Friday, June 15, 2012
Fwd: Sign the Petition
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffery Small
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012
Subject: Sign the Petition
To: list2@go-galt.org
I have just added a new article to the blog entitled "Sign the Petition".
This is in support of a petition created by Peter Schiff, which will be
entered into the Congressional Record after July 4th. Read my article
and then please consider adding your support to Schiff's efforts.
Here is a direct link to the new article:
http://smallthoughts.com/blog/permalink/0178.html
Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small
jeff@go-galt.org
Small Thoughts Blog: http://smallthoughts.com/blog/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah? CIRCULATE!
of course it does
rabbinical court decisions are honored by state courts in the US.
the same should apply to muslim courts.
again I say ... sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal
system should be
ignored by American courts. One law for all people.
On Jun 15, 12:43 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It has to do with law,
> and when an agreement has been made, whether that agreement was made in
> New Jersey, New Delhi, or New Symrna Beach, the law where the contract or
> agreement was made, usually governs the accord.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United
> > States
> > courts cannot take place.
> > ----
> > sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal system should be
> > ignored by American courts.
> > you either live by American law or you leave our country
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United States
> > > courts cannot take place. A good example is that Plain Ol just cited.
> > If
> > > there has been a contract or agreement that was entered into which was
> > > governed under Sharia law, then any court within the United States should
> > > interpret that agreement under the strictures of when and where the
> > > agreement was entered into.
>
> > > Where I do believe that there should be law enacted, is where Sharia is
> > > creeping up as :"The Law Of The Land" because one is Muslim. Horse
> > > Hockey. If you are a Muslim, (and again, I think the whole concept of
> > > Sharia and Islam should be outlawed in the United States until such time
> > as
> > > it reforms and can be adaptable and tolerant of Western culture) then
> > > United States law, or State law, municipal code, etc. should be
> > applicable,
> > > and not Sharia. This is not the case in certain municipalities, who
> > have
> > > allowed for Sharia to over-ride American, State or local law. We have
> > even
> > > seen courts set up in Great Britain which are Sharia courts. This is
> > also
> > > being advocated by CAIR and other far left, Anti-American hate groups.
>
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > > > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > > > merchants
> > > > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > > > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
> > > > ----
> > > > tit for tat
>
> > > > American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
> > > > they
> > > > are to argue persuasively for their own.
> > > > ---
> > > > watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun
>
> > > > the anti-sharia movement's
> > > > implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
> > > > fuels
> > > > hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
> > > > and
> > > > distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
> > > > and
> > > > our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
> > > > ---
> > > > the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy
>
> > > > Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
> > > > opposed
> > > > by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
> > > > public
> > > > square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
> > > > the
> > > > law, whether they are religious or irreligious
> > > > ---
> > > > the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> > > > > Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> > > > > CIRCULATE!
> > > > > To:
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Look at the disturbing articles below. Two conservative
> > publications - *
> > > > > Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America
> > from
> > > > > Shariah!****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to
> > shariah
> > > > to
> > > > > *religious intolerance*. He states that no one has been able to
> > find a
> > > > > case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court. However, we
> > know
> > > > > from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> > > > > performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50
> > examples
> > > > in
> > > > > 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional
> > law.
> > > > > Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases.
> > ****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that
> > *the
> > > > > anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating
> > loyal
> > > > > Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty. He
> > refers to
> > > > > those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American
> > courts
> > > > > as "anti-Muslim bigots." ****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > *An important note*: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4
> > > > million
> > > > > to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform. ****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> > > > > persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country
> > > > Reports
> > > > > on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> > > > > Cooperation).****
>
> > > > > - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> > > > > presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> > > > > Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> > > > > - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> > > > > diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in
> > Qatar for
> > > > > the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle
> > East
> > > > > Policy of the Brookings Institution). ****
>
> > > > > - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of
> > closed-door
> > > > > meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR.
> > ****
>
> > > > > - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech
> > > > passed
> > > > > by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to
> > > > criticize
> > > > > Islam. (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Janet Levy,****
>
> > > > > Los Angeles****
>
> > > > > ** **
> > > > > The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago
> > Tribune
> > > > > and Reason)****
>
> > > > > **· ***[image: Steve
> > > > > Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> > > > > ****
>
> > > > > ****
>
> > > > > **· **Steve Chapman <
> > > >http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > **· **June 10, 2012****
>
> > > > > In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> > > > > country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> > > > > hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a
> > majority
> > > > of
> > > > > the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken
> > to be
> > > > as
> > > > > American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> > > > > We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The
> > belief
> > > > that
> > > > > Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the
> > fear
> > > > > that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> > > > > That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts
> > > > from
> > > > > applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee,
> > Louisiana
> > > > and
> > > > > Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> > > > > unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> > > > > In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> > > > > prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or
> > other
> > > > > legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said
> > the
> > > > > bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> > > > > because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah
> > > > law."****
>
> > > > > Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being
> > stoned
> > > > to
> > > > > death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no.
> > It
> > > > > seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American
> > soil no
> > > > > matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> > > > > The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to
> > make
> > > > > sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other
> > laws
> > > > and
> > > > > the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still
> > the law
> > > > > of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be
> > true
> > > > > regardless.****
>
> > > > > The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on
> > indoor
> > > > > co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case
> > > > where
> > > > > a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a
> > > > verdict.*
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries
> > to
> > > > > divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> > > > > Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> > > > > govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > dictates of Islam.****
>
> > > > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
rabbinical court decisions are honored by state courts in the US.
the same should apply to muslim courts.
again I say ... sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal
system should be
ignored by American courts. One law for all people.
On Jun 15, 12:43 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It has to do with law,
> and when an agreement has been made, whether that agreement was made in
> New Jersey, New Delhi, or New Symrna Beach, the law where the contract or
> agreement was made, usually governs the accord.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United
> > States
> > courts cannot take place.
