SO,,,, SHARIA, ANYONE?

 

1. Our friend the Saudis. Between the wahabbis and the iranis, its a race for the bottom.

   Invade their countries.
   Kill their leaders.
   Steal their oil.
   Torch their cities.
   Force the remaining populace to convert to Christianity.

   Oooh, I just “perfected” Ann! 

   Posted by Drew458       02/09/2008  at  02:30 PM  



2. I cannot improve on Mr. Mitchell’s commentary, but I would like to hear the opinions of others, especially if there is anyone out there who supports introducing Sharia into Western Civilization or who supports the Archbishop of Canterbury.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       02/09/2008  at  04:30 PM  



3. I wish I could find the link where I saw this, it makes the case much more clearly than I can…

   The problem is that “freedom of speech” contains buried assumptions in it, assumptions that the militant Muslims are not respecting. First, that the speaker will usually at least ATTEMPT to limit his speech to a reasonable form of disagreement, and will usually at least ATTEMPT to avoid giving undue offense. Second, the the person offended will acknowledge that and get over it, for the sake of being given the same freedom himself.

   Those who danced in the streets and made a point to celebrate in the international media when 3000+ innocents were murdered on 9/11 made no attempt to limit how offensive they were. Indeed, it is likely that they were making a point to be as offensive as possible. That is only one of many, many examples where those under sharia law consider themselves to have license to celebrate being offensive in their disagreement. And yet, when *they* are the ones offended, even by something OBVIOUSLY not meant as an intentional offense, what is the result? Death threats.

   The problem is actually quite simply stated: Those raised under sharia law do not have the experience, the reference points to understand and accept the assumptions buried in the concepts of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion”. This is why their use of those freedoms gives such starkly different results from the same freedoms used by those who embrace those unspoken assumptions. This becomes a problem because Western law likewise ASSUMES that those subject to that law will understand and embrace the unwritten limits.

   As I see it, we have nothing but ugly choices. 1) Abandon freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 2) Abandon equality under the law. 3) Respond to sharia law in kind, meaning those disrespectful of Western values will be brutally hunted down and murdered without trial, without appeal, without remorse.

   I can’t say I care much for our respective governments’ current choices, which seem to focus on the first two. But to be honest, I can’t honestly say I’d like going with the third choice any better.

   Posted by GrumpyOldFart       02/09/2008  at  09:56 PM  



4. But how broadly spread is what this man has said? Sandy Mitchell has experienced what many of us infidels would/will. This is totally barbaric insanity, and needs to be removed from the universe. Rowan Williams, you say? Are you sure it’s not Rowan Atkinson? Or Robin Williams?

   Posted by cmblake6       02/10/2008  at  09:55 AM  



5. I found the link I referenced in #3 above. Lee Harris in Weekly Standard:

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/687vefpl.asp

   Posted by GrumpyOldFart       02/11/2008  at  08:13 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.