Really? Sharia Law in America? Seriously? (BTW, the saying is "God" Bless America, not "Jesus" Bless America.)

While I disagree with the Judges decision, it had nothing to do with Sharia Law.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pa-judge-accused-of-using-sharia-law-to-defend-muslim-who-attacked-atheist-70455/

This type of fear mongering is not good for America...or freedom of or from religion.

You can protest all you want, but this 'sharia-law' stuff IS fear-mongering..."these people are different than us, be afraid"... and unbecoming a nation that prides itself on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Dennis - the notion of "decency" is very different in various cultures, and, believe me, "stripping" these women and dressing them the way American women dress can be a huge insult to many of them.

Well, it is fitting that this blog is in the group "Whacked!"

“Call me crazy (it’s happened before), but it’s hard for me to wrap my brain around a system that lets women use 21st-century technology- yet forces them into oppression and a manner of dress that seemingly comes from the 1st century.”

I will have to take “crazy” for $200 Alex. Let’s break down the possible responses to your self-admitted delusions.  ;)

1. Women in patriarchal societies are not oppressed. The greatest virtue of living is life. Their lives are held, protected and respected more than a man’s life. One only needs to look at the events that transpired on the Titanic to know that women were not oppressed.

2. The chador (Islamic Dress) forces a man to respect a woman for who she is, and not of her physical attributes. It forces a woman to conduct herself in a manner aligned to her faith. Apparently the women enjoy this lifestyle since they make up roughly 50% of the population.

3. Religion should not change with time. Man must change to follow their religion. Just because Christianity is over 2000 years old, doesn’t mean I must change the religion to meet my personal needs.

4. One can argue that all religion is oppression of the weak minded as it is based on astrological mythology and/or Jesus was a space alien.

“May we in America pledge to never allow Sharia law to take hold here.”

1. Sharia Law is an extension of Mosaic law. You know, the law of God that Jesus came to fulfill. Well Muslims believe Mohammad is the last prophet. You agree or disagree, is of no concern. However don’t think that stoning someone for adultery and blasphemy is somehow negative because Mosaic law calls for the same punishment.

2. As long as men and women stand up to protect the Constitution, I doubt that will happen. Early colonial America practiced the same laws and we eventually went away from that. I doubt we will go back to implementing religious based laws.

“May we pledge to always treat our women with respect and dignity- teaching our boys at a young age to do so, and our girls at a young age to demand so.”

Like I stated, I think women in a patriarchal society have more respect and dignity than a Westernized woman. The woman who is wearing the chador has the love and respect of her children and her husband who would give his life to make sure his wife and children are taken care of and raised in a God loving household. Maybe the Muslim woman sees the average American single mother raising bastard, godless children and wishes that some man would show her respect and dignity?

Regarding the article, the judge stated that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the Muslim. If he was practicing Sharia law, he would have sentenced the victim to death and praised the attacker.

Personally, I believe someone has the right to express themselves in any manner they see fit. However, I wouldn’t wear a devil’s outfit with a sign that says “I hate God” in a rural Southern American town. Do I have a right to do so? Yes I do, but if I end up in the hospital or dead, does it make a difference? No it doesn’t.

“Hi, Satar:  Thank you for dropping by.  Though I figure we'll never agree on a number of these points, I do thank you for your opinion and contribution.  I'll start by saying that when I said I'd been called "crazy" before, my reference was more along the lines of "That crazy Dennis thinks Alabama is going o win the national championship every year" or "Dennis is crazy if he thinks he's going to get $2,000/mo for that house"- not crazy as in delusional or deranged as you seem to have taken it.  But I digress.”

I know what you meant, but I was being humorous at your expense. My apologies.

“As you've numbered your points here, I'll address them in kind...or perhaps "not so kind" (sorry, couldn't resist):”

No worries. I love lively banter in a debate of ideas.

