Comments on: Splendor in the Sand http://www.rational.org/blog/56/ Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, AA, 12-step Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:36:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Jack Anderson http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-47187 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:51:47 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-47187 @Jack Trimpey, thank you for leaving both of the above comments in place. Here's an update to the story you posted and originally discussed. From Newsday.com, http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-world175886786oct17,0,4370318.story "A British couple was sentenced by a Dubai court to three months in prison for a drunken escapade that supposedly led to sex on the beach and a clash between Western permissiveness and Islamic values. Vince Acors, 34, and Michelle Palmer, 36, each were fined $272 for drinking alcohol and ordered to be deported immediately upon leaving prison. They were charged with having unmarried sex after a taxi took them from a Champagne brunch at a five-star hotel to Jumeirah beach in Dubai. Palmer had claimed that they were only kissing and hugging, and that a medical report showed they did not have sex." @Jack Trimpey, thank you for leaving both of the above comments in place. Here’s an update to the story you posted and originally discussed.

From Newsday.com, http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-world175886786oct17,0,4370318.story

“A British couple was sentenced by a Dubai court to three months in prison for a drunken escapade that supposedly led to sex on the beach and a clash between Western permissiveness and Islamic values. Vince Acors, 34, and Michelle Palmer, 36, each were fined $272 for drinking alcohol and ordered to be deported immediately upon leaving prison. They were charged with having unmarried sex after a taxi took them from a Champagne brunch at a five-star hotel to Jumeirah beach in Dubai. Palmer had claimed that they were only kissing and hugging, and that a medical report showed they did not have sex.”

]]> by: Brian A. Asbury http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-47118 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:05:41 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-47118 Well said, Mr. Trimpey. If you enter a nation whose law says no shrinking heads in public, you are subject to that law, whether you think it's unreasonable and ridiculous or not. It would be nice if there was less of a tolerance in our legal system for blatant, willful drunken misbehavior, yeah? Well said, Mr. Trimpey. If you enter a nation whose law says no shrinking heads in public, you are subject to that law, whether you think it’s unreasonable and ridiculous or not. It would be nice if there was less of a tolerance in our legal system for blatant, willful drunken misbehavior, yeah?

]]> by: hockley http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-47108 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:49:43 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-47108 This is off topic! I quit on my own. I used AVRT, or my version, before I read about RR. It is commonplace for people to quit or moderate on their own. I am not unusual. Now, life is quite normal. This is off topic!
I quit on my own. I used AVRT, or my version, before I read about RR. It is commonplace for people to quit or moderate on their own. I am not unusual. Now, life is quite normal.

]]> by: JR http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-46325 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:52:23 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-46325 To rebut the anti-Islam spammer, and to bring some balance to the first name Jack, I must interject. I can't have cyberspace thinking that for every Jack that starts an excellent website (that I only found now, shockingly enough), there is a wacko who watches Fox News with a pencil and pad, taking notes from Bill O'Reilly's squawk-box. Your jihadwatch.com is nothing more than a racist website set up by people who want us to bomb the Middle East into oblivion. Perhaps they're old-school Jews who hate everyone who isn't Jewish, and perhaps they're defense contractors. It doesn't matter anyway. There is no problem of "radical Islam" - especially vis-a-vis terrorism. Terrorist activity in the U.S. has been nil since 9/11, and was nil prior to it, if you take away the OKC bombing (FBI & SPLC provoked, and possibly carried out) and WTC '93 (FBI provoked; McVeigh isn't Muslim anyway). Fake bombs get through TSA constantly, and yet we've not seen one explode on an airliner. Meanwhile, overseas, the people that get bombed and beheaded overseas are consistently those who would oppose U.S./Israeli interests. They tell us that so-and-so was pro-Wahabbist, and that he was killed by "gunmen." But who were the gunmen? Cui bono? PEACE JJR <blockquote><strong>To The Readers:</strong> This post by JJR is off-topic and below standards of responsible discussion. Similar posts with confused, political radicalism will be rejected or removed. — Jack Trimpey</blockquote> To rebut the anti-Islam spammer, and to bring some balance to the first name Jack, I must interject. I can’t have cyberspace thinking that for every Jack that starts an excellent website (that I only found now, shockingly enough), there is a wacko who watches Fox News with a pencil and pad, taking notes from Bill O’Reilly’s squawk-box.

