Muslim Cleric Plans White House Protest in Attempt to Spread Sharia Law in America

[Gerald]

A Muslim cleric who called Americans “the biggest criminals” during a recent interview has announced he will hold a protest outside the White House, according to the Daily Mail.

Anjem Choudary, who once said “the flag of Islam will fly over the White House,” says he will lead a demonstration rallying Muslims to establish Sharia law across the United States.

Choudary, 43, called Americans “the biggest criminals in the world today” during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity this month.

Choudary, who is the former leader of the outlawed British-based group Islam4UK, says the March rally at the White House is being organized by the extremist group Islamic Thinkers Society, which is based in New York.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/20/muslim-cleric-plans-protest-outside-white-house-attempt-spread-sharia-law/


Note: Published February 20, 2011

[Takeda Shingen]

Good luck getting Sharia law through the Supreme Court.

[Gerald]

Good luck getting Sharia law through the Supreme Court. It can be said, without saying too much.

[the_tyrant]

I wonder if anyone will show up?

wait, we should give the Westboro Baptist Church a call

[Skybird]

Good luck getting Sharia law through the Supreme Court.
Haven't had your daily dose of headlines today, it seems:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

And some flavour:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725

http://www.examiner.com/statehouse-in-santa-ana/islam-and-sharia-law-are-coming-to-america

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html

Damn, what am I doing here - you can run Google yourself, can't you. It's full of examples tnat should show you that Sharia in the US will not come with a loud bang by an according rule of the Supreme Court, but by constantly and silently changing the general cultural climate and atmosphere in society, which then feeds back on adminstration and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will not make a decision on Islam and Sharia, but Islam will enter the Surpreme Court through the backdoor.

The danger to watch out for is neither conquest nor terror, but demography, and silent infiltration.

[Takeda Shingen]

Haven't had your daily dose of headlines today, it seems:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

And some flavour:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725

http://www.examiner.com/statehouse-in-santa-ana/islam-and-sharia-law-are-coming-to-america

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html

Damn, what am I doing here - you can run Google yourself, can't you. It's full of examples tnat should show you that Sharia in the US will not come with a loud bang by an according rule of the Supreme Court, but by constantly and silently changing the general cultural climate and atmosphere in society, which then feeds back on adminstration and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will not make a decision on Islam and Sharia, but Islam will enter the Surpreme Court through the backdoor.

The danger to watch out for is neither conquest nor terror, but demography, and silent infiltration.

I see what you are saying, and I am sure you are speaking from experience in Germany. To me, it seems unlikely due to the fact that you would need to completely remove the First Amendment's separation of church and state, and that would not go quietly.

[Penguin]

I'm not sure if I got this right:

This guy wants to travel to a country, which he believes consists of criminals and use the land's freedom of assembly to protest the country's laws which allow him to protest? :doh:

Maybe the USA should give in to his to his demands - for a minute.
"OK, we'll abolish our laws here and use islamic juricdiction now! Under these laws your protest is illegal and we are going to chop your head off on the stairs of the White House! Thank you for visiting America!" :D

[Armistead]

The question is....why give these nuts any attention, just Hannity trying to move us to "code red."

Sharia law coming through the back door, right.......We have a lot of people trying to create a theocracy through government in the US, but it ain't Islam that concerns me, it's nuts like Beck and Palin.

[Gerald]

I see what you are saying, and I am sure you are speaking from experience in Germany. To me, it seems unlikely due to the fact that you would need to completely remove the First Amendment's separation of church and state, and that would not go quietly. That is correct, some similarities of this is found in other Western countries such as Germany.

[Skybird]

I see what you are saying, and I am sure you are speaking from experience in Germany. To me, it seems unlikely due to the fact that you would need to completely remove the First Amendment's separation of church and state, and that would not go quietly.

Oh, it's making progress (http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/11/24/efforts-ban-criticism-islam-human-rights-law-legally-binding-making-progress/). The magic formula is to combine "human rights" with "defamation", and you have a ticket to bypass major Western obstacles to guard Islamic supremacist claims. Again, the method is not to have the Supreme Court making a rule on Shariah or the first amendement, but to change it by changing the cultural context and climate in which it is embedded and inside which it operates. Then the court and the laws will change "naturally", and all by themselves. Islam knows no separation of relgion and politics, and so can claim constitutional proetction for its political acting by freferring to the constitutional guarantee that free relgious practicing is guaranteed. It drives me mad that this lethal vulnerability of Western constitutions (all of them!) is not getting payed attention to since so many years now, while we see Islamic groups abusing and exploiting this breach to their maximum advantage atime and tiem and time again.

