In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 11 2015 08:20 KwarK wrote: [quote] Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber.
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
You've been getting your understanding of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal from Fox News. The 1996 Arbitration Act allows people to get arbitration. It's not binding. It's restricted to civil issues, usually nuisance neighbours and the like and it has nothing to do with law.
It's literally two people with a dispute go to a third person and ask what he thinks is fair. If they both agree it's fair then they do that. But suddenly when they're Muslims then it's a Sharia conspiracy. The entire notion is absurd. You're literally arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to solve their own non legal problems in case they let their Sharia beliefs influence what they do.
Intolerance to religion in general obviously is worse than intolerance towards a specific religion, right?
Apart from the obvious problem that i didn't say "islam is like christianity", i said "sins are defined universally". Not even punishment is that different if you look at the old testament ffs, but for your sake i stuck with "punishment differs" according to the new testament.
That still doesn't change the fact that the same things that are considered a sin in the quran are also considered a sin in the bible.
It also doesn't change the fact that the KKK, Army of God, Aryan republican army and the list goes on are the same thing to christianity, as ISIS is to islam.
The "Sharia law takes over Britain" crowd are describing what in a Christian church would be called a pastor ministering his flock. It's insanity. I think anyone who goes to an expert in invisible omni-fathers for advice on how to resolve the case of "my neighbour's dog keeps barking at night" is probably an idiot but I don't feel like that advice being given is the beginning of the end for European society.
On December 11 2015 08:42 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
You've been getting your understanding of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal from Fox News. The 1996 Arbitration Act allows people to get arbitration. It's not binding. It's restricted to civil issues, usually nuisance neighbours and the like and it has nothing to do with law.
It's literally two people with a dispute go to a third person and ask what he thinks is fair. If they both agree it's fair then they do that. But suddenly when they're Muslims then it's a Sharia conspiracy. The entire notion is absurd. You're literally arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to solve their own non legal problems in case they let their Sharia beliefs influence what they do.
I know exactly what the MAT is and how it works. I understand that it is completely voluntary (as arbitrations are by definition). Nonetheless, the mere fact that this system has been implemented in the UK demonstrates the relative difficulty of Muslim assimilation in secular society. The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law.
EDIT: And MAT decisions are binding. That's the whole point of arbitration.
It's really futile to argue about this. It's the same silly xenophobia everywhere. People in Dresden marching through the streets although literally 98% of German Muslims live in West Germany. If you ask them they'll pull the whole xDaunt strategy of "look I'm just concerned" etc.. and start relativizing what they said 5 minutes ago.
And yes parallel legal systems suck, but they're not widespread and exist largely because the minorities in question fear that the established legal system is going to treat them unfairly (which has a fair amount of truth to it) and so they don't consult it in the first place.
Also if you want to clean up cults I'd suggest you start with goddamn Scientology. I think it was two years ago when I followed the superbowl and they started playing a damn TV commercial for their crazy sect.
On December 11 2015 08:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
You've been getting your understanding of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal from Fox News. The 1996 Arbitration Act allows people to get arbitration. It's not binding. It's restricted to civil issues, usually nuisance neighbours and the like and it has nothing to do with law.
It's literally two people with a dispute go to a third person and ask what he thinks is fair. If they both agree it's fair then they do that. But suddenly when they're Muslims then it's a Sharia conspiracy. The entire notion is absurd. You're literally arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to solve their own non legal problems in case they let their Sharia beliefs influence what they do.
I know exactly what the MAT is and how it works. I understand that it is completely voluntary (as arbitrations are by definition). Nonetheless, the mere fact that this system has been implemented in the UK demonstrates the relative difficulty of Muslim assimilation in secular society. The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law.
The MAT operates under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act which states that: “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.[5] As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system. Under the Act they are deemed to be "arbitration tribunals".[4]
Anything else you want to misrepresent? The decisions are made in accordance to sharia law AS LONG AS THE BRITISH LAW ALLOWS FOR IT.