> > ----
> > sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal system should be
> > ignored by American courts.
> > you either live by American law or you leave our country
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United States
> > > courts cannot take place. A good example is that Plain Ol just cited.
> > If
> > > there has been a contract or agreement that was entered into which was
> > > governed under Sharia law, then any court within the United States should
> > > interpret that agreement under the strictures of when and where the
> > > agreement was entered into.
>
> > > Where I do believe that there should be law enacted, is where Sharia is
> > > creeping up as :"The Law Of The Land" because one is Muslim. Horse
> > > Hockey. If you are a Muslim, (and again, I think the whole concept of
> > > Sharia and Islam should be outlawed in the United States until such time
> > as
> > > it reforms and can be adaptable and tolerant of Western culture) then
> > > United States law, or State law, municipal code, etc. should be
> > applicable,
> > > and not Sharia. This is not the case in certain municipalities, who
> > have
> > > allowed for Sharia to over-ride American, State or local law. We have
> > even
> > > seen courts set up in Great Britain which are Sharia courts. This is
> > also
> > > being advocated by CAIR and other far left, Anti-American hate groups.
>
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > > > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > > > merchants
> > > > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > > > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
> > > > ----
> > > > tit for tat
>
> > > > American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
> > > > they
> > > > are to argue persuasively for their own.
> > > > ---
> > > > watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun
>
> > > > the anti-sharia movement's
> > > > implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
> > > > fuels
> > > > hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
> > > > and
> > > > distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
> > > > and
> > > > our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
> > > > ---
> > > > the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy
>
> > > > Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
> > > > opposed
> > > > by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
> > > > public
> > > > square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
> > > > the
> > > > law, whether they are religious or irreligious
> > > > ---
> > > > the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> > > > > Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> > > > > CIRCULATE!
> > > > > To:
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Look at the disturbing articles below. Two conservative
> > publications - *
> > > > > Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America
> > from
> > > > > Shariah!****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to
> > shariah
> > > > to
> > > > > *religious intolerance*. He states that no one has been able to
> > find a
> > > > > case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court. However, we
> > know
> > > > > from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> > > > > performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50
> > examples
> > > > in
> > > > > 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional
> > law.
> > > > > Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases.
> > ****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that
> > *the
> > > > > anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating
> > loyal
> > > > > Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty. He
> > refers to
> > > > > those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American
> > courts
> > > > > as "anti-Muslim bigots." ****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > *An important note*: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4
> > > > million
> > > > > to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform. ****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> > > > > persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country
> > > > Reports
> > > > > on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> > > > > Cooperation).****
>
> > > > > - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> > > > > presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> > > > > Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> > > > > - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> > > > > diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in
> > Qatar for
> > > > > the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle
> > East
> > > > > Policy of the Brookings Institution). ****
>
> > > > > - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of
> > closed-door
> > > > > meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR.
> > ****
>
> > > > > - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech
> > > > passed
> > > > > by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to
> > > > criticize
> > > > > Islam. (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> > > > > ** **
>
> > > > > Janet Levy,****
>
> > > > > Los Angeles****
>
> > > > > ** **
> > > > > The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago
> > Tribune
> > > > > and Reason)****
>
> > > > > **· ***[image: Steve
> > > > > Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> > > > > ****
>
> > > > > ****
>
> > > > > **· **Steve Chapman <
> > > >http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > **· **June 10, 2012****
>
> > > > > In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> > > > > country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> > > > > hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a
> > majority
> > > > of
> > > > > the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken
> > to be
> > > > as
> > > > > American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> > > > > We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The
> > belief
> > > > that
> > > > > Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the
> > fear
> > > > > that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> > > > > That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts
> > > > from
> > > > > applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee,
> > Louisiana
> > > > and
> > > > > Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> > > > > unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> > > > > In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> > > > > prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or
> > other
> > > > > legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said
> > the
> > > > > bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> > > > > because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah
> > > > law."****
>
> > > > > Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being
> > stoned
> > > > to
> > > > > death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no.
> > It
> > > > > seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American
> > soil no
> > > > > matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> > > > > The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to
> > make
> > > > > sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other
> > laws
> > > > and
> > > > > the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still
> > the law
> > > > > of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be
> > true
> > > > > regardless.****
>
> > > > > The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on
> > indoor
> > > > > co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case
> > > > where
> > > > > a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a
> > > > verdict.*
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries
> > to
> > > > > divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> > > > > Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> > > > > govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > dictates of Islam.****
>
> > > > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Philosophy in Action Wednesday Radio: Morality without God
you're the first person I've known that took exception to the
abbreviation.
no offense meant
On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't tell you what folks do In Xian. I have never been to China.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 10. A loss of interest in judging others doesn't sound like xianity
>
> > On Jun 14, 5:57 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sounds like a dose of Christianity.
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:48 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > 12 Symptoms of a Spiritual Awakening - no god required
>
> > > > 1. An increased tendency to let things happen rather than make them
> > > > happen.
>
> > > > 2. Frequent attacks of smiling.
>
> > > > 3. Feelings of being connected with others and nature.
>
> > > > 4. Frequent overwhelming episodes of appreciation.
>
> > > > 5. A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than from fears
> > > > based on past experience.
>
> > > > 6. An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment.
>
> > > > 7. A loss of ability to worry.
>
> > > > 8. A loss of interest in conflict.
>
> > > > 9. A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others.
>
> > > > 10. A loss of interest in judging others.
>
> > > > 11. A loss of interest in judging self.
>
> > > > 12. Gaining the ability to love without expecting anything in return.
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 10:03 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > **
>
> > > > > Morality without God
> > > > > Philosophy in Action Wednesday Radio
>
> > > > > In Wednesday evening's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Advice
> > > > > Radio<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>,
> > > > > I'll discuss "Morality without God" with live callers.
