Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 201
view profile
History
Church and StatePage 9 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

HAVE discussed Sharia and so forth with them, over one of our mutual dinners. They're against it. They LIKE the freedom from religious persecution here, which is why they LEFT the totalitarian theocratic regimes in their own countries


Then why are you so dense that you couldn't recognize they left it. So why the f* would they want ignorant idiots bringing it back. Talk about dense. Learn how to pay attention. I used Sharia as an example of why religion in politics is a problem and that I also prefer someone that takes it seriously and doesn't lose track of the bouncing ball because they think women's rights are about who pays for birth control. And also that liberals support sharia and is evident by the support given here that it's just arbitration. And completely ignored by people like you that claim to talk to someone that said they left their country due to the theocracy. What do you think Sharia is. It does't matter what form it takes. It is theocracy.

You are not very bright. Not once did I ever say the Ebil moolsims and slur them like you just did. I said Sharia. Nothing else. Not once. Just Sharia.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 202
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 8:40:28 AM
You don't seem to get it. They aren't worried about Sharia, because as they both put it, it's NOT a problem here, nor will it be. Moderate muslims have no truck with it, and the extremists won't even muster the political strength to push it through. THEY AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT SHARIA. It's literally a non issue in the muslim community.

The only people all het up over it are the right wing folks who swallow any nonsense put out by Fox and Youtube, and the muslims are wondering wtf is wrong with people trying to legislate out of existance something that doesn't exist. The Christian theocrast are far closer to causing a theocracy here than the muslims, who are literally order of magnitude lower on the political power scale, but your're worried about them? Ridiculous.

Liberals don't "Support" Sharia, and it's an asinine thing for you to assert. We don't support it, we don't worry about it, because it's about as likely as an alien invasion from Planet X. Lack of concern does not equal support, except in the fevered right wing imagination.

Instead of worrying about a religion thats NOT a problem, not likely to BECOME a problem in the forseeable future, why don't you worry about the religion that actually IS becoming a problem, and actually IS trying to push it's agenda down everyones throats?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 203
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 8:42:30 AM


Then why are you so dense that you couldn't recognize they left it. So why the f* would they want ignorant idiots bringing it back.

You and your fellow righties are the only ones who want to bring it in.

There is no movement to introduce Sharia law except on right wing websites and radio shows.

You keep trying to equate an arbitration process with Sharia law. It's not the same. Just like using Judaic principles in arbitration isn't the same as bringing in an ancient Judaic code.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 204
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:20:22 AM

You keep trying to equate an arbitration process with Sharia law. It's not the same. Just like using Judaic principles in arbitration isn't the same as bringing in an ancient Judaic code.


And what I liked that Canada did and why you know virtually nothing about it... Canada banned it and in doing so that reinforced the separation of church and state and other faiths gave up that link as well.

You want to bet most Americans would agree that the best course would be to say no to all of them now. That also strengthens the position against the birth control issues as well as any other concerns people here have of a theocracy.

It isn't rocket science. It is a valid position.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Rebecca_Bynum/Muslim_Organization_in_Nashville,_Tennessee%3A_An_Overview/

There seems to be not one instance I could find that Sharia is being called for in Tennessee. It is not here. I said that in other posts. I said we could see it occurring as a problem in Britain and that it matters. It does matter.

The title speaks for itself.
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/amen-averse-record-number-of-americans-want-less-religion-in-politics

You want to shut religion up for a while. Reinforce the separation of church and state. Denounce Sharia and make a deal that no sharia means they must go back to their churches also.

I guess that’s just me. It seems to me that people have just forgotten how to play politics. It isn't one side or the other right or wrong.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 205
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:42:55 AM
You're trying to ban something that doesn't exist except in the fevered minds of the right and Fox news viewers.

As they did in where was it, Oklahoma? No Sharia to be found, but they were all for outlawing it. Just in case it might rear it's head somewhere down the line.

You're posting nothing but red herrings. Sharia laws are NOT an issue here in America. An actual Christian theocracy, on the other hand is an actual risk and something thats being attempted. Using your logic and the fact you've avoided the subject like the plague, we can guess you're all for it?
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 206
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 9:56:01 AM


Where do you get this stuff? You understand nothing. Men are automatically granted a divorce. A woman has to make a case and convince about three male imams that she deserves a divorce.


in the United States of America (USA) ??? Really??? what state?? ? where? please, do tell! are we concerned about what may happen in Pakistan or Afghanistan? I thought the concern was about North America, primarily USA.

you REALLY think "sharia" law is going to replace our current laws? int our generation, or that of our children or grand-children?

are you safe from the boogie-man under you bed?? are you SURE?

LOL- youtube of some drunk 17 year old ranting about Islam link given above, if we took the rantings of every 16-17 year old on youtube 'seriously' -wow!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 207
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:00:24 AM
You can guess all you want. I have already stated clearly that I was not for it. I am also not for a weak president that can't accomplish anything and denies world affairs exist and blames the rich and causes class problems.

I have less fears of a theocracy occuring then of an attempted economic takeover of the private sector by knee jerk reactionary ill thoughtout legislation that no one read before voting for.

I have said before that I would prefer an athiest conservative that was libertarian on social issues. I just don't have much use for liberalisim.
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 208
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:29:13 AM
all religion is extremism
god sends his only son to be brutally ed, only to bring him back to life.....sounds like a bad indy horror, zombie god!
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 209
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 10:32:49 AM

in the United States of America (USA) ??? Really??? what state?? ? where? please, do tell! are we concerned about what may happen in Pakistan or Afghanistan? I thought the concern was about North America, primarily USA.

you REALLY think "sharia" law is going to replace our current laws? int our generation, or that of our children or grand-children?


Actually I was mainly pointing to Great Britain where sharia law and its obvious incompatibility with western law is very much a reality. But for you to live in Ontario and think that there is no chance of sharia law becoming reality anywhere in North America is kind of naive if not completely ignorant. Seven years ago Ontario had to ban all religious arbitration, jewish, catholic, and muslim specifically so that the growing popularity and support for sharia tribunals would legally never be allowed. So for you to say that it will never be a problem anywhere in North America just shows you don't even know what's going on in your own province. It has already been and is legislated against accordingly in some jurisdications...yours, ours, but not all others.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 210
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 11:22:10 AM

You're trying to ban something that doesn't exist except in the fevered minds of the right and Fox news viewers.


You mean it doesn't exist here. Open your eyes. It should never be allowed to exist here. At least you can say, "Canada didit"
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 211
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 11:42:55 AM
See how they play to the crowd all the while being duplicitous? It's all a shell game to the conservatives. "Hey!! Look over here!!! They are going to destroy our country with their shiriah law!"

Where more than half of either right or left, don't have any idea of what it is!! The conservative smoke and mirrors brigade has just led you down the path of an argument that has no basis in fact as far as AMERICA goes!

Neither do they answer legitimate questions. They simply blather over your thoughts to keep you focused on the unimportant. Do you want the bottom line?

"Whatever those state laws are, they only become laws by majority vote."

See it is unimportant to the right, that their candidates ran on other issues, and now 'bait and switch'ed the voters who put them in office!

"In all fifty states there are lots of personal freedoms the majority chooses to restrict to some degree"

Then why is it in all, or a majority of red states, that they have problems with women's rights to abortion, gay marriage, voter ID laws BUT no issues with lax gun laws, or racial profiling?

The answer comes from another poster, who led you astray the last 3 pages.

"I just don't have much use for liberalism."

You see, it wasn't shirah law, britain, canada, rights of women world wide...it was just the fact that it is liberalism that is at issue from the right. It's all a game to scare people into thinking they are correct.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 212
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 12:04:27 PM

You mean it doesn't exist here. Open your eyes. It should never be allowed to exist here. At least you can say, "Canada didit"


Pretty sure that chicken of yours is tired of you humping it.

The problem isn't with Sharia law, which DOES NOT EXIST in this country, but with CHRISTIAN theocracy, which I note again, you don't seem to have a problem with, which is making actual, disconcerting progress with, but all you keep doing is yelling, "Look over there! Muslims!"

We get it. You're ok with a Christian theocracy. Now, take your chicken some flowers.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 213
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 12:31:48 PM
We get it. Your ok with stoning women. Your ok with genocide. Your all good with that cuase it isn't here. Your all good with it. Lets jump on the liberalisim bandwagon and see the world as a place of love.

Got it. Don't you have a tree to hug?
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 214
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 12:44:55 PM
Hey blade.........

You went on a rant about how the muslims you live next to are so moderate, and loving and kind..................... and how the "christians' are low life scum of the earth.

