emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
You are quite correct.Sharia, you twit!Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?
Dear longknife
This is a trick answer you have given.
What SHARIA refers to is ALL practices in Islam, including
PRAYER
GIVING ALMS TO THE POOR
and even the aforementioned practice of
OBEDIENCE to Biblical Scripture, Civil laws/authority, along with Quran and Mohammad's teachings on the interpretations of them
Since the laws of the land do not require following the Bible,
then you can argue Christians, Muslims and others who adhere to this principle
are putting their Bibles first, and following the laws of the land as a requirement of following the Bible.
NOTE: Because of the Scriptural teaching on Civil Obedience to Civil Laws and Authority,
the Christians and Muslims who commit to this can thus be CHECKED by CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
similar to Constitutionalists who swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution.
So this would PREVENT either Christians or Muslims from violating Constitutional laws
by holding them to their own commitments to CIVIL OBEDIENCE.
Muslims, Christians or Constitutionalists -- just like any other human beings --
include in their populations community members who commit violations of Civil, Criminal or Constitutional laws as any other group of people will have its abusers and criminals.
If you want to get into CAUSES of criminal or abusive behavior,
the same causes apply to Muslims, Christians, Atheists or any other group or identity.
The problem with Muslims and Christians who MIX Government with their Religious beliefs
to start following or imposing POLITICAL RELIGIONS
is where they FAIL TO ENFORCE CIVIL OBEDIENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
CHECKS AND BALANCES, LIMITS, and SEPARATION OF POWERS ON GOVT AUTHORITY.
That's when you get abusive, oppressive or militant violent POLITICAL RELIGIONS.
This applies to both Muslims OR Christians who don't put Constitutional laws first (as even Obama was caught putting Partisan Beliefs over the Constitutional duty to represent ALL people of all creeds).
But as long as Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents
RESPECT Constitutional laws against establishing or imposing religious beliefs on others,
this part of CIVIL OBEDIENCE
CHECKS AND PREVENTS collective abuse of authority for oppressing individuals.
longknife We in America actually have a WORSE prevalent problems of
Democratic Party members and SOCIALIST Democrats violating
Constitutional principles of Limits, checks and balances, Separation of Powers
by imposing THEIR "political beliefs" through Govt especially depending on Judicial Rule to act as legislative or executive authority.
If you are going to call a group out on pushing a Political Religion through Govt
against the beliefs of other citizens and in violation of Constitutional laws,
I'd point to the DEMOCRATS for pushing
* ACA and its mandates without acknowledging Constitutional violations or taking responsibility for restitution or correction
* same sex marriage policies and transgender beliefs "above" the equal rights of others to their beliefs against these practices
* right to health care through federal govt without following Constitutional process of an AMENDMENT ratified by States
* and in general "taxation without representation" and "discrimination by creed"
As for Mustafaa Carroll's explanation of lawsuits attempting to ban SHARIA,
he explained since this term is too broad, and banning SHARIA would mean banning ALL the expressions of Muslim faith,
then it would essential BAN MUSLIMS from practicing their RELIGION, clearly against the First Amendment.
My clarification to this:
If the point is to ban the abuse of political religions that violate Constitutional laws, process,
beliefs, principles and protections for all citizens, that needs to be stated specifically
rather than use an overly broad terms such as SHARIA that "targets Muslims instead of applying to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS" and doesn't distinguish the RELIGIOUS ABUSE or the unconstitutional POLITICAL RELIGION from the Constitutional free exercise of religion of individuals or groups practicing LAWFULLY.
Let me help you reduce your verbaige a little.
If Mustafa takes exception to the American flag flying on my front porch and orders me to take it down I tell him to fuck off. if Mustafa sets foot on my lawn with the intentions of taking the flag down I break his legs. If Mustafa comes back with help in order to take the flag down and he's on crutches .... Well let's just say it's time for the undertaker to start measuring caskets.
Jo
Dear justoffal
Then if Mustafaa would never do any of that you would never accuse or react to him as such.
And if ANYONE did those things to you against your Constitutional rights, beliefs and protections,
you would react in defense of the law REGARDLESS if such person were Muslim or not, or of any affiliation.
The issue is NOT whether Mustafaa is Muslim,
it's whether you are being forced by any person or group to compromise your rights, beliefs
and free exercise of religion or speech protected equally under law.
Before any of us "judges or condemns" Mustafaa or any other Muslim,
let us first prove that person GUILTY of abuse or other unlawful threat or action that
CALLS for depriving liberty according to the law. That's called DUE PROCESS of laws
before depriving a fellow citizen of liberty.
If someone is so abusive or oppressive they do not believe in respecting due process of laws and CANNOT COMPLY,
if they are so mentally disordered or criminally sick as to disrespect the laws and rights of others that they cause UNLAWFUL
breaches and threats to health and safety, then their mental and legal incompetence is the problem regardless which religion they are.
The same holds for Mostafa, leeroy, Mr. Chang, Pablo or Johnny the next door neighbor..... They all have breakable legs;
Equally and without prejudice.
Jo
Dear justoffal Regardless of creed, as long as they are under US or States jurisdiction,
unless "Mostafa, leeroy, Mr. Chang, Pablo or Johnny" goes through DUE PROCESS of LAW
then the LAW OF THE LAND applies to them equally against DEPRIVING them of LIBERTY without due process.
You cannot break their legs as a form of punishment if they did nothing unlawful.
If they threatened you so that you feared for your life, safety etc,
and you did so in self-defense, you can argue this was within your rights, especially if the castle doctrine applies.
The same laws protecting you from them, protect them from you as well.