liberal feminist on sharia law~

hotdog said:
Are immigrants come from North and South America these people are catholic not muslim. The white majority stays at replacement level. Mexicans have children. How is such a small muslim minority going to take over America. When the Mexicans are rapidly growing and Whites remain stable. America also gets immigrants from China, Vietnam, Japan, India which are not muslim. The majority of people immigrating to America from Asia are not muslim. It seems that the muslims have no hope of becoming a majority or even a large minority. America also has a large black christain minority. This country is safe from Sharia law. How are the muslims going to take over without large numbers. They can't even take up over India.
Click to expand...

A violent and motivated minority can do a lot of things. Plus, the president is already enforcing blasphemy laws from the oval officer.

We are not safe from Sharia law.
 
AssHatZombie said:
A violent and motivated minority can do a lot of things. Plus, the president is already enforcing blasphemy laws from the oval officer.

We are not safe from Sharia law.
Click to expand...

Stop, you're killing me. The Texas case occurred in 2003, seven years ago, and nobody gave it a second thought until people like Pamela Geller started to stir the pot.

"In 2003, for instance, a Texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the Texas Islamic Court. In 2005, the federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed an award in an employment arbitration by the Institute for Christian Conciliation, which uses Biblical teachings to settle disputes. And state courts routinely enforce the decisions made by a Jewish court, known as a bet din, in commercial and family law cases...

The larger question, legal experts in the United States said, is whether government courts should ever defer to religious ones. The answer may depend on whether the people involved authentically consented to religious adjudication, whether they are allowed to change their minds and whether the decisions of those tribunals are offensive to fundamental conceptions of justice...

In the Texas case, however, it was a woman, Rola Qaddura, who sought arbitration in a dispute over a dowry and the distribution of assets after a divorce. The parties had signed an agreement to arbitrate their case “according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas Islamic Court” in Richardson.

The appeals court said the agreement was valid. Ms. Schattman, who represented Ms. Qaddura, said the appeals court’s ruling was proper and unexceptional. “An agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to arbitrate,” she said.

In the end, though, the arbitration didn't go forward after a lower court there granted a motion to set aside the parties’ arbitration agreement. Ms. Schattman said of the Islamic court: “It was kind of a new thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17liptak.html
 
christiefan915 said:
Stop, you're killing me. The Texas case occurred in 2003, seven years ago, and nobody gave it a second thought until people like Pamela Geller started to stir the pot.

"In 2003, for instance, a Texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the Texas Islamic Court. In 2005, the federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed an award in an employment arbitration by the Institute for Christian Conciliation, which uses Biblical teachings to settle disputes. And state courts routinely enforce the decisions made by a Jewish court, known as a bet din, in commercial and family law cases...

The larger question, legal experts in the United States said, is whether government courts should ever defer to religious ones. The answer may depend on whether the people involved authentically consented to religious adjudication, whether they are allowed to change their minds and whether the decisions of those tribunals are offensive to fundamental conceptions of justice...

In the Texas case, however, it was a woman, Rola Qaddura, who sought arbitration in a dispute over a dowry and the distribution of assets after a divorce. The parties had signed an agreement to arbitrate their case “according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas Islamic Court” in Richardson.

The appeals court said the agreement was valid. Ms. Schattman, who represented Ms. Qaddura, said the appeals court’s ruling was proper and unexceptional. “An agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to arbitrate,” she said.

In the end, though, the arbitration didn't go forward after a lower court there granted a motion to set aside the parties’ arbitration agreement. Ms. Schattman said of the Islamic court: “It was kind of a new thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17liptak.html
Click to expand...
It is simply, at this point in time, making a mountain of a mole hill.

Crazy Christians are going to affect my freedoms before Muslims will at this point. Just watch what happens should the T-bags take control of this country, that seems a little more plausible, at this point in time, than the Muslims doing so.
 
christiefan915 said:
Stop, you're killing me. The Texas case occurred in 2003, seven years ago, and nobody gave it a second thought until people like Pamela Geller started to stir the pot.

"In 2003, for instance, a Texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the Texas Islamic Court. In 2005, the federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed an award in an employment arbitration by the Institute for Christian Conciliation, which uses Biblical teachings to settle disputes. And state courts routinely enforce the decisions made by a Jewish court, known as a bet din, in commercial and family law cases...

The larger question, legal experts in the United States said, is whether government courts should ever defer to religious ones. The answer may depend on whether the people involved authentically consented to religious adjudication, whether they are allowed to change their minds and whether the decisions of those tribunals are offensive to fundamental conceptions of justice...

In the Texas case, however, it was a woman, Rola Qaddura, who sought arbitration in a dispute over a dowry and the distribution of assets after a divorce. The parties had signed an agreement to arbitrate their case “according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas Islamic Court” in Richardson.

The appeals court said the agreement was valid. Ms. Schattman, who represented Ms. Qaddura, said the appeals court’s ruling was proper and unexceptional. “An agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to arbitrate,” she said.

In the end, though, the arbitration didn't go forward after a lower court there granted a motion to set aside the parties’ arbitration agreement. Ms. Schattman said of the Islamic court: “It was kind of a new thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17liptak.html
Click to expand...

This is a slippery slope towards theocracy. Rational people should rise up and condemn the spread of shariah one iota further.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You don't know how to fucking read. Malkin's piece of the NLRB was fucking stupid because as an independent agency the NLRB does not fall within the scope of the White House conflict of interest policy.

