Reply With QuoteAll of them?Originally Posted by TheOrangeMan
Probably not if we didn't have a slew of advocacy groups begging the DOJ to make it happen. Sharia ending up in the supreme court one day is almost certain.
All of them?
Are you seriously asking me that question? How can you not know this, man? One does not need to look farther than England for examples of that.
And people have been begging for the government to make drugs illegal drugs legal...we see how well that's going.
We're not talking about England now are we sunshine? We're talking about American Muslims if you forgot.
Not much difference anymore.
Hit us with some examples of how Sharia is universal among English Muslims.
I don't think he meant that, just that British politicians pander to minorities/ non citizens and tell the rest of the population to suck on it.
Outside the Daily Fail that's not how it rolls.
Get real. The Muslim population in the US, is vastly different than that of UK.
A law is ultimately impose to you by the state, here US and Kansas state law. Sharia "law" would be at best a convention, an understanding between two willing parties. It's like the rules the Amish, Mormons, Ultra-Orthodox Jews and other communities voluntarily obey. Non of them can be used in court to justify braking a criminal (penal) law. All of them can be used to justify freedom of religion in relation to the state....unnecessary because American laws prevail on U.S. soil.
So the law passed in Kansas can range from being useless to infringing freedom of religion. An example of a law that can bring no good!
Even if not dissimilar, the problem is that the said communities in the UK have never swapped British Law with Sharia on Public Action. Never.
Furthermore you should check the study he put forward. It is exactly the same of crap the Daily Mail sells to actually pander to the populist, retrograde xenophobic strata of the British society. There is little Sharia in it.
Sweet Irony.
Which politicians? Why would a politician pander to people with few votes/do not vote at all?
The old saying with the National Electric Code is, "When you think you've found the answer your looking for keep looking, you'll find another". The code constantly needs revision because technology changes as do best practices, but no matter how well you write it someone is always looking for a way around it. Each new version constantly has to plug old loop holes but it always winds up seeming to saying essentially what it said before but with better clarity. So my point is some in the Muslim community were not up in arms with the old status but seem riled at the new status? Why? Could it be that spelling it out plugged some loopholes someone may have been eyeing? Kansas just clarified the law. As for 3rd party arbitration laws in Kansas, yes.
Oooo raaaacist.
Good,glad he's taking a stance against that throwback law.
Posting Permissions
