Multiculturalism and Sharia

[NYcarbineer]

First, let's try to avoid your usual sophistry and consider that none of the folks you're attempting to smear suggested killing those with a different sexual orientation.

The group being spotlighted does just that.

One might consider that as being a significant difference between the groups you are attempting to conflate.

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that, as exemplified by, but not limited to, the Arizona law that the governor vetoed.

Note the list for sharia in post #255

Your original criterion was that of laws that would violate the 'law of the land'.

If Christians want the special privilege of being able to violate the 'law of the land' via the right to discriminate,

how does that not fit the criterion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sharia law would impose religious based rules in place of current US laws, correct?

Christians are claiming the right to do exactly that, as exemplified by, but not limited to, the Arizona law that the governor vetoed.

Note the list for sharia in post #255

Your original criterion was that of laws that would violate the 'law of the land'.

If Christians want the special privilege of being able to violate the 'law of the land' via the right to discriminate,

how does that not fit the criterion?

Note the list for sharia in post #255


You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[Kondor3]

So?_ [*] Our government was preceded by an absolute monarchy who derived his power by divine right. Are we supposed to be preserving some of that because that is where we came from? Where do you people get these idiotic ideas?

Typical (and failed) Lib-Prog MultiCulti diversionary rant, complete with extremist examples [*].

Nobody said anything about preserving the worst of the past.

Merely preserving The Best of the past...

And, more importantly, preserving The Best of the PRESENT...

Preserving the singularity and superiority of our own body of Secular Law - the laws of Secularized Christendom - within our own domains - our own body of law - with its own flavor of Culture and Identity and Philosophy and Morality and Ethics - as painfully developed and evolved over most of the past 1500 years, and more...

Merely stiff-arming and setting aside subversive attempts to introduce the poison-pill Neanderthal Laws of an alien and Neanderthal Belief System into a system that already works in governing The West and its peoples...

 

[Unkotare]

If Christians want the special privilege of being able to violate the 'law of the land' via the right to discriminate,

They don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No they are not.

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'

Oh Christ, someone who never even read the bill.

 

[Contumacious]

2. I have no brief with Islam, nor with the Qran.
The problem is with folks who intend to replace the Constitution with Sharia.

Do you have a problem with those who want to replace the US Constitution with Judaism?

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security."

.

And why would you look to Zelikow as your authority and not the at least 50 other people who were in on the most intimate and serious discussions related to what we should do about Iraq?

Because Zelikow's admission correspond to the the findings made by a Pentagon insider" USAF Col Karen Kwiatkowski .


.

 

[kaz]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

First define "the Left"

You

 

[Foxfyre]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

First define "the Left"

You

I early on gave him what I believed was an excellent definition of what the modern American left is. He didn't like it.

 

[kaz]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

First define "the Left"

You

I early on gave him what I believed was an excellent definition of what the modern American left is. He didn't like it.

I'm sure your post reflected far more thought, but I was probably just as accurate...



Leftists are big government authoritarians who's goal is sameness of results, which only government can provide. And in that endless quest, they punish achievers and success and reward the useless and failure in their endless quest to achieve their desired result.

They like to think of themselves as "liberal" because it means open and forward looking, but in no possible way do they reflect any liberalness.

 

[kaz]

6. Those who see America as inferior to other nations that they think have better values, attitudes, and lifestyles.

So that is why conservatives always side with Pootin'!

Well, moonbeam, what have conservatives sided with Putin on?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So?_ [*] Our government was preceded by an absolute monarchy who derived his power by divine right. Are we supposed to be preserving some of that because that is where we came from? Where do you people get these idiotic ideas?

Typical (and failed) Lib-Prog MultiCulti diversionary rant, complete with extremist examples [*].

Nobody said anything about preserving the worst of the past.

Merely preserving The Best of the past...

And, more importantly, preserving The Best of the PRESENT...

Preserving the singularity and superiority of our own body of Secular Law - the laws of Secularized Christendom - within our own domains - our own body of law - with its own flavor of Culture and Identity and Philosophy and Morality and Ethics - as painfully developed and evolved over most of the past 1500 years, and more...

