Are we at war with Islam?

[Ret10Echo]

X,
The way I understand the process is that people in disagreement with the established laws here in the U.S. have a means by which to make change through the political process (this is based in doctrine as opposed to statement of fact. Your State may vary ).

If Sharia is not to supecede US law, then I suppose it would be reduced to somthing more of a moral code for those who "sign up" for it much like the Amish, Menonites, LDS or other groups (religious or non) that have established rules for conduct and lifestyle. Provided those rules/beliefs do not lead to conduct that violates established laws.

That being said, they (muslims) have that freedom now.....so why the debate on an official recognition?

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

The way I understand the process is that people in disagreement with the established laws here in the U.S. have a means by which to make change through the political process (this is based in doctrine as opposed to statement of fact. Your State may vary ).

But no one is in disagreement with established law. We're talking about Muslims asking for their rights under established law.

If Sharia is not to supecede US law, then I suppose it would be reduced to somthing more of a moral code for those who "sign up" for it much like the Amish, Menonites, LDS or other groups (religious or non) that have established rules for conduct and lifestyle. Provided those rules/beliefs do not lead to conduct that violates established laws.

That being said, they (muslims) have that freedom now.....so why the debate on an official recognition?

The issue is not whether they have the right to live their lives to a certain moral code, which of course they do. The issue is whether they have the right under the law to use that code to settle petty civil disputes as the other groups do with their codes. The issue is equal treatment under the law.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by x-factor

But no one is in disagreement with established law. We're talking about Muslims asking for their rights under established law.

The issue is not whether they have the right to live their lives to a certain moral code, which of course they do. The issue is whether they have the right under the law to use that code to settle petty civil disputes as the other groups do with their codes. The issue is equal treatment under the law.

Most of the really bad ideas in history started with a few "modest proposals".

I believe that this is a BAD idea, if you do not like US law, or to become an American, DO NOT COME HERE.

If sharia law is so great, why are no other successful democracies practicing it as their primary legal code?

Are the horror stories of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., and the religious police that those Islamic societies seem to spawn in our future?

Can telling a customer that you will not serve them pork, or alcohol, etc., because of your beliefs tolerable as freedom of religion?

Where does it go from there? Lashings for failure to follow the dress code? Stonings for being in the presence of an unrelated male?

Is sawing off the head of someone of a different faith a reasonable expression of free speech? Is it a hate crime to defend yourself, or your loved ones?

You are defending a religion mired in the Dark Ages and with no reformation since then. One which is incompatible with a free democratic society, and one which has declared holy war on all non-believers.

Will we sell them the rope they will hang us with, or will we resist?

TR

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Most of the really bad ideas in history started with a few "modest proposals".

I believe that this is a BAD idea, if you do not like US law, or to become an American, DO NOT COME HERE.

First, its entirely possible that they were born here. Second, they do like US law. The civil arbitration option is part of existing US law. The Orthodox Jews, Amish, etc are all operating under US law when they partake of that option.

Can telling a customer that you will not serve them pork, or alcohol, etc., because of your beliefs tolerable as freedom of religion?

If the owner of the establishment doesn't want to sell pork, the store isn't going to sell pork and will pay the economic consequences in the market. The same way other restaurants with restrictions (vegan, organic, kosher, etc) do.

If the owner of the establishment wants to sell pork, he's going to sell pork. He can either compromise with you by moving you to a job not involved in such sales (such as the produce department) or he can fire you for not performing the job. No one has a right to a job they refuse perform: Hindu butchers, Christian fundamentalist pharmacists, Nazi social workers, etc.

In anycase, this has nothing to do with the civil arbitration issue which effects no one but the parties involved by mutual consent.

Where does it go from there? Lashings for failure to follow the dress code? Stonings for being in the presence of an unrelated male?

Now you're talking about fundamentally changing the criminal code and the Constitution. Do you really think giving the tiny tiny tiny number of devout US Muslims access to the same legal options as the other groups will set off this chain reaction?

Is sawing off the head of someone of a different faith a reasonable expression of free speech?

You are defending a religion mired in the Dark Ages and with no reformation since then. One which is incompatible with a free democratic society, and one which has declared holy war on all non-believers.

Will we sell them the rope they will hang us with, or will we resist?

TR

TR, respectfully, this a lot of fiery rhetoric and hyperbole with little basis in reality.

We let American Nazis rally in this country in much larger numbers and in a much more aggressive and organized fashion. Have they ever scratched the surface of effecting a change in the US government or even a state or local government? No.

Besides, we're not even talking about jihadists. Yes, it is quite possible to be a devout Muslim and not a jihadist. Its quite possible to be a devout Muslim and a good American citizen. The Muslims we're talking about with regard to the civil arbitration issue are not trying to effect any change in American society. They just want the same rights as other citizens. Rights over their own petty affairs that effect no one else.

Also, if the whole of Islam had declared war on us, we'd be in a very different situation. I'm not saying the jihadist threat isn't huge. I know how serious the problem is as well as any man here. Its not the whole billion-person religion.

Finally, I'm not defending sharia. My wife is a feminist literature critic with two masters degrees at the age of 26. The idea that there are thousands of brilliant little girls in the world that will never scratch that opportunity makes me sick. To say nothing of all the little boys that will be told that Shakespeare is an abomination. Line up all the wahhabists in the world and I'd pull the switch myself and then go have a ice cream cone.

What I'm defending is the principles of individual freedom and equality under the law that make America, in my open, the pinnacle of human political development. Its those principles that keep domestic extremism to a relative minimum in America. Your boy William Buckley would agree with me.

