Muslim Woman Sues to Wear Veil for License - PUH-LEEZ!

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
Rainband

#41 Postby Rainband » Thu May 29, 2003 5:10 pm

southerngale wrote:First of all, I've never known a Christian who beat children. The two don't go together.

And her beating children doesn't have anything directly to do with the case at hand, but it does say something about her character. If her "faith" is so strong that she doesn't want to remove her veil, what is she doing beating kids and breaking their arms? I don't think her faith has anything to do with this.

WidreMann...I wouldn't be in a Muslim country where they wouldn't allow me to wear a cross. I live in America and here I can wear crosses and here we show our faces for our drivers licenses. If she doesn't like the way we do it here, she should go to a Muslim country.

Nobody is being a hypocrit.
Amen southerngale!! :wink:
0 likes   

User avatar
Pburgh
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5403
Age: 80
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:36 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa.

#42 Postby Pburgh » Thu May 29, 2003 5:35 pm

Ohhhh Southerngale, you just had to draw me in here again. lol

I'm just disgusted about people "getting over" on the system. I see it done continuously and it is so frustrating. I work hard, earn money, pay taxes that pay for this crap. It's just as you would say in Texas "Bull Sh** ooops Bull Crap" and as Bill would say in MO. "camel dung"!!!!!!!!!

I feel better now!!!!
0 likes   

User avatar
JQ Public
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Cary, NC

#43 Postby JQ Public » Thu May 29, 2003 6:21 pm

Did you see some of the muslim states laws about women and licenses. CNN...the best news station...has a list of muslim states and their veil laws. Pretty amazing! I mean they don't even let their women wear veils in license photos! They are not trying to violate our privacy by taking our photos...they are trying to help us. She needs to get over herself! So don't just do as the Americans do lady...do as the iranians, kuwaitis, qatarites??!!, egyptians, omanites?!?, bahrainians, and jordanians do and take off the veil for a photo! Widremann...i know christians that beat their children if thats any consolation.

Driver’s identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#44 Postby mf_dolphin » Thu May 29, 2003 6:29 pm

Thanks for the info JQ! Great research :-)
0 likes   

User avatar
southerngale
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 27418
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)

#45 Postby southerngale » Thu May 29, 2003 6:41 pm

JQ Public wrote: Widremann...i know christians that beat their children if thats any consolation.


Then they're not really Christians!!

But yeah, thanks for the info JQ....very interesting.



I'm glad you feel better now Pburgh and I know exactly what you mean!
0 likes   
Please support Storm2k by making a donation today. It is greatly appreciated! Click here: Image

Image my Cowboys Image my RocketsImage my Astros

User avatar
JQ Public
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Cary, NC

#46 Postby JQ Public » Thu May 29, 2003 7:11 pm

Who are you to say they aren't. Only "you know who" knows. But you're welcome guys ;)
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#47 Postby j » Fri May 30, 2003 7:51 am

[quote="WidreMann"]The fact that she beat her children is immaterial. /quote]

What in HEAVEN'S name is wrong with you?? Oh that's right..I forgot... there is no heaven ..right WM?

I don't want to get into all that...my main gripe with what you said was what I quoted and I have to be thinking you can't possibly have children and if you do...GOD help them!
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#48 Postby j » Fri May 30, 2003 7:55 am

WidreMann...I wouldn't be in a Muslim country where they wouldn't allow me to wear a cross. I live in America and here I can wear crosses and here we show our faces for our drivers licenses. If she doesn't like the way we do it here, she should go to a Muslim country.

There is no better analysis than what SG has offered above. If you don't like it here Miss Muslim...GET OUT!
0 likes   

OtherHD
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2192
Age: 39
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:01 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

#49 Postby OtherHD » Fri May 30, 2003 11:22 am

j wrote:What in HEAVEN'S name is wrong with you?? Oh that's right..I forgot... there is no heaven ..right WM?

I don't want to get into all that...my main gripe with what you said was what I quoted and I have to be thinking you can't possibly have children and if you do...GOD help them!


