Nolan: Women and Sharia law

Nolan: Women and Sharia law

There are 29 comments on the The Reporter story from Aug 25, 2010, titled Nolan: Women and Sharia law. In it, The Reporter reports that:

In the wake of the furor over an Islamic community center being built near Ground Zero in New York City, the so-called "concern" has shifted to the "Islamization" of the United States and the purported fear that Sharia law will somehow replace the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Reporter.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Right Is Wrong Again

United States

#24 Aug 26, 2010
N ed Kelly wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, useful idiot, whom God gave EYES, yet he cannot SEE which so-called religion is the CASUE of so much evil and death in EVERY country it infests? You get ONE chance....
If I were you I'd get on the phone to gawd; because he really skrewed up with you. Or, CASUE is one of the words you 'learnt' in bible skuul. Which is it? Either way gawd should be taken out to the back of the wood shed for your 'creation.' You sound like you're about to start killing and maiming in the name of your gawd, neddy. Let us pray that your rapture takes place real soon. Oh, take Glowering Idiot That Cackles with you if you can. But don't count on any rebates, I doubt that even an omnipotent dufus would want that back.
Right Is Wrong Again

United States

#25 Aug 26, 2010
Jean wrote:
Oh Goody! Let's play the moral equivalency game! How many of the suffragettes were beheaded for demanding the right to vote? How many were stoned to death? How many were murdered by their husbands, fathers, brothers or sons to restore the family honor? How many had acid thrown in their faces as punishment for having learned to read and write?
If the USA had been an Islamic country in the nineteenth century, every one of the women who demanded the right to vote would have suffered the most lingering, agonizing barbaric deaths the imams could devise. And we would still be waiting for women to have the right to vote.
There really is no moral equivalency between Christianity - the religion of the Golden Rule and Islam - the religion of jihad and sharia. Progressive humanists need to get a clue.
There is plenty of equivalency, but your mind is as closed as your eyes to reality. Your prism of fantasy forbids you from realizing facts about your religion; and as such you are the equivalent of all the other religious nuts who would kill and maim at the drop of a hat if conditions lend themselves to you displaying just how loyal a bat-sheet follower you can be. The body count from your religion is just as horrific as the next wack job. Count on it.
Richisright

Woodland, CA

#26 Aug 26, 2010
The Pretzel was actually wrongly named… Progressive would have been far more applicable. These goofballs twist and squirm to justify and equivocate the human rights violations committed by Islam, yesterday, today and tomorrow, by reaching back 150+ years for some alleged “Christian” atrocities. My goodness you people are limber!
Leftists like Karen think they’re being ironic, but they’re really being myopic and, as usual, inconsistent and hypocritical.

I wonder if Karen gave any thought to the possibility women in this “Christian” nation STILL WORLD be treated like second-class citizens if the progressives of their day had excused and equivocated (as they do now) for Islam?
I mean, gee, it was just a few decades earlier women were in iron chastity belts, Karen! 1848 sounds pretty good compared to that, now don't it?

ONLY for a political religious/cult whose primary purpose is to destroy the United States and its allies would the left stand in such stalwart solidarity.
Right Is Wrong Again

United States

#27 Aug 26, 2010
Potrero wrote:
Another infantile moral equivalency comparison.
Tell it to the mullahs, darlin'
They'd LUUUV to talk to you about women's rights.
FYI, there has been no legalistic reformation in shari'a since the ninth century. All those laws... polygamy, male superiority in legal matters, non-Muslims having no standing in court, etc... they're on the books. Going to the stoning?
So, if you get rid of the polygamists that means throw out the Mormons and a few others; if you want to ban the 'male superiority' believers that would be just about every fundamentalist religion in this country; gee, that doesn't leave many religions left potrero. And just when do you think we will be amending the Constitution to allow stoning and exclusion of self-representation in legal matters? And by whose authority? We've had Muslims in this country for many years, and I haven't seen or heard about changing the Constitution. I have seen and heard about book burning by extremists fools in this country, and that is much more scary than any mosque.

