gs, neocon, sjt, and mur now have someone to vote for!

[DinkinFlicka]

*troll face*

Sure, sure, sure.

It's just your cute way of saying you still participate in egg hunts.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I oppose the spread of Sharia. I oppose the initiation of violence but support free speech and the right to protect one's self when exercising that right.

EDL does not look like anything I would ever want to be a part of... however there is a significant element in the Islamic community that believes they MUST spread Sharia to obey Allah. They are a legitimate concern considering the suppression of rights under that political system.

I see. I was just curious. Now, how do you feel about Sharia courts as an option? I know there are a bunch of them in the UK and Muslims are able to go there to settle civil disputes (divorce, family matters, child custody, emancipation etc...).

 

[sjt18]

I see. I was just curious. Now, how do you feel about Sharia courts as an option? I know there are a bunch of them in the UK and Muslims are able to go there to settle civil disputes (divorce, family matters, child custody, emancipation etc...).

I am not opposed so long as they are not imposed on participants in anyway and their scope is limited in a way that does not infringe on the jurisdiction of the official gov't courts. If it is a matter where two parties freely accept the judgment of a third party... that seems like a legit expression of freedom.

I would view it similarly to the system of common law practiced in remote areas of America during early colonial days. It amounts to a voluntary acceptance of the fairness of a neutral judge.


That is an interesting question though... how would you feel if there was a similar Christian system in America? You seem to be fairly antagonistic toward Christian expression and activity in American society.

 

[VOLatile]

I see. I was just curious. Now, how do you feel about Sharia courts as an option? I know there are a bunch of them in the UK and Muslims are able to go there to settle civil disputes (divorce, family matters, child custody, emancipation etc...).

I would firmly oppose this, based solely on separation of church and state.

 

[sjt18]

I would firmly oppose this, based solely on separation of church and state.

My support would actually have part of its basis in the separation of church and state.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I am not opposed so long as they are not imposed on participants in anyway and their scope is limited in a way that does not infringe on the jurisdiction of the official gov't courts. If it is a matter where two parties freely accept the judgment of a third party... that seems like a legit expression of freedom.

I would view it similarly to the system of common law practiced in remote areas of America during early colonial days. It amounts to a voluntary acceptance of the fairness of a neutral judge.


That is an interesting question though... how would you feel if there was a similar Christian system in America? You seem to be fairly antagonistic toward Christian expression and activity in American society.

I can see why you think I feel that way. However, I'm simply against mixing executive decisions with religious influence. I don't really have a problem with Christianity itself... it's just that a large number of Christians are so unlike their Christ and I usually oppose some of those Christians forcing their philosophy into public policy.

Also, what sort of "Christian" court would we have? You're far more educated on the subject than I am. I'm curious to hear what you think it would be like.

I would firmly oppose this, based solely on separation of church and state.

If separation of church and state is your aim, then wouldn't a purely optional, religious court be a good thing?

Jews have a similar system in which Jewish families can use a mediator to settle their household/civil disputes in a religious and legal manner.

 

[sjt18]

I can see why you think I feel that way. However, I'm simply against mixing executive decisions with religious influence. I don't really have a problem with Christianity itself... it's just that a large number of Christians are so unlike their Christ and I usually oppose some of those Christians forcing their philosophy into public policy.

But that's a real problem. Why is a worldview informed by a serious, consistent Christian faith worthy of discrimination in the public forum? Your worldview is informed by some religious or philosophical point of view. Your "conscience" dictates what you believe about gov't and issues. Religious freedom says your premise is worthy of respect but so is that of a Christian.

I believe the impasses created by gov't action on this very matter are precisely why the founders tried so hard to prevent a large, intrusive gov't. When gov't gets involved... it is almost a foregone conclusion that someone's ox is going to be gored... someone's legitimate rights are going to be denied.

When faced with a problem, you can solve it (fix it in a way that has to be revisited)... resolve it (fix it in a permanent way)... or dissolve it (eliminate the factors that created the problem in the first place). I believe the founders rightly chose option 3 when it came to gov't activities versus individual rights.

My "philosophy" based on the NT goes something like this: you have rights granted by God that I can't infringe on. Those rights are both social and economic... and the two CANNOT be divided as "social/civil libertarians" would attempt.

I believe the MOST NT consistent form of gov't is the limited gov't/libertarian model that allows everyone to be sovereign before their maker.

Also, what sort of "Christian" court would we have? You're far more educated on the subject than I am. I'm curious to hear what you think it would be like.

There is no NT thus Christian construct. I was just curious if you would be consistent about it.

