Judge Orders Muslim-Turned-Christian Teen Home

[Joe Williams]

How are we to take your post, and your claim that she has been brainwashed, when you deliberately make the false claim that anything you posted below are Christian practices?

There is no proof that anyone's parents threatened to kill anyone. That is all lies implanted by this minister in Florida. You all need to read to head the full story from someplace else than the op ed time-slot at Fox News (btw FN can be just a little bit biased in cases like these).

And before you guys go on about Shira law, or what ever. I'd like to mention...

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)


Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)


Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)


Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?


If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?


If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)


If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)


If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?


If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)


Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)


If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)


People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)


Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)


Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)​

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)


If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)


Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)​

Also (as outlined in Exodus 21:7) its to bad That the girl didn't make it to a christian household. I would like to buy her, as I could sure use a new concubine. ​

 

[printcraft]

............

And before you guys go on about Shira law, or what ever. I'd like to mention...

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)​

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)​

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)​

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)​

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?​

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?​

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)​

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)​

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?​

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)​

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)​

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)​

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)​

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)​

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)



Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)​

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)​

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)​

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)


Also (as outlined in Exodus 21:7) its to bad That the girl didn't make it to a christian household. I would like to buy her, as I could sure use a new concubine.


​

Meach,

Show me some someone following the above to the letter TODAY and I'll call
them a radical too and will denounce them as such.
Anything?
Bueller?

sharia law as practiced TODAY is much worse.

 

[steveh_131]

Whoa there Nelly. Don't be so quick to trot off like that!

I don't exactly know what that expression means in this context, but consider me VERY offended.

That's a pretty broad brush you used there my friend. If you haven't listened to the recordings of her discussing all this then you REALLY should. Some people act like she's just doing this for attention. Personally I think it's God trying to wake some people up. Regardless of that, I really think she's honestly in fear of her life.

It really doesn't matter whether we believe her or not. Yes, we could send her home and she could die. Of course the first instinct is wanting the government to take the safe route. Can't risk her life, right? Unfortunately that's the same argument used to advocate banning guns, tobacco, junk food, and every other area where the government sticks its nose. Saving her life is not worth the precedent that would be set by the government interfering in familys' lives based on no evidence but the parents' religion.

How about we consider them innocent until proven guilty? At the very least, innocent until the crime has been committed.

 

[The Meach]

How are we to take your post, and your claim that she has been brainwashed, when you deliberately make the false claim that anything you posted below are Christian practices?

I claim they are directives prescribed to us in our holy book. yet we do not follow them (well at least a majority of us don't, there are some crazy folks out there that do)

In the case of Muslims Shira law is prescribed to them by their holy texts. Yet they do not follow this rules. Because like us and our crazy rules. They realize that those rules are off the deep-end. (well except for the crazies that do follow shira law...)

See my point yet?

Also I'd like you to read all those "old laws" the bible. and then compare them all to Shira law. How different are they? Or are they pretty much the same? yeah thought so...

 

[Fletch]

I'd disagree. All Children have a Limited scale of rights and are under guardianship and are dependents of their parents (or other guardian) untill they reach the legal age of adulthood.

Now i think that we should back that age up to about 16. But you do have to have protected Ages of children.

But the law is the Law and these parents under the law have a right to their child, and to not have her brainwashed by some bible toting crazy.

This looks suspiciously like an argument that children are the property of their parents, a view that I'm sympathetic to, but cannot wholeheartedly endorse.

 

[Fletch]

From Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

(emphasis mine)

The rest of the article makes interesting reading, and I don't expect anyone at all to agree with it. However, it makes a far better case for the preservation of individual rights (regardless of the individual in question) than any other I've seen when children are brought into the discussion.

 

[SavageEagle]

It really doesn't matter whether we believe her or not. Yes, we could send her home and she could die. Of course the first instinct is wanting the government to take the safe route. Can't risk her life, right? Unfortunately that's the same argument used to advocate banning guns, tobacco, junk food, and every other area where the government sticks its nose. Saving her life is not worth the precedent that would be set by the government interfering in familys' lives based on no evidence but the parents' religion.