Merely stiff-arming and setting aside subversive attempts to introduce the poison-pill Neanderthal Laws of an alien and Neanderthal Belief System into a system that already works in governing The West and its peoples...

The divine right of kings was a Christian belief. Based on the Bible.

Are you saying the Christians were wrong in that belief?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No they are not.

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'

Bill Text: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2nd Regular | Introduced | LegiScan

Imbecile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So?_ [*] Our government was preceded by an absolute monarchy who derived his power by divine right. Are we supposed to be preserving some of that because that is where we came from? Where do you people get these idiotic ideas?

Typical (and failed) Lib-Prog MultiCulti diversionary rant, complete with extremist examples [*].

Nobody said anything about preserving the worst of the past.

Merely preserving The Best of the past...

And, more importantly, preserving The Best of the PRESENT...

Preserving the singularity and superiority of our own body of Secular Law - the laws of Secularized Christendom - within our own domains - our own body of law - with its own flavor of Culture and Identity and Philosophy and Morality and Ethics - as painfully developed and evolved over most of the past 1500 years, and more...

Merely stiff-arming and setting aside subversive attempts to introduce the poison-pill Neanderthal Laws of an alien and Neanderthal Belief System into a system that already works in governing The West and its peoples...

The jury trial can be traced back at least as far as to the Greeks and probably further.

Presumption of innocence can be traced at least to the Roman empire.

The Greek Democracy predates the birth of Christ.

The Roman Republic predates the birth of Christ.

In other words, Christianity has no claim to the roots of our form of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Note the list for sharia in post #255

Your original criterion was that of laws that would violate the 'law of the land'.

If Christians want the special privilege of being able to violate the 'law of the land' via the right to discriminate,

how does that not fit the criterion?

Note the list for sharia in post #255


You can run, but you can't hide.

Maybe you should just admit that you agreed with Jan Brewer's veto of the Arizona law.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Arizona and other states tried to do exactly that with their bills to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs.

You are wrong.

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'

Bill Text: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2nd Regular | Introduced | LegiScan

Imbecile.

who is it that gets your panties in a wad about someone choosing to not bake a gay wedding cake...?

when you leftie imbeciles ban the exercise of headscarves, halal, and muslim prayer in American schools then your petty protests might have a leg to stand on...

 

[Kondor3]

So?_ [*] Our government was preceded by an absolute monarchy who derived his power by divine right. Are we supposed to be preserving some of that because that is where we came from? Where do you people get these idiotic ideas?

Typical (and failed) Lib-Prog MultiCulti diversionary rant, complete with extremist examples [*].

Nobody said anything about preserving the worst of the past.

Merely preserving The Best of the past...

And, more importantly, preserving The Best of the PRESENT...

Preserving the singularity and superiority of our own body of Secular Law - the laws of Secularized Christendom - within our own domains - our own body of law - with its own flavor of Culture and Identity and Philosophy and Morality and Ethics - as painfully developed and evolved over most of the past 1500 years, and more...

Merely stiff-arming and setting aside subversive attempts to introduce the poison-pill Neanderthal Laws of an alien and Neanderthal Belief System into a system that already works in governing The West and its peoples...

The divine right of kings was a Christian belief. Based on the Bible.

Are you saying the Christians were wrong in that belief?

What has that to do with preserving The Best of history: cultural identity, philosophy, morals, legal system, etc.?

You have a hard-on over this 'divine right of kings' business, looking to leverage it in order to disparage an aspect of the traditions of The West, then to build upon that in order to invalidate more of the collection of traditions, having negated one of them...

Not in any exchange with me, mine good colleague... I have no problem in calling that what it is, and heading that off at the pass, before you can get any traction with it...

The 'divine right of kings' element of Western cultural traditions is NOT one of 'The Best' aspects of our own history that I called-for to be preserved, but one of 'The Worst'; something that can safely be jettisoned...

Besides, it wasn't a Christian Belief - it was cynical Secular Spin-Doctoring on Christian texts in order to conjure-up a juicy rationalization that the ignorant peasantry and burghers could not argue-down, to prop-up various kings and other nobility...

