Truck kills 30 in France

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And by the way, JFK did not say "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" during the cold war. Roosevelt said that, about WWII. I would share the Wikipeidia link but it would be mocked so look it up yourself....

Poor Camelot Lover - busted!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My point is that people are fearful of Sharia because they are ignorant of it. Your point is that people fear atrocities which they wrongly believe are generally accepted as part of Sharia. Your point and my point are exactly the same. Yet, I am apparently the one who likes to debate.

Second, whether a law forces something on a person or prevents that person from receiving something because of someone else's religion are simply two sides of the same coin. You may not lie the Hobby Lobby example, but it is undeniable that US laws have been influenced by religion.

Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

Do you have the impression that anyone here supports radical Muslims? I'm just confused about what radical Muslims have to do with Sharia.

It's sort of like saying you are opposed to Motherhood. We ask, "why are you opposed to motherhood?" and you point out that Joan Crawford was a terrible mother. You should oppose terrible mothers, not motherhood. All of us here oppose those who have interpreted Islam in violent and oppressive ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what would you do if the white supremacists sent out a call to arms and started "radicalizing" people around you? Because that's what's happening in the world today.

Come on, people. This is why people are voting for Trump -- because people have their heads in the sand.

So are you saying Muslims, a 1% of US population are doing what you said? And you are scared. JFK said there is nothing to fear but fear itself during the heights of Cold War. This country is not in one tenth of the danger it was in when JFK said that.

Are you fucking kidding me? We've come a long way since the Manhattan Project. Just four years after Hiroshima, the Soviets caught up.

And it didn't stop there.

Put Camelot to rest, buddy. old news

What happened to the country which had the confidence to beat the soviet threat? Now the chicken little are scared s*it of 1% of muslims in the USA. Muslims are irritants, at best, they are not survival threat to the USA. It is a different story for Iraqis or Syrians. But I didn't know Syrians and Iraqis are arguing here.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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....

If your concern is with a small minority of radicals -- who are also opposed by most other Muslims -- then I fail to understand why there is any discussion at all. Why are you worried about a small minority? What chance does that group have to influence the American Muslim community let alone the entire US? This is the height of chicken littleism. Why exactly do you fear this group and how do you believe they are going to impose Islamic law on any of us?

Are you serious? I don't care what other Muslims think! I don't care if they are influenced by this small minority of radicals -- any more than I care about any other group being influenced by them. What I care about is being blown up, and cars driving into crowds of people. It's THOSE Muslims we're talking about, not the normal ones. Sheesh, it's counter-productive to say if someone is scared of radical Islamists then they must be anti-Muslim. That is not the case and it's just putting your head in the sand. I'm sure normal American Muslims are just as appalled by this radical violent behavior as I am.

And I'm not afraid they will end up imposing islamic law on us -- I'm afraid of their continuing attempts to do it. It's going to be a long, bloody fight unfortunately.

Your train of thought is very hard to follow. All sorts of charts were posted here to demonstrate that lots of Muslims support Sharia. As I understood it, the support by Muslims for Sharia was used as evidence of the threat Muslims pose to our society. But, now it turns out that you really aren't worried about Sharia at all. If your concern is about Muslims who may commit violence, there is really no reason to discuss Sharia. There is really no relationship between those two things. That is a completely different topic.

Well that's been my entire point. I could not care less about having a nuanced discussion about Sharia law -- that was you bringing all that up, not me. My point is that there are some who would like to impose their version of Sharia law on the rest of the world, and their version is not the pretty version you are debating. True story.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

Do you have the impression that anyone here supports radical Muslims? I'm just confused about what radical Muslims have to do with Sharia.

It's sort of like saying you are opposed to Motherhood. We ask, "why are you opposed to motherhood?" and you point out that Joan Crawford was a terrible mother. You should oppose terrible mothers, not motherhood. All of us here oppose those who have interpreted Islam in violent and oppressive ways.

Uh, no. I'm saying "I am opposed to bad mothers." (And I am, too.) I am opposed to BAD MUSLIMS -- the kind that are in the news these days? That kind. I realize there are all kinds of Muslims, just as there are all kinds of Christians and all kinds of humans of any faith and race and ethnicity. We're talking lately about the crazy minority of Muslims who want to impose their crazy minority view of Islam on the world. Those ones. They are real, like it or not. And it's their interpretation of Sharia law they want to impose on us, not yours (or mine if I had one, which I don't).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

Too bad the radicals are saying just that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

Ugh, i wish life were this simple. I wish people were only afraid of Muslims because they are the newest to arrive and cooked odd food, instead of being afraid because a small minority of Muslims around the globe are vowing to bring violence here and elsewhere. If only it were that easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

Do you have the impression that anyone here supports radical Muslims? I'm just confused about what radical Muslims have to do with Sharia.

It's sort of like saying you are opposed to Motherhood. We ask, "why are you opposed to motherhood?" and you point out that Joan Crawford was a terrible mother. You should oppose terrible mothers, not motherhood. All of us here oppose those who have interpreted Islam in violent and oppressive ways.

