Sharia law: A threat to our Constitution, yes or no?

[logroller]

And let me add, so as not to be accused of having a "phobia" against Islam.

I don't think ANY other countries laws should be taken into account or implemented here. I don't think ANY faith should be used to make law or implement punishment.

So laws banning gay marriage, based in faith, are a no-go in your perspective?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

How many historic battlefield generals/commanders were posting on an online chat forum for you to make the comparison between my posting here and their actions there I must ask? Here we deal with ideals , imagination and perceptions of what is presented not in cold hard realities of warfare. Where I a commander of men I would be taking appropriate actions for the tasks at hand while here I speak as a concerned citizen. The two are hardly comparable IMHO. My open and uncompromising manner is a clear representation of my abject hatred for the PCness and complacency so prevalent in this modern world today.. Here there are no physical actions to take or plans to do so comparing apples to carrots hardly makes any sense IMHO.. Here there are only presentations of ones thoughts , desires , facts and often ones imagination for how a better world can be found. As much as your previous post was directed to me I feel obliged to answer that you greatly misjudged and mistakenly made a comparison ill fitted to the case at hand. My method of posting here shall not change despite who thinks it silly, over the top or not worthy. I find it worthy and apparently so do some others here or else my rep and thank you count would not be at the level which they are. Regardless of that I'd still post the truth as I see it not as others may wish to see it! -Tyr

[Kathianne]

My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

Indeed. He did have the Declaration read by all officers and then to enlisted. In all likelihood, he'd have signed if he'd been there, but wasn't.

[logroller]

[/B]

How many historic battlefield generals/commanders were posting on an online chat forum for you to make the comparison between my posting here and their actions there I must ask? Here we deal with ideals , imagination and perceptions of what is presented not in cold hard realities of warfare. Where I a commander of men I would be taking appropriate actions for the tasks at hand while here I speak as a concerned citizen. The two are hardly comparable IMHO. My open and uncompromising manner is a clear representation of my abject hatred for the PCness and complacency so prevalent in this modern world today.. Here there are no physical actions to take or plans to do so comparing apples to carrots hardly makes any sense IMHO.. Here there are only presentations of ones thoughts , desires , facts and often ones imagination for how a better world can be found. As much as your previous post was directed to me I feel obliged to answer that you greatly misjudged and mistakenly made a comparison ill fitted to the case at hand. My method of posting here shall not change despite who thinks it silly, over the top or not worthy. I find it worthy and apparently so do some others here or else my rep and thank you count would not be at the level which they are. Regardless of that I'd still post the truth as I see it not as others may wish to see it! -Tyr

. Don't ask stupid questions. They did have small printing presses, which in their day, we're comparable to the Internet. How many of they who had printing presses were men of action in terms of force? I'm guessing few; they were mostly rabble rousers -- propagandists by any other name!
As for your idealistic views, what can be, shall I direct your attention to your repeately espoused beliefs upon the evils of islam, steepish with storied realities and inflammatory rhetoric which will, in no uncertain terms, lead to hate and death. That's the reality you are developing with that talk, I staunchly disagree with that approach. I don care if you don't like it or others think you're the best thing since sliced bread-- you're a rabble rouser, a trouble maker; you don't solve problems, you create them-- plain and simple.

[jimnyc]

So laws banning gay marriage, based in faith, are a no-go in your perspective?

That's affirmative. None of my reasons to ban or be against homosexuality or gay marriage was ever a result of my faith either. I'm sure it was used in many arguments, but I believe if you look at the text of the amendments and laws, they are not faith based. And no penalty that I am aware of other than non-recognition. Faith and our churches and such should be 100% separate from our judicial system, which is why I agreed myself a long time back that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

. Don't ask stupid questions. They did have small printing presses, which in their day, we're comparable to the Internet. How many of they who had printing presses were men of action in terms of force? I'm guessing few; they were mostly rabble rousers -- propagandists by any other name!
As for your idealistic views, what can be, shall I direct your attention to your repeately espoused beliefs upon the evils of islam, steepish with storied realities and inflammatory rhetoric which will, in no uncertain terms, lead to hate and death. That's the reality you are developing with that talk, I staunchly disagree with that approach. I don care if you don't like it or others think you're the best thing since sliced bread-- you're a rabble rouser, a trouble maker; you don't solve problems, you create them-- plain and simple.

