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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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 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....

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...

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.