Rifqa Bary--If they can do it to her dad, they can do it to you

Nietzsche is Dead ^ | 24 Aug 09 | foutsc

[the long march]

My previous comment still stands. Kmow WHO the enemy is

[foutsc]

No. Your non-sequitur is that because abuse is alleged, she will be killed.

Alternately, you allege that because some Muslims kill people, and her father is a Muslim, therefore her father will kill her. That is illogical gogswallow, or whatever you call it.

This line of reasoning does not pass a constitutional test:

"You see, the judge cannot be certain that this particular Muslim parent is not now, or will possibly become, an "honor killer."

If she was abused then she should be removed from the home, on that we agree. Religion is irrelevant to the facts.

I am a conservative Christian who cherishes our Constitution. If anyone doubts my bona fides, you can google "foutsc." The internet is littered with my defense of this nation and the conservative principles I think should guide it.

I intend no disrespect to anyone in the forum. We're all on the same side after all.

[the long march]

No we really are not on the “same side”. You see you are willing to allow the Constitution to be used as our death knell and I am not.

Plenty of Jews in Germany were Good Germans, thought that the law would protect them. All they had to do was obey the laws and then they would be okay. Thought the courts would protect them. Wrong on all counts. The faith practised by followers of Muhammed does not allow for moderation. The ROP will kill the converts first and slowly strangle the rest of anyone not doing what “they” want. The enemy is Islam. I have yet to see a Muslim who is not “bound” by the commandment to slay a convert. Plenty of those who Live every day wondering whether today will be the day that someone catches up with them. Keep in mind that the honor killings we hear about in Canada, Europe, and even here in the States have all been done by those moderates you are sooo willing to protect.

[Islaminaction]

The big picture is her life.

[john in springfield]

To those who are convinced this is a black and white case, ask yourself this question: If this were a 17-year old girl from a fundamentalist Christian family running into the arms of an imam, would you still be sticking up for the girl and the mosque?

HELL YES, if there was a pattern of such murders in fundamentalist Christianity (there isn't, but there sure as HELL is in Islam), and if the girl herself believed her life to be in danger.

This particular girl believes her life is in danger. Given the teachings of Islam, this is a completely credible belief. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL HER OTHERWISE AND TO DEMAND THAT SHE MUST BE RETURNED TO THOSE WHO MAY MURDER HER?

Forgive me for pointing it out, but your arrogance in this matter appears to be just astonishing.

Even if child abuse is proven, it does not follow that she will be killed.

This is true. But credible evidence of child abuse - completely apart from her belief that her life is in danger - is by itself sufficient reason for her not to be returned to her home.

Finally, we are about 2 steps away from home-schoolers being declared religious nuts, forcing a showdown between parents in their home and the state that wants to herd everyone into public institutions.

First, a logical fallacy. Your statement does not follow from this case.

Second: We're not talking here about a case of children being dragged away by force from their families who love them. We're talking about a girl being dragged by force BACK TO a family that has abused her in the past and is now, by her personal report, ready to slit her throat.

[foutsc]

I am willing to protect the constitution.

Can you see the similarity between your argument and the arguments of leftists who equate tea parties with klan rallies and want to shut down conservative talk radio because it "inspires hate?" All because some nut from Security, Colorado shot at the Clinton White House because local "right wing" host Chuck Baker was railing against Clinton. Then came Tim McVeigh.

You are right that the most important issue here is that girl's safety. The constitution is also important. You can't ignore it or skirt around it one time then stand behind it another. Either it means something or it doesn't.

By your logic, all kids should be taken from their Muslim families now as a preventive measure against honor killings. Sorry, preventive justice is not allowed here.

Now, where we probably agree is that my remedy is to cease all immigration by Muslims or any other culture that has proved incompatible with ours and impervious to assimilation. That's the worst part of all this: We brought in on ourselves with our ridiculous immigration policies.

Who knows how many more honor killings are in this nation's future? How do we prevent them while staying within the bounds of our constitution?

[foutsc]

Actually, it is not a logical fallacy, because I did not use that as a premise in my argument. It is supporting my contention that if they can do it to Muslims they can do it to you, and believe me, there are progressives that would love to teach us ignorant Christians a thing or two.

Which brings me to my other point: Progressives use Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, and various other stories of parents killing their kids because satan told them to or they thought their kids were possessed by the devil. They take a few scattered data points and extrapolate out until we're all dangerous right wing nazis. You see no similarity?

[the long march]

Not by my logic ——I have made NO argument for whether this girl should or should not live with her parents. You are the one who started spouting all sorts of ridiculousness. My concern is that you just like the “goog German Jews” will defend the Constituion as you walk into the gas chambers. KNOW YOUR ENEMY. It is ISLAM -——

[the long march]

Oh and by the way McVeigh had EXTENSIVE contact and dealings with ISLAM and the Phillipine arm of Al Quaeda. His last words were that he would be seen as the first martyr of the war for the Nation That is staright out of Koranic talking points. Good luck dhimmi....they are coming for you

[john in springfield]

Actually, it is not a logical fallacy, because I did not use that as a premise in my argument. It is supporting my contention that if they can do it to Muslims they can do it to you, and believe me, there are progressives that would love to teach us ignorant Christians a thing or two.

If I have a daughter who is 17 years old who flees my household and goes before a court and begs and pleads not to be returned to my home, then I've done something wrong in raising her. Believe me, I am not worried in the slightest about that scenario.

You keep painting this story as if it's virtually the SAME THING as courts ripping children out of decent homes. It simply isn't. True, there's a certain vague, very superficial similarity. But that's as far as it goes. There's also a certain similarity, a RELATIONSHIP even, between wolves and cocker spaniels. But there are some important differences, too.