Far from being stupid the question that I asked was indeed relevant to the comparison which you chose to make regarding my posting history here. You made the comparison not me. Had you posted clear opposition to the subjects/ideals that I presented in my threads and my reply to others it would be one thing but you chose make a far more personal attack on my method of posting. As if it was somehow unworthy and substandard. Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it but do not pretend that you have proved its validity merely because its your opinion. I like that you call me a rabble rouser because the founders of this great nation were indeed considered to be so by the Crown and its loyal supporters here previous too and during our Revolution for Independence. A great honor that Im sure I am not worthy of but was nice to ponder the accusation in comparison to other truly great historic figures in their defiance against tyranny and oppression be it ever so a fleeting smile brought in consideration of ! My determination to speak the unvarnished truth and warn of impending danger may well piss people off here but that matters not a damn whit to me. Those that would twist my words to suit actions taken to further their own agenda are no concern of mine. I've asked nobody here to join me in a crusade or movement to harm anybody or anything. Instead my posts present ideals to be considered and actions that the readers may or may not choose to take part in --IF-- certain future events occur. Other than my suggestions on voting and my suggestions on future military actions in defense of this nation what do you have to validate your rabble rousing accusation against me? Am I to be subject to your decision on my posting methods? I think and know that is not the case. So your post indeed was an attack on me for exspressing my opinions fully within the rules /regulations of this site and well within the free speech rights insured by our Constitution as I've not incited or asked anybody here to break any law. Why you have a thorn in your ass about this is a mystery to me but its effect on you is apparently a far more serious matter judging from your last reply!
haha, what problems did you expect me to solve here ?
Name the trouble that I am making here if you can!
Otherwise, well I'm sure you can figure it out if you stop foolishly attempting to make me out to be a great trouble maker here ..
Again I ask , what trouble and to whom am I making it? -Tyr

[logroller]

[/B]


Far from being stupid the question that I asked was indeed relevant to the comparison which you chose to make regarding my posting history here. You made the comparison not me. Had you posted clear opposition to the subjects/ideals that I presented in my threads and my reply to others it would be one thing but you chose make a far more personal attack on my method of posting. As if it was somehow unworthy and substandard. Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it but do not pretend that you have proved its validity merely because its your opinion. I like that you call me a rabble rouser because the founders of this great nation were indeed considered to be so by the Crown and its loyal supporters here previous too and during our Revolution for Independence. A great honor that Im sure I am not worthy of but was nice to ponder the accusation in comparison to other truly great historic figures in their defiance against tyranny and oppression be it ever so a fleeting smile brought in consideration of ! My determination to speak the unvarnished truth and warn of impending danger may well piss people off here but that matters not a damn whit to me. Those that would twist my words to suit actions taken to further their own agenda are no concern of mine. I've asked nobody here to join me in a crusade or movement to harm anybody or anything. Instead my posts present ideals to be considered and actions that the readers may or may not choose to take part in --IF-- certain future events occur. Other than my suggestions on voting and my suggestions on future military actions in defense of this nation what do you have to validate your rabble rousing accusation against me? Am I to be subject to your decision on my posting methods? I think and know that is not the case. So your post indeed was an attack on me for exspressing my opinions fully within the rules /regulations of this site and well within the free speech rights insured by our Constitution as I've not incited or asked anybody here to break any law. Why you have a thorn in your ass about this is a mystery to me but its effect on you is apparently a far more serious matter judging from your last reply!
haha, what problems did you expect me to solve here ?
Name the trouble that I am making here if you can!
Otherwise, well I'm sure you can figure it out if you stop foolishly attempting to make me out to be a great trouble maker here ..
Again I ask , what trouble and to whom am I making it? -Tyr

I used that as an example of one who acted instead of talked about it. You drew the Internet comparison, not I. Unless uou think people didnt debate or share their opinions before the internet; he also wore a wig I think, but that doesn't have any relevance here either.. Nonetheless, I furthered the comparison to the technology of the day. As for trouble, you cause it for an abundance of critical thinkers, truth-seekers and constructive debaters who instead must sift through your hyperbole, name-calling and rhetoric to get at what might actually be a legitimate critique and constructive debate.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I used that as an example of one who acted instead of talked about it. You drew the Internet comparison, not I. Unless uou think people didnt debate or share their opinions before the internet; he also wore a wig I think, but that doesn't have any relevance here either.. Nonetheless, I furthered the comparison to the technology of the day. As for trouble, you cause it for an abundance of critical thinkers, truth-seekers and constructive debaters who instead must sift through your hyperbole, name-calling and rhetoric to get at what might actually be a legitimate critique and constructive debate.