>
> > > > > *Is objective morality possible or necessary without God? Can and
> > should
> > > > > morality be based on observable facts? Join me for an engaging
> > half-hour
> > > > > call-in show on the secular basis of morality!*
>
> > > > > - What: Philosophy in Action Advice Radio
> > > > > - Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh with live callers
> > > > > - When: Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT /
> > 9 pm
> > > > ET
> > > > > - Where:www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=909076a0..
> > .>
>
> > > > > If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask
> > > > > questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the
> > live
> > > > > broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as
> > well
> > > > as
> > > > > individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Advice
> > Radio:
> > > > > 13 June 2012<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=909076a0..
> > .>.
> > > > > From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or
> > after
> > > > the
> > > > > broadcast.
>
> > > > > I hope to see you in the chat – or better yet, talk to you – on
> > Wednesday
> > > > > evening!
>
> > > > > — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy)
> > > > > Philosophy In
> > > > > Action<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > (Image via Flicker<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
> > > > > .)
>
> > > > > June 2012
> > > > > 13
>
> > > > > LiSTEN LIVE<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > FOLLOW US
> > > > > ON *TWITTER*<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > LIKE US ON
> > > > > FACEBOOK<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > FORWARD
> > > > > MESSAGE<
> > > >http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=909076a0a73ec7e1ba1b51e47&..
> > .>
>
> > > > > Copyright © 2012 Philosophy in Action All rights reserved.
>
> > > > > You are receiving this e-mail because you signed up for announcements
> > > > about
> > > > > Philosophy in Action.
> > > > > Unsubscribe<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
> > > > > • Update subscription
> > > > > preferences<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=909076a0a73e..
> > .>
>
> > > > > Philosophy in Action P.O. Box 851 Sedalia, Colorado 80135
>
> > > > > [image: Email Marketing Powered by
> > > > > MailChimp]<
> > > >http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?aid=909076a0a73ec7e1ba1b51e4..
> > .>
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
abbreviation.
no offense meant
On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't tell you what folks do In Xian. I have never been to China.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 10. A loss of interest in judging others doesn't sound like xianity
>
> > On Jun 14, 5:57 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sounds like a dose of Christianity.
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:48 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > 12 Symptoms of a Spiritual Awakening - no god required
>
> > > > 1. An increased tendency to let things happen rather than make them
> > > > happen.
>
> > > > 2. Frequent attacks of smiling.
>
> > > > 3. Feelings of being connected with others and nature.
>
> > > > 4. Frequent overwhelming episodes of appreciation.
>
> > > > 5. A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than from fears
> > > > based on past experience.
>
> > > > 6. An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment.
>
> > > > 7. A loss of ability to worry.
>
> > > > 8. A loss of interest in conflict.
>
> > > > 9. A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others.
>
> > > > 10. A loss of interest in judging others.
>
> > > > 11. A loss of interest in judging self.
>
> > > > 12. Gaining the ability to love without expecting anything in return.
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 10:03 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > **
>
> > > > > Morality without God
> > > > > Philosophy in Action Wednesday Radio
>
> > > > > In Wednesday evening's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Advice
> > > > > Radio<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>,
> > > > > I'll discuss "Morality without God" with live callers.
>
> > > > > *Is objective morality possible or necessary without God? Can and
> > should
> > > > > morality be based on observable facts? Join me for an engaging
> > half-hour
> > > > > call-in show on the secular basis of morality!*
>
> > > > > - What: Philosophy in Action Advice Radio
> > > > > - Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh with live callers
> > > > > - When: Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT /
> > 9 pm
> > > > ET
> > > > > - Where:www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=909076a0..
> > .>
>
> > > > > If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask
> > > > > questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the
> > live
> > > > > broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as
> > well
> > > > as
> > > > > individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Advice
> > Radio:
> > > > > 13 June 2012<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=909076a0..
> > .>.
> > > > > From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or
> > after
> > > > the
> > > > > broadcast.
>
> > > > > I hope to see you in the chat – or better yet, talk to you – on
> > Wednesday
> > > > > evening!
>
> > > > > — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy)
> > > > > Philosophy In
> > > > > Action<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > (Image via Flicker<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
> > > > > .)
>
> > > > > June 2012
> > > > > 13
>
> > > > > LiSTEN LIVE<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > FOLLOW US
> > > > > ON *TWITTER*<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > LIKE US ON
> > > > > FACEBOOK<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
>
> > > > > FORWARD
> > > > > MESSAGE<
> > > >http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=909076a0a73ec7e1ba1b51e47&..
> > .>
>
> > > > > Copyright © 2012 Philosophy in Action All rights reserved.
>
> > > > > You are receiving this e-mail because you signed up for announcements
> > > > about
> > > > > Philosophy in Action.
> > > > > Unsubscribe<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=909076a0a..
> > .>
> > > > > • Update subscription
> > > > > preferences<
> > > >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=909076a0a73e..
> > .>
>
> > > > > Philosophy in Action P.O. Box 851 Sedalia, Colorado 80135
>
> > > > > [image: Email Marketing Powered by
> > > > > MailChimp]<
> > > >http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?aid=909076a0a73ec7e1ba1b51e4..
> > .>
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Fwd: Try this quiz!
ouch!
On Jun 15, 12:49 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RP's positions are pretty much the Republican Party line. With little
> exception....The only exception, is when Dr. Paul is cowtowing to the
> crackpot faction.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .Another "Go Figure".....
> > ---
> > it's understandable ... RP's positions are in the best interest of
> > America
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:46 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I actually sided with Ron Paul 98 percent, and Mitt Romney on 94
> > > percent......Another "Go Figure".....
>
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.isidewith.com/results/9839944
>
> > > > here's to sanity!