How about we consider them innocent until proven guilty? At the very least, innocent until the crime has been committed.

Innocent until proven guilty is not how CPS operates, unfortunately. But if there was ever a good time to put that to use, I'd say now would be the best time.

That poor girl just better not end up dead. I fear that with this case being in the National Spotlight from the beginning that it might trigger a backlash against muslims everywhere in this Country.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Why do some of you guys bring up the old testament to try to validate your points ?

Do you not realize there is a new testament and that many of the archaic practices of those day are no longer followed ??

Do you not realize that the law cannot save , that it only condemns ?

Christianity unlike islam doesn't have the CURRENT REPUTATION for killing people that choose to leave the faith .

I say if at 17 I was old enough to believe in my convictions strong enough and join the service then this girl should be old enough to believe in hers .

REGARDLESS of what our beliefs are , we don't know what her life experience has been that would lead her to believe that she will die if returned .

We don't know if she was "brainwashed" or not , but however it happened she believes it to be the case and IMO, she shouldn't be forced to return .

 

[hoosiertriangle]

To put it simply, if the CPS in Florida and Ohio both find no reason to keep her from her parents, she should go back to them. I don't believe that one's religion (or professed beliefs of religion) should be in and of itself sufficient to keep the daughter from the parents.

The slippery slope argument about using ones affiliation with religion alone is extremely persuasive to me. The parents should not be stripped of their right without due process. All the facts which make this interesting should be verified or dismissed through a proper process oversaw by the courts.

This is all the judge should do, other than try and overrule the statute mandating the return on constitutional grounds (which I doubt there is a basis). Courts have no duty to enforce or interpret unconstitutional laws.

 

[The Meach]

After watching this, the unedited video, I'm more than willing to call absolute BS. She snaps from laughing and joking to tears like a professional actor. I don't know why she ran away, but she seems to have found her way to a very cult-y sect of Christianity.

Plus her reasons and fears behind her Father wanting to kill her seems very spoon fed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodUgAVvLkY"]YouTube - Fake Honour killing girl Sheds crocodile tears in US from Sri lanka[/ame]

Here are her Evil parents:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6P9Fzw9arQ[/ame]

Sorry guys. I don't know what to say other than I am unconvinced. Like the Dad said, any Muslim father who followed shira law would stone his daughter rather than let her leave the house in a cheerleader outfit.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0MdUyJ1GU[/ame]

This all seems so implanted, and staged. I think She is being used as some sort player in a larger unethical proselytism effort.

 

[SavageEagle]

I knew someone would treat it this way. Don't you remember dating teenage girls when you were their age? DOn't you remember the emotional train wreck they were? I do. And having an 8y/o that cries like a baby when she's told to do the dishes confirms that young girls have no control over emotion!

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone who believes in Sharia Law.

[Sarcasm]BRAINWASHED BY THE DEVIL THEY ARE![/Sarcasm]

 

[Joe Williams]

I claim they are directives prescribed to us in our holy book. yet we do not follow them (well at least a majority of us don't, there are some crazy folks out there that do)

In the case of Muslims Shira law is prescribed to them by their holy texts. Yet they do not follow this rules. Because like us and our crazy rules. They realize that those rules are off the deep-end. (well except for the crazies that do follow shira law...)

See my point yet?

Also I'd like you to read all those "old laws" the bible. and then compare them all to Shira law. How different are they? Or are they pretty much the same? yeah thought so...

Those directives are emphatically NOT prescribed to Christians, as you well know, and haven't been for more than 2,000 years. What is your objective in claiming they are?

 

[steveh_131]

Those directives are emphatically NOT prescribed to Christians, as you well know, and haven't been for more than 2,000 years. What is your objective in claiming they are?

