ACLU pardners with moslem organization to promote islamic sharia law in America.

#26
#26
SamRebel35 said:
Failing to facilitate a "Religion's" delivery of their message is not the same as stifling it. How many Christian organizations would be afforded the same forum to discuss their religious beliefs that the Sharia Law is getting?
Click to expand...

Yes, intentionally preventing a religion's ability to spread their message is stifling it, which is, as I said, directly contradictory to the Constitution. What else would you describe it as?

Many Christian groups are afforded forums regularly almost everywhere (radio, television, print, etc.). The ACLU also defends the rights of Christians to practice their religion regularly- all it takes is a simple Google search to find this, which I estimate you haven't done because you fear that discovering the ACLU is not the devil-worshiping monstrosity that you think it is will undermine every one of your arguments (which it will).
 
#30
#30
rockytop9808 said:
Yes, intentionally preventing a religion's ability to spread their message is stifling it, which is, as I said, directly contradictory to the Constitution. What else would you describe it as?

Many Christian groups are afforded forums regularly almost everywhere (radio, television, print, etc.). The ACLU also defends the rights of Christians to practice their religion regularly- all it takes is a simple Google search to find this, which I estimate you haven't done because you fear that discovering the ACLU is not the devil-worshiping monstrosity that you think it is will undermine every one of your arguments (which it will).
Click to expand...

My argument is that Sharia Law is not a religion so much as a systematic method for Moslims to stack the deck in favor of their own religion using brutality. The ACLU's view of Christianity has little to do with that.
 
#31
#31
So bogus. The law always struggles with where to draw the line within a family as to what overall society accepts versus the family's religious beliefs.

I have a relative who was a circuit court judge for a period of time in the 1970s and 80s. He had a number of cases where the child of Jehovah's Witness parents would be injured or ill and need a blood transfusion. Apparently, that's a huge no-no to them.

So the parents would (usually very torn about it themselves) refuse. The hospital would file suit, and my relative would literally hold court in a hospital room to decide the dispute.

This is an inevitable result of allowing various religions in a free society. Doesn't mean they are evil. And just because they advocate for people to have their same religious views, including their norms and rules, doesn't mean they are trying to take us over by use of them.

I mean, honestly, gsvol, given what you know of the country, are you REALLY concerned that somehow the hundreds of millions of Christians in this country are going to be inculcated to Islam? Its a silly worry. And all it really does is prove that you have an extremely narrow mind about religious freedom (a character trait ironically so often found amongst so-called conservatives when it comes to the Constitution).

It also demonstrates that you will make silly arguments in order to fan the flames of fear. If you want to complain that Islam has been coopted by terrorists who are manipulating it to their own selfish ends, okay, there's some evidence to support that. And we can argue to what degree that has occurred and how to combat the terrorists of today whilst preventing further terrorists from being created tomorrow.

Seems to me that the surest way to guarantee more terrorists tomorrow is to insult and be dismissive of their religious rights. I think, frankly, that people like you are feeding the terrorist machine because you perpetuate the notion that our REAL goal is not to end terrorism, but to end Islam. The hate machine, ironically, just stokes the fires of distrust and is easily manipulated.

You should ask yourself, at the end of the day, are you and your propagandists making things worse because a good case can be made that you are. Especially when you don;t want to allow them even to speak their minds about it.
 
#32
#32
SamRebel35 said:
Any and every nation (including the USA) that flirted with or made laws facilitating Eugenics. Seemed like a great idea at the time, but was really nothing more than a group think session gone global.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the two are comparable at all- originally, eugenics wasn't about violently wiping people out, it was about selective mating to weed out traits.

The rise of many eugenics laws in the US rose mostly from a distrust and disdain for foreigners and their "idiocy", something that clearly still runs wild a hundred years later.
 
#33
#33
SamRebel35 said:
My argument is that Sharia Law is not a religion so much as a systematic method for Moslims to stack the deck in favor of their own religion using brutality. The ACLU's view of Christianity has little to do with that.
Click to expand...

you're right, it's not a religion but are rules around Islam. Don't all religions have those?

where is your view of Sharia coming from?
 
#34
#34
SamRebel35 said:
My argument is that Sharia Law is not a religion so much as a systematic method for Moslims to stack the deck in favor of their own religion using brutality. The ACLU's view of Christianity has little to do with that.
Click to expand...

Sharia Law is a distinct part of Islamic faith, and has been since it's foundation- it's not a "systematic method for Moslims to stack the deck in favor of their own religion using brutality" in any way. In fact, most sects do not practice the violent and brutal Sharia you are rallying against anyway.

And yes, the ACLU's view of Christianity does matter, because you specifically tried to argue that Christianity does not get the same forum here as Islam.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
So bogus. The law always struggles with where to draw the line within a family as to what overall society accepts versus the family's religious beliefs.