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 7:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Try this short quiz to see which 2012 presidential candidate you side
> > > > > with...
>
> > > > >http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
>
> > > > > Here are my results...http://www.isidewith.com/results/9838023
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Jun 15, 12:49 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RP's positions are pretty much the Republican Party line. With little
> exception....The only exception, is when Dr. Paul is cowtowing to the
> crackpot faction.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .Another "Go Figure".....
> > ---
> > it's understandable ... RP's positions are in the best interest of
> > America
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:46 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I actually sided with Ron Paul 98 percent, and Mitt Romney on 94
> > > percent......Another "Go Figure".....
>
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.isidewith.com/results/9839944
>
> > > > here's to sanity!
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 7:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Try this short quiz to see which 2012 presidential candidate you side
> > > > > with...
>
> > > > >http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
>
> > > > > Here are my results...http://www.isidewith.com/results/9838023
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Fwd: Try this quiz!
RP's positions are pretty much the Republican Party line. With little exception....The only exception, is when Dr. Paul is cowtowing to the crackpot faction.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
.Another "Go Figure".....
---
it's understandable ... RP's positions are in the best interest of
America
On Jun 15, 9:46 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually sided with Ron Paul 98 percent, and Mitt Romney on 94
> percent......Another "Go Figure".....
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.isidewith.com/results/9839944
>
> > here's to sanity!
>
> > On Jun 15, 7:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Try this short quiz to see which 2012 presidential candidate you side
> > > with...
>
> > >http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
>
> > > Here are my results...http://www.isidewith.com/results/9838023
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Philosophy in Action Wednesday Radio: Morality without God
I couldn't tell you what folks do In Xian. I have never been to China.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
10. A loss of interest in judging others doesn't sound like xianity
On Jun 14, 5:57 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a dose of Christianity.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:48 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 12 Symptoms of a Spiritual Awakening - no god required
>
> > 1. An increased tendency to let things happen rather than make them
> > happen.
>
> > 2. Frequent attacks of smiling.
>
> > 3. Feelings of being connected with others and nature.
>
> > 4. Frequent overwhelming episodes of appreciation.
>
> > 5. A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than from fears
> > based on past experience.
>
> > 6. An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment.
>
> > 7. A loss of ability to worry.
>
> > 8. A loss of interest in conflict.
>
> > 9. A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others.
>
> > 10. A loss of interest in judging others.
>
> > 11. A loss of interest in judging self.
>
> > 12. Gaining the ability to love without expecting anything in return.
>
> > On Jun 14, 10:03 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ----------
> > > **
>
> > > Morality without God
> > > Philosophy in Action Wednesday Radio
>
> > > In Wednesday evening's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Advice
> > > Radio<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a...>,
> > > I'll discuss "Morality without God" with live callers.
>
> > > *Is objective morality possible or necessary without God? Can and should
> > > morality be based on observable facts? Join me for an engaging half-hour
> > > call-in show on the secular basis of morality!*
>
> > > - What: Philosophy in Action Advice Radio
> > > - Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh with live callers
> > > - When: Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm
> > ET
> > > - Where:www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=909076a0...>
>
> > > If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask
> > > questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the live
> > > broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well
> > as
> > > individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Advice Radio:
> > > 13 June 2012<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=909076a0...>.
> > > From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after
> > the
> > > broadcast.
>
> > > I hope to see you in the chat – or better yet, talk to you – on Wednesday
> > > evening!
>
> > > — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy)
> > > Philosophy In
> > > Action<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a...>
>
> > > (Image via Flicker<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a...>
> > > .)
>
> > > June 2012
> > > 13
>
> > > LiSTEN LIVE<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a...>
>
> > > FOLLOW US
> > > ON *TWITTER*<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a...>
>
> > > LIKE US ON
> > > FACEBOOK<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=909076a0a...>
>
> > > FORWARD
> > > MESSAGE<
> >http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=909076a0a73ec7e1ba1b51e47&...>
>
> > > Copyright © 2012 Philosophy in Action All rights reserved.
>
> > > You are receiving this e-mail because you signed up for announcements
> > about
> > > Philosophy in Action.
> > > Unsubscribe<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=909076a0a...>
> > > • Update subscription
> > > preferences<
> >http://philosophyinaction.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=909076a0a73e...>
>
> > > Philosophy in Action P.O. Box 851 Sedalia, Colorado 80135
>
> > > [image: Email Marketing Powered by
> > > MailChimp]<
> >http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?aid=909076a0a73ec7e1ba1b51e4...>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah? CIRCULATE!
This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It has to do with law, and when an agreement has been made, whether that agreement was made in New Jersey, New Delhi, or New Symrna Beach, the law where the contract or agreement was made, usually governs the accord.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United
States
courts cannot take place.
----
sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal system should be
ignored by American courts.
you either live by American law or you leave our country
On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United States
> courts cannot take place. A good example is that Plain Ol just cited. If
> there has been a contract or agreement that was entered into which was
> governed under Sharia law, then any court within the United States should
> interpret that agreement under the strictures of when and where the
> agreement was entered into.
>
> Where I do believe that there should be law enacted, is where Sharia is
> creeping up as :"The Law Of The Land" because one is Muslim. Horse
> Hockey. If you are a Muslim, (and again, I think the whole concept of
> Sharia and Islam should be outlawed in the United States until such time as
> it reforms and can be adaptable and tolerant of Western culture) then
> United States law, or State law, municipal code, etc. should be applicable,
> and not Sharia. This is not the case in certain municipalities, who have
> allowed for Sharia to over-ride American, State or local law. We have even
> seen courts set up in Great Britain which are Sharia courts. This is also
> being advocated by CAIR and other far left, Anti-American hate groups.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
> > ----
> > tit for tat
>
> > American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
> > they
> > are to argue persuasively for their own.