Granny in the Crosswalk

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#28 Aug 27, 2010
Yawn. ^Rubbo^ hates women, Christians, and George Bush, corporations, etc.
Richisright

Woodland, CA

#29 Aug 27, 2010
The left doesn't get it and won't until they are the ones at knife point. As they say, "a conservative is a liberal who's just been assaulted (by a nail bomb)"
No one on the right has mentioned amending the Constitution to incorporate Sharia Law – that’s totally unnecessary.
ALL that is required for Sharia to triumph is for progrossives to be allowed to 'interpret' the Constitution.
Besides the religious protections delineated in the 1st amendment, progressives will find all kinds of other suicidal 'rights' that don't exists nor were ever given a thought in our Founder's most stoned stupors.
All in the name of ‘tolerance,’ the left will give the keys to this kingdom without so much as a whimper, because they love to feel good about themselves more than they love liberty and America (they have much in common with radical Islam who claims to love death more than we love life)
Progrossivism is a narcissistic death-style devoid of common sense.
Lincoln warned us about these lunatics when he declared the Constitution, despite its libertine intent, is NOT a suicide note.

Since: Jan 08

Dixon

#30 Aug 27, 2010
Nolan hit one out of the ballpark? This was a foul, and I do mean "foul", bawl.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. While I rarely disagree with Rich Is Right, it isn't progressivism as this is a misnomer. It is regressivism.

Why did Nolan's commentary attempt to take the focus away from the world's largest, most violent, and sick perversion of religion? The largest problem I have with any religion is when they begin to usurp individual rights on the basis of some phony edict they have from the Almighty through the lips of a self proclaimed interpreter such as Mohammed.

I would stand with Rich is Wrong Again in his realistic and pragmatic views of religious atrocities of the past from all divisions of Western religions. All of this was done for control and to secure the positions of rulers, much as is done in the political world each of us experience daily. "Do as we say cuz we says so and you don't have the right to decide for yourselves."

Do not get bogged down in the liberal regressive tactics of "bait and switch", the "shell game", or moral relativism. You need to understand what Islam, whether condoned by the moderate or pushed by the fanatic, is a religion of enslavement and death to non-believers. They are stuck in the 8th century where as the Christian religions were backed down by the "age of enlightenment". The church does not give up power easily however.

Should we become anti-religious? I believe some people, those who are not accountable or responsible for their own actions or the true believer, need religion to make their lives complete. The rest of us look at it as a historical societal aberration from common sense.

Maybe Ms. Nolan should do a little thinking. Instead of comparisons to American history, the comparison should be to any private organization which would take rights from others on the basis of their sex, race, or religion. Would Nolan equally defend the Ku Klux Klan based on past histories of ethic cleansing?

Islam is not a religion of peace any more than the old testament was a text of tolerance. Quit defending the indefensible. It exposes your intelligence on a level that isn't pretty ....
Mr Hand

Campbell, CA

#31 Aug 27, 2010
How are allegedly negative aspects of various religions backing the argument for the Islamic building?

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#32 Sep 17, 2010
N ed Kelly wrote:
Ask Daniel Pearl about Islam, or the 2,886 salughtered infidels of September 11, 2001, or any of the MILLIONS of dead and disfigured in the name of Mohammad since 632 AD.
So many have died at the hands of this so-called "peaceful" religion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seneca Falls Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Whats going on in Phelps May 16 Pete 2
News Seneca Falls fight ends in two arrests, officer... (Nov '11) May 15 Troy randleman 12
Need Information. (Oct '15) Mar '16 drippy dicky 2
Brook Street Park Incident 3/16/16 Mar '16 sidney 1
News Man shot by Geneva police officer dies (May '11) Mar '16 eyeswithoutaface 8
News Mott's strikers get boost from grocery workers'... (Jul '10) Jan '16 Thomas 13
News New York woman facing murder charge in Catoosa ... Jan '16 Mommy dearest 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Seneca Falls Mortgages