DescentBB

THE HAGUE, 13/09/06 - Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner considers the Netherlands should give Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions. Muslims refusing to shake hands is fine with him. And Sharia law could be introduced in the Netherlands democratically, in the minister's view.

Muslims have the right to experience their religion in ways that diverge from Dutch social codes, accordign to the Christian democrat (CDA) minister. He thinks Queen Beatrix was very wise not to insist on a Muslim leader shaking hands with her when she visited his mosque in The Hague earlier this year.

Integration Minister Verdonk did previously scold an imam who would not shake her hand. Without directly referring to this incident, Donner considers \"a tone that I do not like has crept into the political debate. A tone of: 'Thou shalt assimilate. Thou shalt adopt our values in public. Be reasonable, do it our way'. That is not my approach\".

Donner strongly disagrees with a recent plea by CDA parliamentary leader Maxime Verhagen for a ban on parties seeking to launch Sharia (Islamic law) in the Netherlands. \"For me it is clear: if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist,\" according to Donner. \"It would be a disgrace to say: 'That is not allowed!'.\"

Donner makes his remarks in an interview in a book entitled, 'The country of hate and anger' (Het land van haat en nijd). The book was written by journalists Margalith Kleijwegt and Max van Weezel of weekly magazine Vrij Nederland. Minister Verdonk will be presented with the first copy today.

www.nisnews.nl

What's wrong with this? Muslims are not Europe's enemy, they deserve to be treated with respect.

TIGERassault wrote:Muslims are not Europe's enemy, they deserve to be treated with respect.

Absolutely true.

BUT!

Sharia is an abomination. It's a combination of church and state that is likely to result in MUCH more bloodshed than what we've seen so far.

That said, while I don't know much about the constitution of the Netherlands, in the US, if 2/3rds of the people wanted us to go to Sharia law, they would simply have the constitution properly and legally amended to declare us a Sharia state.

Quite legal, and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it if you wish to continue living in a democracy that can reshape it's own government by vote.

So this is really not any kind of big deal. It's just saying that, in a democracy (Or a democratic republic), if the stupid people reach critical mass, the society gets what it deserves.

By the way, I'd like to prove I'm Psychic by making a prediction. Thunderbunny will not post again in this thread!

Wrong!

I love how TB is trying to incite a subtle form of hatred.

ThunderBunny wrote:Wrong!

NO U!

ThunderBunny wrote:Wrong!

Well DARN! I guess I can cancel that 900 number I was going to purchase.

Kilarin wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Muslims are not Europe's enemy, they deserve to be treated with respect.

Absolutely true.

BUT!

Sharia is an abomination. It's a combination of church and state that is likely to result in MUCH more bloodshed than what we've seen so far.

That said, while I don't know much about the constitution of the Netherlands, in the US, if 2/3rds of the people wanted us to go to Sharia law, they would simply have the constitution properly and legally amended to declare us a Sharia state.

Quite legal, and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it if you wish to continue living in a democracy that can reshape it's own government by vote.

So this is really not any kind of big deal. It's just saying that, in a democracy (Or a democratic republic), if the stupid people reach critical mass, the society gets what it deserves.

By the way, I'd like to prove I'm Psychic by making a prediction. Thunderbunny will not post again in this thread!

If I was forced to live under Sharia law, I would slit my wrists.....deeply.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:If I was forced to live under Sharia law, I would slit my wrists.....deeply.

Bee

No youldn't. You wouldn't have to because I and about 2 or 3 million other people would go to war, a very noble war at that and the enemy would be stomped into the dirt where they belong.

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:If I was forced to live under Sharia law, I would slit my wrists.....deeply.

Bee

No youldn't. You wouldn't have to because I and about 2 or 3 million other people would go to war, a very noble war at that and the enemy would be stomped into the dirt where they belong.

That didn't happen when the Taliban instituted a sharia state in Afghanistan. The world looked the other way. Or do you mean if it happened in the US? In that case I agree with you, but would be saddened if the resistance was only 2-3 million. Although I interpret Bet's comment as more of a hypothetical ("I'm glad I didn't live in Afghanistan") than you do.

Genghis wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:If I was forced to live under Sharia law, I would slit my wrists.....deeply.

Bee

No youldn't. You wouldn't have to because I and about 2 or 3 million other people would go to war, a very noble war at that and the enemy would be stomped into the dirt where they belong.

That didn't happen when the Taliban instituted a sharia state in Afghanistan. The world looked the other way. Or do you mean if it happened in the US? In that case I agree with you, but would be saddened if the resistance was only 2-3 million. Although I interpret Bet's comment as more of a hypothetical ("I'm glad I didn't live in Afghanistan") than you do.

