Son of Thread That Will Never Die



  • Paul just cross into Washington and you will be in a protected class our new law lists gender identity real or percieved, homosexual, heterosexual etc..
  • Ah, the ultimate in Post Modernism, perception is reality. If we perceive Paul is "different" then he really is regardless of how much he protests.
  • Hey, you cant take away my protected status!

    Too bad being PERCEIVED as an irrascible old fart doesnt offer any protection, eh Ray?

    Be careful what you say to me or I'll slap you with a lawsuit faster than you can say "Judy Garland"!
  • The other thread is getting too far ahead so I thought I would give this one a boost.

    Perhaps if I asked about Sharia Law it would get really busy around here. Does anyone know any moderate Muslims who can explain it to us? When I tried to research it online all I found were critical comments/explanations.

  • Nae, in all seriousness, I am not sure "moderate Muslims" would be in favor of Sharia law. It seems to appeal to hard liners. I could be wrong but that's what I have found.

    Its almost like Judiasm. You have your secular Jews who are essentially not religious but identify with their Jewish heritage. You also have the Orthodox Jews who live by a very strict code of conduct.

    Most "moderate" Jews probably would not want to live under the Orthodox rules. Similarly, I believe moderate Muslims have rejected Shariah law.

    Maybe its the practice of killing your daughter because she has been raped and brought "dishonor" upon the family. Or perhaps its the practice of having widows light themselves on fire after their husbands have died.

    Fun fact: In Morocco, Article 418 of the Penal Code states "Murder, injury and beating are excusable if they are committed by a husband on his wife as well as the accomplice at the moment in which he surprises them in the act of adultery."
  • Hmm.. I think this serious talk killed "Son of Thread"
  • Was wondering if you guys missed me. I was in our warehouse, cleaning other departments' crap off my shelves. I considered setting up booby traps for people who infringe on my very limited storage space.
  • Well, on a lighter note, I found it amusing that after our discussion, two new episodes of Law & Order that aired last week (Law & Order and Law & Order: SVU) featured violence by Christians motivated by their religion. SVU dealt with a guy who had killed a gay man, and he actually quoted the "a man that lieth with another man shall be put to death" verse from Leviticus to demonstrate that he had done the "right" thing. In Law & Order, a guy killed his daughter's science teacher and used a "defense of others" defense, claiming that since the teacher was teaching the daughter evolution, the daughter's immortal soul was endangered, and so he had to kill the teacher to protect her from eternal damnation.

    If I weren't convinced that these episodes had been taped long ago, I might be concerned that the Law & Order writers were stealing their material from HR Hero's Employers Forum!
  • One difference, Missk. We were discussing real life. You are referencing make believe. Someone's perception whether it is based on reality or not. Something written for the purpose of entertaining and earning big bucks.
  • Its not make believe to Hollywood, Ray. In their minds, Christians are the biggest threat to society.

    Did you see the movie "Happy Feet"? Its about a penguin that is "persecuted" for being "different". The bad guys in the movie used religious terminology. It was pretty clear that the message was "religious people are bigots."

    Fun, huh?
  • >It was pretty clear that
    >the message was "religious people are bigots."

    As a practicing "religious people", I am saddened by the fact that way too many are indeed bigots.
  • That may be true but it also depends on what you define as a bigot.

    Its possible you may be a bigot according to someone else's definition.

    The word has been tossed around so much as to lose all meaning.
  • Ray, I wasn't citing Law & Order in support of my previous contentions. I was just saying it was funny that there happened to be two episodes regarding religious motivation for violence right after we had the discussion here. Didn't you catch the "on a lighter note" that started my post? What a party pooper you are.

    But if you're really unsure of whether such events are limited to TV:


    (snyposis: In October 2005, two men in Austin, TX plead guilty to assaulting a gay man. During the attack, one of the perpetrators quoted Leviticus, saying, "The book of Leviticus in the Bible says to put to death any man that lays with another man, and tonight we are passing judgment on you for being a faggot and a queer."

    Is that real enough for you?

    (Also, haven't you ever heard all the "ripped from the headlines" ads for Law & Order? :P )
  • Yes Missk, I'm fully aware that people do horrendous things in the name of Christianity. But, in the example above, shouldn't you really be indicting Jews, Leviticus is OT law afterall. A difference with that example, I did not hear that religious leaders from Christian churchs supported those murderers and if anything they denounced their actions as unchristianlike. Many Muslim religious leaders have either supported the violence of the Islamic extremists or have at best remained silent.
  • From that article:

    "Last year, the commission turned down Minnesota's Muslim American Society's compromise offer that would use color codes to indicate which cabs would and would not transport alcohol."

    Come on, thats the last thing a drunk who just wants a taxi ride home needs.. a test!

