• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muslim Activist Group Suing Oklahoma for banning Sharia/Islamic LAW

TacticalEvilDan said:
Once again, it proves that Muslims really are the new niggers.
Click to expand...

That's dumb. Black people don't take their faith to the extreme by consistently trying to kill us. Consistently it is the Islamist (not all Muslims, just those that follow Islam in its entirety), that try to kill us.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If this amendment does not affect contract law, arbitration or probate, then it's completely asinine and yet another example of modern political correctness.

Once again, it proves that Muslims really are the new niggers.
Click to expand...

OK, so you ignore the actual case they had in mind, which pretty much exempted someone from raping a woman because Sharia says it's OK for him to do so, and then go on to make a snarky comment which shows that yes, for you, it is indeed "OOOOOH NOOOOOZ! IZLAMOPHOBIA!!!!! ZOMG!!!"

Oh, well.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If this amendment does not affect contract law, arbitration or probate, then it's completely asinine and yet another example of modern political correctness.

Once again, it proves that Muslims really are the new niggers.
Click to expand...

That's just plain nasty. Jews have the same kinds of arbitration and mediation panels in the U.S. -- and have for many many years.

Look, you're either going to support the Constitution of the United States, or you're not. Freedom of religion doesn't only apply when you "like" another's beliefs.
 
Separation of church and state means we can't have Sharia law for the sake of Islam. However, those who follow Sharia have every right to vote and have their morals placed into law.
 
digsbe said:
Separation of church and state means we can't have Sharia law for the sake of Islam. However, those who follow Sharia have every right to vote and have their morals placed into law.
Click to expand...

Separation of church and state means we can't forbid people from entering into contractual agreements to decide their civil disputes while taking Sharia (or Jewish or any other) beliefs into account. As long as no law is violated, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
 
MaggieD said:
Separation of church and state means we can't forbid people from entering into contractual agreements to decide their civil disputes while taking Sharia (or Jewish or any other) beliefs into account.
Click to expand...

This doesn't stop that.
 
Wake said:
That's dumb.
Click to expand...

No, it's actually not, because my point is that it's fashionable to hate on Islam and Muslims in general. This has been proven true time and again, both on the airwaves and on this forum.

Wake said:
Black people don't take their faith to the extreme by consistently trying to kill us.
Click to expand...

Neither do the vast majority of Muslims.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, so you ignore the actual case they had in mind, which pretty much exempted someone from raping a woman because Sharia says it's OK for him to do so, and then go on to make a snarky comment which shows that yes, for you, it is indeed "OOOOOH NOOOOOZ! IZLAMOPHOBIA!!!!! ZOMG!!!"

Oh, well.
Click to expand...

No, that's actually not what I did at all.

Oh, well.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, so you ignore the actual case they had in mind, which pretty much exempted someone from raping a woman because Sharia says it's OK for him to do so, and then go on to make a snarky comment which shows that yes, for you, it is indeed "OOOOOH NOOOOOZ! IZLAMOPHOBIA!!!!! ZOMG!!!"

Oh, well.
Click to expand...
It's one example and one example, but as I pointed out elsewhere the NJ law won, so it's not at all an example. Judges/Juries make stipid decisons all the time, but if our judical system works correctly justice - American justice - is served.
 
pbrauer said:
It's one example and one example, but as I pointed out elsewhere the NJ law won, so it's not at all an example. Judges/Juries make stipid decisons all the time, but if our judical system works correctly justice - American justice - is served.
Click to expand...

Elaborated upon in full above.
 
MaggieD said:
That's just plain nasty.
Click to expand...

I say it to make a valid point.

MaggieD said:
Look, you're either going to support the Constitution of the United States, or you're not. Freedom of religion doesn't only apply when you "like" another's beliefs.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.
 
American said:
You just post on another thread about answering up to human rights review.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-rights-record-u-n-review.html#post1059086246

Now you support a man being able to beat the living **** out of his wife.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask you to apologize for this utterly asinine remark. You know it's not ****ing true, why would you say it? If you can't be civil, you'll be on the ignore list.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Wouldn't it be restricting free practice to outlaw religious "law" in general?
Click to expand...

No. The law is the law. You can practice whatever religion you like, but it's still a felony to kill someone and eat them. (maybe two felonies) Sorry, cannibals.

It's not at all related to this ballot measure. The ballot measure is based on pure, unadulterated xenophobia. You'd only support this ballot measure if you don't actually understand how judicial decisions are made, it's not like a judge would take a case and say "Well, in Zimbabwe it's legal to butcher a cow and serve the meat without wearing gloves, therefore this butcher in Ohio can't be sued for doing the same and making customers sick!" It doesn't work like that.

And, like I said, they have a case because Islamic law was singled out. To adopt this ballot measure would be singling out one particular religion for shunning.

We don't ****ing do that in this country, ok?
 
It's happening in the UK. The UK allows Sharia to exist to an extent because I see that Islam is growing monumentally. There's even this scenario:

YouTube - Sharia Law in UK: Rule of God or Wing of Terrorism?

I don't think it can't happen here.

Can't we learn from examples that are unfolding in other nations?
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, it's actually not, because my point is that it's fashionable to hate on Islam and Muslims in general. This has been proven true time and again, both on the airwaves and on this forum.
Click to expand...


It's also fashionable to defend Islamism under the misapprehension one is defending Muslims.

Between the hard right demonizing all of Islam and the hard left defending the Islamists, there is very little middle ground these days for sensible people who base their opinions on values rather than just adding their voice to the bleating chorus.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
He can't hear you over the resounding echo of his hate.
Click to expand...

Meh, at least I tried :shrug:

Gardener said:
It's also fashionable to defend Islamism under the misapprehension one is defending Muslims.

Between the hard right demonizing all of Islam and the hard left defending the Islamists, there is very little middle ground these days for sensible people who base their opinions on values rather than just adding their voice to the bleating chorus.
Click to expand...

Maybe if some distinguished between "Moderate" and "Extremist" etc. We wouldn't be having this issue and a discussion could be had about Islam and the problems
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
It's also fashionable to defend Islamism under the misapprehension one is defending Muslims.
Click to expand...

I'd say I don't defend "Islamism," but I've read several conflicting definitions, not uncommon for made-up bull**** buzz-words.

Gardener said:
Between the hard right demonizing all of Islam and the hard left defending the Islamists, there is very little middle ground these days for sensible people who base their opinions on values rather than just adding their voice to the bleating chorus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially with all of the moronic jackass political hacks on both sides acting as human echo chambers for the talking head of the day.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'd say I don't defend "Islamism," but I've read several conflicting definitions, not uncommon for made-up bull**** buzz-words.
Click to expand...

I/E - political Islam, fundamentalist Islam, those within Islam seeking to establish sharia law or a caliphate.


The natural tendency of the English language is towards a condensation of terms into single words that express those terms. A single word to express a concept is mich simpler and allows for a more facile expression of ideas than a long, strung out grouping of many individual words to express the same concept, and so even as the etymology of the term "Islamism" is of fairly recent origin, it is nonetheless a valid term.

That you are so reactionary by nature that you would call it a "bullsh!t" word indicates that you really aren't what you claim to be. If you weren't defending Islamism, you most certainly would not resort to the tactic of calling it a "bullsh!t" term.

People should be able to distinguish between nominal Muslims and Islamists just as they should be able to distinguish between ordinary Christians and fire breathing fundies. The far right tends to lump all Muslims together to demonize them, while the far left fails to distinguish between ethe two and defends all. The roles are reversed when it comes to Christians, with the hard left lumping them all together to demonize, with the hard right defending.
 
Gardener said:
I/E - political Islam, fundamentalist Islam, those within Islam seeking to establish sharia law or a caliphate.
Click to expand...

I have never ever defended that.

Gardener said:
That you are so reactionary by nature that you would call it a "bullsh!t" word indicates that you really aren't what you claim to be. If you weren't defending Islamism, you most certainly would not resort to the tactic of calling it a "bullsh!t" term.
Click to expand...

I reacted the way I did because I'm sick of people creating and redefining words as it suits their agenda. I was raised to believe that words have very specific meanings.

At any rate, please stop lying about me. I have never come anywhere near defending any such thing. I am no more a fan of Muslims who try to reshape the world around them in their image than I am of Christians who try to do the same thing.

Gardener said:
People should be able to distinguish between nominal Muslims and Islamists just as they should be able to distinguish between ordinary Christians and fire breathing fundies. The far right tends to lump all Muslims together to demonize them, while the far left fails to distinguish between ethe two and defends all. The roles are reversed when it comes to Christians, with the hard left lumping them all together to demonize, with the hard right defending.
Click to expand...

People should be able to distinguish those who defend nominal Muslims and Islamists just as they should be able to distinguish between those who defend religious freedom and theocracies. The political hacks on this forum can't seem to be able to do that.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I have never ever defended that.



I reacted the way I did because I'm sick of people creating and redefining words as it suits their agenda. I was raised to believe that words have very specific meanings.

At any rate, please stop lying about me. I have never come anywhere near defending any such thing. I am no more a fan of Muslims who try to reshape the world around them in their image than I am of Christians who try to do the same thing.



People should be able to distinguish those who defend nominal Muslims and Islamists just as they should be able to distinguish between those who defend religious freedom and theocracies. The political hacks on this forum can't seem to be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see here, shall we?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/news-2-0/84755-two-teen-girls-executed-somali-terrorists.html

In this thread, you not only failed to address the issue in any way, shape or form, and failed to criticize the actions IN THE LEAST, you actually played the "Islamophobia" card.

Odd, isn't it, that for a person who is supposedly such a stickler about terms being "bullsh!t", you would toss out your little "Islamophobia" bomb so easlily, and did so in defense of Somali pirates no less.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Well, let's see here, shall we?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/news-2-0/84755-two-teen-girls-executed-somali-terrorists.html

In this thread, you not only failed to address the issue in any way, shape or form, and failed to criticize the actions IN THE LEAST, you actually played the "Islamophobia" card.

Odd, isn't it, that for a person who is supposedly such a stickler about terms being "bullsh!t", you would toss out your little "Islamophobia" bomb so easlily, and did so in defense of Somali pirates no less.
Click to expand...

Once again I am convinced that absolutism is THE core part of the regressive mindset. Being against condemnation of a religion of 1.4 billion people is not the same thing as being in favor of every action taken by anyone in that massive group, but folks who think like this literally do not understand the difference. They buy into statements like "you're either with us, or against us," accepting that as some sort of reasonable statement.
 
Deuce said:
Once again I am convinced that absolutism is THE core part of the regressive mindset. Being against condemnation of a religion of 1.4 billion people is not the same thing as being in favor of every action taken by anyone in that massive group, but folks who think like this literally do not understand the difference. They buy into statements like "you're either with us, or against us," accepting that as some sort of reasonable statement.
Click to expand...

Yet nobody had condemned the religion of 1.4 billion people.

You are quite ignorant of political meanings if you think "regressive" actually applies to those who object to all the apologia offered in defense of what are TRULY regressive mindsets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom