Truck kills 30 in France

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I think you are correct, but I also think you know what they mean.

People--intelligent ones as well as less educated in terms of fully understanding the minutiae of Islam--don't think it's cool for women to be stoned as punishment for being raped, or for homosexuals to be imprisoned/shunned/murdered, or the eye for the eye thing...in the name of religious law. We have the rule of law in the US, and it's not guided by religion...any religion. So that's what posters mean. I know that you understand that, and your just going way down in the weeds to make some point. That's cool.

You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

There really is nothing better than a completely uninformed and clearly wrong poster attempting to post a snarky answer. But, as you say, that's cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not understanding your question, but I'll tell you I object to anyone trying to make their religious law the law of the land. That's anathema to our way of life. Period. And you know as well as I do that people are actively trying to turn the planet into a place where people live according to Sharia law -- whatever your (or more likely, their) interpretation of it may be.

And I'd object to anyone who'd like to cleanse all but white people from America as white supremacists would want. But I don't waste a nanosecond thinking about it because there is near zero chance this could even rise to the level of a real threat. Same with the chances of forcing everyone in the US to use religious courts for marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

You dont waste a nano second thinking about what the white racists, about 10% of US population so desperately want to impose, BUT you worry your life on what a tiny sliver of 1% of the US population YOU THINK want to impose based on some source you hear someone talk. You got your priorities right. LOL.

Perhaps my writing fail. I meant to say that if I reasonably don't spend a nanosecond worrying about white supremacists wanting to cleanse the U.S. I certainly wouldn't spend a nanosecond worrying about imposition of Shariah family law in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are correct, but I also think you know what they mean.

People--intelligent ones as well as less educated in terms of fully understanding the minutiae of Islam--don't think it's cool for women to be stoned as punishment for being raped, or for homosexuals to be imprisoned/shunned/murdered, or the eye for the eye thing...in the name of religious law. We have the rule of law in the US, and it's not guided by religion...any religion. So that's what posters mean. I know that you understand that, and your just going way down in the weeds to make some point. That's cool.

You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

There really is nothing better than a completely uninformed and clearly wrong poster attempting to post a snarky answer. But, as you say, that's cool.

Also note that the first PP thinks it's going down into the weeds to distinguish minutiae like the difference between applying Shariah law for family status matters and applying it for criminal matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't think of one Muslim country that has non-Muslim citizens subject to Islamic family courts. They have church courts that carry out family law according to their arrangements.

So what you seem to be saying is that the goal of those who want to impose Shariah law in the US is to force the of use religious courts for matters of family status. And these could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist etc.

They are many objections to this, starting with the Constitution, but posing this goal (if it even exists outside the minds of Muslim fear mongerers) with its huge obstacles as a threat to the core of Western civilization seems a bit over the top. Europe functioned this way for many centuries.

Very well said. It seems these discussions often go like this:

Anti-Sharia poster (ASP): Muslims are a threat to our society because they support Sharia!

Me: What does "supporting Sharia" mean?

ASP: It means they support Sharia.

Me: Yes, but what does "support Sharia" mean? What is Sharia?

ASP: They support Sharia and that is a threat to our society.

Me: So, you've said, but what is Sharia? What exactly to do they want to change about our society?

ASP: Here is the Wikipedia page about Sharia.

These posters have no idea what Sharia is or what Muslims who support Sharia actually support in concrete terms. Yet, they are convinced that it is a huge threat. The problem here is simply ignorance. The time spent posting anti-Muslim posts on DCUM would be much better spent finding an actual Muslim with which to have a conversation.

Or...
These posters could acknowledge that many of them support Christian "Sharia" law: divorce impossible to get, birth control hard to get, abortion illegal.

You are too smart for this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone ranting about "Sharia law" ... I wonder if you would be quite so adamant about removing all traces if supposedly Christian values from US law? End any tax breaks for churches. No abortion restrictions. Free birth control in schools ...

You know birth control is available in many public schools and dont worry all Christian values are long gone
I am not sure where you are finding them in law. If you mean western values, why would we remove them? Newts whole point was that we ha e western values and imposing shariah is antithetical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone ranting about "Sharia law" ... I wonder if you would be quite so adamant about removing all traces if supposedly Christian values from US law? End any tax breaks for churches. No abortion restrictions. Free birth control in schools ...

You know birth control is available in many public schools and dont worry all Christian values are long gone
I am not sure where you are finding them in law. If you mean western values, why would we remove them? Newts whole point was that we ha e western values and imposing shariah is antithetical.

You missed the entire discussion and point made by Jeff and few others. Please take a day, if need be, and read word by word and understand everything that was posted.

[Anonymous]

I don't know exactly what Newt said but if he meant imposing Shariah law to the extent it is imposed in most Muslim countries he is wrong.

As pointed out that would mean requiring all matters of personal status to be executed through religious courts. That is not compatible with the US Constitution, but it is not antithetical to Western values. As pointed out earlier, Europe had such arrangements for centuries.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are correct, but I also think you know what they mean.



You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

What nonsense! The Hobby Lobby ruling has nothing to do with any particular religion. It allows exemptions for people if following certain laws would violate their sincerely held religious belief, whether that religion is Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. It is similar to laws that allow pacifists to avoid conscription during a war, if fighting would violate their sincerely held religious belief.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

What nonsense! The Hobby Lobby ruling has nothing to do with any particular religion. It allows exemptions for people if following certain laws would violate their sincerely held religious belief, whether that religion is Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. It is similar to laws that allow pacifists to avoid conscription during a war, if fighting would violate their sincerely held religious belief.

