Gulf states to introduce medical testing on travellers to "detect" gay people and stop them from entering the country

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>Me, I don't want sharia law anywhere, but we must talk about it on Speakers Corner
>until you shut it down.

OK, fair enough. The next time you bring Sharia Law into Speaker's Corner you'll be banned for two weeks.

Wow, a 2 week ban for mentioning Sharia law. I wonder what our founding fathers would think about how people now a days use their authority.

Also, way to show how liberals like to have an honest discussion about stuff.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[ryoder 1,590]

rickjump1

So long folks; don't let billvon take away your 1st Amendment rights.

The 1st Amendment is a restriction on what the government can do.
I don't think BV is representing the government here.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 3,120]

>just like when all of the guns are removed the criminals wont have any either?

Exactly. A lot of very silly people want to BAN any mention of Sharia law. Once they do that they imagine it will just . . . . go away.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>just like when all of the guns are removed the criminals wont have any either?

Exactly. A lot of very silly people want to BAN any mention of Sharia law. Once they do that they imagine it will just . . . . go away.

At what point did I ever say BAN any mention of Sharia Law?

Even though I am conservative in many ways, I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State.

I will not pander or bend to Muslims who want to form a church based state or rule of law inside the United States. The OP is a perfect example of what would happen. To me, it goes against the individual rights guaranteed by our constitution. If you want to live in a Sharia based society and be allowed to beat women and rape boys, there are a lot of other places you can go other that the U.S.

Now when a person is of a consenting age and they want to willingly submit them selves to this shit, by all means, go ahead. You are an adult, do what your going to do. But to allow laws on to the books that say a person "must" will always be a no go.

I'm sick of being accused of being labeled as "Anti-Muslim" for this point of view.

I still want to know how liberals consolidate the "Pro-Muslim," "Pro-gay," and " Pro-woman" thing.

It it, "You got your right to chose, bitch, now get in the kitchen and put your burka on before I give you the pimp hand. And if you look at another woman I will bury you up to your neck and throw stones at your head until dead"?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wmw999 2,589]

How do you feel about Jews submitting to halacha (Jewish law)? They have their own courts and everything.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jgoose71 0]

Honestly, I've never heard of Halacha Law until you mentioned it.

But, I feel the same way about it as I do Sharia law. Civil matters and arrangements can be made however the associated parties see fit. Consenting adults of legal age doing something that they agree to. No laws, police, or strong armed enforcement officers saying that they must.

The minute the Religious Police coming knocking at my door to take me to jail because because I'm looking at porn, eating something that's not kosher, or enjoying a slice of bacon, there will be hell to pay.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Gravitymaster 0]

wmw999

How do you feel about Jews submitting to halacha (Jewish law)? They have their own courts and everything.

Wendy P.

I look at it the same way as signing a skydiving waiver. You can agree to certain things up to a point but you cannot sign away your constitutional rights. Nor can you be legally held to a violation.

[rickjump1 0]

wmw999

How do you feel about Jews submitting to halacha (Jewish law)? They have their own courts and everything.

Wendy P.

Jews are no different than a lot of American cultures that frown on members adopting "foreign" customs or dating/marriage outside their race. Being excommunicated from the Catholic Church or having the local Methodist/Baptist Board or church elder tell you they don't approve of the way you are living and ask to leave is not uncommon. You can be judged without any input from the congregation at all, but in the church composed of Infidels, nobody approves "honor" killings, the genital mutilation of baby girls, or forced marriages of little girls to grown men, and nobody kills you for changing your faith. Now if you dig hard enough, I'm sure you can find remote instances of the above crimes in Infidel churches, but nothing on the scale of the "religion of peace".

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>Wow, a 2 week ban for mentioning Sharia law.

So you want Sharia Law discussed in SC?

[billvon 3,120]

>At what point did I ever say BAN any mention of Sharia Law?

You didn't; Rickjump did. He wants a ban on any mention of Sharia law in the US court system. But when I suggested we do the same here to him, he reacted angrily, calling me all kinds of names. It was OK (in his mind) to ban OTHER people from using it, but it wasn't OK to ban HIS use of it. Which is hypocrisy at its finest.

If you want to live in a free society you have to accept that people will sometimes talk about things you don't like, like Sharia Law. Doesn't mean you have to live by it. Doesn't mean you have to like it. But it does mean you have to sometimes listen to it, even if it takes place in a courtroom (or Speaker's Corner.)

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>Wow, a 2 week ban for mentioning Sharia law.

So you want Sharia Law discussed in SC?

I'm for it. Never said I was against it. We are here to discuss religion, law, and guns (among other things); right?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>I look at it the same way as signing a skydiving waiver. You can agree to certain
>things up to a point but you cannot sign away your constitutional rights. Nor can you
>be legally held to a violation.

Agreed. And you can be held to things in a contract under Sharia Law as well. If one person sues another over that contract, you can discuss it in a court of law. Not because it's Sharia Law, but because you signed a contract with that language in it.