No sir , you made the comparison with my inaction here(but loud talking) with George Washington's action. I merely replied to that.
Now what trouble is that ? Nobody here is under any kind of obligation to read my posted words. Nor are they required to respond to them. I've received no warning from admin here about my "rabble rousing"! Its not my job to attempt to please everyone here or anywhere for that matter so I just please myself by posting my sincere opinion on matters. Feel free to not "shift" if that is your wish but your accusation against me was false and based upon a false premise. Otherwise you would be specific about what trouble I caused instead of posting generalities about name- calling and rhetoric which by the way are not and have not been noted offenses by admin here. When they become so more than just me will have to stop doing so or else leave . You dislike my posts that is obvious however how you chose to exspress that was by accusing me of trouble making here. You dislike my manner of posting get in line pedro. You arent the first and damn sure will not be the last. Cold hard truth pisses a lot of people off and I am used to that. My refusal to play PC games pisses even more off. None of which bothers me. I find your justification a bit contrived and even a bit silly. You've had your say on the matter , got anymore say it here and now . So I can address it because I run away from no man in person or posting in a internet forum.. I change my way only when I decide to not when others that disagree with me attempt to instruct me to.
If I've broke rules here cite them and complain to admin otherwise your gripes mean nothing to me except a mild irritation to be addressed or not at my leisure.! -Tyr

[Drummond]

. Don't ask stupid questions. They did have small printing presses, which in their day, we're comparable to the Internet. How many of they who had printing presses were men of action in terms of force? I'm guessing few; they were mostly rabble rousers -- propagandists by any other name!
As for your idealistic views, what can be, shall I direct your attention to your repeately espoused beliefs upon the evils of islam, steepish with storied realities and inflammatory rhetoric which will, in no uncertain terms, lead to hate and death. That's the reality you are developing with that talk, I staunchly disagree with that approach. I don care if you don't like it or others think you're the best thing since sliced bread-- you're a rabble rouser, a trouble maker; you don't solve problems, you create them-- plain and simple.

A large part of why you can say what you do and hope to project credibility is because of WHEN you're posting this. But .. what if you'd broadcast this thinking, say, just a couple of days after September 11th, 2001 ?

The evils of Islam would've seemed far clearer to Americans and to most of the world at that time, because the realities being experienced then were totally fresh in peoples' minds. The September 11th attacks were very sharp in everyone's minds, and it was clear to everyone that there HAD to be a strong response to it .. to just let the attacks stand and to not respond, or, to make excuses designed to minimise that response, would've been seen for what it was .. surrender to aggressors and a total, unforgivable insult to those who died that day.

But you see, the reality of what drove the attack hasn't gone away .. the terrorist group responsible still exists, there are those who'd do the same all over again, and worse, if given half a chance. The hatreds at the heart of it still exist, and there is NO, repeat, NO, reason to suppose they'll never again find expression in comparable death and destruction.

So, WHY has the willingness to meet this head-on so diminished ?

Tyr deals with a reality that you are choosing to forget, in my opinion. I think that there are many who are lulled into a false sense of security, partly courtesy of politically correct propaganda, but not inconsiderably because of the passage of time.

Well, what will happen if, say, a couple of weeks from now, terrorists deploy a WMD in a major Western city ? Will public opinion wake up, but only AFTER the fact ?

I think it better for people to NOT forget the realities in the world today, Logroller, instead of growing weak through senses being lulled into a false sense of security. It may be easier. It may be more comforting. But that doesn't make it more real.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Myself, I dislike those that forget so quickly and dislike even more those that demand others join them in that folly!
Big D you are correct the mindless hate that inspired those murderers has not gone away. It desperately seeks to do even more but we have stopped it by due diligence and keeping "open eyes". Those that demand I stop pointing out that threat can just kiss a good man's ass as far as Im concerned. I suggest that they look up the meaning of free speech and honor. Defending those that would happily destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law is both folly and treasonous IMHO. Attacking me for being both patriotic and refusing to yield to complacency is the course I'd expect from a rascal rather than a thoughtful and concerned poster.. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Myself, I dislike those that forget so quickly and dislike even more those that demand others join them in that folly!
Big D you are correct the mindless hate that inspired those murderers has not gone away. It desperately seeks to do even more but we have stopped it by due diligence and keeping "open eyes". Those that demand I stop pointing out that threat can just kiss a good man's ass as far as Im concerned. I suggest that they look up the meaning of free speech and honor. Defending those that would happily destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law is both folly and treasonous IMHO. Attacking me for being both patriotic and refusing to yield to complacency is the course I'd expect from a rascal rather than a thoughtful and concerned poster.. -Tyr

Exactly. The more we find it convenient to lose focus and forget the past, the more likely it becomes that we'll repeat it. Complacency is a weakness that enemies can and will exploit.

