Muslim in America

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Re: church bells, that's your opinion. My opinion is that ringing church bells derive from custom and culture and government doesn't, and never had, any input about them. Note that's not the same as an "integrated part of our government."

with custom and culture...is it not true that muslims could integrate their own religion into our government system? it is a fact that christianity is integrated into our government and our judicial system. often by way of "custom and culture".....it is not fear mongering to state that if muslims become the majority in this country, they would elect to have reps who would change the laws. those reps would undoubtedly favor islamic or sharia law.

 

[christiefan915]

it is relevant....your statement indicated otherwise. like i said....link up to where they want BOTH american law and sharia law...you made the claim...the burden is on you.

Where did I say they want both American law and Shari'ah law? I said NOTHING about what anybody wants, you did. I said civil law still has to be obeyed no matter the religion of the couple.

It is so like you to put words in my mouth, just like your comment that I "ignored" the PBS link.

 

[Onceler]

Anyone see the story in the news yesterday w/ the guy who was next door to a mosque, and put a big sign out front that said "Bomb making: next driveway."?

He said he did it because of a dispute he was having w/ the town on the construction of the mosque, and then added that he didn't say "which driveway" or specify that it was about the mosque in the sign.

 

[christiefan915]

with custom and culture...is it not true that muslims could integrate their own religion into our government system? it is a fact that christianity is integrated into our government and our judicial system. often by way of "custom and culture".....it is not fear mongering to state that if muslims become the majority in this country, they would elect to have reps who would change the laws. those reps would undoubtedly favor islamic or sharia law.

If you want to make that integration argument, you'll have to show me hard evidence that ringing church bells was ever on any government agenda anywhere. The only time it comes up is after someone declares the sound a nuisance, not before.

Furthermore, you're making a lot of big leaps here. First, that Muslims could become a majority and second, if they did they'd want to impose strict religious laws on the rest of the country. A few years ago people on AOL and elsewhere were whining that Hispanics were going to take over the country and impose their culture on the rest. Now Muslims are the rant du jour. Before that it was Catholics. We couldn't have Catholics in high government positions because their first allegiance was to the Pope.

When are you people going to understand that this country shapes it's people just as much as the opposite?

 

[christiefan915]

Anyone see the story in the news yesterday w/ the guy who was next door to a mosque, and put a big sign out front that said "Bomb making: next driveway."?

He said he did it because of a dispute he was having w/ the town on the construction of the mosque, and then added that he didn't say "which driveway" or specify that it was about the mosque in the sign.

The Muslims should erect a sign saying "Bigotry is alive" with an arrow pointing to the guy's property, but I'm sure they have way more class than he does.

 

[zappasguitar]

http://divorce--divorce.com/Divorce/divorce-in-new-york-what-sharia-law-actually-means/

Here are the facts:

The article you posted is an opinion piece.

It is FILLED with so many grammatical errors that ascertaining any truths from the article is impossible.

Enjoy a sample:

"But even simple information about sharia — what is it? how is it used in American courts? — are hard to advance by(Hard to advance by??). So we motionless to speak (frozen in silent terror?) to Abed Awad, a New Jersey-based profession (bet this guy never knew he was a profession)and an consultant on sharia who continually handles cases that engage Islamic law. He is moreover a associate of the addition faculties at Rutgers Law School and Pace Law School. He not long ago answered my questions around e-mail.(how far around e-mail did he have to go?)"

Yeah...Yurt can cite all the "facts" he'd like from this one...it's a vertiable treasure trove of ignorance.

and in typical zappa fashion....he focuses on one thing and ignores everything else....like the CBS link, the case that used sharia law etc....why do you insist on doing that?

And in typical Yurt fashion, you make absolutely no sense...LOL

You see the link from your earlier post above? Show me where the "CBS link" is in that message.

I was ignoring NOTHING...just sticking to commenting on the link YOU provided...

There was only ONE LINK in the post I was commenting on and it was the terribly written, grammatically mangled op-ed piece you tried to claim was "factual."

...but then I shouldn't expect you to stick to facts when discussing anything with me.

 

[zappasguitar]

http://divorce--divorce.com/Divorce/divorce-in-new-york-what-sharia-law-actually-means/

Here are the facts:

The article you posted is an opinion piece.

It is FILLED with so many grammatical errors that ascertaining any truths from the article is impossible.

Enjoy a sample:

"But even simple information about sharia — what is it? how is it used in American courts? — are hard to advance by(Hard to advance by??). So we motionless to speak (frozen in silent terror?) to Abed Awad, a New Jersey-based profession (bet this guy never knew he was a profession)and an consultant on sharia who continually handles cases that engage Islamic law. He is moreover a associate of the addition faculties at Rutgers Law School and Pace Law School. He not long ago answered my questions around e-mail.(how far around e-mail did he have to go?)"

Yeah...Yurt can cite all the "facts" he'd like from this one...it's a vertiable treasure trove of ignorance.

and in typical zappa fashion....he focuses on one thing and ignores everything else....like the CBS link, the case that used sharia law etc....why do you insist on doing that?

Where did I say they want both American law and Shari'ah law? I said NOTHING about what anybody wants, you did. I said civil law still has to be obeyed no matter the religion of the couple.

It is so like you to put words in my mouth, just like your comment that I "ignored" the PBS link.

You'd think a guy with the power to read other people's minds would be able to catch stuff like that...but nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

He got up on his little soap box and shouted to everyone how in "typical zappa fashion" I had ignored some link he included somewhere...I then pointed out to him that the link in the post I was responding to was THE ONLY LINK he provided.

Does he own up and admit he's putting words in my mouth?

HELL NO...