[blindlaw] Question for the Moderator

Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 UTC 2017

While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. 

Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D.
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Staff Attorney

400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502
FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711
E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org
www.driowa.org

Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts.

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Nicole Askins <njaskins at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator

Hello mr. Stewart,
I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog.
It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue.
It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice.

On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
wrote:

> Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion 
> concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and 
> retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging 
> discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance 
> and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion  is likely not possible and 
> would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges.
>
> Luis.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Stewart, Christopher K <chris.stewart at uky.edu>
> Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator
>
> Hello All,
>
> I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a 
> notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat 
> ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the 
> moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the 
> address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is 
> originating?
>
> Best,
> Chris
>
>
> On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org <blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org>
> wrote:
> > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to
> >       blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >       http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >       blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >       blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
> > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans)
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200
> > From: Bob Evans <ebob824 at gmail.com>
> > To: wuas at wake-up.org
> > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin
> > Message-ID:
> >       <CADbUUH3edjsgwaprNdC8WMf-RVY_YOJ+RWUtmaKi12xrLK7Lyw at mail.
> gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append 
> > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of 
> > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism 
> > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to 
> > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished.
> > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically 
> > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in 
> > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited.
> > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope 
> > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone 
> > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and 
> > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable 
> > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite 
> > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval 
> > office is  rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating 
> > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that 
> > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to 
> > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship 
> > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing 
> > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this 
> > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I 
> > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be 
> > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis <wuas at wake-up.org> wrote:
> >> Hello Mostafa:
> >>
> >> Thank you for your email.
> >>
> >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart.
> >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Larry Wilson
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < 
> >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob <ebob824 at gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: Original Sin
> >>>
> >>> Visitor's Message:
> >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I 
> >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here 
> >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll 
> >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to 
> >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original 
> >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all 
> >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to 
> >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He 
> >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account 
> >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it 
> >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine 
> >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? 
> >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in 
> >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy.
> >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when 
> >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one 
> >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing 
> >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question 
> >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and 
> >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate 
> >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish 
> >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman 
> >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable 
> >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in 
> >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and 
> >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? 
> >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does.
> >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he 
> >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it 
> >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear 
> >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian 
> >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned.
> >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant 
> >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the 
> >>> one who paid for this.
> >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, 
> >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that 
> >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and 
> >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this.
> >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most 
> >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and 
> >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do 
> >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday.
> >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge 
> >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the 
> >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we 
> >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why 
> >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are 
> >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit 
> >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died 
> >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want.
> >>> We
> >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about 
> >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly 
> >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock.
> >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last 
> >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully 
> >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, 
> >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my 
> >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or 
> >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the 
> >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you 
> >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional 
> >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable 
> >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole 
> >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If 
> >>> someone disagrees with this statement,  well, tell me then, how 
> >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented 
> >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I 
> >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or 
> >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute 
> >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, 
> >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to 
> >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just 
> >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible  to 
> >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be 
> >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that 
> >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian 
> >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone 
> >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. 
> >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like 
> >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it 
> >>> is quite perturbing to  conjointly destine our whole human species 
> >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to 
> >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors.
> >>> Pastor
> >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held 
> >>> accountable.
> >>> Who is an instigant?                      An instigant is someone who
> >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass 
> >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held 
> >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if 
> >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they 
> >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension  in the 
> >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held 
> >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely 
> >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely 
> >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously  instigated.
> >>> It
> >>> seems that    fibbers and  chisellers are not willing to address the
> >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive
> facts.
> >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical 
> >>> criticism.
> >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are 
> >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven 
> >>> unless with  providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified 
> >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just 
> >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious 
> >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple 
> >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors.
> >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of 
> >>> timidity did not match with my expectations.
> >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an 
> >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First 
> >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic.
> >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than 
> >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin 
> >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not 
> >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate 
> >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in 
> >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets.
> >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity 
> >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that 
> >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. 
> >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated 
> >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral 
> >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor 
> >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be 
> >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around 
> >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for 
> >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America 
> >>> Seminars
> >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/)
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BlindLaw mailing list
> > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9
> > ****************************************
> >
>
>
> --
> Chris K. Stewart
> Ph:
> (502)457-1757
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/
> lmendez716%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail
> .com
>
_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org