Banning criticism as "discrimination", "racism" and "defamation" works wonders already here in Europe! ;) Here, criticising Islam now is a punishable crime, and in over half a dozen countries there are currently court cases proceeding against journalists and politicians of the moderate and reasonable kind (no extremists at all), who raised valid questions on Islam and referred to Islamic scripture. It is censorship, and self-limitation of our freedom to think, and our freedom to speak.

I read that the US prepares a law that would make any publication of government secret documents and any revealing of such documents to investigative journalists a punishable crime. That would mean the end to and investigative journalism deserving the name, and would move the government outside any indepedent research done by journalists. That this is pushed forward since Cablegate should tell you that in America you maybe are not as safe from more crippling of your freedom of speech and free press, than you think. And this after procedural changes ordered by the WH already have had a crippling effect on the quality of critical and independent journalistic work in recent years.

Be on your guard. You've been warned. Don't do like we do over here. :03: :salute: Laws they cannot smash their heads frontally through, they still can evade, orf dig their way beneath them, hollowing them out whuile turning them against you. That is what is happening in Europe. America sees the same process, just some years lagging behind.

[Betonov]

Here, criticising Islam now is a punishable crime, and in over half a dozen countries there are currently court cases proceeding against journalists and politicians of the moderate and reasonable kind (no extremists at all), who raised valid questions on Islam and referred to Islamic scripture. It is censorship, and self-limitation of our freedom to think, and our freedom to speak.

And let me guess, no such laws against critisizing christianity.
Don't get me wrong, I made an art form out of mocking christianity, but still it's wrong, whats with all the privilege.
I'm liberal but this is too much

[the_tyrant]

Have faith in the Melting pot!
If the temptations of capitalist america is enough to tempt Christian children to porn and booze I'm sure it will do the same to second generation Muslims!

If you think about it though, western society was dictated by Christian morals until people like Gene Simmons and Marilyn Manson came along.
I'm pretty sure Muslim morality will never take hold in the western world, much less western courts

[MH]

Have faith in the Melting pot!............


It seems that Europe is losing faith in the melting pot and maybe will try more balanced approach.

Remember the David Cameron speech and Chancellor Angela Merkel's.

[Takeda Shingen]

If you think about it though, western society was dictated by Christian morals until people like Gene Simmons and Marilyn Manson came along.

Not really. Nietzsche, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, T. S. Eliot, Wagner, Mozart, Schopenhauer, Richard Strauss and Voltaire all wrote some pretty seditious stuff that makes Gene Simmons and Marilyn Manson look pretty tame by comparison. And have you ever read any Carmina Burana? Some pretty racy stuff, that.

[the_tyrant]

It seems that Europe is losing faith in the melting pot and maybe will try more balanced approach.

Remember the David Cameron speech and Chancellor Angela Merkel's.

Well except melting them and appeasing them, I can't think of any other method
From my own observations I'm pretty sure Muslims have a lot of kids. Well after long enough, if democratic elections continue, we shall be represented by Muslims!
But than who knows, quite a large percentage of second generation Muslims have already embraced beer and porn (from my personal observation). Probably their kids will stop going to mosque

Not really. Nietzsche, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, T. S. Eliot, Wagner, Mozart, Schopenhauer, Richard Strauss and Voltaire all wrote some pretty seditious stuff that makes Gene Simmons and Marilyn Manson look pretty tame by comparison. And have you ever read any Carmina Burana? Some pretty racy stuff, that.

:doh:
Mozart, yeah well he's not the most politically correct composer.
But Wagner and Strauss:o

[Bubblehead1980]

Well I am waiting for the day someone tries to nominate a Muslim for the Supreme Court.I could see Obama doing so if he gets a second term.Wow what a sad, sad day that would be for America.Bad enough we have a muslim in congress and a POSSIBLE one in the white house.:damn:

[Platapus]

And why would that be bad?

[Takeda Shingen]

Well I am waiting for the day someone tries to nominate a Muslim for the Supreme Court.I could see Obama doing so if he gets a second term.Wow what a sad, sad day that would be for America.Bad enough we have a muslim in congress and a POSSIBLE one in the white house.:damn:

Every day I think that you've hit bottom, but no, there's always another sub-basement.

[Tchocky]

Wah. Thread failure.

