More Anti-Muslim Bigotry and Hate from the Far Right

[Mudda]

So you agree that people who want to live under sharia should be allowed to do so. Good for you.

I believe you are free to live however anyway you want to live as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and you don't break the law.

Genital mutilation and honor killings are against the law. Oh and by the way they are both anti woman

Against the law, yes, against the Constitution, no.

 

[Billo_Really]

So the First Amenedment that says that no law shall be made to infringe on a religion, is meaningless, rendering the whole Constitution meaningless.

I don't know where you get that.

 

[Mudda]

So the First Amenedment that says that no law shall be made to infringe on a religion, is meaningless, rendering the whole Constitution meaningless.

I don't know where you get that.

There are plenty of laws that infringe on a religion's practices, rendering religious protection meaningless, and if one thing is meaningless and can be detoured easily, then the rest of the Constitution is meaningless.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first amendment. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?
In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)



In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
In addition, case law-court decision add the body of constitutional law. I SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

» Limits of Religious Freedom

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

 

[Mudda]

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first amendment. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?
In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)



In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
In addition, case law-court decision add the body of constitutional law. I SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

» Limits of Religious Freedom

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

So where in the Constitution does it say that sharia has limits on it?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The poor, peaceful, innocent jihadists are so misunderstood, ostracized, and oppressed for no good reason......

Its all our fault too..... lmfao

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first amendment. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?
In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)



In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
In addition, case law-court decision add the body of constitutional law. I SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

» Limits of Religious Freedom

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

So where in the Constitution does it say that sharia has limits on it?

You might recall that I had challenged YOU to come up with one-just ONE legal scholar who could support your bizarre and idiotic theory that that the first amendment allows for mutilation in the name of religion.

I am so , so sorry that your intellectual limitations and mental challenges do not allow you to be able to comprehend the materiel on Constitutional law that I presented. I can assure you that neither I nor any other rational person will be sitting around waiting for the dreaded day when a US federal court rules that chopping off hands under Sharia law is constitutional. PLEASE get some help for your mental illness!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

Any Muslim who believes Shariah law supersedes the constitution should be thrown out immediately.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

 

[Mudda]

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first amendment. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?
In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)



In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
In addition, case law-court decision add the body of constitutional law. I SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

» Limits of Religious Freedom

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

So where in the Constitution does it say that sharia has limits on it?

You might recall that I had challenged YOU to come up with one-just ONE legal scholar who could support your bizarre and idiotic theory that that the first amendment allows for mutilation in the name of religion.

I am so , so sorry that your intellectual limitations and mental challenges do not allow you to be able to comprehend the materiel on Constitutional law that I presented. I can assure you that neither I nor any other rational person will be sitting around waiting for the dreaded day when a US federal court rules that chopping off hands under Sharia law is constitutional. PLEASE get some help for your mental illness!

So when I ask where in the Constitution does it outlaw sharia , you came up with nothing. Got it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

So where in the Constitution does it say that sharia has limits on it?

You might recall that I had challenged YOU to come up with one-just ONE legal scholar who could support your bizarre and idiotic theory that that the first amendment allows for mutilation in the name of religion.

I am so , so sorry that your intellectual limitations and mental challenges do not allow you to be able to comprehend the materiel on Constitutional law that I presented. I can assure you that neither I nor any other rational person will be sitting around waiting for the dreaded day when a US federal court rules that chopping off hands under Sharia law is constitutional. PLEASE get some help for your mental illness!

So when I ask where in the Constitution does it outlaw sharia , you came up with nothing. Got it.

I find it hard to believe that you are that fucking stupid but you're pretty close to convincing me that you are. This is that last thing that I'm going to say because you've wasted enough of my time.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTIOM OUTLAWED SHARIA LAW . It is not outlawed and should not be out lawed

I SAID that statutory law, as supported by the Constitution prevents people from harming others in the name of religion or for any other reason.

You still have not come up with a legal scholar who supports you inane and bizarre theory that chopping peoples hands of must be allowed under Sharia law because of the wording of the first amendment . Now take a fucking hike.

 

[Mudda]

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

So where in the Constitution does it say that sharia has limits on it?

You might recall that I had challenged YOU to come up with one-just ONE legal scholar who could support your bizarre and idiotic theory that that the first amendment allows for mutilation in the name of religion.

I am so , so sorry that your intellectual limitations and mental challenges do not allow you to be able to comprehend the materiel on Constitutional law that I presented. I can assure you that neither I nor any other rational person will be sitting around waiting for the dreaded day when a US federal court rules that chopping off hands under Sharia law is constitutional. PLEASE get some help for your mental illness!

So when I ask where in the Constitution does it outlaw sharia , you came up with nothing. Got it.

I find it hard to believe that you are that fucking stupid but you're pretty close to convincing me that you are. This is that last thing that I'm going to say because you've wasted enough of my time.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTIOM OUTLAWED SHARIA LAW . It is not outlawed and should not be out lawed

I SAID that statutory law, as supported by the Constitution prevents people from harming others in the name of religion or for any other reason.

