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.
"Worse, however, was Madison's view that the liberties of the minorities in the states were being violated, particularly in economic issues. He believed that the Confederation was giving too much emphasis to state sovereignty and not enough to a national focus on consistent and fair policy and the upholding of natural rights.
Madison's idea, certainly not an original one, but unique for the new United States, was to recreate the United States under an entirely different form of government - a republican model. In a republic, the people are the ultimate power, and the people transfer that power to representatives."
We are talking about a minority group who live in a country with laws that do not reflect them and who they are....how long before that changes and the law changes with it?
NOTHING in this post supports your original contention that our laws are representative.
NOTHING in this post contradicts what I've said about the laws being foundational, not representative.
If you are going to try to make the case that the laws are representative, and at the same time that minorities can control legislation, you need to understand that those two positions are opposite one another. You cannot assert both, you have to choose one or the other.
If you are going to cite the Constitution, then please remember that it forbids our government from endorsing a religion. Instituting Sharia laws would be an endorsement of a religion. Since the Constitution forbids such an endorsement, it forbids the institution of Sharia law. However, since we have freedom of religion in this country, the Constitution cannot stop private citizens from observing the tenets of their religion, including Sharia, AS LONG AS SUCH PRACTICES DON'T VIOLATE THE EXISTING LEGAL CODE.
There is absolutely no reason to fear Sharia law in this country, and your advocacy of paranoia is baseless.
Texas allows for resolution of dispute between parties which have agreed to Islamic proceedings < Google > Texas sharia law
Otherwise, the encroachment of Sharia is not news but at least someone is finally paying attention.
It's not an encroachment of Sharia.
Texas law allows people who are considering a divorce to first try to resolve their differences through a Christian counselor.
Individuals are allowed to try to resolve their legal issues by consulting their religious counselors. Oh my God, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
"On June 5, HTA launched its campaign to publicize the "Emerging World Order" conference with a video for YouTube. The video promises the "dawn of a new era" with "Khilafah on the horizon." An intense musical score accompanies the graphics. Likely, the soundtrack was created from software, such as ProScores, which is specifically designed to engineer "hard-hitting" "tension-building" moments in promotional videos. Music has long-been valued as an effective element of political propaganda campaigns because it can instantly frame perceptions by triggering emotions." Madeleine Gruen: Hizb ut-Tahrir America Uses Social Media to Promote its "Emerging World Order" Conference
2.39 minutes into the video, oops, there's the problem London is facing...Oh and we're still good at 2% population...or are we?
Again, this is not about race---this is about a way of life!
Americans can't say no, because that would be intolerant of them. So rather than be intolerant---enjoy the Sharia laws, coming to a state near you. Don't protest it...that would be wrong.
"Muslim Brotherhood individuals and groups achieve their goal unmolested, and that nothing stands in the way of that stated goal: "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.""
American's don't need any help with that. Seems to me Americans are accomplishing that well enough on their own. How do we loose? Divided that's how. America won't even know what hit 'em. ~ I shakes my head ~
As if the US doesn't have it's own home grown (non-Muslim) domestic terrorists. KKK, Jewish Defensive League, The Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army ring any bells??? They weren't referred to as terrorists back in the day as the word terrorist/terrorism wasn't used.
If you want to read something, try this. Published in March 2011, regarding a Homeland Security Newswire stating that there were more non-Muslim attempts at terrorism than commited by Muslims - in the United States.
Here's something else that may help some people to understand that there is something in the US referred to as "domestic terrorism", terrorism by US citizens that are not Muslims.
It includes a list of 15 (probably the most popular, as there are many more) domestic terrorist groups.
It lists 12 notable domestic acts of terrorism. (Again probably those that most people would be familiar with)
It also states that between 1980 and 2000 there were 335 incidents confirmed or suspected to be terrorist acts by the FBI. Of the 335, 250 were considered domestic.
The same holds true to this day - domestic terrorists/terrorism outweighs Muslim terrorists/terrorism in the US.
There is a huge amount of information on the internet that one can find to serve one's purpose. Sometimes it pays to look the other way as you may learn something.
Muslims do not own the words TERRORIST or TERRORISM.
"Eighty-five Sharia courts now operate nationwide, parallel to traditional courts, with justice dispensed by Islamic judges on domestic rows, divorce, financial disputes and an increasing number of minor criminal acts, such as theft.
