I do not disagree with you regarding how things are. But I do question whether or not a 'sub group' that has given up one or more tenants of something based entirely on dogma and rules can still be considered a member of the original group. So are these people really Muslim but a different sub- group or are they simply in violation of a very significant rules (or rules) and therefore actually not Muslim at all but people claiming to be so?
I am really very ignorant of Islam but as far as I know, the consumption of alcohol, as well as pig products and several (many?) other things are strictly forbidden and further, there is no allowance for any circumstances that would allow it. That is the safety valve in, say Judaism, something about a situation being 'life or death' allowing a rule to be suspended. Again, pretty ignorant of Judiasm too but given my poor understanding, if a Muslim and Jewish person were isolated and trapped in, say, some kind of spare, and the only food was bacon, the Jew could, in order to avoid certain death, eat bacon only as long as needed while the Muslim must avoid it even it it results in death. Applied to alcohol, there is no tolerance or allowance.
Brian
Not strictly true as Islam has as many (if not more) sub branches as Christianity.
(some ) Turkish Muslims for example are free to drink alcohol whilst others discourage rather than prohibit.
On the other hand Black Pudding is a definite nono , not only being a pork product but being made of blood
The same argument goes for any religion.
Take Christianity as a good example, ie a Top Level Religion (or TLR) in the same way as Islam is or Judaism is
look at the differences in doctrine between even the big players (ie the Anglicans & the Catholics) and thats before you even start going down the road of Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Baptists, Orthodox Greeks etc etc
NB Islam has the same basic as Judaism, "That which is necessary makes the forbidden permissible." otherwise known as the Law of Necessity under Islam
Excellent! Just looked and found this: "Allah does not require from a soul more than what it can bear". Followed by a long and detailed description of that 'escape clause' written into the contract (the imaginary contract between the followers and, well, Allah I guess).
Thanks for that Mike, the original information I got was, believe it or not, from a conversation with a Rabbi and simply took it as accurate. But apparently there is that 'safety valve' in Islam as there sometimes is in other, very strict, religions.
It has always been difficult to learn much about Islam here, at least in my part of the US, as it is pretty rare and even passing by the occasional Muslim, that person is usually not familiar enough with Islam (which is true of almost all religions' members) to educate the ignorant. And I have never even seen an Imam as far as I know. Finally, the attitude in the US is.... let us just say, not conducive to assisting people like me, ignorant in this area, to become any more enlightened. So again, thanks for that input because knowledge is the absolute best way to address ignorance. Although it is easier, and often encouraged by society, to replace any learning with hatred. I find with a little effort the hatred can be kept and still learn something.
Brian
A lot does depend on where you live
For example Bolton (where I live) has a Muslim population of 11.7% (compared to 5% for the UK as a whole) and the part I live in is probably higher than that again.
Mind you Bolton also has more Jedi Knights than Satanists (698 to 1)
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10110940.Census_reveals_town___s_religious_diversity/
Can't sleep?
http://nypost.com/2017/07/30/desnudas-have-gone-wild-in-times-square/
Well, I did not see this one coming. Apparently it is a 'thing' in NYC. Kinda' funny 100- odd miles away from NYC, probably not nearly as amusing up close and personal.
My youngest son commutes daily from northern VA. to 'The Belly of the Beast', Washington, DC. Lots of homeless people (or whatever those 'huddled masses' on the streets are) and they can be quite annoying. Of course they have every right to be there, under the Constitution, all of our laws and customs, at least as far as I know, but a small minority are belligerent, aggressive and cross the line of 'acceptable behavior' in my opinion in their interactions with other people.
Things such as this bother me because I cannot see any solution. Or at least not any solution that would not cause more problems, violate our very foundation of laws, or similar. Put simply, no solution that would work given the bigger picture.
But still, nothing exceeds like excess, and these 'Desnudas' are apparently another, fairly recent facet of the excess that makes NYC so..... well, make NYC, NYC. As long as one does not have to live or work there, fascinating places to visit and see things I could not have envisioned or thought of. And I have an active imagination.
Brian
Things such as this bother me because I cannot see any solution. Or at least not any solution that would not cause more problems
Left coast moving east?
are very conservative while NH, VT and ME are.... impossible to gauge, at least from where I sit. The act ultra conservative in many important ways and then elect Bernie Sanders as a US Senator (NH). They are fiercely right- leaning liberal states. Or maybe they are fiercely left leaning conservative states. Either way, they vote blue but are fiercely red in most metrics I care about.
random morning thought/
Constitutionally is it theoretically possible for one of the 50 States to "leave" the USA and declare independence if a mandate of that States population were for it?
Ie a Stexit (State exit)
random morning thought/
Constitutionally is it theoretically possible for one of the 50 States to "leave" the USA and declare independence if a mandate of that States population were for it?
Ie a Stexit (State exit)
Ah Ok 14th Amendment (citizenship of the Union trumps citizenship of an Individual State) says no
Gotta love Google
Right morning ponderings over
Well, went and re- read it (and that is an important amendment, having been the point of quite a few precedent setting cases) and I am not seeing anything preventing state departure from the Union. ?
Brian