1. "Their lives are held, protected and respected more than a man’s life" is utterly absurd.  Almost any definition of a "patriarchal society" in its truest sense tells of one where men make the rules and the women do best if they follow them. 

I’m 37 years old and I had difficulty understanding this as well because of the feminist movement. However, the bottom line in the argument is that men made rules and laws that protected women from other men and/or at the expense of men. So if oppression existed, it existed for men first. There is an explanation for every aspect of the argument, from property rights to the suffrage movement. I can argue any specific topic if you like, but I bet you agree that your grandmother (or great grandmother depending on your age), was not oppressed.  I find this as a great resource about the lies of Feminism: www.angryharry.com

“They are ruled by government, yet have no rights to participate in said government.” 

As Americans, we rule our government and our women were not allowed to participate in government because there was no need for them at that time. Look at how the suffrage movement started in England and then in America. Read the arguments for and against giving women the right to vote.

If you assert that sharia is nothing more than an example of a typical patriarchal society, then they're even worse than I just mentioned.  

Most patriarchal societies are theological based. That’s why the church and family are usually under attack when one group tries to assert their rights. We had this in America as well.

And if you don't feel that being told what to wear, where you can/can't go, when/if you can work or go to school and whom you may associate with is oppressive, you're the one who is delusional.

My argument is that we have to be honest about what a patriarchal society represented. Do I want to go back to this type of society? No I do not. I do not want to be responsible for the women in society.

By the way, we even had this type of environment here in America. How we expected women to dress in public, women traveling alone in public, restrictions of travel, women in workplace, educating women and interactions between unmarried women and the general public. We even had some “oppressed” house wives against the feminist movement in America during the 1950’s.

 Not sure about your Titanic reference.  While it's true that both women and children fared much better than men as a rule, there's nothing that says that's owed to some great "patriarchal society" stance- and surely not to any religion.

I believe the Titanic is a great documented reference. Here we have a situation where death was imminent during the 1910’s, presumably a time where women were oppressed, and women and children were the first priority on the life boats. If women were oppressed, wouldn’t the men grab their children and dump their wives? “Kids, don’t worry about mom, she is like the cow we have back at home, we can always get another one.” Better yet, wouldn’t all the men get in the lifeboats and bring only a few women along to keep warm till help comes? Somehow, I do not see oppression. If anything, the ones who were oppressed were floating in the ocean.  

Using the same illustration, then- would you assign Titanic's "save rates" to any portion of society?  Women in the highe-paying sections of the ship did survive at higher rates than others...

Let’s look at the facts here. Here is a great website that documents this:

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Titanic/passengers.htm

Let's look at this without the Crew for a second because we do not know how many total male and female crew members there were and I am assuming they were mostly male. Also, keep in mind that the total survival rate on the Titanic was roughly 34%. Without crew, we have a total of: 805 men which 146 survived (survival rate of roughly 18%),
402 women which 296 survived (survival rate of roughly 74%), and for kicks, the gender ambiguous children at a total of 109 children which 56 survived (survival rate 51%). By the way, I wonder how many male children were left to die so that women would have a seat.

With Crew:
With crew assuming the unaccounted crew were all men: total survival rate for men is roughly 22%.
With crew assuming the unaccounted crew were all women: total survival rate for women is roughly 29% (which is still higher than men).

In regards to 4th class women and children vs 4 class men and 1st class men:
4th class Women and children's total deaths do not come close to the number of men who died in
4th class and only surpass 1st class men by 23 dead bodies.

If you were to board a doomed ship today and given the option of having an 18 percent survival rate or a 74 percent survival rate, which one would you choose? ;)

2.  Endless, corroborated accounts from around the world prove otherwise.  Women dressing in this manner doesn't "force" men to do/feel anything, and I'd say those who contend that women truly like dressing like this only do so for personal gain.

I’m going from the logic given behind the chador and not of anecdotal accounts. Personally, when I was 13 yrs old, my father told me that I am lucky living in America because when he was my age, he was lucky to see an ankle. I tend to agree with him.

