Ah, the USA needs this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TXgolfer said:
How would that work??? Throw at the same time? And, every day? Do they come back to life?
:laugh2:
Click to expand...
Why do you think they invented reincarnation?
 
Reba said:
I don't support any stoning or caning laws for the USA. Do you?
Click to expand...
If you allow an foreigner to have an opinion on what kind of laws the US shold follow, I'll answer. My answer is that I think stoning laws would be a very bad idea. You allready have barbaric laws that allows people to fry other people with electric, or fill them up with lethal poison. No need to make the US more cruel than it already is.

EU have stopped exports of specific posion substances, because we learned you use them to execute people.
You couldn't find a more reliable source than Wiki?
Click to expand...
That's all you can say? It requires a strong dose of faith to reject an encyclopedia that have less errors than the conventional ones. Sure I can come up with more sources, from universities and the science of religion, but honestly, why should I? Would you accept them as reliable sources?
What hateful statement did I make?

I have nothing to prove until you show me anything hateful that I've posted.
Click to expand...
Until you can prove that sharia is a specific or sole set of laws in practice, your claims will be perceived as full of prejudices and irrational hate from more than one perspective.
 
flip said:
If you allow an foreigner to have an opinion on what kind of laws the US shold follow, I'll answer. My answer is that I think stoning laws would be a very bad idea. You allready have barbaric laws that allows people to fry other people with electric, or fill them up with lethal poison. No need to make the US more cruel than it already is.
Click to expand...
So your comments about the US aren't hateful and prejudicial but my comments about stoning laws are? :hmm:


That's all you can say? It requires a strong dose of faith to reject an encyclopedia that have less errors than the conventional ones. Sure I can come up with more sources, from universities and the science of religion, but honestly, why should I? Would you accept them as reliable sources?
Click to expand...
No, that's not all I can say but it is a commentary on what you consider to be reliable sources of information. Depending on Wiki is usually a sign of laziness or lack of real sources.

Until you can prove that sharia is a specific or sole set of laws in practice, your claims will be perceived as full of prejudices and irrational hate from more than one perspective.
Click to expand...
The only reason I brought up Sharia laws was because the topic was introduced as something that could be acceptable in the USA. It would not be compatible with our Constitution, just as other laws or sets of laws from other countries and cultures would not be. That is not irrational hate for other people. That's not even rational hate for other people. In fact, that's not hate at all.

I'm curious as to why you see hate and prejudice where there is none? Do you not understand that people can disagree without involving hate and other negative emotions?
 
Reba said:
The only reason I brought up Sharia laws was because the topic was introduced as something that could be acceptable in the USA.
Click to expand...

I think you are greatly incorrect in the statement above. No one said that it would be acceptable here. Some aspects of it is OBVIOUSLY against the laws of America and Americans do NOT want the American laws to be dictated by Sharia Law (or any law dictated by religion), but what you don't see is that we are reacting so strongly against a HANDFUL of people who want to implement Sharia Law in US. I think we give power to them by even RESPONDING to their statements. Sorta like giving power to Charlie Sheen by even watching or reading his crazy statements. LOTS of people (Americans or foreigners) talk about changing the laws in America everyday in extreme ways. In fact, I bet you can even find a couple in AD. I find those people who want to implement Sharia Law no different than the others.
 
Daredevel7 said:
... I think we give power to them by even RESPONDING to their statements. Sorta like giving power to Charlie Sheen by even watching or reading his crazy statements....
Click to expand...
I sure won't compare any ADers to Charlie Sheen! :lol:
 
Aren't you all beating that poor horse to death? Let the horsie have a respite, eh?
 
Reba said:
So your comments about the US aren't hateful and prejudicial but my comments about stoning laws are? :hmm:
Click to expand...
So now, it's not "sharia laws", but "stoning laws"? We are then in agreement.

What don't work, is to accuse me of calling your comments prejudical, when you at the same time change your claims, so they appear less prejudical. Good try.
No, that's not all I can say but it is a commentary on what you consider to be reliable sources of information. Depending on Wiki is usually a sign of laziness or lack of real sources.

The only reason I brought up Sharia laws was because the topic was introduced as something that could be acceptable in the USA. It would not be compatible with our Constitution, just as other laws or sets of laws from other countries and cultures would not be. That is not irrational hate for other people. That's not even rational hate for other people. In fact, that's not hate at all.

I'm curious as to why you see hate and prejudice where there is none? Do you not understand that people can disagree without involving hate and other negative emotions?
Click to expand...
I usually don't see hate and prejudices where there is none, but ask if it's hate and prejudices when a person don't care to express the logic behind his/her negative thoughts.

I haven't seen any posters on this forum embracing the idea of making sharia the foundation of the US constitution, and happy with whatever you are happy with.
 
flip said:
So now, it's not "sharia laws", but "stoning laws"? We are then in agreement.
Click to expand...
Good.

What don't work, is to accuse me of calling your comments prejudical, when you at the same time change your claims, so they appear less prejudical. Good try.
Click to expand...
You can review my original posts at #50, 52, 55, and 60. My "claims," as you call them, haven't changed

My basic statement, that Sharia law is not compatible with American law stands. If Muslims want to live in the United States, then they have to follow America's laws. That's the same condition for Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, animists, Buddhists, Hindus, whatever. No more, no less.

I usually don't see hate and prejudices where there is none, but ask if it's hate and prejudices when a person don't care to express the logic behind his/her negative thoughts.
Click to expand...
What negative thoughts?

I haven't seen any posters on this forum embracing the idea of making sharia the foundation of the US constitution, and happy with whatever you are happy with.
Click to expand...
I never said any posters embraced the idea of making Sharia the foundation of the US Constitution so I don't know why you bring it up.

Good. I'm happy with the Constitution of the United States. :)
 
Reba said:
Good.


You can review my original posts at #50, 52, 55, and 60. My "claims," as you call them, haven't changed

My basic statement, that Sharia law is not compatible with American law stands. If Muslims want to live in the United States, then they have to follow America's laws. That's the same condition for Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, animists, Buddhists, Hindus, whatever. No more, no less.


What negative thoughts?


I never said any posters embraced the idea of making Sharia the foundation of the US Constitution so I don't know why you bring it up.

Good. I'm happy with the Constitution of the United States. :)
Click to expand...
I'm not in the mood to continue those discussions about those small details. You have made your accusations(waiting for the "what accusations?" question..), and I've made mine.

As we mostly agree, I'll leave it here.
 
<lifts an a eyebrow in Spock like fashion> Wonder what the next action the Religious Right takes on it's lil war on Islam?
 
Would you accept the OK law if it didn't mention Sharia law specifically, or if it included all other religions' laws and international laws?
 
There is no need for a Judge in any court of law in America to use any religion law in a decision. Many say that the American laws are based on the Ten Commandments and that may be so but Congress has the only ability to make laws of which all Americans are subject to. A religious group may agree with the law or they minght disagree but they, as individuals, have to comply with the laws. Should a religious group have the position that their religious law allows them to do an action that the American laws does not (i.e. stoneing, whipping, pural marriage, child marriage) they are free to take their group to another country that will allow them to practice the way they feel. While in America, they are going to follow the American way or be accused and tried for breaking the laws in a court that does not allow religion to influence the Judges nor juries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top