[Sailor Steve]

If you think about it though, western society was dictated by Christian morals until people like Gene Simmons and Marilyn Manson came along.
I get your point, and I agree to a point, but it pointedly started a whole lot earlier. Didn't you know Elvis Presley did the Devil's work with those swivelling hips of his?

[Takeda Shingen]

Uh thank you. Thank you very much.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XbyAhEKjA2U/TSqh5B4gpkI/AAAAAAAABCg/ryO7pozXLc0/s1600/ElvisPresley.jpg

[krashkart]

http://www.jadis.demon.co.uk/pictures/slaps.jpg

"Now that's comedy."

[Penguin]

And let me guess, no such laws against critisizing christianity.
Don't get me wrong, I made an art form out of mocking christianity, but still it's wrong, whats with all the privilege.
I'm liberal but this is too much

nope, there is no special privilege for Islam. The blasphemy law, as I call it, is valid for all religions:


Section 166 Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life

(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults the content of others' religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.

Source: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#166

Personally I think this law is bs. Note that critizism per se is not forbidden, but "capable of disturbing the public peace" can mean anything and nothing. No special muslim section however, all these funny sects can sue someone...

[Tribesman]

Wah. Thread failure.

Please enlighten us.

Was it Daily Mail that caused it to fail? did the mere mention of Choudray send it into the epic tail spin of doom?
Was it the description of that ignorant non entity as a "Muslim cleric" that condemned the panic to the global mosque of oblivion?

[Bubblehead1980]

And why would that be bad?


Why would it be bad? Hmm lets see....

Islam pretty much contradicts what the US Constitution(the foundation of our society) stands for.Of course the PC crowd will pitch a fit, call me a bigot etc for saying so but that is the reality.Just to be clear though, I am not saying all muslims are bad people but I am saying their major core belief system(Islam) does not fit with our way of life, they can live here but in way should be in such a high office as a Congressman, Senator, President, Supreme Court Justice etc.This explains why we have seemingly peaceful muslims who live here for years then end up committing honor killings on their daughters(case in Texas) or beheading their wives(actual case in NY a couple years back) That is how we end up with the Ft Hood shootings or the multiple terrorist plots foiled since 9/11 that were being planned by muslims who are US citizens.The Ft Hood shooter was a Major in the US Army, American born etc but put his faith above his country as many muslims do.

Another reason, we are in a war against Islamic terrorism and while most muslims are not terrorists and not rooting for the terrorists publicly, many muslims the world over with a wink and nod, some have admitted so in polls.The leaders of muslims nations such as Yemen are cooperative with the US anti terrorism efforts but the citizens of said nations hate us etc and are with the terrorists, certainly in spirit.There is no doubt many muslims inside the US who are sympathetic to the cause of Bin Laden etc.

I dislike all religion to be honest but can live with catholics(Scalia for example, who does not let his religious beliefs influence his decisions contrary to what the libs claim, from what I've seen he always backs his opinions up with the law) but a muslim on the supreme court? That would be a disaster for this country.

Represenative Keith Ellison(D-Minnesota) is a muslim and member of congress.While attending Law School in 1989/1990, Ellison wrote several columns supporting Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam in addition to suggesting that there be a seperate state for black residents.Another article suggested that affirmative action served as a "sneaky" way of reparations for slavery.Ellision also asserted that 9/11 was a "Reichstag Fire" in the US, implying the Bush Admin was behind it and blamed Islam the way the Nazis blaimed communists.Ellison's involvement with the nation of Islam was much longer than the "18 month" time frame he claimed when the issue was raised during his first campaign in addition to his false claims of ignorance to the anti-semetism which Farrakhan and the Nation are known for.Sounds a lot like Obama's claims of ignorance after 20 years with Reverend Wright eh? Get real.:damn::har:

Now imagine if had 20 or 30 muslim votes in the house(that followed Ellision's line of thinking as many, esp those in his league do) or even more? Perhaps a few Senators? esp in key positions. A muslim or two on the Supreme Court? A Muslim President? Supreme Court vote on issues regarding national defense involving a muslim terrorists? or women's rights(you really can't argue the culture is not pro female, even Bill Maher recognizes that) Can you not see where this would cause major problems? This post is not racism, bigotry etc just honest look at things.The PM of the UK said it best when he said multiculturalism has failed, libs will never admit it but the proof is out there for everyone to see.

[Bubblehead1980]

Every day I think that you've hit bottom, but no, there's always another sub-basement.


