Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes

[mimartin]

...And I hear they want to have a Sharia law court in this country...

 

Yea, and a Sharia court is going to magically override our entire constitution.

 

Haven’t really seen anything about these courts in America, but if they are the same as in England, then I really do not have a problem with them. 1. They are strictly civil cases. 2. All parties must agree to give the power to the court. Not all that different from using an arbitrator for an insurance claim in the U.S. system.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

 

Of course the radio and television talking heads believe this is the end of western civilization, but that is only because they are trying to get their ratings up and there is no way they are going to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of that.

[Darth Avlectus]

Yea, and a Sharia court is going to magically override our entire constitution.

 

Haven’t really seen anything about these courts in America, but if they are the same as in England, then I really do not have a problem with them.

Big if.

1. They are strictly civil cases. 2. All parties must agree to give the power to the court. Not all that different from using an arbitrator for an insurance claim in the U.S. system.

 

Oh that's fine.

 

However, the moment another religiously affiliated court (EQUAL IN STATURE) of a different faith (christian ND, christian catholic, christian protestant, jewish/zionist, bhuddist, et. al.) tried to erect itself in this country, everyone else would be all over it like "You can't do that! Breach of separation of church and state! Unconstitutional!" and get their laughing boy lawyers and ACLU and all that parade out to stop it...

 

Of course the radio and television talking heads believe this is the end of western civilization, but that is only because they are trying to get their ratings up and there is no way they are going to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of that.

 

Yes, it's only the right that are the raving lunatics when this sort of thing in general happens--don't even mind the left getting up in arms at all when it is from another faith besides Islam.

 

Sorry, EVERYONE in the media is guilty of special pleading, and not just the right. I'll only agree with you in that if everyone wasn't so two faced depending on whichever faith was in question, it wouldn't really even be a problem.

 

Schultz and Olbermann as well as the rest of the talking heads of the left would be throwing at least as much of conniption fit (maybe more) if it were a christian or jew affiliated court. That's not my opinion, that's what it would be.

[mimartin]

I don't understand, what do you mean big if. I really don’t understand that. Do you really believe the constitution is so easily circumvented? Both sides of this country have been trying to circumvent the constitution for years by manipulating the appointments to Supreme Court and neither side has succeeded. Your really think Muslims will have a easier time of it?

 

However, the moment...

Has nothing to do with anything. You can have an arbitrator of any religion now in America as long as both parties agree to that arbitrator. So your rant has nothing to do with it.

 

I seemed to have made a point not to say right or left when criticizing the media. Why do you think that was? Maybe because I know both sides are guilty of sensationalizing the news for ratings! They all don’t go to the same extreme as Savage, O’Reilly, Hanity, Rush and that other crazy, but almost all of them sensationalize the news to some extent.

[jrrtoken]

And people wonder why it's so easy to be bigoted towards Islam and Muslims. If this was the exception, yeah, great, whatever, but nobody can argue that this kind of situation is pretty much the rule in many Islam-dominated countries.

Not exactly. The Saudis prescribe to their own state-sanctioned form of Wahhabist Islam, which can be summed up as a revivalist movement to return to the values found in the era of first-generation Islam. That sounds fine on paper, but the Saudi royal family has applied it in fundamentalist way that goes beyond any universally-accepted Islamic jurisprudence, to the extent which they themselves violate several Qur'anic principles. The "religious police", for example, is of their own invention, and has no place in the Qur'an, nor is found in any hadith; it is simply a governmental arm.

[Totenkopf]

I seemed to have made a point not to say right or left when criticizing the media. Why do you think that was? Maybe because I know both sides are guilty of sensationalizing the news for ratings! They all don’t go to the same extreme as Savage, O’Reilly, Hanity, Rush and that other crazy, but almost all of them sensationalize the news to some extent.

 

They all? Are you saying the left-wing wackjobs are LESS guilty of this than the right (or merely that the aforementioned go to the right extreme while the others go to the left extreme)?

[mimartin]

Read what I wrote. Just as guilty, but go no where near as far as any of the talking heads I wrote about. Also name a left wackjob as famous as any of these right wackjobs.

[Totenkopf]

I DID read what you wrote and found it incorrect. It doesn't matter that idiots like Olberman, Maddow, Dowd et al may not be as well known, they're just as guilty of going to extremes in the other direction. Maybe the fact that they're not as successful just means that fewer people read/listen to their garbage (or are willing to admit as much).

[mimartin]

Other than Olberman (which I only know from ESPN) I never heard of any of them. Maybe the reason they are not as well know is because most from the left and center do not get their news from political talking heads.

 

I'm done with this as it is off topic, but I at least now I do know you did not understand what I wrote.

 

@below Well you are wrong - I never heard of a Liberal talking head being banned from a contry. While Savage is banned from from England and is proud of it because he advertises it almost every show.

[Totenkopf]

Cute. I understood exactly what you said. Your claim was that both sides sensationalize the news, but that certain "right-wingers" were more egregious offenders than the rest. That last part was what I disputed. It's clear to me that you missed that as well. ce' le vie.

 

@above--you're still wrong, so why not just drop it like you said you were going to. Btw, do you even know why he was "banned"? The very liberal Brown regime didn't want to look anti-islamist, so they threw Savage to the wolves for political cover. Whether you like it or not, liberal pundits and media types are no less prone to oversensationalizing the news.