• 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

Gardener said:
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.
Click to expand...


No, you see, this is the part where your absolutism comes in. You don't understand that this isn't actually what's happening.
 
Deuce said:
[/B]

No, you see, this is the part where your absolutism comes in. You don't understand that this isn't actually what's happening.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I don't "understand" this because I am a "regressive".

I'm sure the kids in your spohomore civics class all think you are a pretty sharp puppy, but I was studying political science at the university before you were born.
 
Gardener said:
Oh yes, I don't "understand" this because I am a "regressive".

I'm sure the kids in your spohomore civics class all think you are a pretty sharp puppy, but I was studying political science at the university before you were born.
Click to expand...

You've demonstrated absolutism in this very thread. I see it all the time from the right wing. Your education is not relevant.
Another example is the Israel/Palestine situation. ANY criticism of Israel's actions is labeled "support for terrorists" by your side. Anyone who objects to regressives saying that Islam teaches violence and hate are labeled people who support violence and hate. In the other thread about the ballot measure banning judges from using Sharia Law, I pointed out that judges don't do this anyway, Sharia Law can't override American law even if they did, and that the ballot measure had some constitutional issues because it singled out Islam instead of any religion, I was told I support letting a man beat his wife and get away with it.

My signature, while said on a comedy show, fits.
"If they're not going to make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, why should I make a distinction between decent, fearful white people and racists?"
-Aasif Mandvi
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What's more "absolutist" than labeling people who disagree with your political views "regressive"? Not much.
 
Deuce said:
Your education is not relevant.
.
Click to expand...

What is relevent is that of the two of us, I'm the only one to have one.

If you prefer to indulge in your ignorant twaddle, though, be my guest.
 
Harshaw said:
What's more "absolutist" than labeling people who disagree with your political views "regressive"? Not much.
Click to expand...

Those with extreme views invariably view those with moderate views as being extreme.
 
I never claimed any of you support violence, but go ahead and try to take the high road if you like. I can see the difference between violent extremists and actual Muslims, just like I can see the difference between people who bomb abortion clinics and Christians.

Gardener said:
Those with extreme views invariably view those with moderate views as being extreme.
Click to expand...

In what universe is "Islamic violence comes from a tiny fringe group and is not indicative of Muslims as a whole" an "extreme view?"
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Great, so we'll force them to assimilate by telling them that their religious tradition isn't suitable for the courtroom, all while pseudo-religious bigots coast to coast never fail to miss an opportunity to remind us of our Judeo-Christian roots when it comes to gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I know it's terrible the way some Christians think marriage is between a man and a woman.
Islam is so much more tolerant when it comes to gays. That's why there is gay marriage in muslim countries around the world.
We need to follow their lead and get with the times.
The shouldn't be forced to assimilate. Instead we need to conform to their ideals.
We have no right to pass laws that will insure that our laws are upheld in our courts.
 
Barbbtx said:
Islam is so much more tolerant when it comes to gays. That's why there is gay marriage in muslim countries around the world.
We need to follow their lead and get with the times.
The shouldn't be forced to assimilate. Instead we need to conform to their ideals.
We have no right to pass laws that will insure that our laws are upheld in our courts.
Click to expand...

Find me one post where anybody on this forum proposes any of these statements you just wrote. That's not a straw man, that's a straw army.
 
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...

Have you no shame? Doesn't it bother you to lie so blatantly and so maliciously about someone you've never even met? Never mind, your post pretty much answers that question.

I didn't call the execution of those girls barbaric, or call their executioners barbarians, because I figured it was so painfully obvious that no civilized individual would have thought any different. As such, I stuck to predicting what I figured was an inevitable tide of hate against the religion and its adherents in general, versus those barbarians in particular.

Obviously many other people agreed, because there were all of, what, 3 or 4 replies to that thread? It must be that most people who saw it figured that the obvious "that's wrong" didn't qualify as a worthwhile contribution.