Yea I was thinking in america. Since the initial post was about sharia law being injected into a new country I figured Bet meant if it happened to her...

I'm guessing after the first 2 - 3 million rushed foward the rest of them wouldn't get a chance to fight..no room at the front...bad guys all gone.... so to speak

Will Robinson wrote:No youldn't. You wouldn't have to because I and about 2 or 3 million other people would go to war, a very noble war at that Wink and the enemy would be stomped into the dirt where they belong

And I would happily fight right there along side you. BUT, if they outnumber us 2 to 1, we WILL have to hope that the stupidity level of the oposition makes them REALLY bad warriors.

Kilarin wrote:And I would happily fight right there along side you. BUT, if they outnumber us 2 to 1, we WILL have to hope that the stupidity level of the oposition makes them REALLY bad warriors.

You've never talked to a Jock then, have you?

We can hem and haw about how wrong sharia law is all we want. but the thing is this: If an overwhelming number want it, they will get it.

If Sharia Law came over to america and was widely accepted and supported.. guess what. it would become reality. The same goes for basing all laws based on everything that's written in the Bible. If it was overwhelmingly accepted and supported.. America would become a theocracy. Don't honor your mother and father? you are hereby put to death.

But it won't happen because people on this side of the world despisse it. We also have a 'let and let live' policy.. well most of us do, anyways.


So, in short...

Who the hell is America to dictate how others should live? That was tried already and it ended up blowing up in America's face.

well, I don't think that either sharia law or canon* law will become adopted in any western country, as only the most hardcore fundamentalist religious types want it, and most of our society demonizes said people.

Also, adopting a strict theocratic christian law is quite non-christian. Consider how many times Jesus scolded the Pharisees on their bureaucratic approach to life and other people

*christian bible law, not to be confused with cannon** law
** you do what we say, or we shoot you out of a cannon.

Ferno wrote:Who the hell is America to dictate how others should live? That was tried already and it ended up blowing up in America's face.

Everything short of pure anarchy is a degree of people grouping together to dictate how others shall live or else.
From a small town amending their zoning ordinance to allow kool-aid stands all the way up to NATO dropping bombs on Serbs in Yugoslavia because they were killing muslims in Bosnia.

It's the way of the world ever since two neanderthals conspired together to club a third in the head to make him leave the group because he ate too much and hunted poorly.
This is not an american characteristic, it's human nature!

Ferno, if a country enacts a policy that results in fully half of its inhabitants (i.e. women) being treated as \"sub-human,\" don't you think it should be the obligation of the free world to speak out against it and to act as a force for change? Can we stand by and silently watch while a significant minority of a populace exercises absolute control over a solid half of it? Whatever happened to \"unalienable rights\"? I'm not saying that actions such as these are an immediate free pass for military intervention, but to simply say that we should treat actions like this as somebody else's \"own business\" and completely stay out of the affair reeks as approval for totalitarianism and oppression. We have a moral duty to, at the very least, voice our intense disgust at these sort of actions and to do anything reasonable to institute change for the sake of the oppressed.

In the separate thread I posted, I asked what would be a noble cause to go to war. I expected more than WWII, the American revolution, nothing is noble, etc. What I was after is appearing in this thread so I'll make my comment here and hope it doesn't lose me any more D3 friends.

When the Taliban took charge of Afghanistan they instituted a very strict Islamic Sharia law. Educated female doctors, lawyers, and other women were suddenly stripped of their titles and sent home. Their diplomas were torn up and destroyed and all of them were barred from leaving the country. Their clothes were all the same. A one size head to toe burka to cover every inch of their bodies with just a slit to peer out of. They were forbidden even to venture outside without a male escort.

Every girl over eight years old was forbidden to go to school and ordered to remain at home to cook and clean because music, television, movies, computers, books, magazines, picnics, parties, dolls, kites, card playing, toys, mixed sex playmates, photographs, paintings, or pets were all banned along with a host of other items which included makeup, nail polish, jewelry, plucking your eyebrows, cutting your hair short, wearing anything colorful, high-heel shoes, walk loudly, talk loudly or laugh in public. Breaking any of these rules brought the religious Islamic police who would beat you in public and give you to your husband to further beat you until you submitted. After a few years, many of these women committed suicide. Ask any of the women in Afghanistan if they prefer that kind of life and they would tell you... yes they do for to say the truth would get them killed. Don't anyone incinuate that they do it out of custom because I'll flood you with links to the contrary.