Because maybe, just maybe, some Muslims don't follow the murderous sections of their book, just like most Christians don't follow the murderous sections of their book. And maybe they have a rational reason for it, like Christians do.

Or maybe they all murder the infidels. Who am I to stand in the way of your generalizations?

 

[Joe Williams]

Because maybe, just maybe, some Muslims don't follow the murderous sections of their book, just like most Christians don't follow the murderous sections of their book. And maybe they have a rational reason for it, like Christians do.

Or maybe they all murder the infidels. Who am I to stand in the way of your generalizations?

So, when this girl turns up dead you won't mind me reminding you that you supported it, right?

 

[steveh_131]

So, when this girl turns up dead you won't mind me reminding you that you supported it, right?

The next time a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun, you won't mind me reminding you that you supported the 2nd Amendment?

Neither will I.

 

[Joe Williams]

The next time a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun, you won't mind me reminding you that you supported the 2nd Amendment?

Neither will I.

Yet another straw argument. You are the one who said "the parents call the shots." You are the one claiming that at 17 this girl doesn't know enough to decide whether or not she's in danger. At 17, I was old enough to be playing with automatic weapons and explosives, trusted with life and death responsibility.... yet somehow she's not smart enough to know if she's in danger. The best you've come up with so far is to try to equate her to a 12 year old, and smear those who think she shouldn't be forced into what she's evaluated as a dangerous situation as bigots.

BTW... I'm assuming that since you equate firearms ownership as being on a level with deliberate "honor killings" of little girls who don't follow their parent's religious edicts, you don't own guns, right? If you do, what does that say for your low opinion of gun owners?

 

[dburkhead]

Christianity, as an organized religion (not as a faith), has plenty of history of brutality.

So what other religions should be considered? Since we're advocating stripping rights from people based on their religion, there must be some more we can go after.

The difference is that people try to use things like the Inquisition of about 500 years ago as some kind of valid comparison to the current practices of modern Islam.

Are there self-professed Christians who commit crimes and atrocities? Certainly. However, you might want to ask yourself that the religion of the people who investigated, caught, tried, convicted and sentenced Michael F. Griffin? Paul Jennings Hill? Eric Rudolph? James Kopp? Clayton Waagner? And so on? See if the folk who did all that were not Christian themselves.

So where are the Muslims investigating, charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing the killers of Daniel Pearl? The folk doing "honor killing"? The folk stoning to death women and girls for the "crime" of being raped?

When you can answer that question equitably then maybe we can talk about any kind of moral equivalence of the two religions.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Joe,

As I understand it, he's not advocating for returning the daughter to parents where there is objective evidence OTHER than the professed beliefs of the parents religion that supports the proposition that the daughter will be harmed or killed. I think he's advocating that when the process plays out and CPS makes its finding that the daughter should be returned, that she should be returned.

Did you support the taking of all those kids from the Mormon compound in Texas and the grinding of those parents through the legal system? The situation is similar. There they had a child making an accuasation and no object evidence to support the accuasation other than the girls statement and the professed religious beliefs of some Mormons. When Texas CPS found nothing, the children were returned. Using your proposals with respect to this daughter, I assume you think that it was wrong to return the children.

I need to better understand how you think this should work based on todays system of rules and regulations.

Thanks,

So, when this girl turns up dead you won't mind me reminding you that you supported it, right?

 

[Scutter01]

She needs to go to a foster home until she can file to become Emancipated.

As I understand it, that's sort of the heart of the matter. Ohio has no emancipation laws, so legally she can't be emancipated, and the Florida judge had to decide if there was any legal basis for not returning her back to Ohio. He doesn't have the legal power to keep her in a Florida foster home against the wishes of her legal guardians, so he's referring it back to an Ohio court which may have the power. Or he's deliberately stalling until she turns 18 and makes it a moot issue.

 

[dburkhead]

I find it interesting that you won't answer the simple question.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the simple question. Only a single "yes" or "no" will suffice.