Skip Navigation

Americans and religion

Travel Forums Off Topic Americans and religion

Page 1 ...

Last Post

301. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

[b]I found out many many years ago that mouthing off without some basic knowledge or understanding of the said subject can result in accusations of being a self-abuser, and I was certainly guilty then, and probably still am now in some instances

Why would it make u a self abuser Wotthefigh?
Do u mean, that mouthing off, in an uninformed way, makes a person look silly? Just asking, because I am curious, about what u mean.

302. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 9y

Quoting Mel.

Quoting wotthefiqh

I found out many many years ago that mouthing off without some basic knowledge or understanding of the said subject can result in accusations of being a self-abuser, and I was certainly guilty then, and probably still am now in some instances

Why would it make u a self abuser Wotthefigh?
Do u mean, that mouthing off, in an uninformed way, makes a person look silly? Just asking, because I am curious, about what u mean.

It's wotthefiqh with no 'g' and one 'q'.
If I want to specifically define the Sunni schools of Islamic Law (a previous post in this thread), I don't want to look like a tosser by including Hogsworth school of witchcraft and wizardry , do I?

303. Posted by Isadora (Travel Guru 13926 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

...I don't want to look like a tosser by including Hogsworth school of witchcraft and wizardry , do I?

I do think including Hogwarts (not Hogsworth - no one likes that school) would be acceptable though only if one accepts witchcraft as a religious belief. But then, making a correlation between the two still may be a tough sell...

304. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

It's wotthefiqh with no 'g' and one 'q'.
If I want to specifically define the Sunni schools of Islamic Law (a previous post in this thread), I don't want to look like a tosser by including Hogsworth school of witchcraft and wizardry , do I?

305. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

A few years ago the canuck province of Quebec was going to allow some parts of Sharia Law to be enacted, but progressive moslem groups, especially moslem women groups, rallied against the idea and in May 2005, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously supported a motion to block the use of Shariah law in Quebec courts.[/b]

I was just reading this Americans and Religion thread again and came accross this.
What aspects of Sharia law could this province of Quebec believe could reasonably be enacted? It is as if, some people are so insensitive, that they cant even consider what it is like for people who are subjected to human rights violations in countries where the Sharia laws are in fact the laws of the land.
Wotthefiqh, would u have a link, where I can read a blog about it, on the internet. Just out of curiousity.

[ Edit: Edited on Jul 4, 2007, at 1:46 AM by Mel. ]

306. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 9y

Mel,
Try these three -
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-210564
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

The telegraph webpage isn't exactly about North America and religion but serves as a comparable European indicator.

The thread topic is 'Americans and religion', Canucks are residents of the American continent, and fundamentalist christianity ain't the only badazz on the block.

307. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

Mel,
Try these three -
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-210564
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

The telegraph webpage isn't exactly about North America and religion but serves as a comparable European indicator.

The thread topic is 'Americans and religion', Canucks are residents of the American continent, and fundamentalist christianity ain't the only badazz on the block.

Thanks Wotthefiqh!!!!
Your knowledge of current affairs is astonishing.

[ Edit: Edited on Jul 4, 2007, at 8:45 AM by Mel. ]

308. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-210564
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml


Just reading the contents, of the above links.
Do every 2 steps forward really need to be followed, by that tiresome 1 step back?

Mel

[ Edit: Edited on Jul 6, 2007, at 3:02 AM by Mel. ]

309. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive 1447 posts) 9y

Que?
You should try to stay off the cooking sherry until the sun's over the yardarm

[ Edit: Edited on Jul 6, 2007, at 8:07 AM by wotthefiqh ]

310. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wotthefiqh

Que?
You should try to stay off the cooking sherry until the sun's over the yardarm

The cooking sherry is good for my imagination.

Do u mean que, as in what the hell are u taking about?
What the fuck, I will tell u.

As society is developing, it takes 2 steps forward, then regresses slightly(1 step back).
I think, the fact that the Canadian authorities would even consider something as ludicrous, as putting Shariah law, in their constitution is one step back. Because, they have taken so may steps forward with their society, it did not happen. Rather than saying, yes that is a good idea, Shariah it is, from now on, they said yes, but so long as it is voluntary and it does not interfere with the declaration of Freedom. Then imediately the womens group said it would take away womens freedom. The moslem group said it would take away moslems freedom. And whatever other groups..... There had to be a big stink kicked up, before it was thrown out of court.
There will come a time, in Canada, when peoples awareness is such, that a suggestion to do something like make Shariah law legal would not be entertained, at all.
A bit like, how far many societies have come, about rape.
There are men in Canada who are inhibited, because they cannot have sex, whenever and with whomever they like. What if they were to ask for rape to be legalised, to solve this problem. Then would the law makers say, "so long as it is voluntary and it does no impinge on anybodies human rights as set out in the declaration of freedom". Would the rape crisis centres need to point out how it impinges on womens human rights. As for it is OK, if it is voluntary, mistakes are always voluntary. Should women who dont mind be allowed to waver the protection they receive by law?
And what about murder? Should that be legalised, in Canada?

[ Edit: Edited on Jul 6, 2007, at 9:06 AM by Mel. ]