If you wanted to know where I was going with my other thread this is it. I can't believe it took 9-11 to bring that kind of oppression out in the open and I'm ashamed to be part of a country or friends with any individual who would either look the other way or say its not our problem. Even if 911 never entered the picture, I would have declared war with Afghanistan, entered their country, and ousted the government no matter what it took, how long it took, or who it ticked off.

Terrorists, Taliban, Strict Sharia laws, and Genocide to name a few would be my noble causes to go to war. Noble causes. Where is the nobility today anyway. Unfortunately, this kind of oppression and terror is winning big time because those who practice it are ever closer to protecting that way of life with dangerous weapons. How would you ever have fought Afghanistan if it had a nuke. I'm just one small 108 lb person but when I think of all this, and the growing Islamic fundamentalism I see, I make sure I keep a few razor blades nearby... I'm with you Will Robinson...

Bettina

Top Gun wrote:We have a moral duty to, at the very least, voice our intense disgust at these sort of actions and to do anything reasonable to institute change for the sake of the oppressed.

Very true. An Attack War doesn't fall into the "reasonable" category in my book.

Bet51987 wrote:I would have declared war with Afghanistan, entered their country, and ousted the government no matter what it took, how long it took, or who it ticked off.

Terrorists, Taliban, Strict Sharia laws, and Genocide to name a few would be my noble causes to go to war. Noble causes. Where is the nobility today anyway.

That must be the most naive post I've seen so far on this board. Since you can't have 1st hand experience in a war, you should do some research about it. This is a good starting point.

Grendel wrote:That must be the most naive post I've seen so far on this board.

....and I'm ashamed to be part of a country or friends with any individual who would either look the other way or say its not our problem.

Your still my friend though....

Bee

Can you attack a state because of it's cultural and religious laws? Even though the Sharia laws are abhorrent i'd have to say no. I hate female circumsision but i couldn't condone attacking the countries that practice it. I can't stand the way Americans play football with an oval shaped ball but.....!

Do you see where i'm coming from? Who defines the borders of an acceptable culture? Slave trading and opression of women were only wiped out \"yesterday\" in western cultures. (come to think of it the \"sex slave\" trade is rife among so-called civilised countries).

Luckily, OBL decided to snuggle up to the Taliban and we had a chance to kick ass...two birds with one stone kind of thing. If he hadn't have been there, nothing would have changed.

Bet51987 wrote:I would have declared war with Afghanistan, entered their country, and ousted the government no matter what it took, how long it took, or who it ticked off.

Terrorists, Taliban, Strict Sharia laws, and Genocide to name a few would be my noble causes to go to war. Noble causes. Where is the nobility today anyway.

Ironically enough(though we already touched on this a bit) up here, the left is attacking the current Conservative government for supporting that war until at least 2009, mostly saying that our Prime Minister is too cozy with your President.
However, our prolonged attack is causing some problems as despite the fact that our men and women are as brave and smart as they were in WWI, their weapons and vehicles haven't changed much since then either. A lot of people are calling for a review of our goals in the war, and unloading a bunch of bs about Canada being traditionally a peacemaker(does 50 years of occasional peacekeeping action count as a tradition?), even though our first feeling of national identity came from the well-planned attack on Vimy Ridge in 1917.

Will, TG.. that's different. I'm not saying turn a blind eye to atrocities. I'm saying don't force our beliefs on them.

Like if someone off the street came over to my place to visit one day and suddenly started to dictate to me how I should live. I'd look right at them and tell them to take a hike.

Bet51987 wrote:

Grendel wrote:That must be the most naive post I've seen so far on this board.

....and I'm ashamed to be part of a country or friends with any individual who would either look the other way or say its not our problem.

Your still my friend though....

Bee

look at this...

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pub ... ble3_6.htm

and tell me again...which country should we attack?

Some terrible statistics on that site Pally. I wonder how they compare to other countries. What actually constitutes neglect, as this (surprisingly to naiveflabby) seems to be the prevelent form of abuse?

Sorry if this is off topic a bit.

Aren't you 18, Bet? Why haven't you joined the military for your noble cause?

Palzon wrote:tell me again...which country should we attack?

I know this is a sensitive topic for you, but are you really equating the ILLEGAL mistreatment that happens in the US despite our attempts to stop it with the institutionalized mistreatment of women dictated by the taliban?

Palzon wrote:look at this...

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pub ... ble3_6.htm

and tell me again...which country should we attack?

Flabby Chick wrote:Can you attack a state because of it's cultural and religious laws? Even though the Sharia laws are abhorrent i'd have to say no. I hate female circumsision but i couldn't condone attacking the countries that practice it. I can't stand the way Americans play football with an oval shaped ball but.....!

