Do you, a free person, see Muslim females as slaves?

Page 2 of 9 [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Mar 2017, 11:58 am

Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
However, I would always prefer to patronize businesses which forbid any religious expression in the public area. Personally, the whole idea of the hijab disgusts me, modesty disgusts me, and the kind of religion which boils down to believing it because some old douchebag said it disgusts me beyond my ability to decently express.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment of the constitional law which clearly states someone's right to freely express his religion. Restrictions on religious freedom have no home in a democracy and is something you would find in a place like Saudi Arabia.

This is a great example of where you could avoid making ridiculously uninformed comments with a little research of your own.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

19 Mar 2017, 12:06 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
However, I would always prefer to patronize businesses which forbid any religious expression in the public area. Personally, the whole idea of the hijab disgusts me, modesty disgusts me, and the kind of religion which boils down to believing it because some old douchebag said it disgusts me beyond my ability to decently express.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment of the constitional law which clearly states someone's right to freely express his religion. Restrictions on religious freedom have no home in a democracy and is something you would find in a place like Saudi Arabia.

This is a great example of where you could avoid making ridiculously uninformed comments with a little research of your own.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. IT FORBIDS CONGRESS FROM BOTH PROMOTING ONE RELIGION ONE RELIGION OVER OTHERS AND ALSO RESTRICTING AN INDIVIDUAL'S RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.



Last edited by Yo El on 19 Mar 2017, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

19 Mar 2017, 12:09 pm

I think Jones is not talking about government involvement. Am I right? I am a little confused by your position and would greatly appreciate clarification.



Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

19 Mar 2017, 12:14 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
I think Jones is not talking about government involvement. Am I right? I am a little confused by your position and would greatly appreciate clarification.
Jones was talking about patronizing businesses that restricting someone's freedom of expressing his religion in public. However businesses can't restrict someone's religious freedom in public. Because public areas are owned by the government. I think the work place would be a better word of choice here, because this causes confusion. Businesses don't go over public places that's government territory.

I also don't think personal attacks on me or the things I post are suppose to be happening on these forums. We are here to build each other up not break each other down.



Last edited by Yo El on 19 Mar 2017, 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

19 Mar 2017, 12:21 pm

Yo El wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
I think Jones is not talking about government involvement. Am I right? I am a little confused by your position and would greatly appreciate clarification.
Jones was talking about patronizing businesses that restricting someone's freedom of expressing his religion in public. However businesses can't restrict someone's religious freedom in public. Because public areas are owned by the government. I think the work place would be a better word of choice here, because this causes confusion.

Thanks, I think some religious accommodations are nice, but some people ask for way to much at their business. Public could be government owned or privately.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Mar 2017, 12:24 pm

Citing the text of the First Amendment is good, but none of it applies simply and literally. There's a lot of case law, and in some cases, different Circuit courts have different positions on it. In your comments, you sort of understand what's going on, and I want to encourage that. Getting lectured on a subject by someone who doesn't understand the complexity of the topic will never go over well.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

19 Mar 2017, 12:25 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
Yo El wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
.

Thanks, I think some religious accommodations are nice, but some people ask for way to much at their business. Public could be government owned or privately.
Even though some are privately owned I don't think businesses can put restrictions on someone's freedom in these areas. I just read something about it on wikipedia, can someone fill in or correct?



Last edited by Yo El on 19 Mar 2017, 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

19 Mar 2017, 12:26 pm

Yo El wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
Yo El wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
.

Thanks, I think some religious accommodations are nice, but some people ask for way to much at their business. Public could be government owned or privately.
Even though some are privately owned I don't think businesses can put restrictions on someone's freedom in these areas.

I would say it depends.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Mar 2017, 12:27 pm

That's one thing you misunderstand. The constitution regulates what the government can do, not people. The government does not own public accommodations like hotels and shops, but does forbid discrimination of the basis of some things like race. The law regarding discrimination based on religion is very complicated. Study it up before posting about it.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Mar 2017, 12:28 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
We have no business telling other people how to live....

Yo El wrote:
That would be a violation of the First Amendment of the constitional law which clearly states someone's right to freely express his religion. Restrictions on religious freedom have no home in a democracy and is something you would find in a place like Saudi Arabia.

Yo El wrote:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. IT FORBIDS CONGRESS FROM BOTH PROMOTING ONE RELIGION ONE RELIGION OVER OTHERS AND ALSO RESTRICTING AN INDIVIDUAL'S RELIGIOUS PRACTICES. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

If so, was Frederick Douglass ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass ) wrong to make his demands that 19th century American slaveowners free their slaves?

The Constitution for the United States of America can protect two or more natural rights without one of the rights losing out. Thus, the constitutionally protected Right of Free Speech protected Douglass’ public arguments against American slavery regardless of the religious opinions enjoyed by the slaveowners.

And yes, I do consider many muslim women to be slaves because, apart from their willingness to accept such status, their status is defined in clearly inhumane ways.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Last edited by AspieUtah on 19 Mar 2017, 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

19 Mar 2017, 12:28 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
That's one thing you misunderstand. The constitution regulates what the government can do, not people. The government does not own public accommodations like hotels and shops, but does forbid discrimination of the basis of some things like race. The law regarding discrimination based on religion is very complicated. Study it up before posting about it.


You know I don't work like that :lol:



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Mar 2017, 12:29 pm

Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
That's one thing you misunderstand. The constitution regulates what the government can do, not people. The government does not own public accommodations like hotels and shops, but does forbid discrimination of the basis of some things like race. The law regarding discrimination based on religion is very complicated. Study it up before posting about it.


You know I don't work like that :lol:

That's your choice. I can call your comments ridiculously uninformed all day long without violating ToS.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

19 Mar 2017, 12:33 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
That's one thing you misunderstand. The constitution regulates what the government can do, not people. The government does not own public accommodations like hotels and shops, but does forbid discrimination of the basis of some things like race. The law regarding discrimination based on religion is very complicated. Study it up before posting about it.


You know I don't work like that :lol:

That's your choice. I can call your comments ridiculously uninformed all day long without violating ToS.
Yes, it's no violation but it's also not necessary and has no positive motive behind it. Rather I would feel much better when someone correct's my mistake and give advice. That's how you build and not break down.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Mar 2017, 12:34 pm

Except it's not my job to do your research for you.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

19 Mar 2017, 12:37 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Except it's not my job to do your research for you.
You don't have to. You can just say, 'eyh that's wrong you might wanne check your sources'. Look I'm not an expert on many things, I know, you don't have to point that out. However I'm eager to learn. Many comments you wrote were very discouraging to me.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Mar 2017, 12:46 pm

Many of your comments were discouraging to me, too. You can just start with research. Look, I'm not an expert on coddling young people, but I have been 17, and I would have just kept on making ridiculously uninformed comments of my own if I hadn't learned that it has consequences.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade