tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post5372181241385914595..comments2023-09-21T09:49:28.326-07:00Comments on Fierce Dandelions: Arizona Attempts to Ban Karma, Sharia Law, and All Forms of IntelligenceNathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-11798599167960523582011-02-22T02:07:28.512-08:002011-02-22T02:07:28.512-08:00"If that gets you to shut up and walk off in ..."If that gets you to shut up and walk off in a huff, well hey, thank Amida for small mercies."<br /><br />No, not a huff. Just knowing when I've said enough and don't need to say any more. <br /><br />Take care Petteri, and thank you again Nathan.<br /><br />Marcus _/\_Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-79084892324409810462011-02-21T14:00:01.883-08:002011-02-21T14:00:01.883-08:00@Nathan: Word.@Nathan: Word.Brikoleurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318706625291447339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-15059977992341849942011-02-21T08:26:10.121-08:002011-02-21T08:26:10.121-08:00Marcus,
I agreed with you that it wasn't clea...Marcus,<br /><br />I agreed with you that it wasn't clear what would come in Egypt. In fact, I have also agreed with you about raising concerns about minority Christian groups in Egypt and elsewhere. <br /><br />I don't think anyone commenting here is blind to the human rights abuses that are happening around the world - at least, those whom I know. Kyle, Algernon, Petteri, Richard, DavidNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-86078125576817676102011-02-21T07:52:15.742-08:002011-02-21T07:52:15.742-08:00@Marcus: Well, if it's (2), it looks like it w...@Marcus: Well, if it's (2), it looks like it worked, since you were clearly offended *and* silenced. Yay. <br /><br />A pretty good acid test for suspected Islamophobia is to mentally substitute "Jew" for "Muslim" (and do the same for those other terms, "Beit Din" for "Shari'a court" and so on). If the resulting text sounds like it was written by a Brikoleurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318706625291447339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-5647598162302959332011-02-21T06:27:36.254-08:002011-02-21T06:27:36.254-08:00Ooops, I ought to have mentioned, that that final ...Ooops, I ought to have mentioned, that that final paragraph was by way of me bowing out of the discussion now. I've said all I wish to and don't wish to be drawn into a longer debate. Thanks again to all.<br /><br />_/\_Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-18259012073231502382011-02-21T06:23:06.960-08:002011-02-21T06:23:06.960-08:00"you're a stark staring Islamophobe"..."you're a stark staring Islamophobe"<br /><br />If you mean by Islamophobe that I'm afriad of the radical agenda of militant Islam in Britain and around the world, then you are right - I am indeed afraid of Islam.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, you are throwing out the word as an insult designed to offend and silence, then to be honest I would have expected better of you.<br Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-10806026445765780092011-02-20T23:03:54.215-08:002011-02-20T23:03:54.215-08:00@Marcus, that was very, very paternalistic. You, a...@Marcus, that was very, very paternalistic. You, an anglo-Saxon Buddhist of Christian extraction find it necessary to save those poor, benighted Muslim women from their heathen superstition. That, IMO, is a far bigger problem than arbitration courts with limited jurisdiction operating inside an open society with strong civil law.<br /><br />Also, you're a stark staring Islamophobe. But then Brikoleurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318706625291447339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-70691464891143437692011-02-20T20:47:04.068-08:002011-02-20T20:47:04.068-08:00Hi Nathan,
Can I just respond to this?:
"I...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />Can I just respond to this?: <br /><br />"It's so telling to me that Muslims have become the focus of this discussion. In my opinion, there is surprising lack of personal interrogation amongst some Buddhists when comes to views of Islam and Muslims. It's as if all the talk about love and non-attachment to the delusional narratives in our minds suddenly gets Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-40187094300068231902011-02-20T13:15:03.075-08:002011-02-20T13:15:03.075-08:00"Anglo-American legal tradition", "..."Anglo-American legal tradition", "laws or case law from Great Britain", as well as “the principles on which the United States was founded” are all sneaky ways that Christian extremists use to say "Biblical Commandments" [as interpretted by John Calvin, Cotton Mathers, Jonathan Edwards, and NOT the Pope], with the ultimate purpose of undermining the Establishment Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-58231660038889277092011-02-20T12:51:53.580-08:002011-02-20T12:51:53.580-08:00Well, this certainly is a hot topic.