Uh, no. I'm saying "I am opposed to bad mothers." (And I am, too.) I am opposed to BAD MUSLIMS -- the kind that are in the news these days? That kind. I realize there are all kinds of Muslims, just as there are all kinds of Christians and all kinds of humans of any faith and race and ethnicity. We're talking lately about the crazy minority of Muslims who want to impose their crazy minority view of Islam on the world. Those ones. They are real, like it or not. And it's their interpretation of Sharia law they want to impose on us, not yours (or mine if I had one, which I don't).

I can't stand religion! all and any of it

However, I will ask this - Can you really call any radical person religious? Therefore, can you say bad Muslim? (at least bad in this context of "bad")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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....

If your concern is with a small minority of radicals -- who are also opposed by most other Muslims -- then I fail to understand why there is any discussion at all. Why are you worried about a small minority? What chance does that group have to influence the American Muslim community let alone the entire US? This is the height of chicken littleism. Why exactly do you fear this group and how do you believe they are going to impose Islamic law on any of us?

Are you serious? I don't care what other Muslims think! I don't care if they are influenced by this small minority of radicals -- any more than I care about any other group being influenced by them. What I care about is being blown up, and cars driving into crowds of people. It's THOSE Muslims we're talking about, not the normal ones. Sheesh, it's counter-productive to say if someone is scared of radical Islamists then they must be anti-Muslim. That is not the case and it's just putting your head in the sand. I'm sure normal American Muslims are just as appalled by this radical violent behavior as I am.

And I'm not afraid they will end up imposing islamic law on us -- I'm afraid of their continuing attempts to do it. It's going to be a long, bloody fight unfortunately.

Your train of thought is very hard to follow. All sorts of charts were posted here to demonstrate that lots of Muslims support Sharia. As I understood it, the support by Muslims for Sharia was used as evidence of the threat Muslims pose to our society. But, now it turns out that you really aren't worried about Sharia at all. If your concern is about Muslims who may commit violence, there is really no reason to discuss Sharia. There is really no relationship between those two things. That is a completely different topic.

Well that's been my entire point. I could not care less about having a nuanced discussion about Sharia law -- that was you bringing all that up, not me. My point is that there are some who would like to impose their version of Sharia law on the rest of the world, and their version is not the pretty version you are debating. True story.

You are assuming they are using violence as a means to impose Shariah on the rest of the world. That is a huge stretch.

They are a number of different objectives the violence is aimed at. These include desperate attempts to get countries to stop the bombings of ISIS held territories, which have been shrinking rapidly. They also serve as recruiting tools; ISIS has no more battlefield victories to show but it can pull off a successful suicide bombing killing scores of Westerners. Or it can be just an act of alienation with no known connection to any Islamic group as the bombing in Nice appears to be.

It's pretty fair to say that none of the acts of terrorism have been aimed at spreading Shariah law. The battles for territory in Syria and Iraq--sure. The attacks in France--no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what would you do if the white supremacists sent out a call to arms and started "radicalizing" people around you? Because that's what's happening in the world today.

Come on, people. This is why people are voting for Trump -- because people have their heads in the sand.

So are you saying Muslims, a 1% of US population are doing what you said? And you are scared. JFK said there is nothing to fear but fear itself during the heights of Cold War. This country is not in one tenth of the danger it was in when JFK said that.

No, that is exactly not what I'm saying. i'm not scared of Muslims -- I'm scared of radical Muslims who want to impose Sharia law on the rest of the world. I think we can all agree they exist, and they are causing a lot of violence, terror and suffering in the world and would love to do the same here (and already have).

Are you afraid of whites, because there are a tiny minority of white supremacists in the world? I hope not. Does that mean we should call you a racist if you are against white supremacy? No.

I am an HRC supporter, BTW, staunchly anti-Trump. My comment was meant to say, there is no place for normal people to say we need to do something about radical Islam without being called right wing. If Trump is their only choice, then.....

The ISIS or whoever want Sharia haven't imposed Sharia(whatever that may mean,not going into that, Jeff has gone into that, read his post) in any NON muslim majority country. Not even in muslim majority countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh etc. So It is not something to feared by Americans like at all.

Now, about the violence. It has a big source that Americans dont want to acknowledge at all. It has got to do with US military being present in the middle east for decades not as a beneficial force, BUT as a killing force(for people who lose their kin reason doesn't matter) killing millions. It has got to with OIL dependence. Reduce Oil dependence and eventually eliminate it by focusing on renewable energy. Use military on foreign wars ONLY if it hurts US economy or security.

But the GOP guys want to SHOW OFF the big power america and get involved in every corner of the world as world police. This will have repercussions, muslim terrorism WITHIN USA is one such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And by the way, JFK did not say "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" during the cold war. Roosevelt said that, about WWII. I would share the Wikipeidia link but it would be mocked so look it up yourself....

Yes wrong about the quote, but still right about the message. This country doesn't face one tenth the threat it faced during cold war with 1% of muslims in the USA. So dont be chicken little.