On December 11 2015 08:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
You've been getting your understanding of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal from Fox News. The 1996 Arbitration Act allows people to get arbitration. It's not binding. It's restricted to civil issues, usually nuisance neighbours and the like and it has nothing to do with law.
It's literally two people with a dispute go to a third person and ask what he thinks is fair. If they both agree it's fair then they do that. But suddenly when they're Muslims then it's a Sharia conspiracy. The entire notion is absurd. You're literally arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to solve their own non legal problems in case they let their Sharia beliefs influence what they do.
I know exactly what the MAT is and how it works. I understand that it is completely voluntary (as arbitrations are by definition). Nonetheless, the mere fact that this system has been implemented in the UK demonstrates the relative difficulty of Muslim assimilation in secular society. The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law.
Law, either British or Sharia, is not involved. It doesn't deal in law. It can make recommendations that are compatible with Islamic principles (as long as those recommendations are not incompatible with the law of the land, British law) but it's just an arbitration body. Also you'd have to provide evidence that it rules based on Sharia law. Also you'd have to define what you mean by that (because surely you're not suggesting the MAT cuts off the hands of thieves etc so when you say Sharia law do you mean "some of the things they say overlap with sections of Sharia while others don't"). Also in what way is this any different to a pregnant girl asking a priest for advice on her planned abortion and the priest saying "abortion is a sin"?
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
On December 11 2015 08:47 xDaunt wrote: [quote] No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
You've been getting your understanding of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal from Fox News. The 1996 Arbitration Act allows people to get arbitration. It's not binding. It's restricted to civil issues, usually nuisance neighbours and the like and it has nothing to do with law.
It's literally two people with a dispute go to a third person and ask what he thinks is fair. If they both agree it's fair then they do that. But suddenly when they're Muslims then it's a Sharia conspiracy. The entire notion is absurd. You're literally arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to solve their own non legal problems in case they let their Sharia beliefs influence what they do.
I know exactly what the MAT is and how it works. I understand that it is completely voluntary (as arbitrations are by definition). Nonetheless, the mere fact that this system has been implemented in the UK demonstrates the relative difficulty of Muslim assimilation in secular society. The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law.
The MAT operates under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act which states that: “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.[5] As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system. Under the Act they are deemed to be "arbitration tribunals".[4]
Anything else you want to misrepresent? The decisions are made in accordance to sharia law AS LONG AS THE BRITISH LAW ALLOWS FOR IT.
You may want to read up on what arbitration is and how it works. You'll be surprised at what the law allows arbiters to do.
On December 11 2015 08:47 xDaunt wrote: [quote] No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
You've been getting your understanding of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal from Fox News. The 1996 Arbitration Act allows people to get arbitration. It's not binding. It's restricted to civil issues, usually nuisance neighbours and the like and it has nothing to do with law.
It's literally two people with a dispute go to a third person and ask what he thinks is fair. If they both agree it's fair then they do that. But suddenly when they're Muslims then it's a Sharia conspiracy. The entire notion is absurd. You're literally arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to solve their own non legal problems in case they let their Sharia beliefs influence what they do.
I know exactly what the MAT is and how it works. I understand that it is completely voluntary (as arbitrations are by definition). Nonetheless, the mere fact that this system has been implemented in the UK demonstrates the relative difficulty of Muslim assimilation in secular society. The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law.
Law, either British or Sharia, is not involved. It doesn't deal in law. It can make recommendations that are compatible with Islamic principles (as long as those recommendations are not incompatible with the law of the land, British law) but it's just an arbitration body. Also you'd have to provide evidence that it rules based on Sharia law. Also you'd have to define what you mean by that (because surely you're not suggesting the MAT cuts off the hands of thieves etc so when you say Sharia law do you mean "some of the things they say overlap with sections of Sharia while others don't"). Also in what way is this any different to a pregnant girl asking a priest for advice on her planned abortion and the priest saying "abortion is a sin"?
