US Islamic in 20 years? Seems a little alarmist.

genius2687 wrote

Ok so there really aren't any Islamic laws on the books yet so perhaps what I initially stated was not as accurate. I still hold onto the rest of my argument though.

You mean the one that's based on an obscene fallacy?

[Smellyoldgit]

Just an update - probably best described as "Islamic Drift"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6737993.stm

The Article wrote

Supporters of the niqab greeted the ruling as a victory for freedom.

But officials at the university have said it indicates a drift towards Islamic extremism.

[antix]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Just an update - probably best described as "Islamic Drift"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6737993.stm

They're better off letting her wear the face covering. Cause if a muslim man sees a bit of her chin, he'll have no choice but to rape her and it will be entirely her fault.

[nkb]

One of the plaintiff's lawyers wrote

The court said in the strongest of terms that it is up to women to decide about their clothing, and that women should not be discriminated against because of the clothes that they choose to wear.

This is encouraging news. I didn't realize that Egyptian women could wear whatever they wanted, without men (religious leaders or not) coercing them.

I wonder what this lawyer's quotes would look like if it involved a law suit against Islam forcing women to wear certain clothing.

Edit: Sorry, it wasn't a defense lawyer, since that obviously would have been the university's counsel.

nkb wrote

This is encouraging news. I didn't realize that Egyptian women could wear whatever they wanted, without men (religious leaders or not) coercing them.

I wonder what this lawyer's quotes would look like if it involved a law suit against Islam forcing women to wear certain clothing.

Also this:

Hossam Bahgat, one of Ms Zainy's lawyers, told Reuters news agency the ruling was a victory for "women's autonomy over their body and dress code".

George Orwell couldn't have made it up.

[Sternwallow]

nkb wrote

This is encouraging news. I didn't realize that Egyptian women could wear whatever they wanted, without men (religious leaders or not) coercing them.

I wonder what this lawyer's quotes would look like if it involved a law suit against Islam forcing women to wear certain clothing.

Edit: Sorry, it wasn't a defense lawyer, since that obviously would have been the university's counsel.

"Here, slut, wear this leash and shackles whenever you go out. Oh, and by the way, if anyone asks, you say you are doing it voluntarily or else!"

[Philboid Studge]

Building a mosque on near the World Trade Center has the usual right wingnuts' shart-stained knickers in a twist but, as much as I think a mosque (or a church or a Scientology deprogramming center or a Creationist Museum) is a waste of space, it looks like New York is going to do the right thing and let the Mecca-pointing commence.

Bloomberg gave what I have to admit was a pretty good speech, even if it is slightly salted with some Godly hoo-hah.

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan."

[ghoulslime]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Sorry Wakkers - is it necessary to call a vote on this?

Erection Objection sustained!

[Davin]

ghoulslime wrote

Erection Objection sustained!

I see your point, however there is a negative to this as well.

[Philboid Studge]

Christly people try to thwart the Jizzlamis.

Good luck challenging the Landmarks Commission. My default position is that everything should be landmarked, but then you have to force somebody to restore the place and that don't work too good in a semi-free society like this one. The building in question is a decent candidate for it -- it's over 150 years old, has an interesting neoclassical façade, and so forth. But it's also just sitting there like a bad tooth.


But why would a "conservative" group want to prevent private property owners from building whatever the fuck they want on their property ?

[Victus]

Philboid Studge wrote

But why would a "conservative" group want to prevent private property owners from building whatever the fuck they want on their property ?

This is part of why I never really understood the alliance between conservatives and libertarians in US politics. Supposedly the former shares the latter's free market ideals, but in practice I'm not sure that this is the case.

[Philboid Studge]

It's as if emotionalism -- perhaps manifest in tribal identity -- trumps ideology. The right, in principle, wants the government out of their lives, right up until it's their ox being gored.

Merkin conservatives have fetishized the US Constitution as a sacred, inviolable document. Until it goes against their interests (or bigotries, as the case may be) -- then it's toilet paper.

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Christly people try to thwart the Jizzlamis.

They're mimicking the Swiss attempt at constraining the growth of Islam. Since I also favor restricting of the growth of Islam, I wish them well, but I don't think the zoning trick is going to work out.

Victus wrote

This is part of why I never really understood the alliance between conservatives and libertarians in US politics. Supposedly the former shares the latter's free market ideals, but in practice I'm not sure that this is the case.

Like Progressives and Labor they are only aligned within a narrow area. Both the GOP and the Libertarians have a large portion of members that are planning for the day when they are Bill Gates and have Bill Gates sized tax problems.

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

They're mimicking the Swiss attempt at constraining the growth of Islam. Since I also favor restricting of the growth of Islam, I wish them well, but I don't think the zoning trick is going to work out.

At some point, we will have to draw the line somewhere on this vile religion. The sooner the better! This hateful delusion has no place in a modern society.

[magx01]

Bloomberg wrote

But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan

BULLSHIT!! If they were who he's professing them to be, there wouldn't be this huge fucking controversy down there. The reason there is is because that's EXACTLY who they are.