It HAS been tried by both Catholic and Protestant state religions. It is an affront to Christianity and freedom... and it only works to oppress people.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So all of Christianity is impugned by a clear departure by the Roman Catholic Church from NT teachings more than 500 years ago?

This is a tad more recent and local: Answering Muslims: Iraqi Immigrant Alaa Alsaegh Suffers Hate Crime in St. Louis

Are you related to GS? Take a moment and think about what you post. I didn't say anything about "all of Christianity." No idea where you are getting that from. I said,

"The systematic exploitation by Church leaders and political leaders during the Dark Ages of their subjects in the name of their religion (Christianity)."

The dark ages lasted from roughly the fifth century with the fall of the Roman Empire until the fifteenth century (the Reformation Movement). The current protestant and Catholic religions have nothing to do with the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages; and vice versa. Nor did I imply such a foolish connection.

Oh, and Christianity did not depart from the Catholic Church during the Reformation Movement. The various Protestant religions split from the Catholic Church. Big difference. Both Catholicism and the various Protestant sects are all under the umbrella of Christianity. They are all built around the teachings of Jesus Christ. Hence the name Christianity.

Your lame attempt to bash Muslims does not warrant a dignified response.

You do realize that Muhammad advocated violence from the start and that a large percentage of Muslims still do, right?

You and those like you seem to want to lump Christianity in with Islam based on some obscure, much less than 1%, fringe element that is violent in the name of Christianity.... vs much more widespread use of violence by Muslims. Muslim violence toward non-Muslims is institutional in several countries.

1) How the hell do you respond with this garbage to my simple definition of Islam? I did not mention Christianity at all.

2) I am aware about the life of Muhammad. Although I am fairly baffled as to why you give a damn about Muhammad, his life, or his teachings. You are obviously a follower of Jesus Christ. His life and his message are all that you should truly concern yourself with. For claiming to be "Christians", you and GS exert a perplexing amount of energy concerning yourself with a religion which is in direct opposition to the first commandment of your Christian God.

3) I don't know how I have "lumped" Christianity and Islam together outside of recognizing that both are religions which have huge followings around the world. As I mentioned earlier in this thread to GS, I think the history of Islam has both positive and negative elements; just like the history of every other religion including Christianity.

 

[KiffinKiller]

oucho marx.

 

[sjt18]

Are you related to GS? Take a moment and think about what you post. I didn't say anything about "all of Christianity." No idea where you are getting that from. I said, The dark ages lasted from roughly the fifth century with the fall of the Roman Empire until the fifteenth century (the Reformation Movement). The current protestant and Catholic religions have nothing to do with the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages; and vice versa. Nor did I imply such a foolish connection.

No. You implied or seemed to imply that what you cited somehow made Christianity as "guilty" as modern day Islam.

Oh, and Christianity did not depart from the Catholic Church during the Reformation Movement. The various Protestant religions split from the Catholic Church. Big difference. Both Catholicism and the various Protestant sects are all under the umbrella of Christianity. They are all built around the teachings of Jesus Christ. Hence the name Christianity.

Simply put... no. The teachings of Jesus Christ and the basis for Christianity are found in the NT. Nowhere does the NT allow for a state-church union... nowhere does it allow for force to be used to convert unbelievers. We could go MUCH further into departures by the RCC from NT teaching but this probably isn't the place. Protestantism tended back toward biblical Christianity. Some groups simply dropped all connection and started over with just the NT.

When you get time and if you have interest in being informed, look up a 17th century Baptist confession. They are very simply premised on the notion that God's only extant revelation to man is the Bible... and not a "church" organization.

Your lame attempt to bash Muslims does not warrant a dignified response.

IOW's, you have no intelligent response so you'll just accuse me of "bashing" or Islamophobia.

2) I am aware about the life of Muhammad. Although I am fairly baffled as to why you give a damn about Muhammad, his life, or his teachings. You are obviously a follower of Jesus Christ. His life and his message are all that you should truly concern yourself with.

What? I should be ignorant because I believe in Christ rather than some other religion? That truly is an ignorant argument. If nothing else biblical Christianity DEMANDS that we "try all things" and hold to that which is true.

Also, Islam has a long history of NOT leaving people of other faiths alone. It greatly behooves ANYONE with a different belief structure to have a realistic understanding of Islam from its most peaceful and benign adherents to its most "fundamental", Quran believing factions.

For claiming to be "Christians", you and GS exert a perplexing amount of energy concerning yourself with a religion which is in direct opposition to the first commandment of your Christian God.

Which command would that be? Jesus spent much of his life condemning the harsh legalism of the pharisees. Paul addressed pagan religions repeatedly especially in his letters to Corinth. John and others wrote against gnosticism.

