Islam, Democracy and Human Rights

There are astounding 4,000+ Muslims on active duty in the United States armed forces: http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=647. The American government must be really insane then. 

Islam violates human rights by default: Their beliefs go against the constitution of all democratic countries. On https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=187&Lang=EN, we learn that the USA signed for a convention on elimination of all types of discrimination against women in 1980 and therefore its people condemn any philosophy that means women are to be treated as inferior beings. 

Accepting people from the Islamic religion as members of the US armed forces is therefore treason in highest degree.

Our Linkedin got a message from D. Holden yesterday (2/12/15): Muslims praying. And serving in the United States military. Why don't the media share posts like this?

Our comments were: It should be illegal. They are violators of basic human rights (freedom and equality) by default and therefore could never be employed by any American company, who would say by their armed forces?

The truth is the truth: Whoever is Islamic, man or woman, signs under a treaty that frontally opposes democracy, one of its most basic principles, which is to never discriminate against people because of their gender.

You put an Islamic soldier in a war and they have a choice between killing a man or a woman: They will obviously kill the woman, regardless of who she is. We may have Marcia R. Pinheiro there, the only woman in human history capable of achieving Poincare's score in Science by the age of 40, and Joe, the trader, and Marcia will die. A woman is an officer and files a report on rape by another officer, a male. If the Islamic officer is on duty, he will simply close the case and give it to the man.The USA is at war with an Islamic nation, say because they won't sign the convention on elimination of all types of discrimination against women, so say to, for the first time in history, free the 18,000,000+ women from Saudi Arabia from slavery, and they will then attack us from within... This is just to mention a few possibilities. 

There has to be  a limit for this story of tolerance: We can only include people up to the point at which that inclusion does not imply exclusion of the naturally or legally included. 

The entire civilized world has to ban Muslims from any Country that signs for equality between genders and that is for sure. 

These monsters have the courage of learning Science from women's hands and, even so, criminally, sometimes through atrocities, destroy their lives and bodies gratuitously as a thank you, and this in first world and nowadays. 

We get a lot confused these days and we then lose all discernment: We end up thinking that we can include Islamic women in our acquaintanceship circle because they are the victims, not the perpetrators. Notwithstanding, if they are Islamic outside of Islam, they chose those beliefs, quite trivially, and those do include inferiority of women by default, so that, if we are women, we can only be insane, for we are choosing to relate to someone who may then vote for our death in a war simply because we are women (Marcia x Joe).

________________________________________________

Nothing better for those who work or want to work with Translation and Interpreting than reading

The Book

____________________________________

Limits of Acceptance: Islam

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/beauty/a/30108529/woman-who-tried-to-ban-muslims-from-her-beauty-salon-gets-arrested/" target="_blank" makes us think about things a bit deeper: Could we refuse to serve a man who we saw killing his own mother? Perhaps there was someone else who claimed to witness someone else killing his mother and the police did not arrest him because they are still investigating. Could we stand for what we believe and refuse to serve this individual?

Could we refuse to serve the woman who had sex with our father when he was married to our mother if we are sure that she did that?

Could we refuse to serve a group of boys who have just stolen a bike if we watched them steal from another? They managed to escape and ended up inside of our business.

We watched a group of ten boys vandalizing the business of our fellow. They have not yet been arrested because the police is doubting our capacity to see at that time. Can we refuse to serve those?

Islam violates the most fundamental rights of women in the clearest way as possible. Places like Australia and Brazil sign for human rights, what means that the entire nation supports those. Would it not be treason serving Islamic men? They definitely disagree with our declared and legal national principles.

They still arrive at our premises and demand that they be served exclusively by men. Would that not be sexism? Can they do that inside of our Country?

And if they cannot do that, but they obviously do it, would it not be the case that our violation of the laws are of equivalent nature? If they do not go to jail for refusing to be served by women, do we have to go to jail for refusing to accepting them as customers?

Going a bit beyond all this, we know that occidental women cannot enter Islam because they will be physically attacked, they may become slaves of some man, etc. In this case, could we not have reciprocity going on and refuse to receive at least their men or at least legally allow people to violate their rights and commit crime against them?

What should be the limits of acceptance and tolerance? 

Also, if the law forbids writings of that sort, it certainly allows for protests that be orderly. If the lady accompanied her refusal with a note of protest and explained that she will refuse to serve Islamic men until Islamism accepts equality between men and women, would she be accepted for then being classified as a person protesting against cruel regimens?

________________________________________________

Nothing better for those who work or want to work with Translation and Interpreting than reading

The Book

____________________________________

Ethics: of love, of family, of work and of religion

The human rights fights we currently have all over the world could be supported by creating philosophical disciplines and introducing them in the primary or secondary school contexts: ethics of love, ethics of family, ethics of work and ethics of religion.

It seems that it is all theory and therefore will be as useless as the laws and systems we currently have but school shapes our thinking. 

We would then be formally studying what is logical inside of those worlds: intimate relationships, families, work and churches. 

By deepening our logical understanding of all those relationships and métiers, we will be unavoidably supporting the law and common sense and creating ways to stop crime from the time of the plot. 

It is worth studying practical cases as well, since our mind does visit those places, inside of our memories, especially if the courses were pleasant, before deciding over our actions in the past, present or future. 

Perfect lives, perfect bodies, perfect careers, and careers that are priceless for the entire human kind, in Science, Education, Research, etc., are being terminated in the most atrocious way as possible, or changed into way less than what they should be, because of total breach of ethics, in all sectors, of all involved. Ethics is all indeed and let's forget the absurdity invented by a few; that we could have things such as an ethics of thieves. No, we could not: If a person steals from others, outside of their group, they can also steal from those inside and it is just a matter of scarcity and time and they will. We all know it is not possible to have an ethics of thieves. Ethics does imply elegance and elegance does imply compliance. 

It looks like nothing but we, ourselves, after studying such a view, started thinking that that was possible and therefore that they were perhaps acceptable (the thieves). We still have second thoughts in our mind about whether such a thing would be possible, despite the enormous amount of counter-examples we could come up with. This sort of thinking ends up destroying our morality: ideas like this shouldn't really be conveyed. 

________________________________________________

Nothing better for those who work or want to work with Translation and Interpreting than reading

The Book

____________________________________