> > ---
> > watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun
>
> > the anti-sharia movement's
> > implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
> > fuels
> > hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
> > and
> > distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
> > and
> > our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
> > ---
> > the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy
>
> > Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
> > opposed
> > by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
> > public
> > square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
> > the
> > law, whether they are religious or irreligious
> > ---
> > the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related
>
> > On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> > > CIRCULATE!
> > > To:
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Look at the disturbing articles below. Two conservative publications - *
> > > Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America from
> > > Shariah!****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to shariah
> > to
> > > *religious intolerance*. He states that no one has been able to find a
> > > case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court. However, we know
> > > from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> > > performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50 examples
> > in
> > > 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional law.
> > > Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that *the
> > > anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating loyal
> > > Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty. He refers to
> > > those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American courts
> > > as "anti-Muslim bigots." ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > *An important note*: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4
> > million
> > > to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> > > persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country
> > Reports
> > > on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> > > Cooperation).****
>
> > > - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> > > presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> > > Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> > > - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> > > diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in Qatar for
> > > the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle East
> > > Policy of the Brookings Institution). ****
>
> > > - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of closed-door
> > > meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR. ****
>
> > > - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech
> > passed
> > > by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to
> > criticize
> > > Islam. (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Janet Levy,****
>
> > > Los Angeles****
>
> > > ** **
> > > The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago Tribune
> > > and Reason)****
>
> > > **· ***[image: Steve
> > > Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> > > ****
>
> > > ****
>
> > > **· **Steve Chapman <
> >http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> > > ***
>
> > > **· **June 10, 2012****
>
> > > In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> > > country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> > > hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority
> > of
> > > the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be
> > as
> > > American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> > > We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief
> > that
> > > Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear
> > > that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> > > That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts
> > from
> > > applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana
> > and
> > > Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> > > unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> > > In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> > > prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other
> > > legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the
> > > bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> > > because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah
> > law."****
>
> > > Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned
> > to
> > > death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It
> > > seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no
> > > matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> > > The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to make
> > > sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other laws
> > and
> > > the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law
> > > of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true
> > > regardless.****
>
> > > The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor
> > > co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case
> > where
> > > a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a
> > verdict.*
> > > ***
>
> > > If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to
> > > divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> > > Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> > > govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with
> > the
> > > dictates of Islam.****
>
> > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.****
>
> > > If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance
> > with
> > > the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If
> > a
> > > Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what's it
> > > to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally
> > discriminate
> > > against one religion.****
>
> > > That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma
> > > ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the
> > state
> > > constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at
> > > Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.****
>
> > > In Kansas, by contrast, the lawmakers were so careful to avoid that
> > pitfall
> > > that they largely defanged the measure. A decision resting on the
> > > application of foreign or other legal codes would be invalid only if the
> > > verdict violates "the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges
> > granted
> > > under the United States and Kansas constitutions" -- something courts
> > > generally are not allowed to do anyway.****
>
> > > University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, who generally
> > > disapproves of anti-Shariah measures, says the Kansas law "is so narrowed
> > > and watered-down it doesn't look to me like a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Murfreesboro (TN) Mosque Leader Posts Images Glorifying Hamas, AK47′s
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Obama Circumvents Congress; Signs Exec Order Halting Deportations, Issuing Work Permits
| |
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Anne Tompkins: enemy of the people
but she loves women
On Jun 15, 10:36 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ------
>
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/14/not-being-a-felon-is-not-enough-to-...
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> New Members 2
>
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
> __,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Jun 15, 10:36 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ------
>
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/14/not-being-a-felon-is-not-enough-to-...
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> New Members 2
>
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
> __,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
half black socialist traitor
http://leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238478-us-to-stop-deporting-and-grant-work-permits-to-younger-illegal-immigrants?lite
was there any doubt that he would grant amnesty to illegals?
maybe the black community will remember what he did
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, January 22, 2007
Racist Mexican gangs are indiscriminately targeting blacks who aren't
even involved in gang culture, as part of an orchestrated ethnic
cleansing program that is forcing black people to flee Los Angeles.
The culprit of the carnage is the radical Neo-Nazi liberation theology
known as La Raza, which calls for the extermination of all races in
America besides Latinos, and is being bankrolled by some of the
biggest Globalists in the U.S.
A story carried on the liberal website Alternet, charts an explosion
in brutal murders of blacks by Hispanic street gangs in L.A. Far from
being gang on gang violence, the Latinos are targeting innocent blacks
in accordance with a concerted ethnic cleansing campaign that seeks to
eradicate all blacks from Hispanic neighborhoods.
In one instance, 21-year-old Anthony Prudhomme was shot in the face
with a .25-caliber semi-automatic while lying on a futon inside his
apartment, slain by a Latino gang known as the Avenues as part of a
racist terror campaign in which gang members earn "stripes" for each
black person they kill.
In one typical case," writes journalist Brentin Mock, "Three members
of the Pomona 12 attacked an African-American teenager, Kareem
Williams, in his front yard in 2002. When his uncle, Roy Williams, ran
to help his nephew, gang member Richard Diaz told him, "Niggers have
no business living in Pomona because this is 12th Street territory."
According to witnesses, Diaz then told the other gang members, "Pull
out the gun! Shoot the niggers! Shoot the niggers!"
The fatwah against blacks began in the mid-nineties, with a 1995 LAPD
report concluding that Latinos had vowed to "Eradicate black citizens
from the gang neighborhood." In a follow up report on the situation in
east Los Angeles, the LAPD warned that "Local gangs will attack any
black person that comes into the city."
The author notes that since 1990 the African-American population of
Los Angeles has halved, partly as a result of rampant illegal
immigration and that there are noticeably fewer blacks walking the
streets because many have been forced to relocate in fear of the
racist gangs.
"The LAPD estimates there are now 22,000 Latino gang members in the
city of Los Angeles alone. That's not only more than all the Crips and
the Bloods; it's more than all black, Asian, and white gang members
combined. Almost all of those Latino gang members in L.A. -- let alone
those in other California cities -- are loyal to the Mexican Mafia.
Most have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the Mexican Mafia's
violent racism during stints in prison, where most gangs are racially
based," writes Mock.
Mock blames the "Mexican Mafia" for ordering the campaign of ethnic
cleansing from prison, as part of a turf war with the Black Guerilla
family, another prison gang, but fails to pinpoint the racist creed
from which the Mexican kingpins draw their inspiration - the long
standing Aztlan invasion agenda.
Aztlan's goal, known as La reconquista, is to cede and take over the
entirety of the southern and western states by any means necessary and
impose a Communist militant dictatorship. President Bush's blanket
amnesty program goes a long way to helping the extremists achieve
their aim.
Despite the fact that the majority of documented hispanics oppose
illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La
Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a
separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the
Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This
is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it
is scorned as racism.
Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and
driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic
cleansing. Flags and placards carried at marches depict white people
having their heads cut off, as seen in the picture below.
Those that protest such groups are then attacked by the establishment
media and labeled as racists, despite the fact that the Plan of San
Diego, a rallying cry for the hispanic Klan groups, advocates total
eradication of any race but hispanics.
Mecha's own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside
the race, nothing."
TV stations owned by rich white industrialists erect giant billboards
in Los Angeles claiming the city belongs to Mexico.
Mainstream hispanics who love America abhor the virulent racism that
the Mexican klan groups embrace.
And who bankrolls these pocket radicals? Billionaire tax-exempt
foundations and NGO's owned by white men. Organizations like the Ford
Foundation, groups who are zealous in their quest to eliminate the
middle class and destroy America, turning it into a cashless society,
compact city, surveillance control grid where only two tiers of
society exist - the elite and the poor slaves.
During the May immigration protests, The Aztlanwebsite carried the
following statement.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there
is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge.
Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights
and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new
political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing
Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to
elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan."
Here is the open call for violent separatism and the overthrow of
existing state government structures.
During the immigration demonstrations, which were orchestrated by Rob
Allyn of Rob Allyn & Co. who is closely tied with George W. Bush,
alarming reports of illegals carrying out violent beatings began to
surface. In Santa Ana California, illegal aliens swarmed around in
mobs invading schools, carrying out violent beatings and in one
incident a county worker had a Mexican flag plunged into his chest.
The violent protests that began on May 1 last year were characterized
by throngs marching under Mexican flags, many of which were illegal
aliens, as a "day without gringos."
Imagine what the reaction would be if white middle class Americans
marched in their millions and called the event "a day without blacks."
The media continues to run defense for a violent militant movement
that seeks nothing less than the eradication of blacks and whites
through ethnic cleansing and the takeover of the southern and western
states. This is a separatist junta that has over 30,000 ruthless gang
members at its disposal once the call for mobilization is heard, along
with millions of illegal aliens pouring across the border.
These thugs have the temerity to call Latinos, blacks and whites who
are opposed to uncontrolled illegal immigration racists when it is
their own La reconquista philosophy that has spawned target hits in
Los Angeles as part of a virulently racist ethnic cleansing rampage.
It's a bloodlust that can only spread to other cities as the
realization of Aztlan is generously aided by billionaire Globalists
who wish to see America balkanized, plundered and destroyed.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
was there any doubt that he would grant amnesty to illegals?
maybe the black community will remember what he did
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, January 22, 2007
Racist Mexican gangs are indiscriminately targeting blacks who aren't
even involved in gang culture, as part of an orchestrated ethnic
cleansing program that is forcing black people to flee Los Angeles.
The culprit of the carnage is the radical Neo-Nazi liberation theology
known as La Raza, which calls for the extermination of all races in
America besides Latinos, and is being bankrolled by some of the
biggest Globalists in the U.S.
A story carried on the liberal website Alternet, charts an explosion
in brutal murders of blacks by Hispanic street gangs in L.A. Far from
being gang on gang violence, the Latinos are targeting innocent blacks
in accordance with a concerted ethnic cleansing campaign that seeks to
eradicate all blacks from Hispanic neighborhoods.
In one instance, 21-year-old Anthony Prudhomme was shot in the face
with a .25-caliber semi-automatic while lying on a futon inside his
apartment, slain by a Latino gang known as the Avenues as part of a
racist terror campaign in which gang members earn "stripes" for each
black person they kill.
In one typical case," writes journalist Brentin Mock, "Three members
of the Pomona 12 attacked an African-American teenager, Kareem
Williams, in his front yard in 2002. When his uncle, Roy Williams, ran
to help his nephew, gang member Richard Diaz told him, "Niggers have
no business living in Pomona because this is 12th Street territory."
According to witnesses, Diaz then told the other gang members, "Pull
out the gun! Shoot the niggers! Shoot the niggers!"
The fatwah against blacks began in the mid-nineties, with a 1995 LAPD
report concluding that Latinos had vowed to "Eradicate black citizens
from the gang neighborhood." In a follow up report on the situation in
east Los Angeles, the LAPD warned that "Local gangs will attack any
black person that comes into the city."
The author notes that since 1990 the African-American population of
Los Angeles has halved, partly as a result of rampant illegal
immigration and that there are noticeably fewer blacks walking the
streets because many have been forced to relocate in fear of the
racist gangs.
"The LAPD estimates there are now 22,000 Latino gang members in the
city of Los Angeles alone. That's not only more than all the Crips and
the Bloods; it's more than all black, Asian, and white gang members
combined. Almost all of those Latino gang members in L.A. -- let alone
those in other California cities -- are loyal to the Mexican Mafia.
Most have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the Mexican Mafia's
violent racism during stints in prison, where most gangs are racially
based," writes Mock.
