Sarah Palin - On Laws

Topic locked
  • Reply
Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
Ms Palin is quoted as saying:

Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments. What in hell scares people about talking about America’s foundation of faith? It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that’s the only thing I can attribute it to.




Now, 'Inconnu' takes Ms Palin at her word and tries to follow the logic:

So, let’s list the Ten Commandments so that everyone knows what Sarah Palin is talking about. Notwithstanding minor numbering and wording differences, the commandments read as follows:
You shall have no gods beside the Lord of Israel.
You shall not make for yourself an idol.
You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Pretty benign, huh? But let’s take a closer look at what it means to have our law based upon the Ten Commandments and the Bible, and see what happens to those who violate them:

... [He quotes the Biblical verses for the punishments of the above]

Summary of punishments for violating the Ten Commandments:

#1 stoning to death
#2 stoning to death
#3 stoning to death
#4 stoning to death
#5 death
#6 death
#7 stoning to death
#8 sold into slavery
#9 you are destroyed
#10 stoning to death

Our legislators need to get busy if we are to follow Sarah Palin’s logic. They have a lot of pretty harsh laws to write.

Sarah Palin et al. want this country to be “Judeo-Christian”, by which they mean that the real Americans are Jews and Christians…certainly not Muslim-Americans, whose loyalty must always be questioned, since they are not real Americans. This all fits their xenophobic paradigm.

Palin’s contention that our Founding Fathers wanted to base this country’s law upon the Ten Commandments flies in the face of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Now, let’s imagine:

What if a Muslim had said: “We need to create U.S. law based on the Quran”? What if someone said that American law should be based upon “Sharia”? People like Spencer, Geller, and the rest of the goof troop would be screaming “Islamicization!” “Dhimmitude!” “Jihad!” “Islamic Domination!” at the top of their lungs. They would spend day and night quoting Islamic scripture–just like I did with the Bible–to prove how horrible such a sentiment is. If they want to weaponize the Quran and hadiths, we can do the same with their scriptures. They will not win in this game, and it’s really unbelievable how profound their hypocrisy is.


http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/sarah-palin-supports-stoning-and-slavery/

shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
Using Sarah Palin's name and logic in the same sentence doesn't work. What would work is if add "twisted" before logic.

Can only wonder how many of those commandments she's broken??? :lol:
Bora Bora
Dubai OverLord
User avatar
Posts: 8411
Location: At the moment Dubai Forums

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
^:) Sometimes I feel sorry for Palin - just as I felt sorry for Quayle.. :mrgreen:

Hey, eh - were you old enough to vote in 2008? If so, did you vote for Palin/Mcain?

(I would have guessed many youngsters would have gone with the Democrats - but what about young Bible bashers - would they have gone with BHO or McCain?)



Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
It's fair to say that maybe Palin lost the plot with that comment but I'm willing to wager that she might also have been taken out of context. The hypocrisy in this post is simply that the OP is commenting against religious law governing the American constitution. But would Shafique raise any objections were it Islamic Law?

It is not ridiculous however; I think to explore the idea that religious principles are contained within the law of America. Clearly there are many things we can all agree on, regardless of faith, such as laws against murder and theft, which also happen to be a couple of commandments.
And that's what I think Sarah Palin was trying to point out. I doubt the first few points about having other God's blah blah blah was what she was trying to elucidate.

And stoning? Plss we all know which countries still advocate stoning don't we?
Misery Called Life
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 3033

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 17, 2010
Misery Called Life wrote:The hypocrisy in this post is simply that the OP is commenting against religious law governing the American constitution. But would Shafique raise any objections were it Islamic Law?


Actually, I took it that the article was highlighting how little comment such a statement by Palin would generate. I'd wager that most people here would be unaware she made this quote - note that article ends with the following observations:

What if a Muslim had said: “We need to create U.S. law based on the Quran”?

What if someone said that American law should be based upon “Sharia”? People like Spencer, Geller, and the rest of the goof troop would be screaming “Islamicization!” “Dhimmitude!” “Jihad!” “Islamic Domination!” at the top of their lungs. They would spend day and night quoting Islamic scripture–just like I did with the Bible–to prove how horrible such a sentiment is. If they want to weaponize the Quran and hadiths, we can do the same with their scriptures.