Okay, it has now been determined that exceptions to laws based on religious belief have nothing to do with religion. Believing otherwise is nonsense. Also, up is down.

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/understanding-sharia-law-_b_844624
Understanding Sharia Law

- Sharia is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.
-There is no one thing called sharia. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands sharia in its own way. No official document, such as the Ten Commandments, encapsulates sharia. It is the ideal law of God as interpreted by Muslim scholars over centuries aimed toward justice, fairness and mercy.
-Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't think of one Muslim country that has non-Muslim citizens subject to Islamic family courts. They have church courts that carry out family law according to their arrangements.

So what you seem to be saying is that the goal of those who want to impose Shariah law in the US is to force the of use religious courts for matters of family status. And these could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist etc.

They are many objections to this, starting with the Constitution, but posing this goal (if it even exists outside the minds of Muslim fear mongerers) with its huge obstacles as a threat to the core of Western civilization seems a bit over the top. Europe functioned this way for many centuries.

Very well said. It seems these discussions often go like this:

Anti-Sharia poster (ASP): Muslims are a threat to our society because they support Sharia!

Me: What does "supporting Sharia" mean?

ASP: It means they support Sharia.

Me: Yes, but what does "support Sharia" mean? What is Sharia?

ASP: They support Sharia and that is a threat to our society.

Me: So, you've said, but what is Sharia? What exactly to do they want to change about our society?

ASP: Here is the Wikipedia page about Sharia.

These posters have no idea what Sharia is or what Muslims who support Sharia actually support in concrete terms. Yet, they are convinced that it is a huge threat. The problem here is simply ignorance. The time spent posting anti-Muslim posts on DCUM would be much better spent finding an actual Muslim with which to have a conversation.

No, that is not the argument at all. I have no problem with how anyone else chooses to live. I have no issue with Muslims who support Sharia want to practice their faith in what ever version of Sharia that may be to them. The issue -- and I'm guessing you're only pretending not to understand it -- is with a minority of crazy Islamists who want to IMPOSE islamic law ON THE REST OF US. You can pretend they aren't there because that makes you feel threatened for your Muslim friends, but the fact is THEY ARE THERE. THEY are the issue. Not Muslims going about their business practicing their version of Sharia law. Come on, you KNOW that's the conversation. Please tell me you realize that....

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are correct, but I also think you know what they mean.

People--intelligent ones as well as less educated in terms of fully understanding the minutiae of Islam--don't think it's cool for women to be stoned as punishment for being raped, or for homosexuals to be imprisoned/shunned/murdered, or the eye for the eye thing...in the name of religious law. We have the rule of law in the US, and it's not guided by religion...any religion. So that's what posters mean. I know that you understand that, and your just going way down in the weeds to make some point. That's cool.

You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

There really is nothing better than a completely uninformed and clearly wrong poster attempting to post a snarky answer. But, as you say, that's cool.

We get it, Jeff. You are smart, and you really like to debate. Step back a second and reread the post.

The point is that people are fearful of the barbaric atrocities committed in Muslim countries under the auspices of religious law.

And you are wrong about hobby lobby. The religious exemption afforded to them is not an exercise of federal law shoving religion down their throat---it's exactly the opposite: it's an exemption in deference to their religious beliefs...see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone ranting about "Sharia law" ... I wonder if you would be quite so adamant about removing all traces if supposedly Christian values from US law? End any tax breaks for churches. No abortion restrictions. Free birth control in schools ...

I'm sorry, but where have you been for the last 50 years? Particularly the last COUPLE of years? Read the news much?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

What nonsense! The Hobby Lobby ruling has nothing to do with any particular religion. It allows exemptions for people if following certain laws would violate their sincerely held religious belief, whether that religion is Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. It is similar to laws that allow pacifists to avoid conscription during a war, if fighting would violate their sincerely held religious belief.

Okay, it has now been determined that exceptions to laws based on religious belief have nothing to do with religion. Believing otherwise is nonsense. Also, up is down.

s

Are you really that dense? The Hobby Lobby law has nothing to do with any *particular* religion. When possible, US laws are designed to avoid forcing people from violating their religious beliefs - whether it is forcing a Muslim woman to remove a hijab for her job, or a forcing a Quaker to participate in the military. One can believe in law that respects all sincerely held religious beliefs, and also believe that US law is not guided by any (particular) religion.

And why would you say that up is down? Words have meanings and if you are going to give them random meanings then there is no point having a conversation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are actually proving that I am correct, at least in your case. You are wrong to believe that stoning women for being raped or imprisoning homosexuals are generally accepted aspects of Sharia. That is simply not the case and only the completely misinformed would believe otherwise. You are completely ignorant of US law when you say that it is not guided by any religion. The Hobby Lobby ruling explicitly allows religious exceptions to US laws and that is only a single example. All sort of US laws are guided by religion.

What nonsense! The Hobby Lobby ruling has nothing to do with any particular religion. It allows exemptions for people if following certain laws would violate their sincerely held religious belief, whether that religion is Islam, Buddhism or Christianity. It is similar to laws that allow pacifists to avoid conscription during a war, if fighting would violate their sincerely held religious belief.

Okay, it has now been determined that exceptions to laws based on religious belief have nothing to do with religion. Believing otherwise is nonsense. Also, up is down.

If you were a lawyer, you'd understand. Heck, even a smart high school student can grasp the difference between the hobby lobby religious exemption and stoning a woman who had been raped in a Muslim nation. SMH.