Crime Man beheaded in Northern France

[Captain Herb]

Wielding a knife and posing no other threat. I don't think you can logically put these things together. It's not the duty of the police to administer crisis intervention. If there is a maniac running around in my hood with a weapon, I want him off that street by any means necessary.

OK chief, let's shoot everyone who's suicidal.

 

[tonni]

Is there any country where christians can live under muslims freely without paying some kind of submit tax?

Legit curious

Albania, Bosnia, Turkey (I assume).’

 

[Cole train]

Albania, Bosnia, Turkey (I assume).’

Thanks the russian already answered

 

[SanchoMF]

Hate as you want, @Kaliph of Kush is on point about the failures of post modern hedonism and the failures of secularism.

Continental secularism, from the french to the russian experiments and their imported versions in Iraq, Egypt or cambodia failed miserably. And only by recognizing such failure we can work on better systems tl deal with these issues.

I have to admit he is kinda right about the post modern hedonism.
Secularism is another story though and it has worked just fine in the West (non-socialist countries) but it requires a fairly homogenous population (cultural and or religious/non-religious) in order to work. France is a great example when a secular state hasn't controlled the immigration which has develop truly a parallel society of Islam within its borders.
You can't have it all so the degenerates should at least understand that just because they like to have mascots and virtue signal importing millions of religious people into a secular state isn't going to work, even for them.

 

[ineverpost]

OK chief, let's shoot everyone who's suicidal.

Better solution then doing nothing. Cops are supposed to deal with crime, that is their job. It is not their job to be healthcare workers. Threatening with a weapon is illegal, the immediate punishment is arrest. I'm guessing people that go out on the street with weapons have a long record of criminal and mental problems, yet they keep being put back out on the street. That needs to change.

 

[Squarechoke]

It's amazing how having an imaginary friend can turn someone into such a monster. I don't really care that he was shot but some less rational part of me, while this is relatively fresh, does feel some pity over that he got out so quickly instead of suffering longer consequences.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Why is it wrong for us to be political? Other communities are highly politicized, if we want to organize through civil society what is wrong with that? Is it only okay to be political if you're a feminist or an LGBT rights activist or a right wing nutter?

What is wrong with Muslims arbitrating our own disputes according to our religion? Christians and Jews already have this in the UK and US but somehow when we do it its wrong? Double standard after double standard when it comes to dealing with Muslims is what I see.

There's no issue as long as it's not legally binding as religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments.

 

[Captain Herb]

Better solution then doing nothing. Cops are supposed to deal with crime, that is their job. It is not their job to be healthcare workers. Threatening with a weapon is illegal, the immediate punishment is arrest. I'm guessing people that go out on the street with weapons have a long record of criminal and mental problems, yet they keep being put back out on the street. That needs to change.

I don't go to the WR often, it's a little dark in here. My suggestion would be to light one up and put on some Rocksteady. No one has all the answers and no one needs to carry all the world's problems on their shoulders.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Granted it would take a lot of resources but I still think my idea of religious questioning/beliefs and an introduction to the country would do wonders for immigration.

When you immigrate to a new country, the very first question should be "Does your religion or beliefs conflict with X's country's laws?" You could even go as far as to offering example questions.

One of the questions could be "If someone mocks your religion do you A. Think they should be put in prison B. Killed for blasphemy C. Freedom of speech D. Write in answer.

If they answer A or B, I'm sorry, we don't want you in our country. We will help find you another country without freedom of speech laws or one that has blasphemy laws that would better fit your belief system.

I wouldn't want this to single out Muslims though. If I were moving to Japan or China, I just couldn't waltz in there acting like an American. I'd have to adopt and accept the local practices and laws. If you think that it's not only OK to kill someone for mocking your God and on top of that, you get rewarded with paradise, you probably shouldn't seek out a Western country with secular laws and freedom of speech to live. Again, there's the notion of conquest and converting the masses in Islam and some religions which is the real problem. They seek out these Western countries to turn them.

 

[Feniamin]

Well thanks for the answer

Thats why i asked which countries lol

If i would have known then i would not have asked

No, I mean, there is differrence between Muslims in power and Muslim majority. For example, I think Albania is Muslim majority but few years ago Orthodox Christian won president election, I think also one of their prime ministers was Christian (not Orthodox, Protestant, I think) who turned Agnostic. I heard something like in Bosnia and Herzegovina one term rules Croatian, them Serbian and then Bosniak. So Muslim rule there but they are not majority of population.
I can't say I answered your question since it was more like guessing/suggestions. Probably secular countries with a lot of Muslims doesn't have such taxes (so, probably Syria, maybe North African countries, ex-USSR countries).

