Well then, tell us exactly what your civil liberties are. You identify on this board as a Canadian, which presumably means that legislation in America doesn't affect your civil liberties any more than legislation in China or Iran.
While it's true that legislation in the states doesn't impact my life or rights, the debate could, I live an hour from the U.S. Border and the politics in the states could spill over here if we're not careful.
As it stands, it's very unlikely either issue will ever come up as a major debate ever again... Abortion has been fully legal since the 80's, and same sex marriage has been legal since the mid 2000s. Our major right wing party also has no desire to change the status quo on that either.
However, if the anti abortion groups are not actively opposed and pressure is kept on them, it's possible they might grow strong again. Many Canadian anti-abortion groups are funded in part by U.S. counterparts, which means the best place for me to argue is in the states. If the abortion debate goes away in the U.S. like it has here, it's chances of ever returning go from slim to none.
So your position is that as long as Muslims such as the Tsarnevs stick to blowing civilians to pieces, rather than doing horrible things such defining marriage the way it's always been defined since the USA's founding, you won't bash Muslims the way you bash Christians? If that's not your position on Islamic terrorism, then what is.
The Tsarnevs were, by the survivor's own report, inspired by Al Queda. Al Queda is politically motivated group seeking to establish Islamic Law, according to its founder Osama Bin Laden.
Are you really putting forward the idea I don't oppose the Tsarnevs? Are you dense?
Of course I oppose them, however what you're arguing here is completely off topic. I oppose their political ideology and religious ideology, however what made them famous isn't their politics, it was the fact they killed and injured dozens of people in a barbaric act.
We're arguing politics here, not terrorism.
Christians are well within their rights to desire a theocracy, and Muslims are well within their rights to desire sharia law. There is no such thing as thought crimes, and I'd be happy to debate either one on the issue. However, the Christians are actually trying to legislate their beliefs, while the Muslims are not.
Ask a citizen of Iran or Saudi Arabia (or Pakistan or Malasia or Egypt or ...) I bet they could fill you in.
By the way, did you know that Canadian public schools hold Muslim prayer services in which menstruating girls have to be segregated from everyone else? Read all about it:
HOW UNCLEAN WAS MY VALLEY :: SteynOnline
Star quote:
Dr Bilal Philips, a "Canadian religious scholar", was born in Jamaica but grew up in Toronto and has many prestigious degrees not only from Saudi Arabia but also from the University of Wales, where he completed a PhD in "Islamic Theology". Dr Philips is in favour of death for homosexuals.
But hey, at least Dr. Philips not a Christian.
That would be bad enough to merit scrutiny.
Actually what you're referring to is not sanctioned by or funded by the school board. I have no problems if students want to start a praise Jesus club, or a muslim prayer thing, or a Jewish club or whatever as long as no public money is used and it does not conflict with their education.
A similar thing would also be allowable under your first amendment. For example students are well within their rights to privately pray in class, it's only a problem when it's a public prayer sanctioned by the school board. That's why it's also allowable to wear a cross necklace, or other religious symbols (i.e. a Turban), as long as the school board doesn't start distributing cross necklaces or turbans.
As for Iran and Saudi Arabia, I'm not sure why you're bringing that up... We're discussing U.S. Politics. Can you point me to a piece of legislation that's currently under debate that would in some way impose Islamic values on the states? If you can give me an example I'll be happy to jump into the debate.