And I have zero interest in getting into a debate about Michele Malkin or any of the other fucking nitwits you felch. At this point, I'd rather point and laugh.



This thread was sourced to an idiot tea bagging halfwit's "petition" about a nonexistent issue that doesn't have any bearing on anything resembling the real fucking world and only matters to tea bagging asshats that felch Michele Malkin et al on a daily basis.

Again, it's point and laugh material.
Click to expand...

There are bits and piece of Sharia Law being allowed into our nnation and our justice system. It goes against the grain of the most fundamental principles of our laws.

Whether you think this particular article is a joke, there is some movement to accept Sharia Law within reason. But any set of laws that sees women as inferior, and treats them like property, absolutely must not be allowed to thrive, even in the fringes of our legal system.
 
WinterBorn said:
There are bits and piece of Sharia Law being allowed into our nnation and our justice system. It goes against the grain of the most fundamental principles of our laws.

Whether you think this particular article is a joke, there is some movement to accept Sharia Law within reason. But any set of laws that sees women as inferior, and treats them like property, absolutely must not be allowed to thrive, even in the fringes of our legal system.
Click to expand...

if the people involved in a dispute agree to using sharia law to settle said dispute, then as long as the result does not include great bodily harm what is the harm to society - the key point is that all parties agree to using sharia law and great bodily harm is not involved as a solution to resolving the dispute
 
Sharia law is the law of the universe. Embrace it.

It is gratifying that in the Great Satan, yes, even in the belly of the beast the will of Allah (Peace be upon Him) is at work.
 
DonQuixote said:
if the people involved in a dispute agree to using sharia law to settle said dispute, then as long as the result does not include great bodily harm what is the harm to society - the key point is that all parties agree to using sharia law and great bodily harm is not involved as a solution to resolving the dispute
Click to expand...

You're completely wrong, don quixote, noahide brainwash victim.

The second class citizenship for women implied by sharia law renders it incompatible with american law.

People cannot surrender their rights under the constitution, in cases where they attempt it, it is the duty of the state to intervene and protect them from their own abused state of mind.
 
WinterBorn said:
There are bits and piece of Sharia Law being allowed into our nnation and our justice system. It goes against the grain of the most fundamental principles of our laws.

Whether you think this particular article is a joke, there is some movement to accept Sharia Law within reason. But any set of laws that sees women as inferior, and treats them like property, absolutely must not be allowed to thrive, even in the fringes of our legal system.
Click to expand...


What bits and pieces? Allowed into our justice system by whom? Where is this happening? Be specific.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Google is your friend, dumbass.
Click to expand...


If you google sharia united states you end up with a bunch of freakshow pants-shitters like Ice Dancer, Michele Malkin and the rest. No thanks.

WinterBorn's a big boy. He know what he was talking about and can provide the information rather than having me guess at what he meant.
 
NigelTufnel said:
If you google sharia united states you end up with a bunch of freakshow pants-shitters like Ice Dancer, Michele Malkin and the rest. No thanks.

WinterBorn's a big boy. He know what he was talking about and can provide the information rather than having me guess at what he meant.
Click to expand...

Right. Attacking the messenger is all you have.


Is it your belief that nobody wants to institute shariah law as part of our legal system? If that's your belief, you're just wrong. Anyone who tells you the facts you attack with your ad hominem stupidity.

You have created an insular brainwashed mindset which you yourself will not allow to be impregnated with the truth.

Move toward the light, imbecile, and out of the darkness.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Right. Attacking the messenger is all you have.

Is it your belief that nobody wants to institute shariah law as part of our legal system? If that's your belief, you're just wrong. Anyone who tells you the facts you attack with your ad hominem stupidity.

You have created an insular brainwashed mindset which you yourself will not allow to be impregnated with the truth.

Move toward the light, imbecile, and out of the darkness.
Click to expand...


First of all, I'm not attacking anything. I'm simply asking Winterborn to be more specific and to state what specifically he is talking about so that I can respond to his response to me.

Second, there are people that want to institute Klingon as the official language of the United States of America. I'm as concerned about them as I am about people who want to implement sharia in the United States.
 
AssHatZombie said:
LOL. You priorities are a askew if you think trekkies are the same threat level as islamicists.
Click to expand...


Islamicistesiestests may be a bigger threat than Trekkies, but not because they will be successful at having sharia implemented in the United States. If that's their goal, they will be about as successful as the Trekkies with the Klingon thing.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Islamicistesiestests may be a bigger threat than Trekkies, but not because they will be successful at having sharia implemented in the United States. If that's their goal, they will be about as successful as the Trekkies with the Klingon thing.
Click to expand...

When idiots like you deny they're even trying, or that they have western support by traitors to freedom, their success is ensured.
 
AssHatZombie said:
When idiots like you deny they're even trying, or that they have western support by traitors to freedom, their success is ensured.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying they're trying (even though I'm not certain who "they" are). I'm merely saying that to the extent that they are trying, they aren't going to be successful.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not denying they're trying (even though I'm not certain who "they" are). I'm merely saying that to the extent that they are trying, they aren't going to be successful.
Click to expand...

You should deny it if you can't find any evidence of "them" doing it. So which thems are you thinking of?

They are going to be successful to the extent that pinheads like you deny reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top