Sharia Law is tyranny, and one which Islamists are keen to foist on us all. If we become weak enough to equivocate, then they'll exploit that, too. The Leftie 'live and let live, and if you don't, you're a bigot to be pilloried for it' plays right into Islamist hands. Society in the UK had to reach a certain weak state of mind for it to be possible for our Archbishop of Canterbury to call for 'limited Sharia Law' ... and this from a leading Christian (!!) ... he could never have got away with that in September 2001 without severe consequences to his standing. But, years later, all he got was a few sharp rebukes. He continued on, his job in the Church of England remaining secure.

Weakness is exploitable. The only real question is, do you want to allow liberal thought and feeling to so weaken you that you open the door to the worst that your enemies have to offer you ?

Check this out ... a link to YouTube, and an interview with Anjem Choudary. He correctly predicts a Muslim Brotherhood victory in Egypt, and comes out in favour of Sharia Law ... covering the entire world .... so, who wants to be 'liberal' enough to give this illiberal creep the time of day ?

[aboutime]

Myself, I dislike those that forget so quickly and dislike even more those that demand others join them in that folly!
Big D you are correct the mindless hate that inspired those murderers has not gone away. It desperately seeks to do even more but we have stopped it by due diligence and keeping "open eyes". Those that demand I stop pointing out that threat can just kiss a good man's ass as far as Im concerned. I suggest that they look up the meaning of free speech and honor. Defending those that would happily destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law is both folly and treasonous IMHO. Attacking me for being both patriotic and refusing to yield to complacency is the course I'd expect from a rascal rather than a thoughtful and concerned poster.. -Tyr

Tyr:Funny how we often meet, or come in contact with fellow Americans who would rather change the context of our History to meet their needs to interpret what our Founding Fathers intended with the Declaration, and Constitution.
What they often do is forget how those who signed those Documents, placed their very life on the line, and they were seen as revolutionaries who could have been hung by the leaders of the Colonials who didn't want to disagree with England.
In fact. I was reminded of One of those people who only had a small printing press named Benjamin Franklin. And there is another early American patriot...often labeled as a revolutionary who spent much of his time writing a series of instructions (so-to-speak) about how to become a caring, good citizen.
Let's see if those who want to re-write our History know the name of that man. Anyone want to give it a try?

For those who have no idea. Use a little "Common Sense".

[gabosaurus]

Let's see if those who want to re-write our History know the name of that man. Anyone want to give it a try?

You do a good enough rewriting history for all of us.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Exactly. The more we find it convenient to lose focus and forget the past, the more likely it becomes that we'll repeat it. Complacency is a weakness that enemies can and will exploit.

Sharia Law is tyranny, and one which Islamists are keen to foist on us all. If we become weak enough to equivocate, then they'll exploit that, too. The Leftie 'live and let live, and if you don't, you're a bigot to be pilloried for it' plays right into Islamist hands. Society in the UK had to reach a certain weak state of mind for it to be possible for our Archbishop of Canterbury to call for 'limited Sharia Law' ... and this from a leading Christian (!!) ... he could never have got away with that in September 2001 without severe consequences to his standing. But, years later, all he got was a few sharp rebukes. He continued on, his job in the Church of England remaining secure.

Weakness is exploitable. The only real question is, do you want to allow liberal thought and feeling to so weaken you that you open the door to the worst that your enemies have to offer you ?

Check this out ... a link to YouTube, and an interview with Anjem Choudary. He correctly predicts a Muslim Brotherhood victory in Egypt, and comes out in favour of Sharia Law ... covering the entire world .... so, who wants to be 'liberal' enough to give this illiberal creep the time of day ?

I pity those in Britain that are being let down by their government. Odds are in less than twenty years Britain will have went thru extreme violence and many thousands(or much more) of deaths , the non-muslims enslaved and what use will it be to say I told you so to anybody? If America does not save Britian I think it will fall and likely in less time than that 20 years. Why should we do so? Because if they fall its a good chance we will to. Our salvation may be in our volunteering to save others! Our reward may lay in such unselfish giving . It may be in our keeping our word to an ally! We need obama out , a strong man in and policies that will look to the future and see the dangers we all must face head on. For hiding our heads rather than facing the brutal truth and acting on it will only lead to our demise. History teaches this lesson many many times!--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Is it not enough that we saved the Brits during WWII? You want us to do it again?

I think the Brits can save themselves. As long as they don't descend into the depths of Thatcherism again.