I said it is possible.The man's father was muslim, he grew up in Indonesia and given his opposition to Israel, who knows.I think at the very least he is way too sympathetic to islamic views to be President.Look at the apology tour when he first took office etc The war in Afghanistan, I think his "push" is more or less lip service because it does not seem to really have had any effect.Talked to a family friend who just got back, had some very interesting things to say about how the show is being ran over there.I believe McCrystal was correct and well he lost his job over it.
The people who stay in denial of the obvious signs of his weakness in this area are the ones who have hit bottom.

[breadcatcher101]

Anyone care to go to Mecca to speak of Christian values?

[Takeda Shingen]

Why would it be bad? Hmm lets see....

Islam pretty much contradicts what the US Constitution(the foundation of our society) stands for.Of course the PC crowd will pitch a fit, call me a bigot etc for saying so but that is the reality.Just to be clear though, I am not saying all muslims are bad people but I am saying their major core belief system(Islam) does not fit with our way of life, they can live here but in way should be in such a high office as a Congressman, Senator, President, Supreme Court Justice etc.This explains why we have seemingly peaceful muslims who live here for years then end up committing honor killings on their daughters(case in Texas) or beheading their wives(actual case in NY a couple years back) That is how we end up with the Ft Hood shootings or the multiple terrorist plots foiled since 9/11 that were being planned by muslims who are US citizens.The Ft Hood shooter was a Major in the US Army, American born etc but put his faith above his country as many muslims do.

Another reason, we are in a war against Islamic terrorism and while most muslims are not terrorists and not rooting for the terrorists publicly, many muslims the world over with a wink and nod, some have admitted so in polls.The leaders of muslims nations such as Yemen are cooperative with the US anti terrorism efforts but the citizens of said nations hate us etc and are with the terrorists, certainly in spirit.There is no doubt many muslims inside the US who are sympathetic to the cause of Bin Laden etc.

I dislike all religion to be honest but can live with catholics(Scalia for example, who does not let his religious beliefs influence his decisions contrary to what the libs claim, from what I've seen he always backs his opinions up with the law) but a muslim on the supreme court? That would be a disaster for this country.

Represenative Keith Ellison(D-Minnesota) is a muslim and member of congress.While attending Law School in 1989/1990, Ellison wrote several columns supporting Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam in addition to suggesting that there be a seperate state for black residents.Another article suggested that affirmative action served as a "sneaky" way of reparations for slavery.Ellision also asserted that 9/11 was a "Reichstag Fire" in the US, implying the Bush Admin was behind it and blamed Islam the way the Nazis blaimed communists.Ellison's involvement with the nation of Islam was much longer than the "18 month" time frame he claimed when the issue was raised during his first campaign in addition to his false claims of ignorance to the anti-semetism which Farrakhan and the Nation are known for.Sounds a lot like Obama's claims of ignorance after 20 years with Reverend Wright eh? Get real.:damn::har:

Now imagine if had 20 or 30 muslim votes in the house(that followed Ellision's line of thinking as many, esp those in his league do) or even more? Perhaps a few Senators? esp in key positions. A muslim or two on the Supreme Court? A Muslim President? Supreme Court vote on issues regarding national defense involving a muslim terrorists? or women's rights(you really can't argue the culture is not pro female, even Bill Maher recognizes that) Can you not see where this would cause major problems? This post is not racism, bigotry etc just honest look at things.The PM of the UK said it best when he said multiculturalism has failed, libs will never admit it but the proof is out there for everyone to see.

With those views, you would be just as dangerous to our civil liberties as the Islamists. You would destroy the very thing you purport to preserve.

[Bubblehead1980]

With those views, you would be just as dangerous to our civil liberties as the Islamists. You would destroy the very thing you purport to preserve.


Completely wrong Takeda, I did not say I would ban Islam or go after those who hold that belief system.I did however answer the question AND explain why we should not have anyone that subscribes to that faith in a critical position such as Congress, Presidency or SCOTUS.I did not say ban them from holding office, I simply made the argument for WHY they should not and strongly believe Congressman Ellision is a prime example of what we could not afford to have.Luckily Ellision is a congressmen from a relatively minor district and as far as I can tell has no real clout other than his vote, which is too much for someone with his ties and beliefs.There is a line between being tolerant of someone's differing views and allowing people who's core beliefs contradict the very foundation of your nation fanagle their way into power over time, which can lead to the ruin of a nation.Imagine having a muslim supreme court justice who could say freedom of religion extends far enough so that sharia courts such as those in the UK are acceptable in the US? Sounds far fetched but then again it prob did once upon a time in the UK.The apathy shown by many towards the threat of Islam, even after 9/11 amazes me, always will.