You still have not come up with a legal scholar who supports you inane and bizarre theory that chopping peoples hands of must be allowed under Sharia law because of the wording of the first amendment . Now take a fucking hike.

So you agree that the Constitution allows for hand chopping. Good for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So where in the Constitution does it say that sharia has limits on it?

You might recall that I had challenged YOU to come up with one-just ONE legal scholar who could support your bizarre and idiotic theory that that the first amendment allows for mutilation in the name of religion.

I am so , so sorry that your intellectual limitations and mental challenges do not allow you to be able to comprehend the materiel on Constitutional law that I presented. I can assure you that neither I nor any other rational person will be sitting around waiting for the dreaded day when a US federal court rules that chopping off hands under Sharia law is constitutional. PLEASE get some help for your mental illness!

So when I ask where in the Constitution does it outlaw sharia , you came up with nothing. Got it.

I find it hard to believe that you are that fucking stupid but you're pretty close to convincing me that you are. This is that last thing that I'm going to say because you've wasted enough of my time.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTIOM OUTLAWED SHARIA LAW . It is not outlawed and should not be out lawed

I SAID that statutory law, as supported by the Constitution prevents people from harming others in the name of religion or for any other reason.

You still have not come up with a legal scholar who supports you inane and bizarre theory that chopping peoples hands of must be allowed under Sharia law because of the wording of the first amendment . Now take a fucking hike.

So you agree that the Constitution allows for hand chopping. Good for you.

 

[Roudy]

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

Any Muslim who believes Shariah law supersedes the constitution should be thrown out immediately.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

Here we go, when a Leftie loses an argument it's always the same whiny fallback false accusations. You can't legalize the practice of bigotry against other religions and classes of people (which is what Shariah law is) and make it supersede the law of the land, just because Shariah is "religious based".

 

[Roudy]

Anti sharia? Hahahahaha

0.6% of Muslims is scaring the nation?
As far as I know as a Muslim, most Muslim countries don't apply sharia lol.

I think it should be rallies against, crimes (highest in the world), poverty (highest in industrialised countries), education (one of the worst out there, health (worst in G20 countries).

You are correct. Most Muslim countries do not apply sharia law.

Actually most Muslim countries and especially their populations practice this barbaric law in one shape or another.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

Here we go, when a Leftie loses an argument it's always the same whiny fallback false accusations. You can't legalize the practice of bigotry against other religions and classes of people (which is what Shariah law is) and make it supersede the law of the land, just because Shariah is "religious based".

You want to outlaw Sharia entirely- to single out a religion and deprive them of their religious law -but your not a bigot? You can't seem to make the distinction between the benign as aspects of Sharia and those harsher features of it that may run afoul of our laws. You think that Sharia is able to supersede our laws because it is religious law ,but like Mudda, you show a piss poor understanding of the statutory and Constitutional safeguards that we have.

I previously posted the following....here it is again incase you missed it or it was lost on you. Read it now and explain how I'm loosing:

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslum and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.

And, there are cases like this:

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue
2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes. You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first
Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particular Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

Here we go, when a Leftie loses an argument it's always the same whiny fallback false accusations. You can't legalize the practice of bigotry against other religions and classes of people (which is what Shariah law is) and make it supersede the law of the land, just because Shariah is "religious based".

You might also want to review post 311 on pg. 32 regarding Constitutional law in relation to Sharia. Not one of you jokers who want to ban Sharia has been able to make an intelligent comment on it....but I'm losing!!

 

[Roudy]

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

Here we go, when a Leftie loses an argument it's always the same whiny fallback false accusations. You can't legalize the practice of bigotry against other religions and classes of people (which is what Shariah law is) and make it supersede the law of the land, just because Shariah is "religious based".

You want to outlaw Sharia entirely- to single out a religion and deprive them of their religious law -but your not a bigot? You can't seem to make the distinction between the benign as aspects of Sharia and those harsher features of it that may run afoul of our laws. You think that Sharia is able to supersede our laws because it is religious law ,but like Mudda, you show a piss poor understanding of the statutory and Constitutional safeguards that we have.

I previously posted the following....here it is again incase you missed it or it was lost on you. Read it now and explain how I'm loosing:

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslum and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.

And, there are cases like this:

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue
2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes. You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first
Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particular Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.

You want to legitimize Shariah law which treats women, gays, minorities, and people of other faiths as subhumans, but you're not a bigot? It's always interesting when the Lefties keep telling us that we have to tolerate intolerant, hateful ideologies.

 

[Roudy]

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

Here we go, when a Leftie loses an argument it's always the same whiny fallback false accusations. You can't legalize the practice of bigotry against other religions and classes of people (which is what Shariah law is) and make it supersede the law of the land, just because Shariah is "religious based".