 

[Fox by the Sea]

new york times with the hot take

 

[Islam Imamate]

There's no issue as long as it's not legally binding as religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments.

Private arbitration is often legally binding though, making it otherwise would render it far less useful.

 

[Brazilian HKD]

What do you think about the American model?

Let me put this way. Everytime America forgets that we wanted to distance ourselves from the errors of the old world, and start emulating and even envying them, we inject a foreign body to our fragile democracy.

American secularism is the most successful model there is (not perfect, of course). Europe basically replaced the church with the state, while even in its most extreme cases, America still tried to keep a good compromise.

I believe that deep down, what we have is that in one side we have people who want america to be like europe; see how many times posters here bring aspects of the relative new and untested Scandinavian system here.
On the others we have people who criticize the government but also See them as new messiahs when its convenient.
Maybe the USA haven’t been able to recover from the necessary centralization needed after it’s role in he cold war, and needs to review its roots and yes, invite new americans to be part of its history instead of falling in the traps of european criticism ( one typical example is on the almost word by word criticism between north and south americans that reflect the exact same arguments from when Spain and England used to be the rival empires).

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Private arbitration is often legally binding though, making it otherwise would render it far less useful.

Correct me if I'm wrong but courts will only enforce the arbitration if it is based on local and\or state law.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Correct me if I'm wrong but courts will only enforce the arbitration if it is based on local and\or state law.

I'm not super well read on it but I think its legally binding if both parties agree to it. In the UK they have two kinds of Sharia courts, ones that are legally binding and ones that are simply advisory.

 

[Rob Battisti]

new york times with the hot take

[THERE IS NO AGENDA HERE. COMPLY.]

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I'm not super well read on it but I think its legally binding if both parties agree to it. In the UK they have two kinds of Sharia courts, ones that are legally binding and ones that are simply advisory.

Found this on Wiki

-----The MAT operates under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act which states that: “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.[5] As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system. Under the Act they are deemed to be "arbitration tribunals".[4][dead link]

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers to grant a divorce which is valid in English and Welsh law.[5][6] A talaq can be granted to recognise divorce.[5][6] A sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law.[7] The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on criminal matters but can attempt reconciliation between spouses-----

As long as it operates under the framework of the secular state law and has no jurisdiction on it's own then I see no issue with it.

 

[Cajun]

DO NOT go looking for the pictures
ugh

Now people will look for pictures.... thanks....

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Let me put this way. Everytime America forgets that we wanted to distance ourselves from the errors of the old world, and start emulating and even envying them, we inject a foreign body to our fragile democracy.

American secularism is the most successful model there is (not perfect, of course). Europe basically replaced the church with the state, while even in its most extreme cases, America still tried to keep a good compromise.

I believe that deep down, what we have is that in one side we have people who want america to be like europe; see how many times posters here bring aspects of the relative new and untested Scandinavian system here.
On the others we have people who criticize the government but also See them as new messiahs when its convenient.
Maybe the USA haven’t been able to recover from the necessary centralization needed after it’s role in he cold war, and needs to review its roots and yes, invite new americans to be part of its history instead of falling in the traps of european criticism ( one typical example is on the almost word by word criticism between north and south americans that reflect the exact same arguments from when Spain and England used to be the rival empires).

You say that the American system is the most successful but not perfect, I'm curious what do you think needs improving?

 

[Brazilian HKD]

You say that the American system is the most successful but not perfect, I'm curious what do you think needs improving?

The use of American secularism for exportation as a way to impose our way in foreign nations, although sometimes understandable for foreign policy matters, was a distorted way that caved to tyrannical leaders and a betrayal of what we originally stood for. There is a lot of unfair criticism about america ( and There is nothing more american than criticizing authority), but that criticism is very valid.

Other issues are obvious. An irish journalist coins the whole manifest destiny and we fall for it as if it was part of the puritan vision ( Robert winthrop, grandkid of John Winthrop opposed such cultural appropriation)

Or how we didnt follow the very early treatment of African americans. We know that before the body of liberties we had african americans owning land and being part of the community (looks for Sebastian Kane) in Dorcester, or John Elliot donating his property so a school for “whites, negroes and indians” to study side by side.
His school stands even today.