Wow, somebody needs a dictionary. Look up the word immaterial, and tell me if your response was justified. Wait, I'll do it for you (this is taken from different sources)...

immaterial adj.
Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.
Having no material body or form.

Not consisting of matter; incorporeal; spiritual; disembodied.

Of no substantial consequence; without weight or significance; unimportant; as, it is wholly immaterial whether he does so or not.

Of no importance or relevance especially to a law case; "an objection that is immaterial after the fact"

Without material form or substance; "an incorporeal spirit"

Not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities"

Not pertinent to the matter under consideration; "an issue extraneous to the debate"; "the price was immaterial"; "mentioned several impertinent facts before finally coming to the point"

Lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other; often followed by "to"; "whether you choose to do it or not is a matter that is quite immaterial (or indifferent)"; "what others think is altogether indifferent to him"


I'm 99.9% sure that Widre isn't condoning child abuse. Taken in context with the rest of his post and the entire thread, it is a perfectly legitimate statement. One that is totally undeserving of your above comments.
0 likes   

User avatar
southerngale
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 27418
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)

#50 Postby southerngale » Fri May 30, 2003 12:09 pm

JQ Public wrote:Who are you to say they aren't. Only "you know who" knows. But you're welcome guys ;)


You're right JQ...I am nobody to say they aren't. Let me go at this a different way.

A Christian is someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ. A Christian trusts Christ for forgiveness of sin and guidance in life. Christian's are sometimes referred to as "born again" because Jesus said that one must be born of the water (the physical birth) and the Spirit(John 3:3-7). To be born again--born of the Spirit--a person must place his or her trust in Jesus Christ. The Spirit of Jesus Christ actually comes to dwell within the new Christian, giving newness of life--His life.

In sum, Christ makes a Christian a Christian. Going to church does not make a person a Christian. A special ceremony can't do it. And nobody can be a Christian by trying to be a good person. Only Jesus Christ can make a person a Christian. (John 1:12,13)

I'll say it again, if a person truly is a Christian and Christ dwells within that person, that person would not beat their children or anyone else's children. The two just don't go together. Christians are Christ-like. And Christ wouldn't physically abuse children. And believe me, there are wolves in sheeps' clothing.
0 likes   
Please support Storm2k by making a donation today. It is greatly appreciated! Click here: Image

Image my Cowboys Image my RocketsImage my Astros

Guest

#51 Postby Guest » Fri May 30, 2003 12:12 pm

I say if she can't uncover her face for her driver's license picture - then she can accept other modes of transportations such as walking or taking the bus or paying for a taxi. Rules are Rules.
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#52 Postby streetsoldier » Fri May 30, 2003 12:25 pm

Sadly, southerngale, there ARE some "Christians" who will make use of selected Biblical texts to justify abuse; I deal with "Biblically-inspired" abusers and victims regularly, and it's pandemic.

The most frequent phrase I hear is "Spare the rod and spoil the child", yet these same people seem to have forgotten another Biblical injunction..."But provoke not thy children unto wrath"...

There are "card-carriers", and then there are those who practice the "real thing". OK?

As to Islam, read your local friendly Qu'ran (holy book) and Shari'a (laws); abusive behavior is "built-in", and this fact is the most misunderstated, if not misunderstood in dealing with Muslims.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#53 Postby j » Fri May 30, 2003 12:48 pm

HD... I know the definition ..thank you very much, and will admit to "taking it out of context". But...given the fact that WM has positioned himself several times previously with the anti-Christian ideology, this statement jumped right off the freakin' page at me, as a true Christian would not beat their child....therefore to refer to this action as "immaterial" is IMO thoughtless since the most common interpretation of the definition is: "of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant."

A person's immoral actions are absolutely relevant AND important when assessing a person's moral and/or legal right to have the same liberties/privileges, that law abiding citizens enjoy.

But..in all fairness to Widremann...I'm not saying he condone's child abuse, and I should have stepped back a few, read it over again, and just let the statement leaping off the page at me GOoooooo............. My apologies.
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests