Posted on 09/05/2011 9:56:23 AM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
What?! Below is an excerpt from the New York Times. No wonder they are losing readers. With thinking like this, we might as well hand the United States of America over to the Middle East. Letting Muslims and people of other cults practice voluntary ecclesiastical law within their communities is one thing. Muslims wants Shariah law to be the law of the land. State governments are getting smart and shoring up their laws to prevent the courts from forcing Sharia law on American citizens. The New York Times should implement Sharia law upon its employees before letting them write articles like this.
More than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”
Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”
This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.
Once all the hos working down at the NYT start wearing burqas and keeping their mouths shut and faces hidden, I’ll think about it.
That’s the thing; libs, gays, etc don’t even realize that they will be the first to fall victim to it. They hate God so much it blinds them to reality.
This just confirms that the nyt is an insane asylum. No rational thought in the whole place.
Well, if we just kill them and not put them in prison - we’d save a lot of money. There are no misdemeanors in their law.
You steal you lose your hand, anything else you die.
It is a crime deterrent and cost savings measure.
If people freely agree to sharia arbitration, that’s fine with me. Orthodox Jews have marriage courts and kosher slaughter supervision.
The thing we don’t need is more Muslims - more immigrants, more prison converts.
Your posting was a bit confusing at first because you didn’t differentiate your opening comments from the actual text that appeared in the paper. You may want to modify that so that it’s clear which is which.
Also, was this an editorial or a straight news article? And is the author listed?
You don’t understand,if sharia law is instituted by voluntary compliance, it will spread to places where it’s not accepted, and eventually everyone in America will be under it’s strict enforcement.
Satan controls so much today. The NYT is his paper.
It’s the same way with communism. The libs are all a bunch of communist wannabes as long as they can be communists in America and it doesn’t affect their elitist lifestyle.
I am not allowed to edit the title to an article. If you’re confused by the title then go to the link and complain to the website that posted it. I am not a member of the NYT so I can’t even see the complete article on their website. That’s why I posted the article that was posted at Godfather Politics.
Not if we don’t get more Muslims!
But since the federal government has an open door immigration policy, I understand states trying to do whatever they can. And it sends a Muslims not welcome message, thought I don’t know if that’s effective since they band together so much and live in a perpetually offended state anyway.
But it does seem to me that free association means you can freely choose your arbitration, rather than going to court. If you are a woman, you can choose arbitration where your word is half that of a man’s if you want. I suppose those who do tend to have their witnesses lined up.
I think America could and might embrace *parts* of Sharia Law.
Like beheading terrorist Muslims. Fine and dandy in Sharia Law, but totally a no-go under US law. Hanging is also cool in Sharia, without endless federal judges refusing to permit it because they personally don’t like it, or any other form of capital punishment, and they think they know better, so can legislate from the bench.
So, yep, we could have refilled Gitmo a few dozen times, held military trials, then promptly hung the terrorists we put in there, to make room for more.
And sea piracy? No problem. Even from the early days of our Republic, federal judges wanted the US Navy to spend six months to bring African pirates back to the US for trial. It would be so much easier if our ships’ Captains had the authority to hang pirates on their own ships, as the British used to do.
But, other than that, Sharia Law is pretty much barbaric ca-ca, used to justify the whims of tribal goombas in 4th world nations.
American democracy and assimilation is directly contrary to Shariah.
New York Times: America Should Embrace Sharia Law
.
In the name of “diversity” — the end to our sovereignty.
I hear there’s lots of cheap real estate in Mogadishu.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.