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.
I have plenty of faith in the Constitution. It is the liberal activist judges that I have no faith in.
We stand a better chance if there is a plainly written amendment that explicitly outlaws sharia and jihad, and that isn't subject to the interpretations of some commie activist judge.
We stand the best chance if there is one amendment that prevents any religious zealots from passing religious laws. And we already have it, as luck would have it, it's the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights!
If you're talking about our current government being overthrown, then the purpose of another amendment to our current government escapes me. Wouldn't the new amendment be overthrown along with the rest of the government?
Not if that new amendment prevents seditious muslim groups from masquerading as legitimate religious groups (before they grow to a critical mass that CAN overthrow the Constitution).
Quote:
As for self-governing pockets--I believe that issue was resolved by the Civil War. We don't permit secession or self-governing pockets in this country that operate outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Good. Then you won't mind an amendment that reaffirms that belief by outlawing sharia and jihad, things that seek to establish self-governing pockets outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution and seek to overthrow the Constitution.
Quote:
And for the record, neither do England or France.
Tell that to England and France. They didn't get the memo.
Quote:
Fear-mongers have taken the process of arbitration, a way to help relieve some of the burden in courts, and twisted it beyond recognition to assert that some sharia law is infiltrating the legal system. Not one person has ever been subjected to sharia laws by the court systems in the United States or England, though some people have consented to have their issues decided by arbitrators who refer to sharia law. They have willingly consented to do so. And that's how it works in free countries. If I am Jewish and I have an issue with my Jewish neighbor, I can take it to my local rabbi and agree to abide by his decision rather than take it to the courts. If I am Catholic and my wife and I want a divorce, I can also ask the Catholic Church to annul my marriage. I get to do those things because it's a free country. If I am Muslim and I want to have a will in case I die, I can make a will that abides by Sharia law because I live in a free country. Freedom isn't just for those who are members of the dominant religion in this country. It's for everyone.
So first you claim that sharia wouldn't be allowed, then go on to make the case that, "hey even if it was no big deal because that is considered religious freedom"?
Not when it comes to explicitly outlawing sharia and jihad in a Constitutional amendment.
18 pages in this thread says it just did happen.
My cause is the cause of the Constitution, the cause of liberty, and the cause of western culture.
What's yours?
My cause is the cause of the Constitution, the cause of liberty, the cause of equality. I don't think the position that western culture is superior actually serves the cause of equality. And when you aren't supporting equality, you aren't supporting liberty. Asserting superiority and inferiority is about allowing the superior to have more rights and privileges than the inferior. And when you restrict the rights and privileges of anyone, you are infringing on their liberty.
Then, when you aren't supporting the causes of liberty or equality, you cannot really be supporting the cause of the Constitution. Hmmm......
We stand the best chance if there is one amendment that prevents any religious zealots from passing religious laws. And we already have it, as luck would have it, it's the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights!
Should a case against sharia law be brought before the courts can you personally guarantee that the 1A would not be interpreted to allow its existence?
No because the 1A is subject to interpretation, which includes the interpretation that jihad and sharia are legitimate, protected religious practices under the 1A.
The OP amendment would explicitly declare that jihad and sharia are NOT legitimate, protected religious practices under the 1A, and that those that promote sharia and jihad are acting in a seditious manner.
My cause is the cause of the Constitution, the cause of liberty, the cause of equality. I don't think the position that western culture is superior actually serves the cause of equality. And when you aren't supporting equality, you aren't supporting liberty. Asserting superiority and inferiority is about allowing the superior to have more rights and privileges than the inferior. And when you restrict the rights and privileges of anyone, you are infringing on their liberty.
Then, when you aren't supporting the causes of liberty or equality, you cannot really be supporting the cause of the Constitution. Hmmm......
The cause of liberty is part of western culture. The cause of jihad and sharia are causes of muslim culture. Therefore western culture IS superior to any culture that does not espouse liberty i.e. islam.
Well, you'll just have to get used to the fact that you already have protection from these boogeymen in the form of the US Code, federal, state and local laws.