[billvon 3,120]

>I'm for it. Never said I was against it.

Good! I will remember that you and Jgoose are all for considering Sharia Law here in the US.

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>I'm for it. Never said I was against it.

Good! I will remember that you and Jgoose are all for considering Sharia Law here in the US.

Oh man, what a cheap set up. "We have a winner."

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rickjump1

***>I'm for it. Never said I was against it.

Good! I will remember that you and Jgoose are all for considering Sharia Law here in the US.

Oh man, what a cheap set up. "We have a winner."

It is completely unbelievable to me that you appear to have absolutely no clue what is happening to you in this thread.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>I'm for it. Never said I was against it.

Good! I will remember that you and Jgoose are all for considering Sharia Law here in the US.

Wow, surprise twist ending...

Just remember there is a difference between banning discussion of Sharia law and banning enforcement, lest you want the Religious Police coming for you too...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,120]

>Just remember there is a difference between banning discussion of Sharia law and banning enforcement

Yes, there is. And fortunately Sharia law is not enforced here in the US.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>Just remember there is a difference between banning discussion of Sharia law and banning enforcement

Yes, there is. And fortunately Sharia law is not enforced here in the US...for now.

Surprise liberal twist ending!!!

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Stumpy 284]

SkyDekker

******>I'm for it. Never said I was against it.

Good! I will remember that you and Jgoose are all for considering Sharia Law here in the US.

Oh man, what a cheap set up. "We have a winner."

It is completely unbelievable to me that you appear to have absolutely no clue what is happening to you in this thread.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>Just remember there is a difference between banning discussion of Sharia law and banning enforcement

Yes, there is. And fortunately Sharia law is not enforced here in the US.

This is just one instance of Sharia law being enforced. Believe me; there are more. http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2012/02/american-judge-rules-in-favor-of-sharia.html"Despite admitting that Elbayomy harassed Perce, Judge Mark Martin ruled that Elbayomy had every right to do so because of Islamic law, which bans the insulting of Muhammad. In other words, Judge Martin ruled in favor of Sharia law.

Judge Martin didn’t just rule in favor of religious law, he also lectured and humiliated Perce. Martin told the court all about the time he has spent in Islamic nations and even gestured to a Koran he had in the courtroom. He then called Perce a ‘doofus.’ "

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Bignugget 0]

Honestly...are you just a troll?

You don't even read your own links.....

This is the second time this week you own complete nonsensical crazy links don't even back up the crazy shit you say.

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

'On Dec. 6, Judge Martin dismissed the case for lack of evidence."

Not because of 'Sharia Law'

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html

Zzzzzzzz.

[rickjump1 0]

Bignugget

Honestly...are you just a troll?

You don't even read your own links.....

This is the second time this week you own complete nonsensical crazy links don't even back up the crazy shit you say.

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

'On Dec. 6, Judge Martin dismissed the case for lack of evidence."

Not because of 'Sharia Law'

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html

Zzzzzzzz.

This is another link to the New Jersey case where the victim had to wait for it to be dismissed. How many more times do you think she got raped waiting for it to be dismissed? http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/"Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere." Trolling? A judge based his decision on instructions from the defendant's Islamic Imam.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Bignugget 0]

rickjump1

***Honestly...are you just a troll?

You don't even read your own links.....

This is the second time this week you own complete nonsensical crazy links don't even back up the crazy shit you say.

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

'On Dec. 6, Judge Martin dismissed the case for lack of evidence."

Not because of 'Sharia Law'

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html

Zzzzzzzz.

In this case, the victim had to wait for it to be dismissed. How many more times do you think she got raped waiting for it to be dismissed? http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/"Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere."

Yep, that was the first one I saw that completely contradicts what you say about it.

The court clearly said the judge was wrong in his decision.

Maybe in your world one judge being a retard translates to a nation of Sharia law......but that is only in your world.

[rickjump1 0]

Bignugget

******Honestly...are you just a troll?

You don't even read your own links.....

This is the second time this week you own complete nonsensical crazy links don't even back up the crazy shit you say.

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

'On Dec. 6, Judge Martin dismissed the case for lack of evidence."

Not because of 'Sharia Law'

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html

Zzzzzzzz.

In this case, the victim had to wait for it to be dismissed. How many more times do you think she got raped waiting for it to be dismissed? http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/"Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere."

Yep, that was the first one I saw that completely contradicts what you say about it.

The court clearly said the judge was wrong in his decision.

Maybe in your world one judge being a retard translates to a nation of Sharia law......but that is only in your world. No matter how you twist the words and look the other way, it happened. Sharia law was enforced by a judge. Yes, it was overturned, but it did happen, and a victim continued to suffer until it was overturned.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Bignugget 0]

No, you are confused.

This was overturned.

Obamacare was enforced..(upheld but we can stick with your terminology)