I have a relative who was a circuit court judge for a period of time in the 1970s and 80s. He had a number of cases where the child of Jehovah's Witness parents would be injured or ill and need a blood transfusion. Apparently, that's a huge no-no to them.

So the parents would (usually very torn about it themselves) refuse. The hospital would file suit, and my relative would literally hold court in a hospital room to decide the dispute.

This is an inevitable result of allowing various religions in a free society. Doesn't mean they are evil. And just because they advocate for people to have their same religious views, including their norms and rules, doesn't mean they are trying to take us over by use of them.

I mean, honestly, gsvol, given what you know of the country, are you REALLY concerned that somehow the hundreds of millions of Christians in this country are going to be inculcated to Islam? Its a silly worry. And all it really does is prove that you have an extremely narrow mind about religious freedom (a character trait ironically so often found amongst so-called conservatives when it comes to the Constitution).

It also demonstrates that you will make silly arguments in order to fan the flames of fear. If you want to complain that Islam has been coopted by terrorists who are manipulating it to their own selfish ends, okay, there's some evidence to support that. And we can argue to what degree that has occurred and how to combat the terrorists of today whilst preventing further terrorists from being created tomorrow.

Seems to me that the surest way to guarantee more terrorists tomorrow is to insult and be dismissive of their religious rights. I think, frankly, that people like you are feeding the terrorist machine because you perpetuate the notion that our REAL goal is not to end terrorism, but to end Islam. The hate machine, ironically, just stokes the fires of distrust and is easily manipulated.

You should ask yourself, at the end of the day, are you and your propagandists making things worse because a good case can be made that you are. Especially when you don;t want to allow them even to speak their minds about it.
Click to expand...

I think this is wrong. The surest way to guarantee more terrorists tomorrow is to be tolerant and accepting of their governing principals. Ever heard of giving an inch and taking a mile?
 
#36
#36
SamRebel35 said:
I think this is wrong. The surest way to guarantee more terrorists tomorrow is to be tolerant and accepting of their governing principals. Ever heard of giving an inch and taking a mile?
Click to expand...

Because the current conflicts have only cause folks around the world to love the US, huh?
 
#37
#37
gsvol said:
You have so much silliness and ignorance lil bro.

Give it up indeed.

Sharia law has already been cited in numerous American court cases and the moslems are frequently being appeased.

Why give up such hard won freedoms so easily??

Answer me that bopeepus!
Click to expand...

You are sad scared man.
 
#38
#38
rockytop9808 said:
Sharia Law is a distinct part of Islamic faith, and has been since it's foundation- it's not a "systematic method for Moslims to stack the deck in favor of their own religion using brutality" in any way. In fact, most sects do not practice the violent and brutal Sharia you are rallying against anyway.

And yes, the ACLU's view of Christianity does matter, because you specifically tried to argue that Christianity does not get the same forum here as Islam.
Click to expand...

They may not practice it, but those violent principals are still part of the law. If those violent principals are not denounced, then it is the same thing as agreeing with it. How many Moslims have you heard denounce the violent principals inherent in Sharia Law?

I am saying that Christianity and Sharia Law (not Islam) shouldn't have the same forum. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs by saying that.
 
#40
#40
SamRebel35 said:
They may not practice it, but those violent principals are still part of the law. If those violent principals are not denounced, then it is the same thing as agreeing with it. How many Moslims have you heard denounce the violent principals inherent in Sharia Law?

I am saying that Christianity and Sharia Law (not Islam) shouldn't have the same forum. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs by saying that.
Click to expand...

I personally haven't heard any Muslims denouncing Sharia Law. Then again, I haven't heard any Christians or Jews denounce the many punishments of the Old Testament, either. In fact, I'd say there is just about as much intolerance and aggression towards other religions in the average Christian group as there is in the average Muslim group.

As I've said, Sharia Law is a part of Islam. You cannot pick and choose specific aspects of arguments and cultures that you disagree with and tell them they cannot discuss it in an open, fair, and Constitutionally legal manner. I, as a Christian, disagree with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, but I believe they have the right to do so so long as they do not cross the fine line of harassment and free speech. Bottom line: forcing your own morals and beliefs on people by denying alternative opinions is messed up.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
SamRebel35 said:
What does "love" for the US have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

You're arguing for the forced oppression of aspects of a religion while promoting intolerance. The current conflict has taken on a very similar air of intolerance.

This has not led to the creation of less hatred and terrorism, as your argument in the would imply.

"Giving an inch and taking a mile" is not relevant in any sense.
 
#46
#46
crusader_tn.jpg
 
#49
#49
utvolpj said:
you're right, it's not a religion but are rules around Islam. Don't all religions have those?

where is your view of Sharia coming from?
Click to expand...

Much like the OP, I am sure it came from years of unbiased research into credible sources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top