[Skybird]

And why would that be bad?
Because Quran and Sharia represents views and teachings that are inhumane and totally incompatible with the value orientation of your constitution, your Bill of Rights, the Amendements, and your canon of laws.

That is why it is bad to have people representing and confessing to this totalitarian and supremacist ideology in your parliaments, your legislation, and your legal and educational system.

Any more rethorical innocent question I can answer for you?

[Tribesman]

Any more rethorical innocent question I can answer for you?
That doesn't even address the question let alone answer it:yawn:

[Takeda Shingen]

Completely wrong Takeda, I did not say I would ban Islam or go after those who hold that belief system.I did however answer the question AND explain why we should not have anyone that subscribes to that faith in a critical position such as Congress, Presidency or SCOTUS.I did not say ban them from holding office, I simply made the argument for WHY they should not and strongly believe Congressman Ellision is a prime example of what we could not afford to have.Luckily Ellis is a congressmen from a relatively minor district and as far as I can tell has no real clout other than his vote, which is too much for someone with his ties and beliefs.There is a line between being tolerant of someone's differing views and allowing people who's core beliefs contradict the very foundation of your nation fanagle their way into power over time, which can lead to the ruin of a nation.Imagine having a muslim supreme court justice who could say freedom of religion extends far enough so that sharia courts such as those in the UK is acceptable in the US? Sounds far fetched but then again it prob did once upon a time in the UK.The apathy shown by many towards the threat of Islam, even after 9/11 amazes me, always will.

No, Bubblehead, I am correct. You wish to exclude individuals from the democratic process based upon their religious beliefs; something antithetical to the foundations upon which this nation was built. What amazes me is that you see yourself as just for wishing this. Once again, you seek to preserve American democracy by destroying it. I only wish that you could see that fact.

[gimpy117]

Just another case of fundamentalists wanting to push their beliefs into law. The Christian Religious Right has been doing it in america for years. Now Islam wants a turn sounds like.

[Bubblehead1980]

No, Bubblehead, I am correct. You wish to exclude individuals from the democratic process based upon their religious beliefs; something antithetical to the foundations upon which this nation was built. What amazes me is that you see yourself as just for wishing this. Once again, you seek to preserve American democracy by destroying it. I only wish that you could see that fact.


How can you not see the danger of having a muslim in a critical position in our government or courts? Islam's teachings are in direct contradiction to the Constitution and our way of life here.My god man, what will it take for people like you to wake up?

Say the American people are dumb enough to elect obama again in 2012 and one of the elder justices do not make it another four years.Obama under the guise of being "open" and "tolerant" with no fear of consequences due to not having to run for office again, appoints an open, practicing muslim to the bench and he is somehow confirmed. You would be okay with this? A lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land which makes decisions that affect everyone in our society which are almost irreversible.You would really be okay with a muslim holding such a position? Same thing if FDR had nominated a Nazi to the court.

I do not seek to destroy the republic, I mean to protect it for everyone. Notice I do not want to ban islam or even put a law on the books preventing someone who is a muslim from running for office or being appointed etc, that would be unconstitutional.However, I do believe we must keep our guard up and not elect people or allow their elevation to positions of power if they follow this dangerous set of beliefs that as I mentioned, contradict the constitution and what our nation stands for.

[Takeda Shingen]

How can you not see the danger of having a muslim in a critical position in our government or courts? Islam's teachings are in direct contradiction to the Constitution and our way of life here.My god man, what will it take for people like you to wake up?

And what will it take for people like you to realize that eliminating constitutional rights for certain segments of the population results in the same sort of damage to American democracy that Sharia law poses?

Say the American people are dumb enough to elect obama again in 2012 and one of the elder justices do not make it another four years.Obama under the guise of being "open" and "tolerant" with no fear of consequences due to not having to run for office again, appoints an open, practicing muslim to the bench and he is somehow confirmed. You would be okay with this? A lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land which makes decisions that affect everyone in our society and are almost irreversible.You would really be okay with a muslim holding such a position? Same thing if FDR had nominated a Nazi to the court.

Polemics. We're talking about denying the rights of people to run for and hold office.

I do not seek to destroy the republic, I mean to protect it for everyone.

Except Muslims.

Notice I do not want to ban islam....