Mock blames the "Mexican Mafia" for ordering the campaign of ethnic
cleansing from prison, as part of a turf war with the Black Guerilla
family, another prison gang, but fails to pinpoint the racist creed
from which the Mexican kingpins draw their inspiration - the long
standing Aztlan invasion agenda.
Aztlan's goal, known as La reconquista, is to cede and take over the
entirety of the southern and western states by any means necessary and
impose a Communist militant dictatorship. President Bush's blanket
amnesty program goes a long way to helping the extremists achieve
their aim.
Despite the fact that the majority of documented hispanics oppose
illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La
Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a
separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the
Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This
is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it
is scorned as racism.
Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and
driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic
cleansing. Flags and placards carried at marches depict white people
having their heads cut off, as seen in the picture below.
Those that protest such groups are then attacked by the establishment
media and labeled as racists, despite the fact that the Plan of San
Diego, a rallying cry for the hispanic Klan groups, advocates total
eradication of any race but hispanics.
Mecha's own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside
the race, nothing."
TV stations owned by rich white industrialists erect giant billboards
in Los Angeles claiming the city belongs to Mexico.
Mainstream hispanics who love America abhor the virulent racism that
the Mexican klan groups embrace.
And who bankrolls these pocket radicals? Billionaire tax-exempt
foundations and NGO's owned by white men. Organizations like the Ford
Foundation, groups who are zealous in their quest to eliminate the
middle class and destroy America, turning it into a cashless society,
compact city, surveillance control grid where only two tiers of
society exist - the elite and the poor slaves.
During the May immigration protests, The Aztlanwebsite carried the
following statement.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there
is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge.
Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights
and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new
political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing
Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to
elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan."
Here is the open call for violent separatism and the overthrow of
existing state government structures.
During the immigration demonstrations, which were orchestrated by Rob
Allyn of Rob Allyn & Co. who is closely tied with George W. Bush,
alarming reports of illegals carrying out violent beatings began to
surface. In Santa Ana California, illegal aliens swarmed around in
mobs invading schools, carrying out violent beatings and in one
incident a county worker had a Mexican flag plunged into his chest.
The violent protests that began on May 1 last year were characterized
by throngs marching under Mexican flags, many of which were illegal
aliens, as a "day without gringos."
Imagine what the reaction would be if white middle class Americans
marched in their millions and called the event "a day without blacks."
The media continues to run defense for a violent militant movement
that seeks nothing less than the eradication of blacks and whites
through ethnic cleansing and the takeover of the southern and western
states. This is a separatist junta that has over 30,000 ruthless gang
members at its disposal once the call for mobilization is heard, along
with millions of illegal aliens pouring across the border.
These thugs have the temerity to call Latinos, blacks and whites who
are opposed to uncontrolled illegal immigration racists when it is
their own La reconquista philosophy that has spawned target hits in
Los Angeles as part of a virulently racist ethnic cleansing rampage.
It's a bloodlust that can only spread to other cities as the
realization of Aztlan is generously aided by billionaire Globalists
who wish to see America balkanized, plundered and destroyed.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Anne Tompkins: enemy of the people
------
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/14/not-being-a-felon-is-not-enough-to-avoid
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
New Members 2
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah? CIRCULATE!
I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United
States
courts cannot take place.
----
sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal system should be
ignored by American courts.
you either live by American law or you leave our country
On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United States
> courts cannot take place. A good example is that Plain Ol just cited. If
> there has been a contract or agreement that was entered into which was
> governed under Sharia law, then any court within the United States should
> interpret that agreement under the strictures of when and where the
> agreement was entered into.
>
> Where I do believe that there should be law enacted, is where Sharia is
> creeping up as :"The Law Of The Land" because one is Muslim. Horse
> Hockey. If you are a Muslim, (and again, I think the whole concept of
> Sharia and Islam should be outlawed in the United States until such time as
> it reforms and can be adaptable and tolerant of Western culture) then
> United States law, or State law, municipal code, etc. should be applicable,
> and not Sharia. This is not the case in certain municipalities, who have
> allowed for Sharia to over-ride American, State or local law. We have even
> seen courts set up in Great Britain which are Sharia courts. This is also
> being advocated by CAIR and other far left, Anti-American hate groups.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
> > ----
> > tit for tat
>
> > American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
> > they
> > are to argue persuasively for their own.
> > ---
> > watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun
>
> > the anti-sharia movement's
> > implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
> > fuels
> > hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
> > and
> > distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
> > and
> > our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
> > ---
> > the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy
>
> > Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
> > opposed
> > by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
> > public
> > square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
> > the
> > law, whether they are religious or irreligious
> > ---
> > the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related
>
> > On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> > > CIRCULATE!
> > > To:
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Look at the disturbing articles below. Two conservative publications - *
> > > Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America from
> > > Shariah!****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to shariah
> > to
> > > *religious intolerance*. He states that no one has been able to find a
> > > case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court. However, we know
> > > from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> > > performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50 examples
> > in
> > > 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional law.
> > > Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that *the
> > > anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating loyal
> > > Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty. He refers to
> > > those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American courts
> > > as "anti-Muslim bigots." ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > *An important note*: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4
> > million
> > > to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> > > persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country
> > Reports
> > > on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> > > Cooperation).****
>
> > > - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> > > presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> > > Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> > > - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> > > diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in Qatar for
> > > the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle East
> > > Policy of the Brookings Institution). ****
>
> > > - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of closed-door
> > > meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR. ****
>
> > > - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech
> > passed
> > > by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to
> > criticize
> > > Islam. (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Janet Levy,****
>
> > > Los Angeles****
>
> > > ** **
> > > The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago Tribune
> > > and Reason)****
>
> > > **· ***[image: Steve
> > > Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> > > ****
>
> > > ****
>
> > > **· **Steve Chapman <
> >http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> > > ***
>
> > > **· **June 10, 2012****
>
> > > In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> > > country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> > > hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority
> > of
> > > the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be
> > as
> > > American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> > > We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief
> > that
> > > Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear
> > > that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> > > That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts
> > from
> > > applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana
> > and
> > > Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> > > unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> > > In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> > > prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other
> > > legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the
> > > bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> > > because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah
> > law."****
>
> > > Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned
> > to
> > > death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It
> > > seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no
> > > matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> > > The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to make
> > > sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other laws
> > and
> > > the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law
> > > of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true
> > > regardless.****
>
> > > The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor
> > > co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case
> > where
> > > a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a
> > verdict.*
> > > ***
>
> > > If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to
> > > divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> > > Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> > > govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with
> > the
> > > dictates of Islam.****
>
> > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.****
>
> > > If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance
> > with
> > > the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If
> > a
> > > Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what's it
> > > to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally
> > discriminate
> > > against one religion.****
>
> > > That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma
> > > ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the
> > state
> > > constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at
> > > Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.****
>
> > > In Kansas, by contrast, the lawmakers were so careful to avoid that
> > pitfall
> > > that they largely defanged the measure. A decision resting on the
> > > application of foreign or other legal codes would be invalid only if the
> > > verdict violates "the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges
> > granted
> > > under the United States and Kansas constitutions" -- something courts
> > > generally are not allowed to do anyway.****
>
> > > University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, who generally
> > > disapproves of anti-Shariah measures, says the Kansas law "is so narrowed
> > > and watered-down it doesn't look to me like a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
States
courts cannot take place.
----
sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal system should be
ignored by American courts.
you either live by American law or you leave our country
On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United States
> courts cannot take place. A good example is that Plain Ol just cited. If
> there has been a contract or agreement that was entered into which was
> governed under Sharia law, then any court within the United States should
> interpret that agreement under the strictures of when and where the
> agreement was entered into.
>
> Where I do believe that there should be law enacted, is where Sharia is
> creeping up as :"The Law Of The Land" because one is Muslim. Horse
> Hockey. If you are a Muslim, (and again, I think the whole concept of
> Sharia and Islam should be outlawed in the United States until such time as
> it reforms and can be adaptable and tolerant of Western culture) then
> United States law, or State law, municipal code, etc. should be applicable,
> and not Sharia. This is not the case in certain municipalities, who have
> allowed for Sharia to over-ride American, State or local law. We have even
> seen courts set up in Great Britain which are Sharia courts. This is also
> being advocated by CAIR and other far left, Anti-American hate groups.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
> > ----
> > tit for tat
>
> > American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
> > they
> > are to argue persuasively for their own.
> > ---
> > watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun
>
> > the anti-sharia movement's
> > implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
> > fuels
> > hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
> > and
> > distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
> > and
> > our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
> > ---
> > the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy
>
> > Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
> > opposed
> > by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
> > public
> > square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
> > the
> > law, whether they are religious or irreligious
> > ---
> > the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related
>
> > On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> > > CIRCULATE!
> > > To:
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Look at the disturbing articles below. Two conservative publications - *
> > > Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America from
> > > Shariah!****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to shariah
> > to
> > > *religious intolerance*. He states that no one has been able to find a
> > > case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court. However, we know
> > > from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> > > performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50 examples
> > in
> > > 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional law.
> > > Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that *the
> > > anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating loyal
> > > Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty. He refers to
> > > those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American courts
> > > as "anti-Muslim bigots." ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > *An important note*: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4
> > million
> > > to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> > > persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country
> > Reports
> > > on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> > > Cooperation).****
>
> > > - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> > > presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> > > Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> > > - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> > > diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in Qatar for
> > > the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle East
> > > Policy of the Brookings Institution). ****
>
> > > - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of closed-door
> > > meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR. ****
>
> > > - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech
> > passed
> > > by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to
> > criticize
> > > Islam. (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Janet Levy,****
>
> > > Los Angeles****
>
> > > ** **
> > > The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago Tribune
> > > and Reason)****
>
> > > **· ***[image: Steve
> > > Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> > > ****
>
> > > ****
>
> > > **· **Steve Chapman <
> >http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> > > ***
>
> > > **· **June 10, 2012****
>
> > > In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> > > country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> > > hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority
> > of
> > > the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be
> > as
> > > American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> > > We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief
> > that
> > > Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear
> > > that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> > > That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts
> > from
> > > applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana
> > and
> > > Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> > > unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> > > In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> > > prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other
> > > legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the
> > > bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> > > because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah
> > law."****
>
> > > Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned
> > to
> > > death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It
> > > seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no
> > > matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> > > The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to make
> > > sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other laws
> > and
> > > the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law
> > > of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true
> > > regardless.****
>
> > > The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor
> > > co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case
> > where
> > > a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a
> > verdict.*
> > > ***
>
> > > If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to
> > > divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> > > Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> > > govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with
> > the
> > > dictates of Islam.****
>
> > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.****
>
> > > If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance
> > with
> > > the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If
> > a
> > > Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what's it
> > > to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally
> > discriminate
> > > against one religion.****
>
> > > That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma
> > > ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the
> > state
> > > constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at
> > > Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.****
>
> > > In Kansas, by contrast, the lawmakers were so careful to avoid that
> > pitfall
> > > that they largely defanged the measure. A decision resting on the
> > > application of foreign or other legal codes would be invalid only if the
> > > verdict violates "the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges
> > granted
> > > under the United States and Kansas constitutions" -- something courts
> > > generally are not allowed to do anyway.****
>
> > > University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, who generally
> > > disapproves of anti-Shariah measures, says the Kansas law "is so narrowed
> > > and watered-down it doesn't look to me like a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)