How It All Fails : The Will Of The Few.

[ilikekicks]

I saw this article and wondered ( before reading it ) " What now? ". I didnt realize how incompatable certain people are in certain areas.

I normally dont read this website as I believe the majority of its writers and readers are of the ' developmentally disabled ' category. In saying such, I apologize to the ' retarded ' people whom might take offense to my tossing those readers/writers in with a group that truly has an exception for their faults.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/malak-kazan-hijab-dearborn-heights-police-lawsuit_n_6534860.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Heres some snippits from the article :

"A Muslim woman who was forced to remove her hijab by police in Michigan claims her religious rights were violated, and she’s hoping a civil rights lawsuit will ensure other women don't have the same experience.

Malak Kazan, 27, is suing the police department and city of Dearborn Heights, a suburb of Detroit, after officers refused her request to keep her headscarf on while taking a booking photo. Her attorney Amir Makled filed the lawsuit in federal court Thursday."

The woman was arrested. Why?

"Kazan was stopped for a traffic violation in Dearborn Heights on July 9, and was then arrested; Makled says her license had been suspended for outstanding traffic tickets. "

She admits she was driving in PUBLIC with everyone else while knowing her license wasnt valid. She didnt pay her fines OR never appeared before the court to clear the matters of her infractions ( Guilty or not doesnt matter ).

The part that really galls me :

"The lawsuit states that at the police station she was asked to remove her headscarf, which she wears in public and when she is in the presence of men who aren’t family members, for her booking photo. When she told the unnamed officer that to do so would violate her religious beliefs, he said there were no exceptions. She spoke with his supervisor, who also allegedly refused her request.

Kazan says she then requested that a female officer take the photograph, which was also denied. The lawsuit alleges the first officer then threatened her with further detention if she didn’t comply.

The suit claims Kazan experienced “extreme shame, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress” when she was forced to remove her hijab.

"To Ms. Kazan, wearing a headscarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion, and her religious obligations, as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body," the lawsuit states."

We have a ' booking ' system. Every State in the United States Union has them. These laws apply to EVERYONE, not just men, women, white, green, blue, brown, gay, or straight. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto.. it all doesnt matter.

What I need to ask everyone : " Where does it end? ".

If this woman was put into the system ( incarcerated ), and it was determined a scarf like she wears could be used as a weapon ( choke someone with it ), would the ' civil rights activists ' all cry foul?

When/Where do the Theocratical beliefs of others go above and beyond the laws instituted by our legislatures?

Maybe if this good religious person would have taken care of her prior issues, she wouldnt have had to face having her photo taken while in custody under the circumstances shes complaining about.

[Dr. Shoe]

Firstly, there is nothing in the K'ran that states that muslim women have to dress this way. She was just posing the police with obstacles to get away with driving without a licence.

 

When I lived in Hackney they'd be happily chatting to their friends in english until they get arrested when suddenly they lose all command of the language. What the police would do though is to take to the police station and then hold them until they suddenly remembered how to speak english or they found an interpreter. They never rushed to find said interpreter...

 

Then there was the school teacher in Luton who went to the interview in western clothes but turned up on her first day in a full burkha...

[ilikekicks]

Firstly, there is nothing in the K'ran that states that muslim women have to dress this way. She was just posing the police with obstacles to get away with driving without a licence.

 

When I lived in Hackney they'd be happily chatting to their friends in english until they get arrested when suddenly they lose all command of the language. What the police would do though is to take to the police station and then hold them until they suddenly remembered how to speak english or they found an interpreter. They never rushed to find said interpreter...

I used to see the same thing all the time when I lived in the' City '. Lackawanna N.Y. has an area everyone calls ' Little Yemen ' as the local population there are all from Yemen. They dont speak much English there and play the same game with the Police when confronted.

 

Then there was the school teacher in Luton who went to the interview in western clothes but turned up on her first day in a full burkha...

I read about that. Talk about a double standard.

What is getting scary is how a religion is taking over and nobody is doing anything about it. If anyone says anything they are turned into the ' bad person '.

[Dr. Shoe]

I have no problem with religion or even religious people it's when religion is used as an excuse for wrong doing or they make demands that we should change our society to accommodate their views!

