Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A list of demands that I don't agree with. Demands does not equal anyone is going to act on them.
I've seen their demands. They are unrealistic and moronic. Demands doesn't mean anyone is going to act on them.
Those people are morons IMHO. And demands doesn't mean anyone is going to act on them.
There is no chance that all the dummies in the other cities would go along with them, is there? Have you not read any of the idiots you speak about talking in favor of this pile of Pelosi? If there are a few of them on this board there are certainly more on other forums throughout the nation.
Knowing that a thing is idiotic doesn't say that it might not be attempted. I think that labor leaders and college professors wrote that thing and surely you do know what those profs have been teaching very gullible kids for years.
I've already explained this in excruciating detail in another thread, the same one where I debunked the so-called examples of creeping Sharia. None of them were any such thing, they were all (save arguably one) examples of how foreign law is used in US courts - and appropriately.
For example: contracts between US citizens that stipulate the contract is to be construed under Sharia law. It is completely appropriate to permit this - moreover it creates no precedent and affects no one else but the parties to the contract, who have already agreed to be bound by its terms.
International divorces and custody disputes: entirely appropriate to consult and consider foreign law.
This whole issue is absolute nonsense.
I guess you see the question of capital punishment as something that should include international law of just French or whatever. I saw 4 judges in the Supreme Court tell the 30 states that allowed it to get themselves right and go along with the other 20 states and so many foreign nations on that topic but I wonder if, in cases involving that question, foreign law should be dragged in. I say no, but obviously you say yes.
Ok, good for me since I have little idea of what Sharia would consist of. I'm pretty much clueless in this area.
Wiki it.
Or here's the short version:
It's a legal system based in and upon Islam, which includes concepts and requirements that are offensive to Western ideas of equal treatment under the law, fairness, etc. It's also rather medieval and sexist, and does not have much regard for individual human rights.
Now it is being used to scaremonger people into various acts that favor the scaremongers. There are two main memes that run through their argument:
1) that Muslims are trying to institute Sharia law in the US; and,
2) that there is an insidious "liberal" plot to let foreign law, especially Sharia, to creep into our legal system.
Both points are based entirely in ignorance of our legal system. The first one is also just plain illogical: askin ain't gettin.
In sum, the whole issue of Sharia in the US is a load of crap.
Unless you marry a foreign national from a Muslim country or enter into a contract in which you agree to be bound by Sharia...
...you have nothing to worry about. It's just a circus sideshow for the ignorant and easily frightened.
Do you see that you have just called me ignorant and easily frightened when this comes so soon after your post to me, just before you got in this one. I say that your definition of ignorance is based on your dislike for those who don't see things just as you do. Huh?
It's called reality. The Brits felt the same way. Look at em now. Many sharia zones have been established that operate outside of british law. Who woulda thunk it.
Of course you watched the linked video and saw the imam telling young Muslims about how Shariah is taking over.
So what? They also tell them lots of other stuff that isn't true or is wishful thinking.
I'm more interested in the reality than I am of what some imam thinks. The imam, like the scaremongers here, is wrong.
Quote:
Go ahead and talk about scaremongering and make sure you are still doing it when they take over and we no longer have the system you trained under and about.
It's scaremongering, and it doesn't work on me, Roy. So spare me please. I know better. I've reviewed, carefully, the so-called "examples" of creeping Sharia that the loony Right trots out, and they are all misrepresented and misinterpreted. All of them, even the one where a judge did manage to make a mistake.
Quote:
Do you remember the fairly recent case of a murder by a young man in Missouri where the state tried to use capital punishment on the man and the Supreme Court stopped it in that case and the 4 Justices who were on the left side used European law to say that the 30 states that want to use capital punishment had to accept the fact that 20 other states, all blue, don't use it and that outnumbers the 30?
Did you actually read the opinion, so you actually know how European law was referenced? Was it dicta or holding?
Do you know the difference? It's a very, very important one Roy. Link me the opinion and I will show you why, directly.
Quote:
The murder that kid pulled off should have resulted in the police letting him escape and killing him to recapture him.
I really don't have any idea where you are going with this last part.
This isnt going to happen in America next tuesday, but it is instructive. When the population density of any particular group reaches a certain point, one can expect that culture to begin to impact the legal framwork of that society.
In Britan, the Muslim population is reaching that percentage. Britan has an issue they must deal with. Their options are to deal rather harsly with it, or to all it to deal rather harshly with the traditional English society.
The same will happen in America as the muslim population grows... if it grows.
It's a legal system based in and upon Islam, which includes concepts and requirements that are offensive to Western ideas of equal treatment under the law, fairness, etc. It's also rather medieval and sexist, and does not have much regard for individual human rights.
Now it is being used to scaremonger people into various acts that favor the scaremongers. There are two main memes that run through their argument: .
Sounds like the US Constitution would trump any attempt to implement such laws. 1st amendment comes to mind. If we didn't have the Constitution I might be more worried.
Do you see that you have just called me ignorant and easily frightened when this comes so soon after your post to me, just before you got in this one. I say that your definition of ignorance is based on your dislike for those who don't see things just as you do. Huh?
You are being suckered.
I'm telling you that you are being suckered.
Would you prefer this terminology?
This is purely, objectively, empirically an issue of ignorance and people who are taking advantage of that ignorance.
NOTE: I don't expect people not in the business to understand at first glance how foreign law is used in our legal system (AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN).
READ THE CASES. Don't rely on my posts, or blogs and editorials. Read what actually happened in the cases they propose are examples of creeping Sharia.
Just do it objectively.
I'm not a fan of Islam or Sharia at all, I find them both distasteful and wrong, but I'm not going to abide outright lies about what it means in our legal system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