3.  Don't know what you're talking about here, either.  My religion hasn't changed- God always has been God, always will be God.  He is constantly working to change me, as I try (but fail) to do my best in following His guidance.

Basically I was saying that you should follow the teachings of your religion and not bend the religion to meet your current lifestyle of the current day and age. For example, as a Christian, you should stone to death a woman who conducts adultery and anyone who works on the day of the Sabbath.

4.  Tough one here, too...."religion is oppression of the weak minded"?  I don't know of anyone that would support that one-as true religion (of whatever ilk you prefer) inherently requires a degree of dedication.  "based on astrological mythology and/or Jesus was a space alien"?  That's a good one, too- yet typical of many who choose to diminish Jesus.

Well, there is a school of thought that states that religion is a fairy tale meant to oppress men. There is a video called Zeitgeist on youtube. Part 1 addresses religion. You should check it out.

Those of the Muslim faith who do so are the most surprising, though- when an abundance of evidence pointing to Mohammad being a child molester exists.

Mohammad was no more a child molester than Jesus was a whoremaster. However, nice try!

1. Christ did fulfill the "old covenant" …  As for "don’t think that stoning someone for adultery and blasphemy is somehow negative"- sorry, but I do consider it "somehow negative". 

Well, it is part of the Christian belief.

2.  You know something?  I can actually agree with a good bit of that.  Men should take care of their responsibilities- and far too many see little value in remaining with their children and raising them to be the witnesses for Christ that we all ahould be.  There's plenty of blame to go around, too- for far too many women are more comfortable in assuming the title of "Baby Momma" than they are in demanding allegiance from the men whose offspring they elect to birth.

Fortunately men do not have a magic penis that produces born and kept children. Somewhere down the line a woman decided to give birth to and keep the child. Whether the woman made a decision to be single by choice or of circumstance is left up to the particular situation. It’s because of this that we must understand what role men and women played in a patriarchal society and not demonize the men, as the feminists have done, by suggesting that women were oppressed.  If anything, men are still oppressed today. For example, isn’t time for an abortion option for men? Fairness in the family courts? Research and time given to men’s health issues? Etc.

The article is but one example, an illustration if you will.  The issue is larger than this instance, though- and decisions must surely be made in terms of how "tolerant" our tolerant nation is going to be.  Folks look to America to be the world's policeeman, then slam us for it.  They put their hands out for aid from us, and we remain the most giving nation on the planet despite the fact that few appreciate it.  It seems that though we "do more" for others than anyone else on the planet, it's never "enough" for some.

I think other nations are like we are, we just want to be left alone. We don’t want Mexico or China telling us how we should handle our own nation’s issues, establishing puppet government and perpetrating violence and destruction. I also believe the majority of our own people do not want to be policeman of the world nor do we want to give financial aid to foreign countries when we are borrowing the money and when we have issues at home we should address.

Sorry for the long reply, but I studied religion and women studies and your blog kind of hit on both topics. Not to mention your claim that the women in my culture were/are oppressed and their religious beliefs are antiquated, especially since Christianity is older than Islam. Trust me, like in every culture, the women most likely rule the home.

Interesting discussion, a bit unusual for AR, and too good for my old brains.

I remember vacationing on St. Croix, one of US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. While it is surely the place where people come for vacation, don't think of walking the streets of St. Croix the way vacationers strol the streets of Daytona Beach. It would be taken as offensive, and you amy even have to talk to Police.

So, yes, it is America (since 1917), and yet it is "opressed" as you will not see local women wearing shorts and, even better, bikinis.

"Freedom of speech is one of those pesky 'Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms'"...of course it is and that's why I disagree with the judge's decision, but that decision had nothing to do with Sharia Law.

Karl & Dennis:  From what I know about Sharia Law, the simplified version, is that it involves Muslims taking their Islamic Religion's beliefs and codifying them.  It turns those religious beliefs into laws, and then it requires all of their citizens to follow those religious laws.  Everyone is required to live their lives by them. 