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
I think you're conflating the MAT with the Sharia Councils.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Because it's not correct. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Two Muslims with a dispute that is not criminal go to Muslim number 3 (in xDaunt's paranoid Sharia law world they go to a radical cleric who supports only the strictest interpretation of Islamic law) and they ask him how to resolve their dispute rather than waste the time of the legal system.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Because it's not correct. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
You're right, I just checked and it turned out ISIS actually has taken over Britain. Whoops. I guess we shouldn't have let Muslims resolve the case of the barking dog. It was all a slippery slope.
You need to stop watching Fox News. Muslims are using arbitration within their community in the exact same way that every other community uses arbitration which is the way it was intended.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Two Muslims with a dispute that is not criminal go to Muslim number 3 (in xDaunt's paranoid Sharia law world they go to a radical cleric who supports only the strictest interpretation of Islamic law) and they ask him how to resolve their dispute rather than waste the time of the legal system.
Again, are you talking about the Sharia Councils or the MAT? If it's the MAT, you are missing the last step: British courts are required to enforce the decision as a binding arbitration.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Because it's not correct. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Neither do you though, by the looks.
The MAT can rule on certain things, which then can be enforced by normal courts if necessary.
But, and now the important part, the MAT can not rule anything not abiding british law. They also can not call for corporal punishment, for the same reason. They can also not divorce married couples, and they have zero jurisdiction over criminal cases.
So, while i agree Kwark runs a bit in the wrong direction now, you certainly are not right either.
Again, are you talking about the Sharia Councils or the MAT? If it's the MAT, you are missing the last step: British courts are required to enforce the decision as a binding arbitration.
Yeah. But these decisions are made in accordance to british law. That's the important part, and the one that you heavily misrepresented. They don't rule according to sharia full stop, they rule according to sharia in a legal framework that is UK law.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Two Muslims with a dispute that is not criminal go to Muslim number 3 (in xDaunt's paranoid Sharia law world they go to a radical cleric who supports only the strictest interpretation of Islamic law) and they ask him how to resolve their dispute rather than waste the time of the legal system.
Again, are you talking about the Sharia Councils or the MAT? If it's the MAT, you are missing the last step: British courts are required to enforce the decision as a binding arbitration.
Only if the participants explicitly agree that they wish it so. The participants get to agree whether or not they want to be bound. Furthermore any decision that was incompatible with British values could be appealed as such.
British courts are not, nor have ever been, used to enforce Islamic law. The same could not be said for Christian law.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Because it's not correct. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Neither do you though, by the looks.
The MAT can rule on certain things, which then can be enforced by normal courts if necessary.
But, and now the important part, the MAT can not rule anything not abiding british law. They also can not call for corporal punishment, for the same reason. They can also not divorce married couples, and they have zero jurisdiction over criminal cases.
So, while i agree Kwark runs a bit in the wrong direction now, you certainly are not right either.
Again, are you talking about the Sharia Councils or the MAT? If it's the MAT, you are missing the last step: British courts are required to enforce the decision as a binding arbitration.
Yeah. But these decisions are made in accordance to british law. That's the important part, and the one that you heavily misrepresented. They don't rule according to sharia full stop, they rule according to sharia in a legal framework that is UK law.
I have not said anything that is incorrect about that MAT, nor have I overstated its jurisdiction and authority. The bottom line is that MAT enforces Sharia law through the framework of arbitration within the UK legal system.
You keep bringing up this bullshit argument that the decisions have to made within the framework of UK law, but you clearly don't know what that means. To really understand what that means, you have to understand how much discretion is given to arbiters and their decisions. It is fucking hard to overturn an arbiter's decision. There are very limited grounds for doing so. Specifically, the arbiter's reasoning cannot itself be challenged. As long as the arbiter has jurisdiction of the dispute and as long as there's no serious procedural irregularity (ie bribery, etc), the decision is binding, and the UK courts are required to approve it (it works the same way in the US). Because the arbiter's reasoning cannot generally be challenged, the MAT arbiters are free base their decisions ON SHARIA LAW WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THOSE DECISIONS WILL BE ENFORCED BY UK COURTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE STRUCTURE OF UK ARBITRATION LAWS.