I didn't say you did.

or even put a law on the books preventing someone who is a muslim from running for office or being appointed etc, that would be unconstitutional.

Yes, it would be unconstitutional, but that is exactly what you have been saying, and it is why we are having this argument right now.

However, I do believe we must keep our guard up and not elect people or allow their elevation to positions of power if they follow this dangerous set of beliefs that as I mentioned, contradict the constitution and what our nation stands for.

That's not what you said before. If it was, I would have left you alone. Instead, you said that we should not have anyone in office who subscribes to the Islamic faith. Not that we should not vote for them, but that the should not be permitted to run.

[Bubblehead1980]

And what will it take for people like you to realize that eliminating constitutional rights for certain segments of the population results in the same sort of damage to American democracy that Sharia law poses?



Polemics. We're talking about denying the rights of people to run for and hold office.



Except Muslims.



I didn't say you did.



Yes, it would be unconstitutional, but that is exactly what you have been saying, and it is why we are having this argument right now.



That's not what you said before. If it was, I would have left you alone. Instead, you said that we should not have anyone in office who subscribes to the Islamic faith. Not that we should not vote for them, but that the should not be permitted to run.


Okay, I was not saying in the OP we should actually pass any laws to prevent muslims from obtaining office, nominations to certain positions etc, because that would be unconstitutional.I was saying that it would be a terrible thing to have them in any position of power so we should do what we can via legal means to prevent it, I did not state that but I did not say we should pass a law to prevent it either, so assumed someone reading would understand I was not talking legislation etc.There are constitutional methods such as making sure Senators do no confirm one if nominated to SCOTUS, not voting for muslim candidates etc. Absolutely constitutional and nothing wrong with preventing it via those means.Not a race thing etc but it's because someone who holds beliefs that opposite of our constitution has no place in the governance of our society.They can live here, pray to their own special invisible man in the sky five times a day etc but they in no way should ever hold power over me or my fellow citizens.They want sharia etc, they need to move elsewhere.

I would like to say children of illegal immigrants born here are not citizens but according to the constitution as is, they are.I actually ended up defending birthright citizenship of illegal immigrant's children a few weeks back because I set my own opinion aside and argued on the side of the constitution against a colleague who was trying to twist the text in an intellectually dishonest manner.Hopefully we can amend the constitution sometime to stop this but until then, they are citizens if born here.I don't think muslims should be eligible to hold public office in the US but my opinion does not ovveride the constitution, no one's should.Get what I am saying? I was explaining why they should not be in any power when asked why it would be a bad thing, that is all.

[breadcatcher101]

I wouldn't have a problem banning muslims from America period.

We allow freedom of worship, even no worship at all if you prefer, but to allow a religion that has no tolorance of others not of their faith to gain a foothold simply has no logic.

We have a welcome mat at our front door but that doesn't mean I want Charlie Manson walking in.

[Tchocky]

I wouldn't have a problem banning muslims from America period.

We allow freedom of worship, even no worship at all if you prefer, but to allow a religion that has no tolorance of others not of their faith to gain a foothold simply has no logic.


Yes, ban those non-tolerant types.

[krashkart]

I have this feeling that Sharia law in the US would prove difficult to enforce, even if somehow it made it's way into our laws. But I'll err on the side of caution - it could happen. What might be good for the system is a touch of sane xenophobia somewhere in office, to help counterbalance the current practice of brown-nosing we've seen. I'm not talking like a full-blown bug-eyed Islamophobe, just a handful of people who can help keep things in check so that the government doesn't go overboard with wearing its heart on its sleeve. Mr. Nice Guy is a good thing to be, but there are plenty of Not-So-Nice Guys out there that want to give us all a very close shave (wink wink).

Meanwhile, it would be a very good thing for the West to cut its losses and leave the Arab world alone so that it can flourish on its own, without our incessant meddling. We better figure out how to solve our energy problems without screwing over an entire people and their way of life. They have every right to hate us. Time to evolve from that selfish nonsense.

This cleric, for whatever he is worth, can go straight back to his country of origin and practice his strange ways there. But he got his point across to me at least: Force your ways upon us, and we will return the favor. You do not like our way? Tough. That's what I draw from it.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, ban those non-tolerant types.
:rotfl2::rock:

[Bubblehead1980]

I wouldn't have a problem banning muslims from America period.

We allow freedom of worship, even no worship at all if you prefer, but to allow a religion that has no tolorance of others not of their faith to gain a foothold simply has no logic.

We have a welcome mat at our front door but that doesn't mean I want Charlie Manson walking in.


I agree with you on islam, but it would unconstitutional to ban a religion, so have to side with the constitution.Slippery slope also, ban one religion, 50 years later the shoe could be on the other foot, next thing you know some wacked out lib is pushing to ban christianity etc after something happens.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Have faith in the Melting pot!


I have faith in the metling pot. I also have faith in the sound foundations of free-market capitalism and the rule of constitutional law and limited government. Granted, these foundations are not unshakeable, but they are very difficult to destroy entirely.

I would ask everyone to take a step back from the issue of Sharia Law for a moment and consider the many challenges the US has faced from supporters of one extreme ideal or another in the past. There were more than few times when communism was embraced by significant numbers of American citizens as the way forward, but the movement faltered and ultimately failed again and again until communism and the derivatives thereof completely fell apart on the international level. It's still around, but nobody takes it seriously aside from some idealists. The latter goes for racial or theological supremacists of any kind, foreign nationalists, US nationalists, and just about everybody else who refuses to get into the pot.

Any group that is forced to rely upon mutually beneficial exchange and adherence to laws supporting the same for its existence will eventually break up due to competition and interdependence. Money and prosperity have no time for the rantings of extremists when there are things to be built or services to provide or families or personages to raise and support, which helps explain why most Muslims in the US could best be described as Islamic Lax-tremists, just as most Christians have become in comparison to their ancestors of even a few generations ago.

Having said that, I am not implying that we should ignore the activities of extremists. If history has taught us anything in this country, it is that the determination of the few can overcome the will of the many, at least to some extent. This country is full of stupid laws that serve special interests or particular groups because the rest of us were too busy to notice or didn't care or never noticed the consequences. In that respect our ideals have failed us. Even constitutional law has been twisted, one way or the other, depending upon one's point of view. However, that is not to say that we could be easily overcome by a nationalization of Sharia law.

Whatever our political leanings, we can all agree that imposition of religion or forced lack thereof is a crime of the state. That this topic is even news is evidence of that fact. This is even more true when one considers that so many have such vociferous opinions when the fact of the matter is that Sharia law would be governed under civil arrangements (i.e. both parties agree).

Even then, I daresay that most of us would find the notion abhorrent. What of the will of those governed by such laws? Is their consent real or forced or formed by their upbringing? How can we make sure that the involved parties are making the best decision, for themselves, for others, for us? It is in these kinds of questions that the strength of America is found. However vehemently we may disagree upon the means, generation after empowered generation, we still seek that which is right for ourselves and others through the overriding concept of freedom in the way we deem most effective. That is something that fundamentalist Islam will have a great deal of difficulty overcoming.

[nikimcbee]

They really need to start in San Fran first.:haha:

[Tribesman]

This cleric, for whatever he is worth
Its Anjem choudray for gods sake, why does anyone even give the insignificant ignorant prick any publicity at all?
He has less following and less religious credentials that that idiot pastor who wanted a burn a koran day.

[Gerald]

Yes, ban those non-tolerant types. Not always so easy to do so :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

I see what you are saying, and I am sure you are speaking from experience in Germany. To me, it seems unlikely due to the fact that you would need to completely remove the First Amendment's separation of church and state, and that would not go quietly.

This.

On top of that, much of this country's nickname is "jesus-stan". There's a reason for that, but you couple that with the 1st amendment, and Sharia law doesn't stand a chance here.

[STEED]

Anjem Choudary, who once said “the flag of Islam will fly over the White House,” says he will lead a demonstration rallying Muslims to establish Sharia law across the United States.



Quick everyone down the bookies, if this happens we can all clean up. :haha:

Problem is we are in for a very long wait. :wah:

[Armistead]

This.

On top of that, much of this country's nickname is "jesus-stan". There's a reason for that, but you couple that with the 1st amendment, and Sharia law doesn't stand a chance here.

I don't know, Sharia law might help christian men keep their women under more control. I don't know what religion the man from Laos follows in my neighborhood, but when him and his wife walk around the block, she follows several paces behind. If he talks, his wife stops behind and will only bow to you...

I might could go for some of that myself

[Ducimus]

but when him and his wife walk around the block, she follows several paces behind.

Cultural thing. I've seen women do that in korea all the time. Its expected, at least among those who are traditional. Asia, generally speaking, is still a male dominated part of the world.

