Posted on 05/14/2004 10:56:58 AM PDT by orange11
Who's that, the mutt owned by Louis Farrakhan?
This country was established with a set of rules and laws we call the Constitution. It contains, as well as a Bill Of Rights, other laws and procedures for running the Federal Government. Some of these detail the means required to alter or change it in a legal manner.
All Americans, due to their citizenship, agree to live under that document, and to accept the fact that in the excercise of their own Rights, they may not deny those Rights to others who peacefully excercise their own.
If someone does not like that, like the so-called "clergyman" referenced, he is free to do two things...attempt to persuade others to repeal or change the laws, or leave.
Since you're not going to get anywhere close to a majority to agree to the nonsense posted in the article even on FR, I recomment that the jackleg in the article pack his bags. If you, Orange, REALLY believe this crap, go with him.
Yikes! It's shikelgrueber!! [sic] ZEIG...HEIL!! ZEIG...HEIL!!
France’s Headscarf Problem: How should a western democracy accommodate Islam? City Journal ^ | 23 April 2003 | Theodore Dalrymple Posted on 06/09/2003 7:40:32 PM PDT by Korth The French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, is the first man for a long time to hold that post who has shown the courage and determination to confront France’s growing social problems. He has put policemen back on the beat; he is testing drivers of crashed cars for the presence of cannabis in their urine. But he made a rod with which to beat his own back in creating the Union of French Islamic Organizations as an intermediary between French Muslims and the French government. He hoped that moderates would control the new group, but instead it has given extremists a platform from which to voice their demands. Last weekend, he brought down the extremists’ ire by re-opening the question of the wearing of the headscarf by Muslim girls and women in a speech to the new Islamic union. The fundamentalists booed Sarkozy, though a smattering of the women in the audience applauded when he remarked that the law required that photographs for the compulsory identity card should be taken bareheaded: that is to say, without a headscarf. He was implicitly asserting the supremacy of the law of the state over any religious custom. The Conseil d’Etat had not long before ruled that the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls at school was legal (it had previously been banned), provided that it gave rise to no conflict. This, of course, was asking for the circle to be squared: and conflict over headscarves duly started up again in several schools almost at once. But, in a spirit completely contrary to the Conseil d’Etat’s ruling, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced his intention of prohibiting by law the wearing of the headscarf in the exercise of any public function. He did so in name of the difference between the public and the private sphere, and of the secularism of the state. The wearing of the headscarf has clearly become a matter of the deepest symbolic significance in France, a matter over which it is not impossible to see hundreds or even thousands eventually being killed. What might appear to an outsider as a trivial disagreement is actually one of great philosophical importance—a fact that both parties to the disagreement instinctively understand. Some of the women who attended the meeting of the Union of French Islamic Organizations (not, presumably, those who applauded Sarkozy) have sent a letter to the prime minister, saying that they are both fully Islamic and fully French citizens, and that they will take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, if he persists in his planned legislation. In other words, they intend to hoist western society by its own petard. The Agence France Presse reports that scarf partisans are duplicitously using a double tactic and a double language to impose their views on Muslim women—their ultimate goal being the destruction of the liberal-democratic state itself. On the one hand, they appeal in public to the doctrine of universal human rights, which are observed only in states such as France; on the other, in private, they use the traditional male dominance of their culture—including the threat of violence—to impose their views on others in the name of Holy Writ. After all, in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting—indeed, asking for—rape by gangs of Muslim youths. In such circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so. In short, Islamic extremists use secularism to impose theocracy: a tactic that calls to mind that of the communists of old, who appealed to freedom of speech with the long-term aim of extinguishing it altogether. The parallel is all the more exact, because just as Moscow financed the communists, the Saudis finance many of the Muslim extremists. France’s headscarf problem illustrates the limited ability of abstract principle to decide practical political questions. There are good abstract arguments, appealing to human rights on both sides, for allowing and disallowing the wearing of the headscarf. But the question can only be decided sensibly based on the study of social realities. In Britain, for example, there was (for a very short time) a problem about Sikh men who wanted to join the public service and yet continue to wear their turbans. Officials solved the problem very quickly: they designed turbans that fitted in—very smartly, in the event—with various uniforms and modes of dress. No one felt, or feels, intimidated or threatened in the slightest by this concession to a religious custom. The same cannot be said of the appearance on our streets of Muslim women so completely covered that even their eyes are hardly visible through the slit in their headdress. The reason for the difference in reaction rests not on abstract principle but on concrete social context. The women who appear in such costume are often subject to forced marriage, and no one can tell whether they wear Islamic costume from choice or through brute intimidation. Moreover, they are members of a religion with a strong aggressive, proselytizing, and imperialistic streak—a religion that ultimately recognizes nothing but itself, not even the secular state, as a source of authority. There is clearly an urgency to the settlement of the scarf question in France: and let us hope for France’s sake that Sarkozy, Raffarin, and Luc Ferry (the Minister of Education) are familiar with those wise lines of Kipling: And we’ve proved it again and again, That if once you have paid the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; Click to Add Topic KEYWORDS: CULTURE; EUROPE; FRANCE; FREEDOM; FRENCHMUSLIMS; HEADSCARF; IMMIGRATION; ISLAM; LIBERTY; MUSLIMS; Click to Add Keyword -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Report Abuse | Bookmark ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 posted on 06/09/2003 7:40:33 PM PDT by Korth [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth saying that they are both fully Islamic and fully French citizens, and that they will take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, if he persists in his planned legislation. I thought this was French issue, why involve the European court? Why have a European court at all? Islam and France deserve eachother. 