I guess you've never heard of the word, or know the definition of "anecdotal"................... What you are doing is using your limited experience to draw heavy conclusions from. Making comments like that none of them tried to "be head" you, is of no value, because it is plain as day, and crystal clear that these are not the type of muslims in the current discussion; unless you think that ALL muslims are like your neighbors. IF all muslims were like your neighbors, we would not be having this conversation.

Thanks for the cookie........ got any beer to go with it?

Paul K
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 215
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:04:25 PM

Then why is it in all, or a majority of red states, that they have problems with women's rights to abortion, gay marriage, voter ID laws BUT no issues with lax gun laws, or racial profiling?


As long as it doesn't violate something in the Constitution, or any federal law or treaty, the majority in each state is free to regulate things as it sees fit. States are sovereigns that have an inherent general power to make laws and policies. Nothing says each of them has to regulate every action in just the same way.

As to the four things you mentioned, there is no absolute constitutional guarantee of abortion. States are free to allow it under all circumstances, or to discourage it in various ways or even prohibit it in some cases. According to the Supreme Court, the woman's right to abortion is balanced against the state's right to protect the life of the fetus.

States are free to make same-sex marriage legal, or not. Article IV of the Constitution requires each state to give "full Faith and Credit" to the "public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State," but it gives Congress power to say by law how those things are to be proved, and what effect they will have. Congress did that in the Defense of Marriage Act, and many states have passed laws which allow them not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Supreme Court has held there is no constitutional right to commit homosexual sodomy.

Voting is a fundamental constitutional right, but not an absolute one. States are free to impose reasonable voting requirements--age and residency are two obvious grounds for restricting the right to vote.

The Court applied the Second Amendment to the states for the first time in our history in McDonald in 2010. It's clear no state can absolutely prohibit anyone from owning or possessing a gun. It's not clear just how much more states have to allow. Obviously they can require training courses for concealed carry, prohibit gun shows and ammunition sales in certain counties, deny guns to mental patients and felons and children, etc.

I don't know what "racial profiling" is, except jargon. Police can take race into account--if the men running out of the bank shooting were black, they can make that fact public along with any other information that might lead to their arrest. If five women who were raped in a town describe the rapist as a tall, skinny white man, police do not have to include short, fat blacks in the men they question, just to be fair. If it can be proven that racial animosity was the *only* reason for stopping and arresting a person, then there is a constitutional issue. The Constitution provides very little protection against race discrimination by private persons, as opposed to government.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 216
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:16:44 PM
Again with the strawman.

Did I SAY I was ok with stoning? Have I taken this conversation anywhere but in THIS country? NO. So spare me your silliness.

We are discussing church and state here in this country. Sharia is no theocratic threat in THIS country. Chrisitianity however, IS a theocratic threat. What extremists do to each other overseas doesn't concern me anymore, Uncle Sam can't send me a-visiting anymore.

My "Limited" experience, Paul K? You mean a year living in Kuwait and dealing with Kuwaiti and Iraqi muslims in addition to the people that live near me who I interact with every day isn't enough? OK, how about the year spent in Bosnia with those varying groups of muslims?

As opposed to.....your experience with actual living breathing muslims? How many years of close quarters, living cheek to jowl with the locals experience do you have, Paul? Hmm? Hours of Fox news and Rush Limbaugh blathering perhaps?
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 217
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:36:52 PM
Hey blade..........

In all of your very extensive living "cheek to jowl" with muslims, where they like your neighbors, or otherwise?

While I have never lived "cheek to jowl" with muslims, my experience with muslims is quite extensive. Not nearly as much as yours, but enough to come to the conclusions that I have.

As far as christianity being a threat, like I said before, let me know when a group of theocrats changes the US Constitution so they can really make a difference.

Paul K
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 218
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:13:20 PM

Canada banned it and in doing so that reinforced the separation of church and state and other faiths gave up that link as well.

Well, talk about "knowing virtually nothing about it"... First of all, there is NO doctrine of "separation of church and state" in Canada or its constitution, the concept simply doesn't exist in the way you frame it... Canada practices the doctrine of "benign neutrality" which means: Gov't CAN include and entertain religious considerations BUT it must do so equaly for ALL religion... Sharia was NOT banned, ALL religious arbitration was disallowed (hint: the other faiths did not "give up that link", they simply had no choice under the doctrine of benign neutrality. If they were allowed, Islam was allowed, if any one was not allowed then none could be allowed. It is not an issue where one can consider the others magnanimous in "giving it up", where a deal can be made)...

Reinforce the separation of church and state.

Kind of hard to do when the right-wing Republican a$$wipes are passing (or trying to pass) "god-centered" law left, right and center across the nation... And you worry about the rantings of "youtube warriors" while excusing the Republican efforts to do everything they can to promote "Christian law"...

Denounce Sharia and make a deal that no sharia means they must go back to their churches also.

LOL... Good luck with that notion in the US, the right-wingnuts will NEVER make that deal... They will continue to insist that "America is a Christian country" and "Islam is evil"... The deal you wish for will NEVER happen in the US, the Christian right would never agree to it...
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 219
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:15:34 PM

As far as christianity being a threat, like I said before, let me know when a group of theocrats changes the US Constitution so they can really make a difference.

I can only assume you where asleep during the prop 8 issue in California then.

As you would have to been not to know how the church influenced the outcome, with those tax free donations.
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 220
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:20:48 PM
Hey Aris..........

So Prop. 8 changed the US Constitution?

Tell me how it accomplished that.....................

By the way, did Prop. 8 permanently change the US Constitution, or just for a little while?

And seeing how you mentioned the "tax free donations", I can only assume that you meant that those donations were illegal, right?

Paul K
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 221
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:28:00 PM
Um, Prohibition was brought in with a Constitutional change. That was a change that came out of a faith based movement.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 222
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:38:10 PM

So Prop. 8 changed the US Constitution?

Tell me how it accomplished that.....................

Easy, as decided by the courts it was unconstitutional, ergo it was an attempt to change the constitution.




By the way, did Prop. 8 permanently change the US Constitution, or just for a little while?

Nope, it was over turned, but only after a very expensive court battle, so you can thank the church for wasting your tax payer dollars.




And seeing how you mentioned the "tax free donations", I can only assume that you meant that those donations were illegal, right?

The donations where not illegal, but how there where used was.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 223
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:16:04 PM
Um, Prohibition was brought in with a Constitutional change. That was a change that came out of a faith based movement.


It is true that many people advocated prohibition because they considered drinking immoral, but it is not relevant to the issue of mixing church and state. The Eighteenth Amendment had no effect whatever on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The movement to end slavery was strongly associated with churches too, but that doesn't mean the Thirteenth Amendment impermissibly mingled church with state by banning it.


Easy, as decided by the courts it was unconstitutional, ergo it was an attempt to change the constitution.


Not so. Proposition 8 was an attempt to modify *California's* constitution. The California Supreme Court invalidated it for reasons involving the state constitution, not for violating anything in the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Vaughan Walker, the federal judge who upheld the ruling, apparently based (or biased?) his decision on his personal dislike for Prop. 8 as a homosexual. If he had any legal reasons, he hid them so carefully in his opinion that most people haven't been able to find them.


The donations where not illegal, but how there where used was.


The he!! you say. Please identify the law and explain how using them that way violated it. I doubt you can.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 224
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 4:34:51 PM

The he!! you say. Please identify the law and explain how using them that way violated it. I doubt you can.

Challenge accepted.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+mormon+church+%2B+proposition+8+%2B+illegal+funds
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 225
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 6:09:29 PM
The 2 issues of slavery and prohibition fit nicely with the current situation, with trying to regulate morality.

Prohibition was a call to regulate the morality of those who drank. Funny during prohibtion, not unlike our current situation, alot depended on your station in the current society. The rich never had a problem getting what they wanted, in terms of alcohol. They either stockpiled it before it started, or later got it from a "friend". The poor wound up with bath tub gin or grain alcohol, and wound up sick or dead.

Slavery, while embraced by the church, also was an abomination of humanity. Again, I guess it was good christian folk down south, who could point to their bibles and find passages that allowed them to sleep at night. Not unlike the conservatives of today, with their abortion/gay stances.

What is interesting is why the USA, was one of the last, "civilized" nations of the world to ban slavery. Also the rest of the world looked at us rather oddly and laughingly for prohibition. Not unlike they are doing today with the conservatives stance o healthcare.

For a nation so attuned to progress, new ideas and embracing new technologies, we seem to grasp the basic ideas of human care, so poorly. No, we would rather develop new bombs and missiles to kill men than work on things to save and cure them.

This thread is a great read for those who wish to understand just how backward the concept of conservative governence is truly is.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State