Do you see where i'm coming from? Who defines the borders of an acceptable culture? Slave trading and opression of women were only wiped out "yesterday" in western cultures. (come to think of it the "sex slave" trade is rife among so-called civilised countries).

Luckily, OBL decided to snuggle up to the Taliban and we had a chance to kick ass...two birds with one stone kind of thing. If he hadn't have been there, nothing would have changed.

The answers to your questions can be found here.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Bee

Awww come on Bee don't quote me the UN please. Most countries in the world are violating somthing on there.

...apart from maybe Norway. And they talk a funny language anyway.

Flabby Chick wrote:Awww come on Bee don't quote me the UN please. Most countries in the world are violating somthing on there.

...apart from maybe Norway. And they talk a funny language anyway.

I just wanted to show that there are a set of minimum standards that apply to innocent human beings and those beings should be defended no matter where they are.

Governments like pre-war Afghanistan should have been toppled for the violations against women and children alone. And, although we waited too long, Nato went into Serbia to stop the genocide. There are noble causes no matter who here think otherwise.

If we just sit back and do nothing then we are as guilty as the ones committing the crimes.

Bee

It changes from a black and white - easy to see what we should do situation to a really grey area pretty quickly.
Just like on the street of a big city, a bunch of people walking on the sidewalk and none of them will step up and help an old lady having her purse stolen. Certainly someone should jump in and help but most don't for a number of selfish reasons or out of fear. Then someone does, he goes right up to the mugger and kicks his ass. And few minutes later you can find bunch of witnesses who have all sorts of opinions on what should have been done, opinions on how the hero was too brutal, or the rich lady shouldn't have so much money anyway, etc. etc.

The U.N. put Iraq in charge of the Human Rights Commision not too long ago, the same guy who was using his nerve gas to wipe out whole villages of Kurds! Libya holds the job right now!

I agree totally with your view that someone should do something in these cases but we need to face the fact that we are not going to be loved by a lot of the world for doing so.
The U.N. isn't a group of people who all want to make the world a better place. Although they do perform services toward that end from time to time, the primary function of the U.N. is a central location for countries to go and convince or coherce other countries to give them what they want.

When I was a kid I thought it was like in the comic books, like the Justice League of America where Superman and all the other superheros gathered to formulate their plan to save the world.
Instead it's more like a nuetral zone where all the bad guys can go and make demands and drop off ransom notes and from time to time they'll each kick in a few bucks to fund some rescue mission or disaster relief fund or something just to keep up their public image.

Testiculese wrote:Aren't you 18, Bet? Why haven't you joined the military for your noble cause?

I'm missing the answer to that.

Grendel wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Aren't you 18, Bet? Why haven't you joined the military for your noble cause?

I'm missing the answer to that.

Most likely she has more noble things to do.

No need to be a wanker sunshine. Bee was just putting her view across.

Grendel wrote:Aren't you 18, Bet? Why haven't you joined the military for your noble cause?

There ARE other ways to serve besides the military. Give her time to answer. Not everyone is on the web 24 hours a day.

Flabby Chick wrote:No need to be a wanker

... can we get JBomb to make an E&C image with this tagline?

TIGERassault wrote:

Grendel wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Aren't you 18, Bet? Why haven't you joined the military for your noble cause?

I'm missing the answer to that.

Most likely she has more noble things to do.

I hesitated to answer because I thought you were both gearing up to insult me. I've been jumped on too many times here so I'm careful who I respond to.

The truth is that I never gave military service any thought until you mentioned it. One time there was a recruiter at the high school talking to all of us and some boys even talked about the Air force and Navy but we girls blew it off without a passing thought. Maybe we just thought it was a boy thing and now that I think about it, thats really sad because defending your country isn't just a boy thing but a girl thing too.

To answer your question like you want to hear me say it... I'm in college now but I honestly don't know what I would have done or will do. I doubt very much that I could be as brave as a boy would be. In fact, I know I wouldn't because there are some things that emotional females aren't good at and hopefully I'm just that and not a closet coward. But I don't know for sure and when I examine my inner feelings I can't satisfy myself with a good enough answer. You did, however, succeed in shuting me up in this thread.

They say that the first bombs that fell on Taliban Afghanistan were dropped from a B52 bomber piloted by a female. I don't know if I could have done that but I wanted it done at any cost.

Bettina

Bettina wrote:I don't know for sure

Thats a much more honest answer than most are ready to give. Thank you.

