This is hilarious...left wingers defend Sharia law...you know, where being gay is against the law...

[Mac1958]

Here's an answer from a REAL liberal, a guy who puts his life on the line every single day.
.

How about YOU answer in your words instead of repeatedly posting the same imagery?

Who's defending the treatment of women as second class citizens or the abuse of gays, Mac? Maybe you can provide a link?

Or - are you confusing defending religious freedom with defending illegal actions done in the name of religion?

You'll notice I have never used the term "defending". Ever. You're more than welcome to provide a link if I'm wrong.

I say "spin" and "deflect", and there are thousands of examples on this board, for anyone who is honest.

I agree with the honest liberal above, a guy who puts his life on the line every day. You can disagree to your heart's content.
.

You just did earlier - when you said regressives are defending a religion that so on and so forth. It's there in your words.

So who is defending those things?

Who is defending the religion overall? The Regressive Left. Thousands of posts, all over this board. The same people who attack Christians at every opportunity.
.

You equate defending our 1st Amendment with "defending a religion"....interesting. It is a funny thing, I have often said something about islam and I get accused of defending that religion...then I say the exact same thing about christianity and get accused of hating that religion.

It's a funny thing.

The end of the spectrum that supports and enables the shutting down of opposing speech on campuses from coast to coast has zero credibility in defending the First Amendment.
.

 

[JoeB131]

There was a fight between people trying to oppose religious intolerance, known as islam and it's sharia law....and those the morons on the left actually supporting sharia...where they refuse to let women have the same rights as men.....and stone gays to death...

Nobody believes you wingnuts are for gay rights.

All you do is expose your Islamophobia.

 

[JoeB131]

The end of the spectrum that supports and enables the shutting down of opposing speech on campuses from coast to coast has zero credibility in defending the First Amendment.

The first Amendment doesn't guarantee you a forum, dummy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where are they defending Sharia?

The march isn't about Sharia. It's just anti-muslim march. That's like saying people who object to the KKK marching are defending racism.

The conservatives are attacking the idea that Sharia law can ever be the law of this nation, and most Muslims here do not support Sharia law as of today.

But we are getting more and more immigration from nations where Sharia law is considered the legal norm and those people naturally want it here as well as they are coming here due to circumstances not related to a love of secular law.

And it is the creep of Sharia law among those new elements the conservatives are protesting.

Application of Islamic law by country - Wikipedia

 

[JoeB131]

The conservatives are attacking the idea that Sharia law can ever be the law of this nation, and most Muslims here do not support Sharia law as of today.

But we are getting more and more immigration from nations where Sharia law is considered the legal norm and those people naturally want it here as well as they are coming here due to circumstances not related to a love of secular law.

And it is the creep of Sharia law among those new elements the conservatives are protesting.

ANd how is that different than you Christian Assholes who want to put the Ten Commandments in every courthouse?

 

[skookerasbil]

There was a fight between people trying to oppose religious intolerance, known as islam and it's sharia law....and those the morons on the left actually supporting sharia...where they refuse to let women have the same rights as men.....and stone gays to death...

The left wing is insane....

Fight breaks out at anti-Sharia protest

The "March Against Sharia" is aimed at opposing what ACT for American perceives as the spread of Islamic law in the United States. Counter-protesters and civil rights advocates gathered in some cities to push back against the marches.

It wasn't immediately clear what prompted the clash between protesters and counter-protesters in Seattle, and the violence appeared to subside relatively quickly.

Why do you care? Republicans want gays dead. Republicans have wanted gays dead for years. They would do it themselves if they didn't fear the law. It's something everyone knows.

Dang.......heres one sporting 3 bumpy cucumbers.

 

[skookerasbil]

The conservatives are attacking the idea that Sharia law can ever be the law of this nation, and most Muslims here do not support Sharia law as of today.

But we are getting more and more immigration from nations where Sharia law is considered the legal norm and those people naturally want it here as well as they are coming here due to circumstances not related to a love of secular law.

And it is the creep of Sharia law among those new elements the conservatives are protesting.

ANd how is that different than you Christian Assholes who want to put the Ten Commandments in every courthouse?

But nobody cares about that s0n....your sentiments are outnumbered about 100-1, so why even make the point? America is a Judeo-Christian society and always will be. Opinions to the contrary are decidedly ghey.......like the 2nd Amendment......one of those things that will never change if it takes choosing up sides.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again.......its a fascinating head scratcher that the gays have this apathy about getting their asses tossed off of skyscrapers and being hung upside down by the balls. No worries though.........watch.........as this Islam creep continues in the US, watch how fast they climb on board with people who think like Trump.

 

[Coyote]

We got rid of the KKK that wanted to kill people, you are promoting bringing them back under another form.


.

Where am I promoting anything of the kind?

Sounds like you are..



Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences from other legal traditions, including those in bothcommon law and civil law. Sharia courts traditionally do not rely on lawyers;plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system. There is no pre-trial discovery process, and no cross-examination of witnesses. Unlike common law, judges' verdicts do not set binding precedents[95][96] under the principle of stare decisis,[97] and unlike civil law, sharia is left to the interpretation in each case and has no formally codified universal statutes.[98]

The rules of evidence in sharia courts also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony.[99] Witnesses, in a sharia court system, must be faithful, that is Muslim.[100] Male Muslim witnesses are deemed more reliable than female Muslim witnesses, and non-Muslim witnesses considered unreliable and receive no priority in a sharia court.[101][102] In civil cases in some countries, a Muslim woman witness is considered half the worth and reliability than a Muslim man witness.[103][104] In criminal cases, women witnesses are unacceptable in stricter, traditional interpretations of sharia, such as those found in Hanbali madhhab.[100]



.

Really, really stupid. Nobody is going to institute sharia law in the US.

So are you saying Mexicans all assimilated in the US and we didn't see assnine people making kids take off their America T shirts and crap so not to offend a Mexican?


.

Dearborn Michigan proves my point








.

You realize that has been debunked as false?

 

[jillian]

There was a fight between people trying to oppose religious intolerance, known as islam and it's sharia law....and those the morons on the left actually supporting sharia...where they refuse to let women have the same rights as men.....and stone gays to death...

The left wing is insane....

Fight breaks out at anti-Sharia protest

The "March Against Sharia" is aimed at opposing what ACT for American perceives as the spread of Islamic law in the United States. Counter-protesters and civil rights advocates gathered in some cities to push back against the marches.

It wasn't immediately clear what prompted the clash between protesters and counter-protesters in Seattle, and the violence appeared to subside relatively quickly.

no one is defending sharia law, moron. they are defending the first amendment.

and who are these "left wingers" moron?

you really shouldn't be allowed to post without supervision.

 

[Coyote]

You just did earlier - when you said regressives are defending a religion that so on and so forth. It's there in your words.

So who is defending those things?

Who is defending the religion overall? The Regressive Left. Thousands of posts, all over this board. The same people who attack Christians at every opportunity.
.

Or are they defending RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? There's good stuff and crap stuff in all religions - you can defend the good, and attack the crap - or, say it's all crap but support their right to follow the crap in this country where religious freedom is an important foundation.

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

What do you call people who attack Islam and defend Christianity?

 

[Coyote]

You just did earlier - when you said regressives are defending a religion that so on and so forth. It's there in your words.

So who is defending those things?

Who is defending the religion overall? The Regressive Left. Thousands of posts, all over this board. The same people who attack Christians at every opportunity.
.

Or are they defending RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? There's good stuff and crap stuff in all religions - you can defend the good, and attack the crap - or, say it's all crap but support their right to follow the crap in this country where religious freedom is an important foundation.

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

Thank at least for being honest about your double standard.

 

[Coyote]

How about YOU answer in your words instead of repeatedly posting the same imagery?

Who's defending the treatment of women as second class citizens or the abuse of gays, Mac? Maybe you can provide a link?

Or - are you confusing defending religious freedom with defending illegal actions done in the name of religion?

You'll notice I have never used the term "defending". Ever. You're more than welcome to provide a link if I'm wrong.

I say "spin" and "deflect", and there are thousands of examples on this board, for anyone who is honest.

I agree with the honest liberal above, a guy who puts his life on the line every day. You can disagree to your heart's content.
.

You just did earlier - when you said regressives are defending a religion that so on and so forth. It's there in your words.

So who is defending those things?

Who is defending the religion overall? The Regressive Left. Thousands of posts, all over this board. The same people who attack Christians at every opportunity.
.

You equate defending our 1st Amendment with "defending a religion"....interesting. It is a funny thing, I have often said something about islam and I get accused of defending that religion...then I say the exact same thing about christianity and get accused of hating that religion.

It's a funny thing.

The end of the spectrum that supports and enables the shutting down of opposing speech on campuses from coast to coast has zero credibility in defending the First Amendment.
.

I don't support that either...

 

[Mac1958]

Who is defending the religion overall? The Regressive Left. Thousands of posts, all over this board. The same people who attack Christians at every opportunity.
.

Or are they defending RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? There's good stuff and crap stuff in all religions - you can defend the good, and attack the crap - or, say it's all crap but support their right to follow the crap in this country where religious freedom is an important foundation.

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

Thank at least for being honest about your double standard.

If you want to call it that, great. I'm perfectly comfy with it.

Because the next time there is a jihadist atrocity, I won't be obligated to spin and deflect for it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Who is defending the religion overall? The Regressive Left. Thousands of posts, all over this board. The same people who attack Christians at every opportunity.
.

