Remember, Diversity is Our Strength

[owknows]

Last I checked courts were part of government

The argument being presented didn't call for the abolition of government.

It called into question the need for government to demand that as a consenting adult, you need to seek it's permission in order to enter into the contract of marriage.

The argument stated that like any other contract, the contract of marriage is between individuals, or between individuals and their God. And that government (not being a party to the contract) has no business specifying it's terms and condition... or that you seek it's permission.

The fact that the contract of marriage would (like any other contract) prevail upon the court system to adjudicate disputes regarding the contract, is not rational justification to insert the government into contract as a term and condition generating participant. It is not.

That is the argument.

You so far attempted to evade it. But haven't addressed it.

[blah3]

The argument being presented didn't call for the abolition of government.

It called into question the need for government to demand that as a consenting adult, you need to seek it's permission in order to enter into the contract of marriage.

The argument stated that like any other contract, the contract of marriage is between individuals, or between individuals and their God. And that government (not being a party to the contract) has no business specifying it's terms and condition... or that you seek it's permission.

The fact that the contract of marriage would (like any other contract) prevail upon the court system to adjudicate disputes regarding the contract, is not rational justification to insert the government into contract as a term and condition generating participant. It is not.

That is the argument.

You so far attempted to evade it. But haven't addressed it.

No the justification for ‘inserting’ govt is the vast good marriage does for society as a whole.
If two individuals don’t like the contract as drawn up by govt they are free to draw up their own contract.

[darb72]

As soon as government gave benefits to married couples same-sex unions should've been legalized. Arguments can be made that government should've stayed out of marriage in the first place, but they didn't so here we are.

Personally, I don't consider a union between same-sex couples as a "true marriage". Marriage is the union of man and woman before God, yet we let atheists get married. Bringing religion into a legal document between two people would turn America into a theocracy which all Republicans should fight against lest we become democrats.

[owknows]

As soon as government gave benefits to married couples same-sex unions should've been legalized. Arguments can be made that government should've stayed out of marriage in the first place, but they didn't so here we are.

Can't argue with either of these points. I was discussing what ought be.

Personally, I don't consider a union between same-sex couples as a "true marriage". Marriage is the union of man and woman before God, yet we let atheists get married. Bringing religion into a legal document between two people would turn America into a theocracy which all Republicans should fight against lest we become democrats.

I totally understand and respect religious arguments in these matters. But as you rightly point out, not if government is used as an instrument of imposing those views on others. People need to be careful what they advocate for imposition by the majority... lest their position no longer enjoy majority support. (and they are subjected to the forced alternative).

A position that maximizes liberty and leaves matters of faith to the individual conscience is usually the best course of action... as it is difficult to weaponize.

[pickles]

Yet more unfounded assertions, and if you're backing off your earlier claims Sharia requires Muslims to rape infidel women and perform FGM on their infant girls say so openly instead of pretending you haven't made the claim.

Yes, I'm asking you to back up your assertions. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I claimed Trump supporters support rape you'd want to see evidence of that. If I started whining and fan dancing the way you'd have you'd deride it. So quite being a whiny hypocrite and provide support for your claims.

I apologize. I really do. This is clearly all my fault. Expecting a Bush admin swamp rat to have even the most basic understanding of Islam, was obviously foolish on my part. I feel like an idiot for expecting the slimmest of competencies where I knew none was to be found.

You ask for evidence that Islam "promotes" FGM, as if the evidence isn't the millions of Muslim girls subjected to FGM.

You ask for evidence that Islam "promotes" the raping of infidel women, as if the evidence isn't of hundreds of thousands (currently living) of infidel women raped by Muslims.

Here's an article concerning FGM. It's one of tens of thousands on the internet that anyone with a sincere desire to learn can easily access. I chose this article as it is from a leftist source, and it concerns Indonesia, which isn't African and is often hailed as "moderate."

Here we have a population that is performing FGM on over 90% of the female population. The rate FGM is increasing as the society is growing more Islamic. Almost like there's a correlation.

Again, here have Muslims saying the FGM to fulfill Islam. Why is it dependent upon me to PROVE they are wrong about their own religion?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...sion-indonesia

Here's an article concerning the rape of infidel women. Again from the lefty Guardian.

And again, Muslim men raping infidel women and claiming Islam promoting that behavior.

And again, why is it incumbent upon me to prove that the Muslim men don't understand their own religion?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-yazidi-women


So yes, Muslims cut the clits out of little girls and use Islam to justify it.

And Muslims rape infidel women and use Islam to justify it.

Whether they are accurately or not following the instructions of their 7th century warlord pedophile prophet- a rapist, slaver, and thief- is of little concern to me.

[pickles]

And to return to the OP.

As was stated at the time, many, many Muslims have a much bigger issue with the cartoons being shown, even in an educational setting, one they are free to opt out of even, than they do with the beheading of the teacher.

Pakistan's Prime Minister criticizing Macron.

https://www.dw.com/en/pakistans-imra...lam/a-55394035

Erdogan criticizing Macron.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/25/europ...ntl/index.html

General anger in the Arab world and a call to boycott French goods.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ammad-cartoons


Diversity is our strength.

Welcoming into our societies large groups of people who think beheading a teacher for showing a cartoon is a spiritual act, is obviously massively beneficial for Western societies.

Do you remember when you could walk onto a plane without going through a national security clearance? Do you remember when women could gather on NYE without being mass assaulted? Do you remember when teacher's heads weren't chopped off for showing pictures?

What a terrible world it was.

[owknows]

China's counterterrorism advice to France: Put all Muslims in concentration camps

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ntration-camps

[pickles]

China's counterterrorism advice to France: Put all Muslims in concentration camps

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ntration-camps

"They're good guys."

Joe Biden on the CCP

[owknows]

"They're good guys."

Joe Biden on the CCP

BELIEVE ALL WOMEN!! -Joe Biden

(C'mon Man... I didn't say anything about believing children) -Also Joe Biden

[blah3]

As soon as government gave benefits to married couples same-sex unions should've been legalized. Arguments can be made that government should've stayed out of marriage in the first place, but they didn't so here we are.

Personally, I don't consider a union between same-sex couples as a "true marriage". Marriage is the union of man and woman before God, yet we let atheists get married. Bringing religion into a legal document between two people would turn America into a theocracy which all Republicans should fight against lest we become democrats.

So what are those religiouS requirements to get married??????

[bacchys]

I apologize. I really do. This is clearly all my fault. Expecting a Bush admin swamp rat to have even the most basic understanding of Islam, was obviously foolish on my part. I feel like an idiot for expecting the slimmest of competencies where I knew none was to be found.

I accept your admission you were wrong, as your rapid backpedaling and dodging demonstrate. Like most America-hating, white nationalist morons you're ignorant, brainwashed, and incapable of admitting error.

That some Muslims claim the bad acts they do is mandated by their faith doesn't make it actually a tenet of their faith. Some of your fellow ignorant bigots claim Christianity demands they hate and/or hurt people. That doesn't make them right. Other Christians say the religion mandates they marry multiple women, and makes women property. Once upon a time some Christians argued the tenets of the Faith mandated enslaving those of African ancestry.

[BustOfPallas]

Can we just let this garbage thread die.

I fully understand some are more morally comfortable posting here than apologizing for Biden's flagrant corruption on other more relevant threads but seriously.... let's let this thing sink into oblivion where it belongs.