2 posted on 06/09/2003 7:44:14 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth How should a Western democracy accommodate Islam? Is this a trick question? It shouldn't! 3 posted on 06/09/2003 7:56:41 PM PDT by lib-r-teri-ann [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: lib-r-teri-ann Geez, lets go to and be GUESTS of another country but make that country bend to our will. How rude... say the least. Either they want to be french (lack or capitalization deliberate), English, American... whatever - then hop in the pot and melt into the society. Don't dare try to impose your will on your hosts. Sort of like having to teach children here in the U.S. in their ancestral language. Learn ENGLICH or go home, and home is not here if you don't want to be a part of OUR society. 4 posted on 06/09/2003 8:23:37 PM PDT by JSteff (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth How should a western democracy accommodate Islam? Not at all. Face it, everywhere there is terrorism and problems, there is extreme Islam. I say zero tolerance, or tough love if you prefer. 5 posted on 06/09/2003 8:25:05 PM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: lib-r-teri-ann It should accomodate Islam by giving one-way passage to all muslims back to Islamic paradise country of their choice. 6 posted on 06/09/2003 8:25:20 PM PDT by Princeliberty [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth "Moreover, they are members of a religion with a strong aggressive, proselytizing and imperialitic streak-a religion that ultimately recognizes nothing but itself, not even the secular state, as a source of authority." I have seldom seen Islam described so accurately. And that description details the problem with trying to deal with Muslims. Their "prophet" forgot to tell them to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars." Until they learn that true and timeless rule, they will never be anything but a death cult, IMO. I feel that a time is coming when they should be informed that the other two-thirds of the world's population will no longer stand by and watch them slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with them. 7 posted on 06/09/2003 8:36:43 PM PDT by wife-mom [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth When our female soldiers are stationed in islamic countries, they have to abide by the islamic code of dress rules when off base. The same thing should apply when islamics live in a European country; the country shouldn't have to oblige the culture of the islamics. Why are the strict islamics living in Europe anyway? They should be home abiding by their own culture. 8 posted on 06/09/2003 9:10:17 PM PDT by lilylangtree [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth; Travis McGee In short, Islamic extremists use secularism to impose theocracy: a tactic that calls to mind that of the communists of old, who appealed to freedom of speech with the long-term aim of extinguishing it altogether. The parallel is all the more exact, because just as Moscow financed the communists, the Saudis finance many of the Muslim extremists. And the ACLU is right there to help them. The ACLU has long had an incestuous relationship with communism. 9 posted on 06/09/2003 9:15:31 PM PDT by maica (Don't believe everything you read in the papers- Jayson Blair) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth Aha. People laughed at the Florida case about the Islamic convert woman pushing to have her license photo in veil. That was only one of a whole raft of test-cases to come intending to warp the Western legal ideals toward Sharia rule. Or I may be interpreting the Koran wrong. 10 posted on 06/09/2003 9:17:17 PM PDT by NewRomeTacitus (Mixing Islam with Freedom can result in serious side effects. Consult your Imam.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: lib-r-teri-ann How should a Western democracy accommodate Islam? Is this a trick question? The same way Islam accomodates Western democracy. It doesn't, the two are completely incompatible. 11 posted on 06/09/2003 9:19:07 PM PDT by FITZ [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth How should a Western democracy accommodate Islam? Seems to me to be kind of backwards. The Western countries should be asking the Islamistic people how they plan to adapt to western culture. 12 posted on 06/09/2003 9:23:08 PM PDT by CommandoFrank (Peer into the depths of hell and there is the face of Islam!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: maica The coming French Civil War (within 20 years) is going to make Bosnia look like a picnic. 13 posted on 06/09/2003 9:23:31 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Travis McGee True respect for Muslims would mean that you believe that they actually do follow the Koran and that they believe it when the Koran tells them they are not to live among the infidels unless they intend to conquer them quite soon. Believing that Muslims don't really believe that the entire world must submit to Islam means you don't take their beliefs seriously. 14 posted on 06/09/2003 9:28:54 PM PDT by FITZ [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: CommandoFrank Good grief. We can't even get the Mexicans to start speaking English. There are attorneys everywhere looking to use any golliwog who turns up for profit at the expense of our sovereignty. The Arabic (Islamic) cultures are the most resistant to assimulation. I think Ted Nugent may fear running for Michigan governorship because of the enclave residing in Dearborn. Arnold may get "too busy" because California is already overrun with illegal Mexicans. Why should the Wahabbists hesitate to dominate with these examples of American fortitude standing against Islamic rule? 15 posted on 06/09/2003 9:36:18 PM PDT by NewRomeTacitus (Mixing Islam with Freedom can result in serious side effects. Consult your Imam.