Your jihadwatch.com is nothing more than a racist website set up by people who want us to bomb the Middle East into oblivion. Perhaps they’re old-school Jews who hate everyone who isn’t Jewish, and perhaps they’re defense contractors. It doesn’t matter anyway. There is no problem of “radical Islam” - especially vis-a-vis terrorism.

Terrorist activity in the U.S. has been nil since 9/11, and was nil prior to it, if you take away the OKC bombing (FBI & SPLC provoked, and possibly carried out) and WTC ‘93 (FBI provoked; McVeigh isn’t Muslim anyway). Fake bombs get through TSA constantly, and yet we’ve not seen one explode on an airliner. Meanwhile, overseas, the people that get bombed and beheaded overseas are consistently those who would oppose U.S./Israeli interests. They tell us that so-and-so was pro-Wahabbist, and that he was killed by “gunmen.” But who were the gunmen? Cui bono?

PEACE

JJR

To The Readers: This post by JJR is off-topic and below standards of responsible discussion. Similar posts with confused, political radicalism will be rejected or removed. — Jack Trimpey

]]> by: DCNatsFan http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-46029 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:51:52 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-46029 Actually, it would appear that Dubai is ahead of the West in this regard. They view a drunken public display of sex as the gross abomination that it is, as opposed to the "disease" that so many 12 steppers would make it out to be. If I were to get in trouble under the influence of alcohol, I would find it more humane to be hauled up as an adult who should have known better, as opposed to a poor sick disease victim who needs supervision. Actually, it would appear that Dubai is ahead of the West in this regard. They view a drunken public display of sex as the gross abomination that it is, as opposed to the “disease” that so many 12 steppers would make it out to be. If I were to get in trouble under the influence of alcohol, I would find it more humane to be hauled up as an adult who should have known better, as opposed to a poor sick disease victim who needs supervision.

]]> by: Jack Anderson http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-46014 Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:31:03 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-46014 I completely agree with you Jack, as far as you take it -- I understand the larger point you were making was about choices we make. I see also a discussion of newcomers and visitors respecting their new countries traditions etc. You said: "As if one nation must accommodate the cultural traditions and moral standards of their tourists and other visitors" and "When you travel into a sovereign, foreign nation, you are subject to the laws of that land, no matter how much you may disagree with them. It is most unwise to enter a foreign country with the idea that you are or should be exempt from the laws and taboos of that culture." But Muslims in general don't let that get in their way of demanding that we in the West accommodate them. It should be troubling to us all that Muslims in Europe, and to a growing extent in America, are agitating for sharia law. Polygamy, blood money, honor killings, Ramadan accommodation by non-muslims, blaring the call to prayer five times a day, divorce by the male simply by repeating "I divorce you" three times, wearing the hijab in public schools, etc. Exactly how many Christian churches are there in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mohammed and considered the holiest place in Islam? None. But they have no problem demanding that more and more mosques be built in the West. At this point in history the West doesn't have the clear, definitive view of its culture to withstand the Islamic confidence in its culture. I hope that changes. www.jihadwatch.org is the best site I've found to learn what's coming this way. Jack A. I completely agree with you Jack, as far as you take it — I understand the larger point you were making was about choices we make. I see also a discussion of newcomers and visitors respecting their new countries traditions etc.

You said:

“As if one nation must accommodate the cultural traditions and moral standards of their tourists and other visitors” and

“When you travel into a sovereign, foreign nation, you are subject to the laws of that land, no matter how much you may disagree with them. It is most unwise to enter a foreign country with the idea that you are or should be exempt from the laws and taboos of that culture.”

But Muslims in general don’t let that get in their way of demanding that we in the West accommodate them.

It should be troubling to us all that Muslims in Europe, and to a growing extent in America, are agitating for sharia law. Polygamy, blood money, honor killings, Ramadan accommodation by non-muslims, blaring the call to prayer five times a day, divorce by the male simply by repeating “I divorce you” three times, wearing the hijab in public schools, etc.

Exactly how many Christian churches are there in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mohammed and considered the holiest place in Islam? None. But they have no problem demanding that more and more mosques be built in the West.

At this point in history the West doesn’t have the clear, definitive view of its culture to withstand the Islamic confidence in its culture. I hope that changes.

www.jihadwatch.org is the best site I’ve found to learn what’s coming this way. Jack A.

]]> by: Mike http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-45952 Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:18:33 +0000 http://www.rational.org/blog/56/#comment-45952 Perfectly said. Perfectly said.

]]>