True, they already don't have those rights, so what is the problem?
Blacks And Politics
- Thread starter Alias
- Start date
True, they already don't have those rights, so what is the problem?
the yurt symbol? that is all you have?
Alias
Banned
They do not have the right to live under Sharia Law in the USA.
Alias
Banned
The problem is the movement to establish Sharia Law in the USA and the repression of free Americans to practice their religion. Example in Dearborn, Mi when Christians were outside of an Arab festival handing our leaflets and were removed by police at the request of muslims for handing out Christian tracts on a public sidewalk.
The problem is there have been cases in the USA where Sharia Law was used in court procedings. Many states are now enacting laws to prevent Sharia Law from being used in court cases.
That's the problem. They're a fucking pain in the ass.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Post credible (not Fox News) links to where Sharia law has been held over U.S. law, and as to the pamplets, prove that the sidewalk was actualy public and not private property.
You do realize that muslims are allowed to judge themselves with Sharia law, even here, but that Sharia law has no jurisdiction in the U.S., unless you agree to abide by it, right?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
it has, it was overturned by an appellate court. i've posted this before for you.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
odd...it doesn't say yurt. more retard of dune lies.
That symbol was invented for you. Most of the members here know that. You don't care who know you are a liar huh?
Alias
Banned
It's wrong to allow Sharia Law in the USA even if muslims agree to abide by it. We cannot abide two sets of laws, one special set of laws for a religion and one set of laws for everyone else. That violates the separation of church and state. That is more evidence that the left will appease Islam, which is my main point. You can't see that? Our laws that are passed by our lawmakers who are elected by the people are for EVERYONE regardless of their religion. Only a dumb fucking lefty isn't able to see that.
Here is the video from the sidewalk incident.
I didn't say "Have Yogurt verify this", I said post some links.
Who would believe you anyway.
Alias
Banned
So you can't make a post in reply to my post and video?
Why am I not surprised.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so retard of dune lies that i haven't given him links and then talks about others credibility....lmao
it was used in jersey and then overturned....here, i'll give you a lefty link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asma-uddin/caliphate-on-the-range_b_778207.html
sucks to be you
I did make a post in reply. You quoted it. Are you OK?
Let me say it another way, I could have made that video. It proves nothing at all. It doesn't show anyone getting arested,
We can't hear what the police are saying, we don't even know if that is really a muslim festival.
As to the police taking the camera, yes, police now routinely do that, it proves nothing. No, it is not legal for police to stop you from taping on a public street, but they do it and seem to get away with it.
As to evidence though, the vid was useless.
Try again.
First of all, show where I said that. I didn't.
Second, even if you did "give me links" you really expect me to remember every blessed thing you have ever said or done?
What a fucking narcissist you are. Unbelievable.
Alias
Banned
It's an "Arab festival" which is attended by Muslims in Dearborn, Mi. Do you want to see the video inside the festival with hateful muslims sptting and hitting christians? I have one to show you. You also didn't reply to my point about Sharia Law and the conflict of a separate set of laws for Muslims, which is unconstitutional. Do you care to comment on that or not?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Actually, crime has gone down significantly since the civil rights period.
From Yogurt's link;
This example is noteworthy not just because the decision was overturned because it got the law wrong, or that it is the only one of its kind, but because it is an atypical example of how shariah has made an appearance in American courtrooms. The typical cases are far from frightening. For example, arbitration under shariah law is permitted in the U.S., just like arbitration according to Christian principles or Jewish religious tradition is permitted, or according to any other set of rules two contracting parties may agree to. Indeed, prominent Christian groups like PromiseKeepers have long required Christian arbitration clauses in their contracts with vendors.
The crucial feature of any kind of arbitration is that an arbitrator, whether religious or not, has no ability to enforce the arbitral decision; only state or federal courts have that power. In deciding whether to enforce arbitral awards, civil courts first review whether the parties agreed to take part in the arbitration of their own free will. Courts also review the arbitral decision to ensure that arbitrators are neutral, and that the resulting arbitral decisions are neither grossly unfair nor undermine public policy. There are thus already an array of carefully crafted safeguards in place to protect individuals.
Thanks for proving my case Yogurt.
This example is noteworthy not just because the decision was overturned because it got the law wrong, or that it is the only one of its kind, but because it is an atypical example of how shariah has made an appearance in American courtrooms. The typical cases are far from frightening. For example, arbitration under shariah law is permitted in the U.S., just like arbitration according to Christian principles or Jewish religious tradition is permitted, or according to any other set of rules two contracting parties may agree to. Indeed, prominent Christian groups like PromiseKeepers have long required Christian arbitration clauses in their contracts with vendors.
The crucial feature of any kind of arbitration is that an arbitrator, whether religious or not, has no ability to enforce the arbitral decision; only state or federal courts have that power. In deciding whether to enforce arbitral awards, civil courts first review whether the parties agreed to take part in the arbitration of their own free will. Courts also review the arbitral decision to ensure that arbitrators are neutral, and that the resulting arbitral decisions are neither grossly unfair nor undermine public policy. There are thus already an array of carefully crafted safeguards in place to protect individuals.
Thanks for proving my case Yogurt.