For that matter, where's your contribution to that thread? I guess, using your logic, you silently approve of that sort of thing even more than you seem to feel that I do, since you didn't even bother posting anything at all.

Wow, telling heinous lies about total strangers is fun! Thanks, Gardener, for introducing me to this wonderful new pasttime!

Just in case that didn't make it obvious enough for you and you need a flashing neon sign: I have never, do not currently, and will not ever defend this kind of inhumanity no matter what it's done in the name of.

Say otherwise of me, and you do so at your own peril.
 
Barbbtx said:
I know it's terrible the way some Christians think marriage is between a man and a woman.
Islam is so much more tolerant when it comes to gays. That's why there is gay marriage in muslim countries around the world.
We need to follow their lead and get with the times.
The shouldn't be forced to assimilate. Instead we need to conform to their ideals.
We have no right to pass laws that will insure that our laws are upheld in our courts.
Click to expand...

Have fun choking on the words that you utterly failed to put in my mouth.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Have fun choking on the words that you utterly failed to put in my mouth.
Click to expand...

You see what I mean? This is exactly what I was talking about. These people can't distinguish between a liberal saying Muslims aren't all bad and we shouldn't single out their religion and a liberal saying we should adopt Sharia Law and let husbands beat their wives. They don't understand the difference!
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
They can't even distinguish between a liberal and someone who disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

Hah! That too. Or "socialist" and "funneling money into the hands of private insurance companies"
 
Wake said:
This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Liberals defending Islam even though under Islamic rule women are oppressed.

See what I mean??
Click to expand...

According to Sharia Law daughters are not intitled to as much inheritance as sons. I'm sure marriage/divorce also has it's financial drawbacks for women.
In America, they should obey our laws, criminal or civil.
 
Barbbtx said:
According to Sharia Law daughters are not intitled to as much inheritance as sons. I'm sure marriage/divorce also has it's financial drawbacks for women.
In America, they should obey our laws, criminal or civil.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "should?" It's not like they have a choice to obey our laws or not.
 
Barbbtx said:
According to Sharia Law daughters are not intitled to as much inheritance as sons. I'm sure marriage/divorce also has it's financial drawbacks for women.
In America, they should obey our laws, criminal or civil.
Click to expand...

I, for one, was not arguing that "Sharia law" should in any way supersede the law of the land.
 
Harshaw said:
It wouldn't ever have to if it's just arbitration. I already explained that.




I already pointed out the NJ rape case where apparently THAT judge didn't quite get it.
Click to expand...

And OK wants to make sure their judges DO get it.
 
Barbbtx said:
And OK wants to make sure their judges DO get it.
Click to expand...

So why did OK not apply the ban to other religious laws? The old testament has some pretty heinous stuff in it, why does OK accept that?

Oh, wait, I forgot. It's because it's not ok to target Jews or Christians. Those are the "good kind" of religious people!

edit: And we're, for now, still ignoring how the ballot measure is completely redundant. It's like passing a ballot measure that declares the governor is elected by popular vote.
 
Last edited:
We should also ratify an amendment reminding them to wear clothes under their robes, because heaven only knows what will happen if we don't!

Think of the children!
 
Wake said:
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?
Click to expand...

Very scary. I don't know why liberals think it couldn't happen here.
Are we stating out the same way the UK did? Giving in little by little to their demands in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance? Is that how the UK got where it is today?
 
The UK is a whole different nation with an entirely different system of government.

You can't compare the US to the UK.
 
Barbbtx said:
Very scary. I don't know why liberals think it couldn't happen here.
Are we stating out the same way the UK did? Giving in little by little to their demands in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance? Is that how the UK got where it is today?
Click to expand...

It can't happen here, anyone who thinks it can, has little faith in our Constitution and judicial system.
 
Laila said:
It doesn't matter what is legal under "Sharia law". In UK, If any decision clash with British law. UK law is obviously superior and over rules it.
Click to expand...

How long do you think British law will be superior?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom