Tennessee Republicans introduce bill making it illegal to be Muslim

[LaL 418]

"creeping sharia"

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I did not say these things did not happen, I said they were not part of the muslim religion and neither they are. That such things happen in poor, rural regions of the world comes as no surprise to me, that you as an educated person should believe that this is justifiable by muslim tenets is.

It's obvious by your post on here that you support degradation of women. Do you really think women are inferior beings and thus be treated so ?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Umm...that is already within the realm of state courts. Any such judgement be would moot and academic.

Not altogether. In the US, there are already Christian and Jewish courts that decide such matters. We've posted about those before.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I did not say these things did not happen, I said they were not part of the muslim religion and neither they are. That such things happen in poor, rural regions of the world comes as no surprise to me, that you as an educated person should believe that this is justifiable by muslim tenets is.

If one becomes educated about Islam, they have no excuse to continue to take the sides of tribal courts and the Taliban, who also aren't educated in Islam. That they refuse to gain the knowledge one needs to know the difference just proves how hardwired they are to be anti-Islam. It satisfies something in them that needs to feel superior and this is the only way they can do so.

What's the point of having a court whose decisions are not legally enforceable?

That happens even in civil law. It's called arbitration. BTW, the legislation these idjit Tennessee politicians want to pass is also legally unenforceable.

Poor and rural regions eh ? First off what MENA regions are not considered either poor and/or rural in your opinion ? Can it be one or the other ? What's the ground rules here ?

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=457

"Pakistans Islamic Sharia law requires female victim of rape to have four male witnesses, or she faces prosecution for adultery.

One woman is raped every two hours and one gang-raped every eight hours, according to Pakistans independent Human Rights Commission. But under the ordinance introduced in 1979 by the dictator General Zia ul-Haq as part of an Islamisation campaign, rape cases have to be dealt with in sharia courts. Victims need four male witnesses to the crime — or face prosecution for adultery.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/justice-virtually-impossible-for-rape-victims-under-sharia-law/

"Justice virtually impossible for rape victims under sharia law"

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm

Domestic violence in Islam: The Quran on beating wives

Wow, no wonder you're so ignorant. Your sources are fvcked up.

It's obvious by your post on here that you support degradation of women. Do you really think women are inferior beings and thus be treated so ?

You think Muslim women are inferior. That's for sure.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

A bit of advice for people like Why_Ne who believe anything they read on the internet is credible, who don't know to check their sources, who failed to develop in childhood the critical thinking skills required to form new ideas, and whose BS detectors never seem to work:

HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU?

by STEVEN NOVELLA, Feb 07 2011

Have you heard of the tree octopus? This is an endangered cephalopod that lives in the trees of the pacific northwest. Of course, the tree octopus does not exist – it is a famous internet “hoax” beloved by skeptics as a common example of human gullibility. It is right up there with dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) – a component of acid rain, a chemical so deadly that if you breath it in you can die, and in gaseous form it can cause severe burns. DHMO is otherwise known as water – but it is easy to get people to sign petitions banning its use.

The inherent gullibility of humanity is a lesson important to the skeptical outlook for it speaks to the need to have a skeptical filter in place – a bullshit-detecting filter or baloney detector. But how gullible are people, generally?

Research at the University of Connecticut uses the tree octopus to test school children for their tendency to believe what they read on the internet. Subjects were chosen for their already demonstrated reading aptitude and this age group is generally considered to be internet savvy. And yet, when exposed to the tree octopus website virtually every student believed the content – unless they were already exposed to the information that it is a hoax.

But this is not a new internet phenomenon, although it is reported as kids believing everything they read on the internet. Social psychologists have been studying belief for years. What they have found is that kids believe virtually everything they hear. Belief seems to be the default reaction to new information – not doubt or even neutrality.

Adults do have a greater tendency toward doubt and disbelief, but this is not necessarily due to the lack of child-like gullibility. Rather, people will tend to believe anything they hear as long as it does not conflict with something they already believe. Adults come with a larger set of pre-existing beliefs than children, and so there is a greater chance that new information will conflict with an existing belief.

Even more disturbing is the evidence that people will maintain a belief once it is formed (a phenomenon called belief perseverance) even in the face of later disconfirming evidence. In fact, when people are told that the scientific evidence contradicts their beliefs they simply distrust the science, and in fact will distrust science in general.

But we can develop skeptical skills and habits. It takes conscious effort, however – which itself is evidence that skepticism is not the default mode of human behavior. For example, in experimental conditions people who are given a cognitive task (like remembering a phone number) are more likely to believe something they are told than someone who is not so distracted. A cognitive task uses up limited mental resources, which are then not available for the demanding task of skepticism.

It is important to recognize that we humans have a tendency to believe easily and to maintain beliefs against the evidence – we are all naturally gullible. Further that skepticism is a learned and cognitively demanding task. This realization should motivate us to systematically engage our skeptical thinking whenever we hear a new claim – it requires a conscious effort.

Further it speaks to the need to teach critical thinking skills even to young children. The UCONN research confirms that natural gullibility extends to the internet, where there will not always be a teacher or parent available to help filter information. Therefore schools (and parents) should specifically teach children how to develop their own skepticism and to make a habit of consciously engaging their skepticism whenever they encounter new claims or information – whether from their friends, on the internet, or even from authority figures like parents and teachers themselves.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

It's obvious by your post on here that you support degradation of women. Do you really think women are inferior beings and thus be treated so ?

That conclusion can not logically be drawn from the things I post at all. That you think that being a muslim requires degradation of women is your ignorance, using that to imply that other people who do understand that being a muslim does not require degradation of women is illogical. What I know is that poverty leads to degradation, generally women and children are the first to suffer in poverty situations. That is not new, that is not confined to those countries where the muslim religion is dominant and that will not change until the real reasons that lead to this are understood.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A bit of advice for people like Why_Ne who believe anything they read on the internet is credible, who don't know to check their sources, who failed to develop in childhood the critical thinking skills required to form new ideas, and whose BS detectors never seem to work:

HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU?

by STEVEN NOVELLA, Feb 07 2011

Have you heard of the tree octopus? This is an endangered cephalopod that lives in the trees of the pacific northwest. Of course, the tree octopus does not exist – it is a famous internet “hoax” beloved by skeptics as a common example of human gullibility. It is right up there with dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) – a component of acid rain, a chemical so deadly that if you breath it in you can die, and in gaseous form it can cause severe burns. DHMO is otherwise known as water – but it is easy to get people to sign petitions banning its use.

The inherent gullibility of humanity is a lesson important to the skeptical outlook for it speaks to the need to have a skeptical filter in place – a bullshit-detecting filter or baloney detector. But how gullible are people, generally?

Research at the University of Connecticut uses the tree octopus to test school children for their tendency to believe what they read on the internet. Subjects were chosen for their already demonstrated reading aptitude and this age group is generally considered to be internet savvy. And yet, when exposed to the tree octopus website virtually every student believed the content – unless they were already exposed to the information that it is a hoax.

But this is not a new internet phenomenon, although it is reported as kids believing everything they read on the internet. Social psychologists have been studying belief for years. What they have found is that kids believe virtually everything they hear. Belief seems to be the default reaction to new information – not doubt or even neutrality.

Adults do have a greater tendency toward doubt and disbelief, but this is not necessarily due to the lack of child-like gullibility. Rather, people will tend to believe anything they hear as long as it does not conflict with something they already believe. Adults come with a larger set of pre-existing beliefs than children, and so there is a greater chance that new information will conflict with an existing belief.

Even more disturbing is the evidence that people will maintain a belief once it is formed (a phenomenon called belief perseverance) even in the face of later disconfirming evidence. In fact, when people are told that the scientific evidence contradicts their beliefs they simply distrust the science, and in fact will distrust science in general.

But we can develop skeptical skills and habits. It takes conscious effort, however – which itself is evidence that skepticism is not the default mode of human behavior. For example, in experimental conditions people who are given a cognitive task (like remembering a phone number) are more likely to believe something they are told than someone who is not so distracted. A cognitive task uses up limited mental resources, which are then not available for the demanding task of skepticism.

It is important to recognize that we humans have a tendency to believe easily and to maintain beliefs against the evidence – we are all naturally gullible. Further that skepticism is a learned and cognitively demanding task. This realization should motivate us to systematically engage our skeptical thinking whenever we hear a new claim – it requires a conscious effort.

Further it speaks to the need to teach critical thinking skills even to young children. The UCONN research confirms that natural gullibility extends to the internet, where there will not always be a teacher or parent available to help filter information. Therefore schools (and parents) should specifically teach children how to develop their own skepticism and to make a habit of consciously engaging their skepticism whenever they encounter new claims or information – whether from their friends, on the internet, or even from authority figures like parents and teachers themselves.

Kinda like Global Warming

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That conclusion can not logically be drawn from the things I post at all. That you think that being a muslim requires degradation of women is your ignorance, using that to imply that other people who do understand that being a muslim does not require degradation of women is illogical. What I know is that poverty leads to degradation, generally women and children are the first to suffer in poverty situations. That is not new, that is not confined to those countries where the muslim religion is dominant and that will not change until the real reasons that lead to this are understood.

Logic need not apply here. Why_Ne has already conceded that the country his poor wife is from is rife with domestic violence, and that, if he was there, he could degrade and beat her as he wishes and no one would care. I don't believe that Belarus is a majority Muslim country directed by Sharia. It's a majority Christian country, yet, women are still not equal. Imagine that . . .