    "Lesshh see..wazzit red or bwuu? Aw, foggedaboutit... I'll jesh drive myshelf home.."
  • Then it becomes the general public's obligation to remember color coding for one religion's requirements. Crazy.

  • Christianity includes old testament law. Hope that helps.

    Also, if you haven't heard any Muslim religious leaders denouncing the violence of Islamic extremists, you haven't been paying much attention.

    Here are just a few of many examples:




    Do you demand that the Christian leaders come forth and actively condemn anyone who commits violence in the name of Christianity? Are Christian leaders pressured to distance themselves from fundamentalists the way Muslim leaders are?

    As for Christian religious leaders supporting violence, ever hear of Pat Robertson?
  • Missk, your ignorance astounds me. Christians accept the Old Testament as part of God's Word. That does not mean they accept all OT Law as valid today. There is much in OT Law that was meant specifically for the Jews.

    Yes, some Muslim leaders have denounced terrorism. But, there are far too many who encourage it.

    You obviously have no clue what a Christian Fundamentalist is. We do not go around committing violence. We are the victims of violence.

    Pat Robertson has been denounced by the Christian community.
  • Speaking of terrorism, you guys are "hijacking" my thread with actual meaningful content.

    By the way, Pat Robertson doesnt speak for me. He isnt the representative of all Christians. He is a television commentator.

    I believe you are referring to one of his statements about how the US should assassinate Prez. Chavez, right?

    The difference is that you have failed to mention, is that Robertson has apologized for what he said.

    Find me one hard line Muslim cleric who has called for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Westerners and then later apologized.

  • Yes, Paul, exactly my point! Pat Robertson is not representative of all Christians. If you can accept that, why can you not accept that the extremist Muslims who condone violence are not representative of all Muslims?? Especially when Muslim religious leaders have convened and issued official statements explicitly saying so? Doesn't it bother you when people call Christianity a religion of hate because of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Don't you see the hypocrisy in doing the same thing with respect to Islam?

    As for Pat Robertson, it was more of an "apology" than an apology. And a few months after this supposed apology, on Fox News, good ol' Pat again said that he thought Chavez should "be taken out." (though at least he did say "Not now, but one day, one day, one day.")

  • Please. I go to church every single week; I'm familiar with Christian doctrine. The point is not whether modern Christians deny that all of the laws set forth in the Old Testament apply to Christians, the point is that the Old Testament is not irrelevant to Christianity, and some Christians pervert the Bible to further non-biblical ends. The same way some Muslims pervert the Q'uran to further ends that are not compatible with Islam. The whole POINT is that it's the extremist Christians on the fringe who are doing this. Just like it's the extremist Muslims doing this to the Q'uran.

    And you're right, I should have used "extremist" rather than "fundamentalist." But it's not true that I have no clue what a fundamentalist is.

    It is not merely "some" Muslim religious leaders who have denounced terrorism. It is the majority.

    As for Pat Robertson, you proved my point completely! Just like he is on the fringe of the Christian community, the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders who promote violence are on the fringe of Islam!

  • "It is not merely "some" Muslim religious leaders who have denounced terrorism. It is the majority."

    I dont know Missk. Can you back that statement up?

    I spent some time on the American Muslim website and I found several pages decrying anti-Muslim discrimination but only one statement that seemed to denounce terrorism. That statement mentioned "the tragedy of 9/11".

    No where on the site was there a CLEAR denouncement against terror. Keep in mind this is a website which exists solely to help people understand the American Muslim mindset. You would think that a clear message on their anti-terrorism stance would be front and center.

    I e-mailed the website and asked why a denouncement of terror wasn't more clearly and loudly proclaimed on their website. To date, I have had no response.

    I did check back this morning on their website and they have now added a section to their front page titled "Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism".

    I am 99 percent sure that section was not there when I first reviewed the website two weeks ago. But I applaud them for adding it regardless.

    The link: [url][/url]

  • I didn't say OT law is irrrelevant today. It actually is very relevant. My point is too often we place the label of Christian on radicals and extremists just because they cite some obscure passage in Lev. to justify their acts. We apply the label Christian too freely. On the other hand, many of these Muslim radicals and terrorists are students of the Koran and Islam. Their are many Imams among them. They are not just taking obscure passages to justify an action, rather they take action based on their belief in the whole of what the Koran says and their devotion to Islam.
  • I guess I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage... I don't know any high-profile Islamic leaders. All I can base my opinions on are the half-dozen or so Islamic employees that I've talked to on a daily basis for a period of a few years. I'm at a different company now, but I'd take Ali, Mohammed, Suresh, or any of the others in a heartbeat if they came in looking for work.
  • Nice, Nae. Probably the best contribution to this thread in a week.
Sign In or Register to comment.