Something that 'we' (The West) concluded was 'bullshit' some decades and centuries ago, and decided to leave behind...

But it was OUR (The West) choice, and not that of some Neanderthal alien belief-sytem-political-structure hybrid...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Typical (and failed) Lib-Prog MultiCulti diversionary rant, complete with extremist examples [*].

Nobody said anything about preserving the worst of the past.

Merely preserving The Best of the past...

And, more importantly, preserving The Best of the PRESENT...

Preserving the singularity and superiority of our own body of Secular Law - the laws of Secularized Christendom - within our own domains - our own body of law - with its own flavor of Culture and Identity and Philosophy and Morality and Ethics - as painfully developed and evolved over most of the past 1500 years, and more...

Merely stiff-arming and setting aside subversive attempts to introduce the poison-pill Neanderthal Laws of an alien and Neanderthal Belief System into a system that already works in governing The West and its peoples...

The divine right of kings was a Christian belief. Based on the Bible.

Are you saying the Christians were wrong in that belief?

What has that to do with preserving The Best of history: cultural identity, philosophy, morals, legal system, etc.?

You have a hard-on over this 'divine right of kings' business, looking to leverage it in order to disparage an aspect of the traditions of The West, then to build upon that in order to invalidate more of the collection of traditions, having negated one of them...

Not in any exchange with me, mine good colleague... I have no problem in calling that what it is, and heading that off at the pass, before you can get any traction with it...

The 'divine right of kings' element of Western cultural traditions is NOT one of 'The Best' aspects of our own history that I called-for to be preserved, but one of 'The Worst'; something that can safely be jettisoned...

Besides, it wasn't a Christian Belief - it was cynical Secular Spin-Doctoring on Christian texts in order to conjure-up a juicy rationalization that the ignorant peasantry and burghers could not argue-down, to prop-up various kings and other nobility...

Something that 'we' (The West) concluded was 'bullshit' some decades and centuries ago, and decided to leave behind...

But it was OUR (The West) choice, and not that of some Neanderthal alien belief-sytem-political-structure hybrid...

Ah, so you are the one who gets to decide which is a Christian belief and which isn't? lol, you're an ass.

Give us a list of the uniquely Christian principles in our system of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where in the bills did it specify that anything was to be done based on religious beliefs? Any mention of religion has been regarding the safeguard of Constitutional rights relating to such. Your ilk just assumes that no one could possibly see things differently than you unless it was based on religious beliefs that you - in your bigotry - dismiss out of hand. A convenient way to simplify the world for people who share your 'limitations,'

Bill Text: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2nd Regular | Introduced | LegiScan

Imbecile.

who is it that gets your panties in a wad about someone choosing to not bake a gay wedding cake...?

when you leftie imbeciles ban the exercise of headscarves, halal, and muslim prayer in American schools then your petty protests might have a leg to stand on...

Why are you changing the subject?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bill Text: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2nd Regular | Introduced | LegiScan

Imbecile.

who is it that gets your panties in a wad about someone choosing to not bake a gay wedding cake...?

when you leftie imbeciles ban the exercise of headscarves, halal, and muslim prayer in American schools then your petty protests might have a leg to stand on...

Why are you changing the subject?

i'm not....why do you spit upon one religion yet kiss-ass another....?

 

[Contumacious]

2. I have no brief with Islam, nor with the Qran.
The problem is with folks who intend to replace the Constitution with Sharia.

Do you have a problem with those who want to replace the US Constitution with Judaism?

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security."

.

Outside of your fevered imagination, fueled by your hatred of Jewish folk, I am not aware of such an attempt " replace the US Constitution with Judaism."


BTW....I accept your right to be a bottom feeding, gutter dwelling troglodyte.

Really?

Isn't the US REQUIRED to insure Israel's security, isn't the US REQUIRED to send them 12 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion a year in foreign and military aid, isn't the US supposed to help Israel crush Assad, Isn't the US supposed to crush Iran, wasn't the US REQUIRED to crush Saddam .

Did I miss anything?

.