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Kinda like Global Warming

If I was stupid enough to praise Wikipedia as a credible source of information, I'd believe in global warming, too.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That happens even in civil law. It's called arbitration. BTW, the legislation these idjit Tennessee politicians want to pass is also legally unenforceable.

One measure of the enforceability of a decision, is whether or not you can hand a judgement over to the sheriff, and have him carry out the judgement. I doubt whether any decision made in a Jewish or Christian court carries that same weight, without being treated as trial de novo by a civil court.

Arbitration is a well-established and widely used means to end disputes. It is one of several kinds of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which provide parties to a controversy with a choice other than litigation. Unlike litigation, arbitration takes place out of court: the two sides select an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator; agree in advance to comply with the arbitrator's award; and then participate in a hearing at which both sides can present evidence and testimony. The arbitrator's decision is usually final, and courts rarely reexamine it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Binding+arbitration

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Second warning. One thread ban is in place and any further personal attacks will result in further thread bans. Discuss the topic but don't make personal attacks against other members

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One measure of the enforceability of a decision, is whether or not you can hand a judgement over to the sheriff, and have him carry out the judgement. I doubt whether any decision made in a Jewish or Christian court carries that same weight, without being treated as trial de novo by a civil court.

The fact that such courts are allowed to exist for those who want them proves that they carry weight. In general, people need to educate themselves as to the limits of their liability under many circumstances.

[james&olya 1,121]

A bit of advice for people like Why_Ne who believe anything they read on the internet is credible, who don't know to check their sources, who failed to develop in childhood the critical thinking skills required to form new ideas, and whose BS detectors never seem to work:

HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU?

by STEVEN NOVELLA, Feb 07 2011

Have you heard of the tree octopus? This is an endangered cephalopod that lives in the trees of the pacific northwest. Of course, the tree octopus does not exist – it is a famous internet “hoax” beloved by skeptics as a common example of human gullibility. It is right up there with dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) – a component of acid rain, a chemical so deadly that if you breath it in you can die, and in gaseous form it can cause severe burns. DHMO is otherwise known as water – but it is easy to get people to sign petitions banning its use.

The inherent gullibility of humanity is a lesson important to the skeptical outlook for it speaks to the need to have a skeptical filter in place – a bullshit-detecting filter or baloney detector. But how gullible are people, generally?

Research at the University of Connecticut uses the tree octopus to test school children for their tendency to believe what they read on the internet. Subjects were chosen for their already demonstrated reading aptitude and this age group is generally considered to be internet savvy. And yet, when exposed to the tree octopus website virtually every student believed the content – unless they were already exposed to the information that it is a hoax.

But this is not a new internet phenomenon, although it is reported as kids believing everything they read on the internet. Social psychologists have been studying belief for years. What they have found is that kids believe virtually everything they hear. Belief seems to be the default reaction to new information – not doubt or even neutrality.

Adults do have a greater tendency toward doubt and disbelief, but this is not necessarily due to the lack of child-like gullibility. Rather, people will tend to believe anything they hear as long as it does not conflict with something they already believe. Adults come with a larger set of pre-existing beliefs than children, and so there is a greater chance that new information will conflict with an existing belief.

Even more disturbing is the evidence that people will maintain a belief once it is formed (a phenomenon called belief perseverance) even in the face of later disconfirming evidence. In fact, when people are told that the scientific evidence contradicts their beliefs they simply distrust the science, and in fact will distrust science in general.

But we can develop skeptical skills and habits. It takes conscious effort, however – which itself is evidence that skepticism is not the default mode of human behavior. For example, in experimental conditions people who are given a cognitive task (like remembering a phone number) are more likely to believe something they are told than someone who is not so distracted. A cognitive task uses up limited mental resources, which are then not available for the demanding task of skepticism.

It is important to recognize that we humans have a tendency to believe easily and to maintain beliefs against the evidence – we are all naturally gullible. Further that skepticism is a learned and cognitively demanding task. This realization should motivate us to systematically engage our skeptical thinking whenever we hear a new claim – it requires a conscious effort.

Further it speaks to the need to teach critical thinking skills even to young children. The UCONN research confirms that natural gullibility extends to the internet, where there will not always be a teacher or parent available to help filter information. Therefore schools (and parents) should specifically teach children how to develop their own skepticism and to make a habit of consciously engaging their skepticism whenever they encounter new claims or information – whether from their friends, on the internet, or even from authority figures like parents and teachers themselves.

Kinda like Global Warming deniers!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Logic need not apply here. Why_Ne has already conceded that the country his poor wife is from is rife with domestic violence, and that, if he was there, he could degrade and beat her as he wishes and no one would care. I don't believe that Belarus is a majority Muslim country directed by Sharia. It's a majority Christian country, yet, women are still not equal. Imagine that . . .

Imagine that.