you.
Why?
You don't believe in the notion of inalienable rights? I understand we cannot impose our will over the whole world but i have a definite issue with religious dogma used as an excuse to on rights that I find inalienable. Majoritarianism is not just this wonderful happyland of self-determination for all.
"notion of inalienable rights"
it's pure bull .
The only rights anyone has anywhere is whatever
1) the society(govt) grants them
AND
2) enforces.
eg, USA as the Bill of Rights (for Human-Americans) that don't apply to Human-non-Americans
There is a difference between how they manifest in a government and how an individual views their importance. The two motions are linked anyway. Go read thinkprogress and tell em to go myself. I get tired of having to wade through your forcefed ideology.
Pretty much.
I didn't say I liked sharia or thought it overly moral in some places and applications.
If Egypt wants to impose it, because most of the population supports sharia, I don't see it as my business other than telling them when/where they are doing things I don't think are right or moral.
I have the hope that people everywhere will slowly cast off the shackles of religion, and Islam will be due for an Enlightenment at some point in their societal development.
They will have to make their own mistakes, and find their own way.
(edit)
I think there are some rights that we can all agree on, yes. I also think that we should strive very strongly to protect the rights we choose for ourselves, and I am fairly happy with those embodied in our Cons ution.
The concept of "alienable" means that there is some outside universal grantor/definer of rights, to my understanding, and that is not something I buy into.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-29-2012 at 02:59 PM.
Further:
Sharia doesn't exactly mean that you are going to impose draconian death penalties for religious crimes. "Sharia" is rather vague and open to interpretation as anything is.
It all depends on how it is applied. To be fair: in most muslim countries, the low educational attainment dictates literal interpretations, and cultural backwardness in terms of patriarchies, mean that in practice it gets brutal, especially for women. That is a fault of culture as much as anything else.
I think the concept of alienable rights is more construed to universal, not necessarily arbitrated rights. The right to individual freedom for example. Along these lines, I'm inclined to agree with Fuzzy.
This type of right, exists outside of governmental decree, although our very history proves this as false, in practice. Still, the decree (slavery) was eliminated because it was in conflict with the fundamental, (universal) right of personal freedom.
How do you determine what a "universal" right is?
It's existence is postulated, of course. Evidence of it's existence by dint of it's non-existence as was the case in our history?
The notion seemed to exist outside of societal/governmental decree until it became a societal/governmental decree.
Sharia is based on the Sunnah and Koran and they are more than a little specific and explicit in edicts against violent crime, infidelity, and terpitude.
Sure they can do the same thing we do and play the 'we'll just forget about this inconvenient one' game but religious literalists do what they do. They are about a century behind us in terms of that progression and who is to say they will follow the same path.
I am not saying coercion by any means but i understand the desire to influence a different outcome completely.
Not sure exactly what the second sentence is asking for, but I don't think we are actually far off from saying the same thing.
We are left to our own devices to figure out what they are (boutons' #1), and then we have to figure out what to do about it.(boutons' #2)
Gov't is just where these decisions play out.
Eyup.
Read an interesting article on atheism and islam in the Economist that touched on it pretty well.
Disagree. The govt framework has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of an inalienable right. The notion seemed to exist outside of societal/governmental decree until it became a societal/governmental decree.
How exactly does a right existing outside of a societal determination work? You yourself said we have to decide, right?
I'm saying that it apparently did exist outside of our governmental framework. To will that notion into actionable events is when we invoke government.
And you're right, we're not that far apart. I just take issue with the need of a structure to produce the notion of a universal right.
WC calling somebody blind!
you'll get better, more accurate info from Maddow in one hour than from Fox in one year.
Does red team still care about Chris Stevens now that the election is over, Hillary is stepping down and Susan Rice is no longer a candidate for SOS? My guess is what really happened in Benghazi will not be nearly as important to red team, but may reemerge as an important issue four years from now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us...t.html?hp&_r=0
Your point?
Did you know that I don't watch Fox News?
but you qualify as a Fox Repug Propaganda talking asshole
Even though I have zero exposure, except what I see here.
Now I ask that you think outside that tiny box you live in for a moment...
Don't you think it's possible that they simply reflect the views of people like me, rather than people like me watching them to know what to think?
The Mad Cow is a chronic liar. She is one of the most inaccurate propaganda puppets out there. At the moment, only Randi Rhodes comes to mind as the bigger liar.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