[Peregrino]

X-factor - I applaud your idealism. You make an impassioned argument that is technically perfect. It also (within the limits you state for the issue, e.g. arbitration of petty personal disputes by religious courts) fits the intent of the oath we swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately that selfsame idealism also gives us travesties like the 9th Circuit Court and "Greens" or other loonies of all stripes (COL M's woodchucks anybody?). Not putting words in anyone's mouth but the common thread in opposition to Sharia law - in any guise - is the slippery slope. It's already happening in Europe and where Europe goes there the Liberals would have us follow in short order. We already have a complacent (sheeple) populace and a government that has failed to motivate it in a time of war. How do you preserve that which you are not willing to defend? If you won't fight for it, is it even worth preserving? Attached is another piece of internet drivel - more food for thought. (Amazing how the internet is the last bastion of free thought - and a fair amount of stupidity just to be fair! )

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not
speaking out about any atrocities.....

Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names. - - - Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish..it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . . .

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

X-factor -The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . . .

And I may add, are willing to ADMIT!!!

I think that this country needs to add an Amendment to our Constitution!!! One that would DENY all of the Rights set forth in it, to those that can/will not accept all of them!!

Why should we grant Rights and Priveledges to those that refuse to acknowledge these rights?!?!?!

Just a question, but one that needs/must be raised in this country!!!!!

[sg1987]

This is not a religion ...it’s a disease. Why would you do anything to foster folks like this here???
If they act like this over this murder I can just imagine the celebration one day at the defeat of both the little and the great Satan!!!!

Palestinian Militants Hail Massacre at Jerusalem Seminary

About 7,000 Gazans marched in the streets of Jebaliya, firing in the air in celebration, and visited homes of those killed and wounded in the last Israeli incursion. In the southern town of Rafah, residents distributed sweets to moving cars, and militants fired mortars in celebration

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335730,00.html

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by sg1987

This is not a religion ...it’s a disease. Why would you do anything to foster folks like this here???
If they act like this over this murder I can just imagine the celebration one day at the defeat of both the little and the great Satan!!!!

Palestinian Militants Hail Massacre at Jerusalem Seminary

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335730,00.html

These must be the "moderate" moslems I keep hearing about.

Hey x-factor, is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

How many millions cheered when the Twin Towers fell?

How long were the "nazis" tolerated before we realized they were a global problem?

You don't need to answer.

Team Sergeant

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

These must be the "moderate" moslems I keep hearing about.

Hey x-factor, is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

How many millions cheered when the Twin Towers fell?

How long were the "nazis" tolerated before we realized they were a global problem?

You don't need to answer.

Team Sergeant

Some who cheered were right here in the USA, not 30 miles from the Pentagon. The old story of the camel getting his nose under the tent flap comes to mind.

[Ret10Echo]

Just as an observation based upon discussions with various people from both sides of the aisle.

There seems to be a few different takes on the whole subject.

The idealist looks at the rules and will make the assumption that the rules will be followed, so given the rules and rational thought, things make sense. (They will do x and y because that is what the rules state.)

The ignorant/deluded who make the assumption that the thought process is the same in everyone's mind regardless of their point of origin, background, religion etc. (Muslims wouldn't do that because it doesn't make sense.)

Americans in general continue to try to use the western template that does not fit.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the "slippery slope".

If there are people who want change there is an established process in place for change to happen. It may not be perfect, or immediate but I firmly believe that it is the best option.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by x-factor

And chief among those principles was the idea that it was both smart and right that government allow people the personal freedom to make their own way, provided no other party was harmed in the process.

I beg to differ with this.

Freedom only works when people act responsibly.

Some of the people who were actually there when the Constitution was written left us some of their wisdom.

Benjamin Franklin said:

I . . · believe farther that this [new government under the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Corruption from within is the only way this country will fall.
That is the goal of our enemy.

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

These must be the "moderate" moslems I keep hearing about.

Hey x-factor, is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

How many millions cheered when the Twin Towers fell?

How long were the "nazis" tolerated before we realized they were a global problem?

You don't need to answer.

Team Sergeant

Is every soldier a pervert like the one at Abu Ghraib or the one that killed that puppy on film? Of course not.

They're not all like that. To say that they are is just wrong. Period.

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

The idealist looks at the rules and will make the assumption that the rules will be followed, so given the rules and rational thought, things make sense. (They will do x and y because that is what the rules state.)

The ignorant/deluded who make the assumption that the thought process is the same in everyone's mind regardless of their point of origin, background, religion etc. (Muslims wouldn't do that because it doesn't make sense.)

Well, thanks for calling me ignorant and deluded, but...

The practical idealist looks at the system in total and sees that such checks are in place to protect against those who would attempt to use those individual freedoms as a "nose under the tent." As I've spelled out, I think those proper checks are in place.


GC - If you don't see how that Ben Franklin quote supports my case more than yours, then you need to read more of Ben Franklin's work.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by x-factor

Well, thanks for calling me ignorant and deluded, but...

The practical idealist looks at the system in total and sees that such checks are in place to protect against those who would attempt to use those individual freedoms as a "nose under the tent." As I've spelled out, I think those proper checks are in place.


GC - If you don't see how that Ben Franklin quote supports my case more than yours, then you need to read more of Ben Franklin's work.

I would venture to say that you are neither based on previous conversations. I do not agree with your position, but I believe you to be anything but ignorant on the topic.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by x-factor

Is every soldier a pervert like the one at Abu Ghraib or the one that killed that puppy on film? Of course not.

They're not all like that. To say that they are is just wrong. Period.

So if I read this right you believe not all nazis were bad guys either and the ideology they believed in was OK.

Your puppy pervert analogy is unintelligent, period.

You also failed to answer my question, so I'll ask you again,
is there ANY other group of humans that you know of, in recent history, that would "cheer" at the news of an outright slaughter of innocent, peaceful individuals?

Team Sergeant