So what we have are Muslims using the arbitration system to create their own limited court system to handle disputes. Let me stress that there's nothing illegal about this. However, my point is that the fact they are doing this is evidence of the insular nature of their communities and the difficulty in assimilating them, all of which has a bearing on the issue of immigration.
My mental gymnastics prove that they are forcing their laws on.....themselves.....that they consent to....and can back out at any time. This proves they are insular because.......they willingly enter mediation by rules of their choosing.
Religious people ask for religious advice all the time. That's all this is.
Hm, was explained to me differently. And i don't think that's entirely right, it even says so on their webpage. That doesn't really change anything, but might as well be straight.
Because it's not correct. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Neither do you though, by the looks.
The MAT can rule on certain things, which then can be enforced by normal courts if necessary.
But, and now the important part, the MAT can not rule anything not abiding british law. They also can not call for corporal punishment, for the same reason. They can also not divorce married couples, and they have zero jurisdiction over criminal cases.
So, while i agree Kwark runs a bit in the wrong direction now, you certainly are not right either.
Again, are you talking about the Sharia Councils or the MAT? If it's the MAT, you are missing the last step: British courts are required to enforce the decision as a binding arbitration.
Yeah. But these decisions are made in accordance to british law. That's the important part, and the one that you heavily misrepresented. They don't rule according to sharia full stop, they rule according to sharia in a legal framework that is UK law.
I have not said anything that is incorrect about that MAT, nor have I overstated its jurisdiction and authority. The bottom line is that MAT enforces Sharia law through the framework of arbitration within the UK legal system.
You keep bringing up this bullshit argument that the decisions have to made within the framework of UK law, but you clearly don't know what that means. To really understand what that means, you have to understand how much discretion is given to arbiters and their decisions. It is fucking hard to overturn an arbiter's decision. There are very limited grounds for doing so. Specifically, the arbiter's reasoning cannot itself be challenged. As long as the arbiter has jurisdiction of the dispute and as long as there's no serious procedural irregularity (ie bribery, etc), the decision is binding, and the UK courts are required to approve it (it works the same way in the US). Because the arbiter's reasoning cannot generally be challenged, the MAT arbiters are free base their decisions ON SHARIA LAW WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THOSE DECISIONS WILL BE ENFORCED BY UK COURTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE STRUCTURE OF UK ARBITRATION LAWS.
So what we have are Muslims using the arbitration system to create their own limited court system to handle disputes. Let me stress that there's nothing illegal about this. However, my point is that the fact they are doing this is evidence of the insular nature of their communities and the difficulty in assimilating them, all of which has a bearing on the issue of immigration.
The decisions being made by the arbiters are being made in accordance with Sharia law -- not British law.
No, you clearly didn't overstate the jurisdiction/authority. Sharia Law calls for corporal punishment. Guess what isn't happening here? Apart from obvious fact that an arbitration needs both parties need to agree and sign a decision to make it enforcable by UK law. And in regards to discretion, a barrister/solicitor of wales/england has to be present at all times, and is integral part of the decision. And before you try to be funny about it: that barrister is declared by the UK, not by the MAT. (edit: that i might have misunderstood)
And it's actually not needed to overturn an arbiters decision, because his ruling will be in the framework of UK law. If you don't want to have sharia law enforced on you, i don't know, nobody is fucking forcing you to go there and sign the decision.
And of course they can base their decisions on religious laws, that's the whole point of it. If one party doesn't agree with that, nothing happens. You're not forced to go there. You DECIDE to fucking go there.
Hell, Lord Phillips actually agrees with the idea of MAT. That's the fucking Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.
EPT