They will not win in this game, and it’s really unbelievable how profound their hypocrisy is.



Misery Called Life wrote:But would Shafique raise any objections were it Islamic Law?


I'd certainly object if any Islamic laws were misrepresented, yes. But no, I don't object to people expressing a view that laws of the land should be based on God's laws.

I'd therefore agree with your point that:
It is not ridiculous however; I think to explore the idea that religious principles are contained within the law of America. Clearly there are many things we can all agree on, regardless of faith, such as laws against murder and theft, which also happen to be a couple of commandments.


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 17, 2010
shafique wrote:What if a Muslim had said: “We need to create U.S. law based on the Quran”?

What if someone said that American law should be based upon “Sharia”? People like Spencer, Geller, and the rest of the goof troop would be screaming “Islamicization!” “Dhimmitude!” “Jihad!” “Islamic Domination!” at the top of their lungs. They would spend day and night quoting Islamic scripture–just like I did with the Bible–to prove how horrible such a sentiment is. If they want to weaponize the Quran and hadiths, we can do the same with their scriptures.

They will not win in this game, and it’s really unbelievable how profound their hypocrisy is.


I did read that para...the point I'm making is that if we're going to start imbibing religious law as a common law, then let America do what the hell they want to? Why is that hypocrisy?
What's wrong is that the common law in America was distinctly separated from any religious law by it's founders. And no way can anyone say that American law is based on religious scriptures.
But, the argument your making is that it's hypocrisy because those religious scriptures happen those of Christianity!

Misery Called Life wrote:But would Shafique raise any objections were it Islamic Law?

shafique wrote: But no, I don't object to people expressing a view that laws of the land should be based on God's laws.


That sounded Scary!

As I get older I'm beginning to realize that maybe man is intrinsically an animal. Maybe for sanity to prevail we need all these religious laws. I don't know...I dream of a world where we're all mature enough to realize right from wrong, but I guess that's asking for too much in a world which has seen World Wars, ethnic civil wars etc etc

Hey Shafique I was always curious bout this, but maybe you could answer it...
Why is it that religious men across most religions sport huge beards? Is it like to make a statement that they are detached from materialism or something?
Misery Called Life
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 3033

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 17, 2010
Not sure about the beard thing - historically, men wore beards.

In my history lessons, the fashion for shaving off beards is relatively recent phenomenon - I think it the Czar Peter the Great that decided the men should shave off their beards.

In history, the ancient Greeks had beards (I'm thinking of Spartan statues), but the Romans seem to have been clean shaven. Orthodox Christians still retain long beards.

In Islam, there are instructions for men to wear beards - but not as an obligation. The Prophet, pbuh, said a beard was a sign of beauty for a man. I would guess this would not have been challenged at the time and may have been taken as a statement of 'fact'.

I'm guessing here, but perhaps the men wearing beards in the past just reflects the 'fashion' of that time - a time before Gillette and Wilkinson sword's advertising budgets?

(It's not a big thing for me - I was clean shaven in my younger days, sported a goatee for a long while and now have a full beard which my kids keep telling me I should shave off!) ;)

Edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard has a good summary of beards in history (interesting reading actually)

The summary has pro's and cons:
In the course of history, men with facial hair have been ascribed various attributes such as wisdom and knowledge, sexual virility, masculinity, or high social status; and, conversely, filthiness, crudeness, or an eccentric disposition. In many cultures, beards are associated with nature and outdoorsmen.


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
Misery Called Life wrote:It's fair to say that maybe Palin lost the plot with that comment but I'm willing to wager that she might also have been taken out of context. The hypocrisy in this post is simply that the OP is commenting against religious law governing the American constitution. But would Shafique raise any objections were it Islamic Law?


Good job, student!
:cheers:
Shafique is like the fifth column in Spaine. He wants to live in the UK according to Sharia Law and remembers about human rights only if it comes to customs of his ancient predessors.
8) 8) 8)
Red Chief
Dubai forums GURU
User avatar
Posts: 2256

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 17, 2010
RC - who do you think my 'ancient predecessors' are?

;)

Let's just check what your assumptions are, I'll let you know whether you're correct or not. (I'll do a quick Google search on the 5th column in Spain too, whilst waiting for your answer - I'm hoping it's a bit like the 5th column in the new series of 'V' ! :) )

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
I think they missed a couple of commandments off the list:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife (unless she is better looking than thine own!)

and of course the most important 11th commandment:

Thou shalt not get caught!

As for all the stoning...was a trip to Amsterdam an option in those days?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Knight
Dubai Knight
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5520
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 17, 2010
Dubai Knight wrote:I think they missed a couple of commandments off the list:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife (unless she is better looking than thine own!)


Isn't that Commandment No10 above? :wink:

and of course the most important 11th commandment:

Thou shalt not get caught!

As for all the stoning...was a trip to Amsterdam an option in those days?

:lol: :lol: :lol:



LOL

But aren't people who partake of the wacky backy supposed to be chilled out and less paranoid than normal people? :mrgreen:
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - on Laws May 18, 2010
shafique wrote:Isn't that Commandment No10 above? :wink:


Yeah, but in the words of Spike Milligan: "I just jazzed mine up a little!"

Maybe my reference to all that 'stoning' going on should have referred to the product also prevalent in Lebanon aka. 'Black'?

:drunken: :drunken: :drunken:

Knight
Dubai Knight
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5520
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 18, 2010
I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge of this subject DK - I once got a bit light headed after eating a couple of Belgian chocolates which had Haram juice in them unbeknowest to me!

'Black' - shrugs.

Does that induce paranoia and tourettes, is it available in RobbyG's home country? ;)

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 18, 2010
shafique wrote:I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge of this subject DK - I once got a bit light headed after eating a couple of Belgian chocolates which had Haram juice in them unbeknowest to me!

'Black' - shrugs.

Does that induce paranoia and tourettes, is it available in RobbyG's home country? ;)

Cheers,
Shafique


As far as I can recall (and this is all heresay of course and information imparted to me by a third party who knew someone who told him a friend said...) that a particularly fine resin product, compacted into tight blocks having been refined from a plant of the hemp varietal, grown in abundance in the Levant Region particularly in Lebanon, can induce a very chilled and relaxed sensation in the user, specifically if inhaled in combination with an accelerant, normally tobacco. This differs from other sources such as 'Morrocan Red', 'Jamaican Rum', 'African Seed' and 'Home Grown Sh1t'.

Allegedly it requires a small amount of heat from a lighter to soften a corner of the 'block' which can then be crumbled into what is commonly referred to as the 'spliff', a non pre-fabricated cigarette normally contained in a small box and referred to as 'gear', which the user then hand rolls normally into a slightly conical shape. The insertion of a small rolled tube of cardboard, referred to in common parlance as the 'roach' into the buccal end of the hand made cigarette then makes it a 'joint' which is then lit and the resultant smoke inhaled deep into the lungs before being offered around communally. So one is told.

Whilst traveling the roads of Europe in my youth with a series of merry troubadours and musical 'artistes' and in the company of a fine body of upstanding citizens known collectively as 'Roadies', one has been party to much discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various narcotic substances and abuse thereof.

Of course I merely put my fingers in my ears, closed my eyes...and breathed deeply!

:drunken: :drunken: :drunken:

Knight
Dubai Knight
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5520
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 18, 2010
You, sir, are nothing if not a fount of knowledge!

Enlightenment indeed - but what is that haze in front of my eyes? ... :)
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Sarah Palin - On Laws May 18, 2010
shafique wrote:You, sir, are nothing if not a fount of knowledge!

Enlightenment indeed - but what is that haze in front of my eyes? ... :)


Like me, that would be anno domini?

8) 8) 8)

Knight
Dubai Knight
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5520
Location: Dubai

posting in Dubai Politics TalkForum Rules

Return to Dubai Politics Talk