Exactly which command are you referring to that says Christians should a) be ignorant of what others believe and b) not stand up for truth?

3) I don't know how I have "lumped" Christianity and Islam together outside of recognizing that both are religions which have huge followings around the world. As I mentioned earlier in this thread to GS, I think the history of Islam has both positive and negative elements; just like the history of every other religion including Christianity.

In that last sentence you at least seem to attach the two with respect to their relative worth, peacefulness, benefit, etc.

Islamic believers are CURRENTLY responsible for widespread oppression of non-muslims. That is a fact. Facts can be accepted or denied... but they do not change because of that choice. Sharia is used in Islam ruled countries to deny the rights of people, to oppress dissenters, and to justify various acts of violence.

The more biblically "Christian" a person is... the less likely they are to EVER use violence to promote Christianity. The more fundamental a Muslim is with respect to the Quran, Islamic law, and Islamic tradition... the more likely they are to be open to the use of violence against infidels.

 

[gsvol]

I see. I was just curious. Now, how do you feel about Sharia courts as an option? I know there are a bunch of them in the UK and Muslims are able to go there to settle civil disputes (divorce, family matters, child custody, emancipation etc...).

The two main problems with sharia courts are that they
are unfair to non moslems and to all women.

But if you are going to allow the legitimacy of sharia
civil courts then why not sharia criminal courts as well?

Islam is not a religion. It’s a theocratic political system,
which is a system where the religious law governs civil
society as well and where the supreme government is
its clergy. It is a rival political system and cannot
coexist with democracy and the US Constution.

It’s time to declare Islam a rival political system and
get it out of this country.

There is precedent for this. Remember, Mormonism
is a syncretist religion dreamed up by a “prophet”
like Mohammed, and was originally planned to be a
theocracy, that is, a society ruled by clergy and
governed by religious law established by its founder.

The US decided this could not coexist with the US
system, and the Mormons (who had been very
aggressive and violent) backed down and accepted
US law and set their religious practices apart,
abandoning those that conflicted with our law,
such as polygamy and their own theocratic court
system.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

The two main problems with sharia courts are that they
are unfair to non moslems and to all women.

But if you are going to allow the legitimacy of sharia
civil courts then why not sharia criminal courts as well?

Islam is not a religion. It’s a theocratic political system,
which is a system where the religious law governs civil
society as well and where the supreme government is
its clergy. It is a rival political system and cannot
coexist with democracy and the US Constution.

It’s time to declare Islam a rival political system and
get it out of this country.

There is precedent for this. Remember, Mormonism
is a syncretist religion dreamed up by a “prophet”
like Mohammed, and was originally planned to be a
theocracy, that is, a society ruled by clergy and
governed by religious law established by its founder.

The US decided this could not coexist with the US
system, and the Mormons (who had been very
aggressive and violent) backed down and accepted
US law and set their religious practices apart,
abandoning those that conflicted with our law,
such as polygamy and their own theocratic court
system.

Criminal courts should be dealt with by the default judicial system. Some religions have their own civil dispute mediators... perhaps sharia courts could be used in a similar way. You know, like they are in the UK.

I'll ask again... how do you feel about having sharia courts as an option?

 

[KiffinKiller]

same way he feels about small children on his lawn.

 

[gsvol]

Criminal courts should be dealt with by the default judicial system. Some religions have their own civil dispute mediators... perhaps sharia courts could be used in a similar way. You know, like they are in the UK.

I'll ask again... how do you feel about having sharia courts as an option?

Once again;

NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Not in any US court system at any level.

Now if two parties have a dispute and BOTH parties agree, then let them go to an agreeable mosque and have their case heard and decided under sharia law.

If it is a criminal case though then it should be decided under established American law and leave sharia out of it altogether, any introduction of sharia should be barred completely.

 

[therealUT]

If it is a criminal case though then it should be decided under established American law and leave sharia out of it altogether, any introduction of sharia should be barred completely.

Are both the victim and the suspect Muslims? Is the victim of the age of reason and accountability? Does the victim wish to pursue the matter under sharia law instead of government statutes? Does the suspect concede to such?

If all of those questions were answered affirmatively, then would you still have a problem with the matter being decided under Sharia Law as opposed to under the government judicial system?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Once again;

NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Not in any US court system at any level.

Now if two parties have a dispute and BOTH parties agree, then let them go to an agreeable mosque and have their case heard and decided under sharia law.

If it is a criminal case though then it should be decided under established American law and leave sharia out of it altogether, any introduction of sharia should be barred completely.