For this reason, your arguments are about as valid as suggesting that since the Department of Conservation sets traps to control the wolf population, we should therefore fear government agents kicking our front doors in to seize and euthanize our cocker spaniels. It just doesn't follow.

Which brings me to my other point: Progressives use Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, and various other stories of parents killing their kids because satan told them to or they thought their kids were possessed by the devil. They take a few scattered data points and extrapolate out until we're all dangerous right wing nazis. You see no similarity?

I see a very faint similarity. I see a STRONGER similarity between that and your taking a government ruling that hasn't even been handed down yet in favor of preserving this child's life, and extrapolating it out to imply that US judges are all dangerous left wing nazis who are now going to seize our children from their loving homes... just because one judge will have HELPED a 17-year-old girl escape abuse and death at the hands of those who were supposed to love and protect her.

[john in springfield]

If I have a daughter who is 17 years old who flees my household and goes before a court and begs and pleads not to be returned to my home, then I’ve done something wrong in raising her. Believe me, I am not worried in the slightest about that scenario.

Sorry, the above paragraph should not have been italicized, as I wasn’t quoting, I was making a new statement.

Now I’m quoting it, but not italicizing it (are there cases in which two wrongs actually do make a right?)

[john in springfield]

Let's just do this the RIGHT way.

Actually, it is not a logical fallacy, because I did not use that as a premise in my argument. It is supporting my contention that if they can do it to Muslims they can do it to you, and believe me, there are progressives that would love to teach us ignorant Christians a thing or two.

If I have a daughter who is 17 years old who flees my household and goes before a court and begs and pleads not to be returned to my home, then I've done something wrong in raising her. Believe me, I am not worried in the slightest about that scenario.

[Velveeta]

Even if child abuse is proven, it does not follow that she will be killed.

I got sick to my stomach reading that sentence of yours.

[john in springfield]

Let’s return to your basic contention: “If they can do it to Muslims they can do it to you.”

Do WHAT???

Let’s put me in the same place as Rifqa’s dad.

Let’s suppose my daughter goes to the public school and decides to convert to Islam. Or Scientology.

Now that’s not going to happen, but let’s suppose it does.

First of all, she’s not going to leave my household, because any daughter of mine knows her parents love her.

But let’s say, against all odds, that she decides to go to Florida and immerse herself in Islam (or Scientology, or whatever), against my wishes, and furthermore decides to lie and maintain that she fears for her life, as an excuse not to have to return.

Note that we’re assuming my daughter is a liar. That’s also what you’re assuming about Rifqa, while simultaneously assuming her parents are as pure as the driven snow.

Even though a more rational assumption would probably be that she’s telling the truth.

But let’s make those assumptions.

Would I be okay with a judge ruling that my daughter, given her testimony and fears, should not be forced against her will to return to my home?

Yes, I would.

Nor would I feel that the government had particularly “done” anything to me. I might feel that Islam, or Scientology, had done something to me. I might feel that my daughter had done something to me. But I wouldn’t feel the government had.

Again, we’re NOT talking about the government forcibly removing a child from her parents’ home. We’re talking about the government NOT forcibly intervening to remove a child from where she is, using police force, and place her where she is not.

In fact, I don’t really quite see how you can argue FOR forcible intervention by the government, while simultaneously maintaining that you’re AGAINST and IN FEAR OF it.

[john in springfield]

Yeah, doesn't that just make you sick?

[foutsc]

Now you've muddled two distinct issues. We agree, if there is child abuse she should be removed from the home. That is different and distinct from the whole muslim cutting off heads issue.

I fully support removing her, or any child, from the home based upon proven child abuse. That is not the focus of this hearing in Florida, so far. If it is an issue, the state of Ohio should open an investigation.

Child abuse is a legally-accepted reason for the state to intervene in the home. Religious belief or ethic or religious affiliation of the parents is not.

I'm glad you see a vague similarity, because it's there, and I admit it's vague. The arguments some people use here are the same ones progressives use against conservative Christians. My only point was to get people to see this. This is an emotional issue, but we can't let that prevent a cold examination of the facts.

We all have a responsibility to keep fellow conservatives honest, sometimes by challenging each others' thought processes.

You spar with friendly teammates before the big match with the real enemy. ;)

[foutsc]

The government intervention is in contravening the authority of the father, which we've already stipulated is correct if child abuse is established or even reasonably suspected.

I do see your larger point, which is if a child runs away and lies to manipulate the law against you, you blame the child, not the law. OK, that makes sense.

I am not saying this girl is lying. She could still believe her life is in danger when in fact it is not. These two things are not contradictory. If you point an unloaded gun at me that I think is loaded, I could feel my life is in danger even though it is not.

At this point, if child abuse is alleged, all else is moot anyway.

My larger point is that you must treat law abiding citizens from suspect ethnic or religious groups just as you would anyone else. "Because they're Muslim" is not an excuse, regardless how sick some Muslims have acted in this country. That is the system we have.

[foutsc]

We were arguing a narrow point of logic. You make my point of how emotions block a clear discussion.

[PapaBear3625]

Here's the bottom line, leaving all religious considerations aside:

(1) She's 17, an age where she should have some degree of voice in how she lives her life.

(2) She does not want to live with her Muslim parents any more, claiming fear for her safety.

Just emancipate her and be done with it.

[john in springfield]

Religious belief or ethic or religious affiliation of the parents is not.

I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any allegation whatsoever to date that the court proposes to make any determination based on religious belief or affiliation of the parents. Nor would I expect this to be the case.