teapartysamurai
Gold Member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 20,056
- 2,562
- 290
Now THIS is telling!
If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?
Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com
Two things I notice?
The law banning sharia is "unnecessary?"
Well then why worry about banning it?
It would be like OK banning opening umbrellas during a zombie apocalypse.
If you don't think there will ever BE a zombie apocalypse, why worry then about the law? It will never effect you, so let the electorate look silly voting for such a law.
BUT, if you intend to FORCE sharia to be the law of the land, THAT is why you object.
And he cites the first amendment as a reason to object to such a law?
HOW is the first amendment served by FORCING a religious law on ANYONE?
I mean if YOU choose to privately live by sharia (where it doesn't violate already known law, like I don't think we are going to let ANYONE stone someone to death), well goody for you!
But sharia isn't about voluntary compliance. It's about FORCING people to live under the edicts of Islam.
THAT is the only reason to object to such a law.
CAIR reveals what they are really about with this law suit.
And people thought OK was being silly putting this on the ballot.
That CAIR objects reveals they weren't being silly.
THIS is very telling.
If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?
Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 – or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.
But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state's nearly 4 million residents – less than 1 percent.
Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam. He said the measure is just another way to politically savage Muslims.
Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com
Two things I notice?
The law banning sharia is "unnecessary?"
Well then why worry about banning it?
It would be like OK banning opening umbrellas during a zombie apocalypse.
If you don't think there will ever BE a zombie apocalypse, why worry then about the law? It will never effect you, so let the electorate look silly voting for such a law.
BUT, if you intend to FORCE sharia to be the law of the land, THAT is why you object.
And he cites the first amendment as a reason to object to such a law?
HOW is the first amendment served by FORCING a religious law on ANYONE?
I mean if YOU choose to privately live by sharia (where it doesn't violate already known law, like I don't think we are going to let ANYONE stone someone to death), well goody for you!
But sharia isn't about voluntary compliance. It's about FORCING people to live under the edicts of Islam.
THAT is the only reason to object to such a law.
CAIR reveals what they are really about with this law suit.
And people thought OK was being silly putting this on the ballot.
That CAIR objects reveals they weren't being silly.
THIS is very telling.
Last edited: