Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At least half of them would be voted out of office next time 'round. But Americans can't agree on Coke vs Pepsi. When have we ever agreed on anything?
So, your reaction against intolerance is, intolerance?
Is that what I said or what you want it to mean? Sounds to me like I am trying to get a working model to solve a problem, while maintaining Constitutional rights.
You said some compromise needed in western values to deal with this problem.
That western value being tolerance, not?
If not, what is the western value that you would compromise then?
There's the Melting Pot history, restricting religion, invasions of privacy and so on. I am not keen on compromise with these, but we are looking at any viable option and debating them.
And in return, you are looking to get (more) security, if I am not mistaken?
So, your reaction against intolerance is, intolerance?
Is that what I said or what you want it to mean? Sounds to me like I am trying to get a working model to solve a problem, while maintaining Constitutional rights.
You said some compromise needed in western values to deal with this problem.
That western value being tolerance, not?
If not, what is the western value that you would compromise then?
There's the Melting Pot history, restricting religion, invasions of privacy and so on. I am not keen on compromise with these, but we are looking at any viable option and debating them.
This country also prosecutes people who let their kids dies from a religious belief, disallows snakes in ceremonies, no human sacrifices and so on. It is not beyond legal norms to suggest practices which can harm religious members or others to be banned. Does Sharia law fall within that?
Snake handling is legal. Hate to break it to you.
I don't want to digress, but my understanding is it is illegal, but rarely prosecuted.
Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights
Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot.
At least you don't dispute the claim that all muslims would prefer living under sharia. Sure they are mostly peaceful here and pay their taxes, but if they could, they turn the US sharia.
But they cannot, unless we let them.
And, before that - they would have to want to and the evidence is sorely lacking.
Oh they have made some initial steps in Dearborn, MI.
Snakes don't always get their day in court.
Snakes don't always get their day in court.
Discrimmination!
100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.Like I said, go ask a few Muslims if they'd prefer the US be under sharia, you'll have your answer. The fact is, you won't find a Muslim who wouldn't prefer sharia over anything else, it's a central core element of their faith. Now you know. Glad I could help.
What percentage of Christians would prefer Biblical law to secular law? This desire is not unique to muslims.
Source?
100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.
View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.
I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.
That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll
I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.
So, your reaction against intolerance is, intolerance?
Is that what I said or what you want it to mean? Sounds to me like I am trying to get a working model to solve a problem, while maintaining Constitutional rights.
You said some compromise needed in western values to deal with this problem.
That western value being tolerance, not?
If not, what is the western value that you would compromise then?
There's the Melting Pot history, restricting religion, invasions of privacy and so on. I am not keen on compromise with these, but we are looking at any viable option and debating them.
Personally, I think the measures we have in place are working pretty well and should continue. I would not support any measures restricting religion - I think that would hit hard at a core principle of our country - more so than invasions of privacy.
I think where there needs to be more focus though, is on the less obvious things. Extremists like ISIS are adept at using social media to target vulnerable people - in particular, children. It's heart breaking to listen to parents who's children have been stolen by ISIS and most had no idea until it was too late. Once they've been to Syria, then their return is much more problematic for security.
I think the emphasis should be less on refugees where the vetting is among the best (nothing is perfect) and more on what is happening to our kids at home.
Personally, I think the measures we have in place are working pretty well and should continue. I would not support any measures restricting religion - I think that would hit hard at a core principle of our country - more so than invasions of privacy.
I think where there needs to be more focus though, is on the less obvious things. Extremists like ISIS are adept at using social media to target vulnerable people - in particular, children. It's heart breaking to listen to parents who's children have been stolen by ISIS and most had no idea until it was too late. Once they've been to Syria, then their return is much more problematic for security.
I think the emphasis should be less on refugees where the vetting is among the best (nothing is perfect) and more on what is happening to our kids at home.
100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.What percentage of Christians would prefer Biblical law to secular law? This desire is not unique to muslims.
Source?
100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.
View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.
I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.
That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll
I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.
No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.
The thing that you have to understand about sharia is that it is an alternative method of resolving disputes. In many places, the court systems are overcrowded and have been steadily drained of funding, so people are seizing on these things as a cost-saving measure, which in fact they are.
To me, Sharia Courts, when chosen voluntarily and used as an alternative to the civil court system, have their place.
I don't see any problem with allowing that, we allow other sorts of ADR.
Personally, I think the measures we have in place are working pretty well and should continue. I would not support any measures restricting religion - I think that would hit hard at a core principle of our country - more so than invasions of privacy.
I think where there needs to be more focus though, is on the less obvious things. Extremists like ISIS are adept at using social media to target vulnerable people - in particular, children. It's heart breaking to listen to parents who's children have been stolen by ISIS and most had no idea until it was too late. Once they've been to Syria, then their return is much more problematic for security.
I think the emphasis should be less on refugees where the vetting is among the best (nothing is perfect) and more on what is happening to our kids at home.
How is it vetting, if the president allows 10,000 refugees in without documentation?
The thing that you have to understand about sharia is that it is an alternative method of resolving disputes. In many places, the court systems are overcrowded and have been steadily drained of funding, so people are seizing on these things as a cost-saving measure, which in fact they are.
To me, Sharia Courts, when chosen voluntarily and used as an alternative to the civil court system, have their place.
I don't see any problem with allowing that, we allow other sorts of ADR.
I agree if both parties agree to arbitration. Thing is women are already at a disadvantage and we have little way of confirming it was mutual. Perhaps an independent observer?
Well, that's one vote against the liberal principles of due process and equality under the law.At least you don't dispute the claim that all muslims would prefer living under sharia. Sure they are mostly peaceful here and pay their taxes, but if they could, they turn the US sharia.
But they cannot, unless we let them.
And, before that - they would have to want to and the evidence is sorely lacking.
Oh they have made some initial steps in Dearborn, MI.
The thing that you have to understand about sharia is that it is an alternative method of resolving disputes. In many places, the court systems are overcrowded and have been steadily drained of funding, so people are seizing on these things as a cost-saving measure, which in fact they are.
To me, Sharia Courts, when chosen voluntarily and used as an alternative to the civil court system, have their place.
I don't see any problem with allowing that, we allow other sorts of ADR.
Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?
And in return, you are looking to get (more) security, if I am not mistaken?
That would be the goal along with maintaining our rights. You make a great point, at what price should we pay for security? I think we assume a certain risk as Americans that may result in some blood lost.