[yubba]

All it breaks down to, is some one wants to impose their will opon others, which is oppression. Sharia law in the States now that's funny let see how far you get with that.:har:

[Gerald]

Good luck with their dreams!

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/8qnty.jpg

[Penguin]

http://i.imgur.com/8qnty.jpg

Yes, I have a question:
Why do you want sharia law in Alaska and Hawaii? :o:smug::D

[Gerald]

Yes, I have a question:
Why do you want sharia law in Alaska and Hawaii? :o:smug::D They can move to Iceland, where there is a need pulling up :O:

[Ducimus]

http://i.imgur.com/8qnty.jpg

I found a more accurate map of North America!
Sharia law ain't got a chance in the United States! Maybe in mexico though. Hey wait a minute, where's california.... Oh thats right.. well, I'm just hosed now.

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/068/291/original/20070917214534_Jesusland6.gif

[Gerald]

A "very" rich map may I say....which has plenty of room for speculation.

[Gerald]

I found a more accurate map of North America!
Sharia law ain't got a chance in the United States! Maybe in mexico though. Hey wait a minute, where's california.... Oh thats right.. well, I'm just hosed now.

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/068/291/original/20070917214534_Jesusland6.gif Jesusland,that's great :hmmm:

[Rilder]

Wisconsin isn't in Jesusland.

*Successkid*

[Gerald]

Wisconsin isn't in Jesusland.

*Successkid* Canada!

[Rilder]

Canada!

It could say we're in Iraq for all I care as long as its not Jesusland. :rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

I object to Utah being in 'Jesusland'. Actually we're a small compartmentalized substrata: "Our Jesusland is the only true Jesusland. Your Jesusland has wandered far from what the original Jesusland was intended to be. But don't try to tell us we're not Jesusland!"

[frau kaleun]

Can someone give me directions to Roman Catholic Land?

I've heard they have the best booze.

[Sailor Steve]

Can someone give me directions to Roman Catholic Land?

I've heard they have the best booze.
That seems to currently be a subset of Canada, though Mexico might also qualify.

OMG, THEY HAVE US SURROUNDED!

[frau kaleun]

That seems to currently be a subset of Canada, though Mexico might also qualify.


Okay, but which one has the bingo? I won't be young forever. :O:

[yubba]

That seems to currently be a subset of Canada, though Mexico might also qualify.

OMG, THEY HAVE US SURROUNDED!
Wouldn't have it any other way, don't have far to go to hunt them down Semper Fi

[Sailor Steve]

You have something against Catholics?

[Gerald]

You have something against Catholics? No I'm not

[Tchocky]

A cold day is simply God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics

[Armistead]

I object to Utah being in 'Jesusland'. Actually we're a small compartmentalized substrata: "Our Jesusland is the only true Jesusland. Your Jesusland has wandered far from what the original Jesusland was intended to be. But don't try to tell us we're not Jesusland!"

I think if studied, the bible belt as we often refer was a cultural/political movement that started in the south after the civil war. Why both sides claimed religion, the south was more radical and fundamental, using God to promote slavery, white rule, etc.. A large radical religious movement slowly developed in the south out of racism and hatred for the north.

This Fundamental movement continued in the south, heavily white Baptist.
The north became more progressive, the south didn't. We can see this in politics to this day, but certainly more aggressive through the 60's.

I think clearly the bible belt was created not so much for "God", but out of a mix of religion and politics supporting the souths cultural views. The hate and "we're better than you" continues this day under the guise of religion.

One only need look at the bible belt map and see the connection. Why the south has progressed somewhat, the leftover hate and the doctrines it created are still sticky residue on the floors of many churches.

[Tribesman]

Nice quote from Blackadder there Tchocky.

Wicked Child! Chairs are the work of Belezabub!

[Sailor Steve]

I think clearly the bible belt was created not so much for "God", but out of a mix of religion and politics supporting the souths cultural views. The hate and "we're better than you" continues this day under the guise of religion.
But that's arguably true of all major codified religion.

One only need look at the bible belt map and see the connection. Why the south has progressed somewhat, the leftover hate and the doctrines it created are still sticky residue on the floors of many churches.
Possibly. I was addressing the Establishment here in Utah.

[gimpy117]

That seems to currently be a subset of Canada, though Mexico might also qualify.

OMG, THEY HAVE US SURROUNDED!

not worried. im in college town right now

[August]

And Massachusetts, birthplace of the American Revolution, over run by liberals though it may be, will not now, and will never be, a part of Canada.