You might also want to review post 311 on pg. 32 regarding Constitutional law in relation to Sharia. Not one of you jokers who want to ban Sharia has been able to make an intelligent comment on it....but I'm losing!!

Of course anybody that protects the rights of a groups to impose a backwards ass, bigoted, and violent set of laws that belongs in the medieval ages, is clinically insane. No question about it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

No, not all religion is equal. The point is that legal theory is a constant as is your blatant bigotry and fear mongering.

Here we go, when a Leftie loses an argument it's always the same whiny fallback false accusations. You can't legalize the practice of bigotry against other religions and classes of people (which is what Shariah law is) and make it supersede the law of the land, just because Shariah is "religious based".

You want to outlaw Sharia entirely- to single out a religion and deprive them of their religious law -but your not a bigot? You can't seem to make the distinction between the benign as aspects of Sharia and those harsher features of it that may run afoul of our laws. You think that Sharia is able to supersede our laws because it is religious law ,but like Mudda, you show a piss poor understanding of the statutory and Constitutional safeguards that we have.

I previously posted the following....here it is again incase you missed it or it was lost on you. Read it now and explain how I'm loosing:

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslum and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.

And, there are cases like this:

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue
2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes. You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first
Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particular Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.

You want to legitimize Shariah law which treats women, gays, minorities, and people of other faiths as subhumans, but you're not a bigot? It's always interesting when the Lefties keep telling us that we have to tolerate intolerant, hateful ideologies.

Interesting how it's the same people who treat gays, women, minorities, and non Christians like shit are the same ones who blather about how Muslims treat other people.

The fact is that some Christians and Jews can be said to be guilty of those same things -albeit not as harsh as the more extreme Islamists-but you're not talking about banning their religious laws are you? That is hypocritical.

The aspects of any religious law that does objective harm to any one is already dealt with by our civil laws, as I have pointed out, and as you and others have ignored. .

As I have also pointed out, banning the law of one religion, or all religions for that matter has first amendment implications, yet something else that you can't deal with.

What exactly would banning Sharia law look like in the real world.? Would they be barred from fasting for Ramadan? From praying to Mecca three times a day?

I already documented that fact that it is not used in our courts. That leaves making it unlawful for Muslims to practice their religion in their homes and Mosques. How do you do that ?
You can't regulate what people do in private unless a criminal act comes to the attention of the authorities an d that is the case whether Sharia law is banned or not.

What do you even know about Sharia law? . Here are some fun facts....Please educate yourself Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost

2. What does Shariah cover?

While often thought of as a legal system, Shariah covers personal and collective spheres of daily life, and has three components – belief, character, and actions. Only a small portion of the “action” component relates to law. In fact, only about 80 of the Quran’s 6,236 verses are about specific legal injunctions.

⦁ The “belief” component of Shariah commands Muslims to believe in God, the angels, prophets, revelation, and other metaphysical and physical aspects of the faith.

⦁ In terms of “character,” Shariah commands Muslims to strive for traits like humility and kindness, and to avoid traits such as lying and pride.

⦁ “Actions” include those relating to God, such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage, as well as actions relating to other humans, such as marriage, crime, and business.

. Does Shariah really prescribe harsh punishments like stoning adulterers?

Yes, but many of these punishments have been taken out of context, abrogated, or require a near-impossible level of evidence to be carried out. For someone to be convicted of adultery, for example, there must be four witnesses to the act, which is rare. The Quran also prescribes amputating the hands of thieves, but (and this is often forgotten or unmentioned) not if the thief has repented.

And again.....this could not happen legally here


Here is more: The True Story of Sharia in American Courts

Sharia, or Islamic law, is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of Muslim life. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Muslims engage with foundational religious texts to search for the divine will. For devout Muslims, Sharia governs everything from the way they eat to how they treat animals and protect the environment, to how they do business, how they marry and how their estate is distributed after death. Although the emergence of the nation-state did away with the premodern methodology of Sharia, its current manifestations are either a source of legislation or actual state law in many Muslim countries

.

Please tell me again, how the hell do you ban all of that? You people need to give a whole lot more thought to this before continuing your hysterical crusade against Sharia law

You might also want to read this. Give the hate a rest:

Muslim – Christian Cooperation and Unity | WELCOME TO CAREFRONTING – NIGERIA

Muslims hold key to fighting terror | Toronto Star

 

[Marianne]

‘A wave of anti-Muslim rallies planned for almost 30 cities across America on Saturday by far-right activists has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and inspired counter-protests nationwide.

In cities including New York and Chicago, a few dozen “anti-sharia” demonstrators were outnumbered by counter-protesters.
[…]
The rallies have been organized by Act for America, which claims to be protesting about human rights violations but has been deemed an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The demonstrations prompted security fears at mosques across the country and come at a time when hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise.’

Anti-Muslim rallies across US denounced by civil rights groups

Such anti-Muslim organizations are as ignorant as they are bigoted, hateful, and wrong.

Let me ask you something if I was rallying against Nazi's would I be a bigot?