Whew... what Islamic bullies!  Expecting everyone to live their lives according to their Muslim's religious beliefs.  How dare they?

It's a good thing that here in the United States... the Land of the Free... that WE would never allow anyone to take THEIR religious beliefs, turn them into laws, and then require ALL of our citizens to adhere to those laws and to make them live their lives by them. 

Yeah... it's a good thing nobody in our Senate or our House of Representative would EVER do that.  Whew.  I am so relieved.  It is so good we have Separation of Church and State.  Right?

Dennis – Comment #14

“…what I've known thus far has shown that those of the Muslim...or Islamic? faith are prone to have far, far more punitive measures when their folks stray from that manner of dress and when "outsiders" refuse to convert/conform.”

You have to understand that both men and women in the family support their religious ways. Just like a Christian couple supports the roles and traditions of their faith. Regarding strict dress policies, check out the UAE (united Arab Emirates), you have women walking around in shorts to women who have a full burka that covers their eyes. Regarding intolerance of outsiders, look into Cordoba.

Comment #15 –

Regarding women voting – The answers to your questions is to understand patriarchal societies and why it was unnecessary for the women to vote. In some societies, some men or non-land owners were not allowed to vote as well.

Regarding your grandmothers – What do your parents say? Did they feel their mom was oppressed?

Regarding the Titanic, we will have to agree to disagree because the mantra of the time and other social aspects, such as chivalry, was a trait of a patriarchal society. If the Titanic were to sink today, what would you think the results would be?

Regarding my father, he was joking. However, it goes to show that having women covered up does not benefit us men any. It would benefit us if they were undressed.

Regarding: 3.  I think you're still talking Old Testament there-

 Jesus upholds the teachings of Mosaic law. When they tried to entrap Jesus, one of the means they used is to see whether or not he accepted the teachings of Moses. It’s important to understand this as you can’t make an argument for other aspects of the teachings, such as homosexuality, without understanding where the laws come from and what would be Jesus’ position. I don’t want to create a straw man argument here, but if you are stating that Jesus didn’t believe in stoning adulterers or those who work on the day of the Sabbath, then maybe Jesus would accept homosexuality as well.

Regarding Jesus as a whoremaster and Mohammad as a child molester – I believe his 9 yr old wife was ovulating at the time and, therefore, was physically ready for sexual intercourse in the context of marriage. So I don’t see him as a child molester. For the record, I don’t see Jesus as a whoremaster either. Again, like your argument against patriarchal societies, is that you are taking current day experiences and situations and projecting them to social norms of the times.

Regarding magic penis – You are correct that pre-coital options exist for both men and women, however once a pregnancy occurs, there are no post-coital options for men while woman have the following:  abortion, legal abandonment and adoption. We men have no options. Why should we be responsible for a decision that the woman solely made? There needs to be a post-coital option for men as well. A man, once a notification that a pregnancy has occurred, should be able to “opt out/abort” from any financial or emotional involvement in the woman’s decision to either abort, abandon, adopt or keep the baby.

Comment #18 – “You miss the point your own linked story illustrates, though:  this judge moved to restrict free speech by blaming the victim of the attack for not respecting Mohammad...”

The judge did not restrict free speech. Free speech happened. The trial was about charges against the Muslim for assault. The charges were dropped for lack of evidence. He then scolded the victim as an attempt to teach him about the culture of Muslims and how offensive his actions were to people of Islamic faith. Here is the Judge’s own words:

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981158834

It had nothing to do with Sharia law or the judge being a Muslim or whatever the media is claiming. The only thing you can question is whether there was enough evidence to successfully prosecute the alleged attacker. I personally think there was based on what I read, but I am not a lawyer or a judge.

OK  going back to vacation mode. Will catch up with all of you when I get back at the end of the month!