Bet51987 wrote:...You did, however, succeed in shuting me up in this thread.

They say that the first bombs that fell on Taliban Afghanistan were dropped from a B52 bomber piloted by a female. I don't know if I could have done that but I wanted it done at any cost.

Bettina

The Taliban would want you to shut up too but all the people who made this country great would want you to keep right on talking. The military isn't the authority in this country and service in the military isn't a prerequisite to having a voice in how things are done here! So a civilian expressing their opinion on how the military should be used is perfectly acceptable, it's the citizenship part that qualifies you to speak out not whether or not you've been in there yourself.
The only thing I'd suggest you do in a case like this is next time someone trys that tactic tell them to go piss up a rope and move to China if they want to live under military authoritarian type rule.
I've never served a minute myself, I'm much too independent and would have ended up in a military prison for beating my staff seargent....
Sure as hell hasn't stopped me from opining on the subject

Ferno wrote:We can hem and haw about how wrong sharia law is all we want. but the thing is this: If an overwhelming number want it, they will get it.

If Sharia Law came over to america and was widely accepted and supported.. guess what. it would become reality. The same goes for basing all laws based on everything that's written in the Bible. If it was overwhelmingly accepted and supported.. America would become a theocracy. Don't honor your mother and father? you are hereby put to death.

But it won't happen because people on this side of the world despisse it. We also have a 'let and let live' policy.. well most of us do, anyways.


So, in short...

Who the hell is America to dictate how others should live? That was tried already and it ended up blowing up in America's face.

You work yourself into a lose-lose situation there Ferno. If a form of government denies the rights of some of it's people, you are forced to live with the compromise of your "live and let live" policy. On one hand, you can do nothing, and allow some to be denied the freedoms that cause you to do nothing. (I.E. you don't want impose on those who deny the freedoms of others.) This takes the side of "not actively doing ANYTHING to restrict anyone's COMPLETE freedom." It would be the ideal in a perfect world, because if all abided by this all would be completely freed by others, only fettered by their own consideration of other's freedoms. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, so this will inevitably result in some (possibly including yourself) to be deprived of the freedom that you extend to others. (Hence the need to laws and law enforcement.) There obviously come a point when action is called for.

On the other hand, you can select a set of freedoms that should be extended to all, and proactively do whatever is necessary to ensure that all are extended that set of freedoms, inevitably restricting other freedoms that fall outside of that realm. As a result, you can be seen as taking away the very thing that you claim to be a champion for. Furthermore, your set of "unalienable rights" will be subject to question, thus causing you to force at least a certain part of your set of beliefs (worldview) upon others.

So, in this world, not everyone can be completely free. There's no way around that fact. That being said, I would lean toward saying that starting a war against a country because of their civil rights violations is not the way to go. Here's why:

1) Someone has to start the war, and the person who does so is always going to have a hard time justifying their actions. If you start a war, you better have a really good reason to do so. No matter what, some are going to cry foul. Really, I'd say the only time it's ok to start a war is when the other side essentially already started it without going through the formalities. Iraq is a big mistake that started with Bush Sr. not finishing his war over there. That being said, once started the job needs to be finished correctly, so we don't have another repeat in ten years. (This really isn't about Iraq, just thought I would throw that in there)

2) You can't force beliefs upon people. I don't care if it's freedom for all or death to all blue eyed people. (I'm blue eyed myself) They may outwardly make a show of accepting your beliefs, but real adoption of beliefs is an inward thing that only the actual person knows and decides about.

3) Large changes in society take time. Too much time to be occupying a land while trying to make it happen. I think one should help people when they ask for help freeing themselves of an oppressive government, but they need to be the ones that want it. (They being a majority- probably a large majority of the people of the land.)

Finally, I think we all need to get past the idea of it being a horrible thing to force certain beliefs upon people. The debate is what beliefs should be forced upon people. I'd say the founding fathers got it about right- equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If anyone takes action to take one of those from another they need to be forcibly prevented- even though that means forcing beliefs upon them. (They obviously believe they should have a better opportunity than the person that they are trying to take these things from.) (Ferno, you seem to understand this, it's just easy to take the freedom thing to an idealistic hippy extreme so I'm nipping it of in the bud.)

So, I agree that we should stay out, but not because we don't have a valid point to make, but because even valid points can't be forced upon people. I guess in the end I agree with Ferno, I just don't see it as a USA pride thing, but as a "human nature doesn't work that way" thing.

The best I can offer to all of the poor souls out there whose rights are being butchered is "I'm sorry." Life sucks, people do horrible things to each other. There really isn't much more I can say.