To Marcus, ...Well, this certainly is a hot topic. <br /><br />To Marcus, Anonymous, and whomever else re: Muslims and Sharia Law <br /><br />Building legal code and societal structures based on fear, hatred, or suspicion are gravely faulty. In fact, for those who are Buddhists, I'd say supporting lawmaking under such pretenses is questionable at best. <br /><br />If this law had been a flat ban on using Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-75401246951728238672011-02-20T11:38:26.659-08:002011-02-20T11:38:26.659-08:00The previous "anonymous" commenter, I do...The previous "anonymous" commenter, I don't think you read the bill carefully. Because the bill does not state that courts "should not" use any of these other "laws," it clearly states that a court "shall not." That is a ban, plain and simple.<br /><br />The statute specifically identifies "karma" as a "religious sectarian law," Richard Harroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943119066949899198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-42979188011721663152011-02-20T11:07:15.740-08:002011-02-20T11:07:15.740-08:00The majority of people commenting on this topic, I...The majority of people commenting on this topic, I believe, seem to be missing the point entirely! They are not "banning" anything...but importantly are removing consideration of Sharia law, the law of Karma and other incompatible and importantly largely irrational religious laws from the judicial process so that it/they cannot be used to sway a decision which would have the effect of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-91069086162627185102011-02-20T10:10:04.739-08:002011-02-20T10:10:04.739-08:00I don't think they are "banning" kar...I don't think they are "banning" karma, from what I read of the bill, they are merely saying that judges should not base court decisions on the principle of karma, which under different circumstances, most of you would probably agree is wise. Don't take this karma thing out of context and blow it up beyond proportion, it will only give more credence to the other side. <br /><br Davidhttp://theendlessfurther.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-42470426650210791082011-02-20T08:21:27.630-08:002011-02-20T08:21:27.630-08:00I think folks are missing the freaking stupid hila...I think folks are missing the freaking stupid hilarity of this. Banning Karma? These dumbasses think that Karma is a statute. That's like saying the law of gravity is a statute and you can just ban it. It's dumb, just plain stupid. Arizona is being led by dumbasses, period.Richard Harroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943119066949899198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-4420758380216286392011-02-20T06:24:12.429-08:002011-02-20T06:24:12.429-08:00"Besides well-known European precedents — fro..."Besides well-known European precedents — from Greece, Rome, and English common law, among others — indigenous American ideas of democracy have shaped the government of the United States. Immigrants arrived in colonial America seeking freedom and found it in the confederacies of the Iroquois and other Native nations. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, these ideas were t23https://www.blogger.com/profile/00704631358093355907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-50464439512892515522011-02-20T05:52:57.046-08:002011-02-20T05:52:57.046-08:00Marcus, thank you for the link to that article in ...Marcus, thank you for the link to that article in the Times. Reading it calmly and slowly, we learn that sharia law is not, in fact, replacing British law. In British law, there are provisions for "alternative dispute resolutions" under the Arbitration Act. This gives an opportunities for religious courts as well as other alternative venues. <br /><br />That's an interesting Algernonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01698040927871199780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-88117421336464460032011-02-20T05:43:25.206-08:002011-02-20T05:43:25.206-08:00So let's get this straight, anonymous: if some...So let's get this straight, anonymous: if someone points out an instance of racism, THEY are the ones being divisive? <br /><br />This fallacy is a common feature in popular discourse. It's called killing the messenger. Nathan isn't being divisive, he is reporting on divisiveness. In blunt language, to be sure.Algernonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01698040927871199780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-43159743993756964362011-02-20T02:11:04.540-08:002011-02-20T02:11:04.540-08:00Nathan,
The UK has already started adopting Shari...Nathan,<br /><br />The UK has already started adopting Sharia Law without any consultation with the British population:<br /><br />http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece<br /><br />And calls to increase the range and scope of Sharia Law in Britain is growing.<br /><br />Already, according to Civitas, there are about 85 sharia courts in Britain, which have handled over Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-61945232384865124312011-02-19T19:26:49.837-08:002011-02-19T19:26:49.837-08:00...privileged WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants)......privileged WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) racists...<br /><br />Wow! What happened to all being connected? It's disappointing to read this separating language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-18985799900458559242011-02-19T16:41:27.088-08:002011-02-19T16:41:27.088-08:00Don't worry, I'm not ignoring the current ...Don't worry, I'm not ignoring the current social context. Like I said, it's all a matter of practice. I do expect people to use it in a bigoted way; bigots use everything in a bigoted way. The important thing here is that the tables can be turned: if someone had such an opportunity, they could easily evoke it against Christian beliefs appearing in judgement, as the act allows for suchper cercare capirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03125677767863672733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-1575737447251501592011-02-19T14:29:42.318-08:002011-02-19T14:29:42.318-08:00"So the use of Anglo-American does not mean &..."So the use of Anglo-American does not mean "White Christian," it means "Stuff taken from England and stuff we made in America."" <br /><br />Nice spine there. I don't buy it. <br /><br />Furthermore, I highly doubt that the same people who routinely argue for Christian prayer and the Ten Commandments, and generally bemoan the "suppression of Christian Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-47523736784861575472011-02-19T14:13:13.843-08:002011-02-19T14:13:13.843-08:00Now, while I do find it completely plausible that ...Now, while I do find it completely plausible that this act is an attempt to further conservative Christian ideas, I don't necessarily agree that the wording of the bill is inherently discriminatory. While I (with my own beliefs) may find it silly to outlaw concepts such as Karma, someone of another faith will feel the same about their own religious beliefs. What this act seems to try to do isper cercare capirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03125677767863672733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-35073410619200021652011-02-19T10:53:39.348-08:002011-02-19T10:53:39.348-08:00"With the racial profiling bill they passed, ..."With the racial profiling bill they passed, which wasn't popular with many Arizona politicians at first, I wouldn't count this bill out passing in a few years they way things are going down there." This is a good point. Strange times we live in.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741227658356358863.post-82880451790875361172011-02-19T10:47:25.340-08:002011-02-19T10:47:25.340-08:00You are right Nathan, and that is an aspect I hadn...You are right Nathan, and that is an aspect I hadn't really thought about. As for passage of the bill, they lack the votes in the state Senate, but may have the votes in the state house. Gov Brewer has shown some support for parts of the bill, but she hasn't spoken about the more controversial parts...well, its all controversial, isn't it? With the racial profiling bill they passed, Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925360776637168540noreply@blogger.com