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: NewRomeTacitus You're right... It's sad and scary. 16 posted on 06/09/2003 9:43:50 PM PDT by CommandoFrank (Peer into the depths of hell and there is the face of Islam!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: NewRomeTacitus Mexicans (Mex-Americans) would vote for Schwatrznegger for governor. 17 posted on 06/09/2003 9:45:53 PM PDT by dennisw [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: cardinal4 France’s Headscarf Problem: How should a western democracy accommodate Islam? Force them to convert to Judaism, Christianity, or Bhuddism or deport them. Why make life difficult for yourself? 18 posted on 06/09/2003 9:56:43 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Travis McGee The coming French Civil War (within 20 years) is going to make Bosnia look like a picnic. I think you wait too long. I give it a few years. These things have a habit of boiling over unexpectedly. Maybe the socilialists will tolerate the destruction of Paris, but I doubt the rural parts of hte country will put up with this crap. Wait until the economics makes the Muslims start to move to the countryside after they can no longer get a free lunch in the city. 19 posted on 06/09/2003 10:04:22 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment #20 Removed by Moderator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth "How should a western democracy accommodate Islam" ...?? Hmmmm? How about exactly the same way Islamic countries treat people from a western democracy. Islamic countries demand that you dress like them - if they are going to choose to live in a western democracy - then they should be required to dress like the western democracy. 21 posted on 06/09/2003 10:51:37 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: LoneRangerMassachusetts You could be right. I think five to 15 years is reasonable. 22 posted on 06/10/2003 12:15:41 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: FITZ I take their belief VERY seriously, just as I take a foaming at the mouth rabid pitbull very seriously. And the same remedy will work for both. 23 posted on 06/10/2003 12:21:42 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Korth Seems to me if you cannot hold to the most important perrogative of a Democracy - ie 'openess'/Freedom -then you are not a participant or a contributor. . . .personally think that that those who cannot adapt to an open society; stay home and change the political climate in their own 'closed' culture. AKA. . .'when in Rome'. . . 24 posted on 06/10/2003 4:24:49 AM PDT by cricket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. [ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
In this post you specifically called for Muslims to be forced to give up their religion!
PLEEEEAAAASSSSSE can we keep it for a bit?
It's Friday afternoon and we've all been ever so good!
Whats next? All Christians that don't agree with his brand of (probably) fundamentalist Christianity are banned? Catholics had best watch out!
I don't need this you heathens! I will pray for your salvation!
But again you failed. NOT A SINGLE COMMENT IN YOUR POST IS FROM ME!
Again, you have on multiple posts spoke of things I have posted. Back up your claims!
I do not appreciate being the subject of slander and lies.
Could you try formatting that re-post? Or aren't your meds working correctly yet?
Some valid points.
HOWEVER, GOD HIMSELF set up authentic free will choice.
He will not change that until He is ready to.
Certainly, after Christ returns, satan is bound for 1,000 years.
There will be only one faith but it won't really be faith at that time--because ALL WILL KNOW THE TRUTH. And there won't be 1,001 shades of truth. There won't be any need for a law, per se, about the truth BECAUSE ALL WILL KNOW IT. It would be insane to risk missing out on God's blessings by deliberately buying into something one knew to be a hideous sh*ty counterfeit, lie.
I can understand stridancy to a point.
And, plenty of PC laws ought to be overturned. Our forefathers died for FREEDOM OF Christianity, not FREEDOM FROM it.
But for the present, there must still be a huge context of authentic free will. God is calling to Himself, training, testing and refining in the refiner's fires
a leader cadre suitable to rule and reign with Christ throughout eternity and evidently over countless universes/galaxies.
Free will to choose love or nonlove is crucial in that process.
Share it, brother! Paragraphs are a tool of Satan!
This is funnier than an Abbott & Costello film...what a noodle. :)
The real culprits were TLBshow, F-117-a destro, marmema and a few others who posted similar remarks. I support them though so don't get me wrong!
Let's just look at this.
I've read your post, thoroughly, and I conclude:
- I am not concerned about bringing the Word of God/YHVH/Vishnu/Amon-Ra to any and all corners of the earth - I am only interested in securing the rights of Americans to venerate them HERE, on OUR shores, without zealots commandeering aircraft full of women and children, and plunging them into our cities;
- I despise the perverse use of the Almighty's name to justify the extermination of whole peoples, whether it be Muslim zealots beheading the innocents, Hindi zealots with strangling cords, or Xian zealots screaming in the hollers for blood;
I and my brethren under arms must be prepared and willing to do sick and horrific things upon those who woul djust as eagerly do sick and horrific things to our children - the difference being, THEY would do these things in God's name.
With all this being said, why should I look upon you with anything but the same surgical coldness that I would look down the gunsight at the enemies of freedom? Begone from here, ye cursed...
I have read your posts in the past and I find your support of NAMBLA to be disgusting, along with your comments about the attractiveness of little boys. Not to mention your accounts of activities with them.
dighton wrote:
You're a troll, and you're no damn good at it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.