[Rockpup]

If some Christians can contort their religion to restrict the rights of some (Gay marriage bans), then why shouldn't Muslims feel free to set their own laws?

[ilikekicks]

If some Christians can contort their religion to restrict the rights of some (Gay marriage bans), then why shouldn't Muslims feel free to set their own laws?

My point is theres a *small* difference between the 2 groups you have mentioned.

Most ( supposed ) ' christians ' believe that they helped found our nation. That its some ' judeo-christian ' type of mash which helped guide our founders into writing our Constitution.

I say ' Supposed ' as we all know that no human being should be ' property ', yet they allowed such to happen. The founders wanted freedom FROM theocracies yet they allowed it to ( supposedly ) ' co-exist ' and gave them tax exemptions when other more productive entities could use the tax-break better then the Theocracies/Churches presently do.

I sat the following from my own experiences. If it offends anyone, I will NOT apologize as the truth needs to be recognized every now and then to keep reality alive.

I dont know if you have ever been to an Islamic Nation. Ive had the great displeasure of being Stationed in Saudi Arabia.

What *I* saw ( not something I have read or was told second hand ) was very sickening. Women were basically slaves. They werent allowed to walk on a street ahead of the man ( or men ) they were with. They werent allowed to drive.

If you feel your discriminated against in the U.S. because your gay, try Saudi Arabia. They have castrated, whipped/flogged and sentenced ( all publicly ) men whom have been accused of the ' crime ' of being gay. To even MENTION that there should be advocacy for gays or transgendered people is ILLEGAL. Think of that! Just to say ' Ya know.. maybe we should look at gays as human beings ' will put you on the receiving end of corporal or even capitol punishment from the states religious institution.

I'll take a Christian calling me a ' fag ' and laugh about it all day long knowing they arent going to be like a Muslim and try to remove the boys from between my legs. Those Christians cant LEGALLY flog me in public nor take my head in the U.S. of A. We are a nation of laws written by MAN, not some supposed ' deity '.

Slavery is STILL legal in Saudi Arabia. Saw such with my own eyes. They ' sell slaves ', mostly Africans they acquire in their ventures.

Some would say this isnt ' Islam ', yet its Sharia Law being enforced ( which is the laws of Islam, not the laws of man like out Constitution provides ).

We dont go to court and say ' gods commandments say.. '. Instead we are tried by mans written law and a Jury of our ( supposed ) equals. In Islam, not at all. ' Gods law ' applies.

To answer your question, Muslims DO in fact feel they can set their own laws. Ever read about ' honor killings ' in Canada? ISIS has established a Caliphate covering half of 2 countries presently. They are starting to take over Europe. 10% of France is now Muslim and they are breeding. What happens when they get enough seats in the French Parliament? Are they NOT going to stop the presses at Charlie Hebo? Are they not going to execute gays/homosexuals/guys whom wear heels or ' cross dress ' as its called?

For even saying such would/could/might happen, many will despise my words. Honestly, I couldnt care less, its their country to loose. Its THEIR cultures that will be dissolved and their women put behind the veil and non-followers into despair of many means. They can say ' it wont happen ', but its already started. That school teacher Dr. Shoe mentioned is a PRIME example of this.

Some will say ' you have islomophobia '.. not at all. I've called Arty on quite a few of them. I sleep well at night after doing such and will do it again in my own lands if ' we the people ' see it fitting.

Im not at all agreeing with Christianity. Those ' Christians ' have had a good time in the past with the Inquisition and Crusades. In present times, they have bombed abortion clinics and discriminated against others. BUT! They havent gone as far as taking people into the streets and doing the malicious and ( IMO ) disgusting acts of a religious courts dictation ( we dont have religious courts to allow such to happen ).

In comparison, some might make the statement that ' Christians ' tolerate gays because they allow them to live. Its a sickening way to view such a situation of comparison, but truthful. Its NOT the answer everyone wants to hear. Its that answer that everyone finds ' soooo offensive!!! ', yet its the truth.

To this day, Islamic Law and their courts in several nations have *publicly* beheaded people. Some as recent as last week. These ' executions ' are done LAWFULLY in their nations.