Again, this would be separate from the judicial system. We're talking about privatized mediation here.

I agree with you that criminal cases should stay in the system... not sure where I implied otherwise.

Strangely enough and despite your crusades, we seem to agree on this.

Again, this is pure, privatized, civil mediation I'm talking about. If you would allow sharia law that much, then I'll happily tip my hat to you on this subject. I'm surprised.

 

[KiffinKiller]

You'd think gs would support muslims being stoned to death.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You'd think gs would support muslims being stoned.

fyp, he wants them to live to forget.

 

[n_huffhines]

Again, this would be separate from the judicial system. We're talking about privatized mediation here.

I agree with you that criminal cases should stay in the system... not sure where I implied otherwise.

Strangely enough and despite your crusades, we seem to agree on this.

Again, this is pure, privatized, civil mediation I'm talking about. If you would allow sharia law that much, then I'll happily tip my hat to you on this subject. I'm surprised.

This happens all the time in the corporate world, too. People have a hard time wrapping their minds around anarchism, but private mediation would settle disputes. It's harder to buy off a judge when their reputation (not legal authority) is everything.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

This happens all the time in the corporate world, too. People have a hard time wrapping their minds around anarchism, but private mediation would settle disputes. It's harder to buy off a judge when their reputation (not legal authority) is everything.

Precisely why I'm rethinking going into Criminal Defense law.

 

[gsvol]

Again, this would be separate from the judicial system. We're talking about privatized mediation here.

I agree with you that criminal cases should stay in the system... not sure where I implied otherwise.

Strangely enough and despite your crusades, we seem to agree on this.

Again, this is pure, privatized, civil mediation I'm talking about. If you would allow sharia law that much, then I'll happily tip my hat to you on this subject. I'm surprised.

AGAIN!

Not as long as it is produced in to the American court system, payed for with American tax dollars.

If they want to settle civil manners privately, then that is their perogative as with anyone else.

However, that MUST be agreeable to both parties in the litigation.

 

[VOLatile]

AGAIN!

Not as long as it is produced in to the American court system, payed for with American tax dollars.

If they want to settle civil manners privately, then that is their perogative as with anyone else.

However, that MUST be agreeable to both parties in the litigation.

So you argue for complete separation of church and state, correct?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

AGAIN!

Not as long as it is produced in to the American court system, payed for with American tax dollars.

If they want to settle civil manners privately, then that is their perogative as with anyone else.

However, that MUST be agreeable to both parties in the litigation.

I've said it would be separate from the judicial system multiple times.

I think you already know that I'm against tax dollars going toward any religious purpose.

Basically, all your stipulations for a sharia court seem to hint that a separation of church and state would be optimal... 'bout time.

Also, prerogative*. Didn't you listen to Bobby Brown? Jeez.

 

[gsvol]

I've said it would be separate from the judicial system multiple times.

I think you already know that I'm against tax dollars going toward any religious purpose.

Basically, all your stipulations for a sharia court seem to hint that a separation of church and state would be optimal... 'bout time.

Also, prerogative*. Didn't you listen to Bobby Brown? Jeez.

So both you and volatile have no objection to anti-sharia laws??

Whether you do or not, what do you think of efforts by moslem special interest groups and the US Justice Department to block states from adopting anti-sharia laws?


Terrorist-Linked CAIR Peddling Islam in Tampa Bay, FL High Schools Creeping Sharia

Hamas-linked groups are talking to high school students? Co-conspirators in the largest terror funding trial in our nation’s history? Is that what our public schools are doing with our children — subjecting them to indoctrination and propaganda? That is child abuse. Where are the counter voices? Where are the voices of freedom?

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations): Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-linked organization spreading disinformation about Islam and terror, opposing anti-terror activity, and defaming freedom fighters. CAIR was one of the many Islamic groups that was named an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas jihad funding trial. They are in the top five AFDI Threats to Freedom Index.

You’ll notice that in this CAIR report the schools are not named, because Hamas-linked CAIR knows what they are doing is subversion and the schools would be held accountable.
---------------------------

According to IPT: Hassan Shibly has a track record of defending terrorist groups and acting as an apologist for militant Islam. Following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, Shibly granted legitimacy to Hizballah by characterizing it as a “resistance movement” that provides valued social services to the Lebanese people.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

So both you and volatile have no objection to anti-sharia laws??

How did you draw that conclusion? The answer is no. I think there should be a Sharia court option for civil disuputes.

Whether you do or not, what do you think of efforts by moslem special interest groups and the US Justice Department to block states from adopting anti-sharia laws?

I support states' rights when its purpose is to add liberties. I do not think states should have the power to legislate discrimination.