There is also a separate Islamic financial system which conforms to Sharia banking industry restrictions, including a ban on interest payments on loans.
According to this year’s Global Islamic Finance Report, Britain is now the main centre for Islamic finance outside the Muslim world."
I wonder if the Spanish thought the same thing in the late 7th century?
I wonder if comparing apples to oranges ever works for you as a debate strategy.
Last night I was talking to my mother, and she started one of her rants. I explained to her what was invalid about her remarks. She conceded that her remarks were invalid, but she didn't care, because that's the way she felt about the issue. Logic and facts didn't matter, her fear and emotions took precedence.
And that's exactly the same thing that comes from the people who are afraid of Sharia law. Logic and facts don't matter, only the fear matters.
Fear that maintains itself even when presented with the facts is irrational. Using that fear to direct policy is irrational. All the arguments that are made about why we should fear Sharia are irrational.
Is Sharia a good thing? No. It's not a good thing. But do we have to fear Sharia law getting a foothold in our government. No, we don't. Because we don't let any religion to get a foothold in our government. That flimsy piece of parchment called the Constitution is what blocks religion from getting a foothold. And the people who are afraid of Sharia are not advocating adhering to the Constitution, they are advocating violating the Constitution. The more we violate the Constitution, the more flimsy we make it.
We need to adhere to the Constitution. Adhere to the Constitution, and you don't have to fear Sharia or any other religious tenets becoming law. But let your irrational fears take over, and you violate the Constitution and weaken it.
"Eighty-five Sharia courts now operate nationwide, parallel to traditional courts, with justice dispensed by Islamic judges on domestic rows, divorce, financial disputes and an increasing number of minor criminal acts, such as theft.
There is also a separate Islamic financial system which conforms to Sharia banking industry restrictions, including a ban on interest payments on loans.
According to this year’s Global Islamic Finance Report, Britain is now the main centre for Islamic finance outside the Muslim world."
Those Sharia courts that worry you so, aren't imposing any laws or rulings that aren't in accordance with the laws of the country they are in. The Sharia courts in England aren't ordering anyone beheaded, aren't ordering that thiefs have their hands chopped off. They are in complete compliance with English law. COMPLETE COMPLIANCE.
If someone wants their divorce to be moderated by someone who belongs to their religion, who understands their beliefs and culture, is that skin off your nose? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics in this country often go through the Catholic Church to obtain annulments? Is that skin off your nose?
Islamic extremists declare a Sharia zone? So what? It just makes it easier to know who those extremists are, so Britain's intelligence services can monitor them more closely. Let those extremists speak out. We WANT to hear their outrageous claims, we WANT to hear their goals and how they want to achieve those goals, we WANT our enemies to tell us all about themselves. Extremists are our enemies, whether they are Muslim or Christian, and if they want to announce themselves, then good! We want to know who they are, the better to monitor them and their activities.
I wonder if comparing apples to oranges ever works for you as a debate strategy.
Last night I was talking to my mother, and she started one of her rants. I explained to her what was invalid about her remarks. She conceded that her remarks were invalid, but she didn't care, because that's the way she felt about the issue. Logic and facts didn't matter, her fear and emotions took precedence.
And that's exactly the same thing that comes from the people who are afraid of Sharia law. Logic and facts don't matter, only the fear matters.
Fear that maintains itself even when presented with the facts is irrational. Using that fear to direct policy is irrational. All the arguments that are made about why we should fear Sharia are irrational.
Is Sharia a good thing? No. It's not a good thing. But do we have to fear Sharia law getting a foothold in our government. No, we don't. Because we don't let any religion to get a foothold in our government. That flimsy piece of parchment called the Constitution is what blocks religion from getting a foothold. And the people who are afraid of Sharia are not advocating adhering to the Constitution, they are advocating violating the Constitution. The more we violate the Constitution, the more flimsy we make it.
We need to adhere to the Constitution. Adhere to the Constitution, and you don't have to fear Sharia or any other religious tenets becoming law. But let your irrational fears take over, and you violate the Constitution and weaken it.
I'm sorry for your mother issues but that's none of my business and I hope you'll respect that in the future.
While you are correct that by adhering to the constitution, Sharia law is not to be feared, but, in case you haven't noticed, the constitution has been used as toilet paper by our own elected leaders for decades.
For the record, a query is not an argument.
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.