Cheap symbolism is all you are after.
The only way you would be satisfied is if the entire nation stands up, points the fingers at Muslims, screams "Get them!" and chases them out of the country, burning their every possession they leave behind. The problem with that scenario is that many here (including myself) have Muslim friends, neighbors and relatives, and they are not, by a ratio of some 99.9999% to 0.0001%, not trying to take over the country with Sharia Law.
Yours is an extremist, xenophobic view, and it's best dismissed with a shrug.
I won't bother trying to explain much more, because it's a waste of keystrokes.
Riddle me this, Batman: Assuming there were people trying to convert the US to Sharia Law, what makes you think an amendment would stop them, when there are already laws and the US Code prohibiting such conduct?
Not if that new amendment prevents seditious muslim groups from masquerading as legitimate religious groups (before they grow to a critical mass that CAN overthrow the Constitution).
Good. Then you won't mind an amendment that reaffirms that belief by outlawing sharia and jihad, things that seek to establish self-governing pockets outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution and seek to overthrow the Constitution.
Tell that to England and France. They didn't get the memo.
So first you claim that sharia wouldn't be allowed, then go on to make the case that, "hey even if it was no big deal because that is considered religious freedom"?
Actually, I'm saying that the bulk of Sharia law complies with U S legal code. Sharia law contains food restrictions. U S legal code doesn't care if your diet is kosher or halel or Miami carb or liquid. U S legal code doesn't care if you draw up a contract with someone and loan them money and don't charge them interest. U S legal code does care if you behead someone or chop their hands off. We have laws that make some aspects of Sharia law illegal. But most aspects of Sharia law are perfectly legal. Just like it was once legal for Mormon men to marry multiple wives. U S legal code doesn't care if Mormon law doesn't allow Mormons to drink alcohol or caffeine. But U S legal code does care a man takes more than one wife. We have laws that citizens must comply with. If citizens want to impose additional restrictions upon themselves, that's their business. It's a free country.
Trying to stop Muslims from observing the Sharia laws, like the one that commands them to fast during Ramadan, is wrong. That's no different than trying to stop Catholics from observing Lent. Do you think Catholics shouldn't celebrate Mardi Gras, shouldn't have ashes smeared on their foreheads for Ash Wednesday, shouldn't make a sacrifice for Lent? Well, even if you think that what Catholics do for Lent is wrong and should be outlawed, you have a problem, because you're not allowed to pass laws against Catholics doing these things. You can't pass laws stopping Jews from observing Hannukah, and you can't pass laws stopping Muslims from observing Ramadan. And how they observe Ramadan is part of Sharia law, so you can't pass laws against all of Sharia law. And you don't need to pass laws against honor killings or beheadings or any of the other aspects of Sharia law that are already against the law. We already have laws against those things. And we already enforce those laws. A father who commits an honor killing will go to prison for it.
And I don't think you can provide a single instance where a non-Muslim was subjected to Sharia law in an English court without his consent. Not a single instance. But please do try.
Well, you'll just have to get used to the fact that you already have protection from these boogeymen in the form of the US Code, federal, state and local laws.
No.
Quote:
Cheap symbolism is all you are after.
No I am after an explicit rejection of jihad and sharia.
Quote:
The only way you would be satisfied is if the entire nation stands up, points the fingers at Muslims, screams "Get them!" and chases them out of the country, burning their every possession they leave behind.
What an illiterate, hyperbolic mischaracterization of my assertions.
I suggest we outlaw sharia, a pretty basic and reasonable premise, and you equate that to what muslims are actually doing to Christians worldwide.
Quote:
The problem with that scenario is that many here (including myself) have Muslim friends, neighbors and relatives, and they are not, by a ratio of some 99.9999% to 0.0001%, not trying to take over the country with Sharia Law.
Good. Let's hope it stays that way.
Quote:
Yours is an extremist, xenophobic view, and it's best dismissed with a shrug.
I won't bother trying to explain much more, because it's a waste of keystrokes.
Bye.
Kerplunk.
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.