Or are they defending RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? There's good stuff and crap stuff in all religions - you can defend the good, and attack the crap - or, say it's all crap but support their right to follow the crap in this country where religious freedom is an important foundation.

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

What do you call people who attack Islam and defend Christianity?

I dunno. Since I use the term coined by an honest Muslim, I would defer to a term coined by an honest Christian.

I don't have to spin for either side.
.

 

[Coyote]

Another example of Sharia, which these anti-Sharia protesters are protesting against in their ignorance (or bigotry) is feeding the poor.

 

[Coyote]

Or are they defending RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? There's good stuff and crap stuff in all religions - you can defend the good, and attack the crap - or, say it's all crap but support their right to follow the crap in this country where religious freedom is an important foundation.

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

Thank at least for being honest about your double standard.

If you want to call it that, great. I'm perfectly comfy with it.

Because the next time there is a jihadist atrocity, I won't be obligated to spin and deflect for it.
.

I don't know anyone here who has "spun" a terrorist attack as anything but what it is - an undefensable act of violence against innocents.

That's the problem with broad brushing.

 

[Mac1958]

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

Thank at least for being honest about your double standard.

If you want to call it that, great. I'm perfectly comfy with it.

Because the next time there is a jihadist atrocity, I won't be obligated to spin and deflect for it.
.

I don't know anyone here who has "spun" a terrorist attack as anything but what it is - an undefensable act of violence against innocents.

That's the problem with broad brushing.

Then we have entirely different definitions of the word.

Because I see it clearly in literally every thread relating to Islam.

You use yours, I'll use mine.
.

 

[rightwinger]

We got rid of the KKK that wanted to kill people, you are promoting bringing them back under another form.


.

Where am I promoting anything of the kind?

Sounds like you are..



Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences from other legal traditions, including those in bothcommon law and civil law. Sharia courts traditionally do not rely on lawyers;plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system. There is no pre-trial discovery process, and no cross-examination of witnesses. Unlike common law, judges' verdicts do not set binding precedents[95][96] under the principle of stare decisis,[97] and unlike civil law, sharia is left to the interpretation in each case and has no formally codified universal statutes.[98]

The rules of evidence in sharia courts also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony.[99] Witnesses, in a sharia court system, must be faithful, that is Muslim.[100] Male Muslim witnesses are deemed more reliable than female Muslim witnesses, and non-Muslim witnesses considered unreliable and receive no priority in a sharia court.[101][102] In civil cases in some countries, a Muslim woman witness is considered half the worth and reliability than a Muslim man witness.[103][104] In criminal cases, women witnesses are unacceptable in stricter, traditional interpretations of sharia, such as those found in Hanbali madhhab.[100]



.

Really, really stupid. Nobody is going to institute sharia law in the US.

So are you saying Mexicans all assimilated in the US and we didn't see assnine people making kids take off their America T shirts and crap so not to offend a Mexican?


.

Dearborn Michigan proves my point








.

I see why you are pissing your pants

Imagine accommodating a religion that is not Christianity

 

[Coyote]

Or are they defending RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? There's good stuff and crap stuff in all religions - you can defend the good, and attack the crap - or, say it's all crap but support their right to follow the crap in this country where religious freedom is an important foundation.

I would agree with you if I saw anything approaching balance.

Instead, what I see is a non-stop assault on any and every Christian value, and a non-stop defense of every Islamic action. On USMB alone, insult after insult after insult of Christians, and consistent, passionate defense of Islam, no matter what.

And I'm a comfy agnostic, by the way. But this is blatant and obvious. The Left has clearly made a choice.

Great. The Left can live with it.
.

I agree, there are a lot of attacks on Christians - but a lot of defenders as well. I see very few defenders of Muslims, and those that do are dog piled. How many anti-Muslim threads do you see on USMB compared to anti-Christian threads? And most of those are by the same predictable individuals.

Shouldn't we fight against broad brushing instead of labeling those who do "regressives"?

The numbers are irrelevant. In every thread about Muslims, there is Regressive Leftist (a term I borrow from a liberal Muslim) who does the same thing every time: Deflect, pivot, attack. There are thousands of examples of this to anyone whose eyes are open.

The group of people who regularly do this is identifiable by their actions, and I agree with the liberal Muslim who coined the term. He's fighting for a Reformation of Islam, his life is in danger every day, and he is having to fight against jihadists and regressives.

The regressives have chosen their side in this debate, and they can live with it.
.
.

What do you call people who attack Islam and defend Christianity?

I dunno. Since I use the term coined by an honest Muslim, I would defer to a term coined by an honest Christian.

I don't have to spin for either side.
.

He's not the only honest Muslim you know.

Sharia Law