( More in a few. Something came up )

My point being : We have laws of man that we voted people to legislate for us. A ' Governed Society ' that we can be flexible with. We can amend things and repeal things or Add things. Such is about impossible with an established Theocracy.

A Theocratical person knows this. Devout Catholics have to Tolerate the existence of Gays, Abortion Clinics and other Religions. Muslims however seem to have little tolerance for anything, least they part someones head or show up at a work place after being hired in the false belief that everyone HAS to tolerate them and their misgivings.

Im not one for ' death camps ' ( Abortion clinics ) But Im not going to bomb one. I've never even protested one. Im not gay but I understand different people have different attractions and theres nothing that will change anyones mind about it. In Islam, nothing seems tolerated outside of whats ledgered inside their Qur'ran and there are very severe penalties they will issue to those whom oppose them, even if those people are peaceful and not in a Sharia run country ( Hello comic editors, reporters, human aid/red cross workers, priests, women, children.. theres no boundaries at all. ).

How can we, as free people, have any form of ' tolerance ' for such a religion when we see day in and day out what it all boils down to?

Some say ' those are the radicals ! '. The Saudi Government, Iranian Government and a few others, WHOLE NATIONS are all ' radicals '?

Fact is, and Ill get flamed for saying it, The Saudi Government, Iranians and others are more then likely the mainstream ' Muslim '.

[Rockpup]

Oh, I know. And this is why our original government was set up to not have a specific government/religious affiliation. This is due to the fact laws aligned with one religion tend to infringe on the rights of those outside of that religion. I've gotten into a debate with someone about the ten commandments being the basis for law in most countries. This is false since only commandments 6-9 have standing in a legal situation. Gee.. "6:you shall not murder" I agree, "7: you shall not commit adultery" Ok, yea, this holds up in marriage court. Not sure if it's specifically illegal to fuck outside of marriage considering there are swingers, and people with an open marriage. "8:You shall not steal" yup, again, easy. "9:You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" Ok, this one needs to be enforced more. In the recent Michael Brown case people fueled the public outrage by making statements to the press that they had to retract in court considering evidence and non-press testimony counter acted that. 

 

So, basically, while the 10 commandments had some good ideas for the time, 60% of them had to do with not offending god. These should stand on their own and not need laws to enforce them among the believers. 

 

The same can be said for all religions. You are free to not do whatever it is your religion says not to do, but you are not free to restrict others who do not hold your beliefs. 

[ilikekicks]

I would like to ask your opinion..

 

Oh, I know. And this is why our original government was set up to not have a specific government/religious affiliation. This is due to the fact laws aligned with one religion tend to infringe on the rights of those outside of that religion.

The same can be said for all religions. You are free to not do whatever it is your religion says not to do, but you are not free to restrict others who do not hold your beliefs.

Say if your in France or the U.K. and the population of a certain _put in whatever theocratical belief one wishes to use_ grows in numbers and votes. They start segregating themselves and institute THEIR ' culture ' into THEIR neighborhoods and legislate protections for such. They grow and take over certain courts or constable positions which will uphold those theocratical beliefs.. What happens to all the non-believers liberties?

Even after giving ' tolerance ' and in some instances ' support ' for others having their beliefs whom we may laugh at, not believe in or consider a fairy tale.. our liberty is then to be legislated away?

Job happenings occur and like the example above, someone comes for an interview, you hire them, then they show up presenting themselves as a theologian of somekind and demand others HAVE to accept them.

People can say Im a nut or crazy or whatever they wish, but many nations ' cultures ' and their systems are being primed for picking. Theres too much denial out there.

Once again, for saying the obvious, those whom disbelieve what I said will get fired up.. even after all the examples of fact are put on the table before them..

Whatever happened to recognizing the obvious?

[Dr. Shoe]

A lawyer once pointed to all his hundreds of law books and said to me: "if everyone obeyed the ten commandments I wouldn't need any of these!"

 

I'm not saying we should exercise religious laws but not stealing, murdering lying nor committing adultery are great foundations on which to build any society.

[Rockpup]

Dr Shoe: those are so self evident it boggles my mind that people can be so arrogant to think those are only christian values.