Newt wants to deport Americans who practice Islam

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2016, 09:02 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Isn't sharia law like cutting people's hands off for thefts killing people who insult Islam (and a bunch of other things), and saying it's ok to marry children at the age of 9?

Pretty sure if that's the case it's not protected by the first admendment. If a Muslim wants Sharia law that's pretty radical honestly, and they should be allowed in the country if they are trying to get in, and should be on a watch list of they're already in.

As far as I know, marriage is limited to sexual maturity. Having your hand cut off can be a punishment for some crimes, but it is rarely  practiced and more symbolic of a punishment. 

That said, Sharia covers things like dietary practices, rules on how and when to worship (praying and their pilgrimage to Mecca), hygiene rules, and charity. Really radical stuff that shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Millhouse]

(07-16-2016, 10:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As far as I know, marriage is limited to sexual maturity. Having your hand cut off can be a punishment for some crimes, but it is rarely  practiced and more symbolic of a punishment. 

That said, Sharia covers things like dietary practices, rules on how and when to worship (praying and their pilgrimage to Mecca), hygiene rules, and charity. Really radical stuff that shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment.

Yup, and there are 10 countries like Saudi Arabia whose sharon law allows the possible execution of homosexual men that commit sodomy. It can be moderate or extreme. Either way it isn't welcome over here nor is any religious law.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2016, 03:46 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yup, and there are 10 countries like Saudi Arabia whose sharon law allows the possible execution of homosexual men that commit sodomy. It can be moderate or extreme. Either way it isn't welcome over here nor is any religious law.

Yes, there are some absolutely repugnant parts of it, and there are parts that are just standard practices in their religion. The point being, you cannot lump it all together as a bad thing. If I were a Muslim who followed all of the day to day practices, I would technically be following Sharia. HOWEVER, even if someone did believe that it SHOULD be right to do that, the 1st Amendment still protects their right to think that, just not do it or tell others to do it.

It's like lumping in the idea that you can rape a girl if you marry her and pay her dad in with honoring your mother and father. 

[Brownshoe]

(07-16-2016, 10:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As far as I know, marriage is limited to sexual maturity. Having your hand cut off can be a punishment for some crimes, but it is rarely  practiced and more symbolic of a punishment. 

That said, Sharia covers things like dietary practices, rules on how and when to worship (praying and their pilgrimage to Mecca), hygiene rules, and charity. Really radical stuff that shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment.

The thing is that Sharia law still has a LOT of radical things in it, and we shouldn't let in people who believe in it. Having freedom of religion is one thing, but when it starts effecting other peoples freedoms and well being we can't have that. If you cherry pick all of the non radical things in Sharia law and ignore all of the radical things then it's not really Sharia law.

I don't think that we should kick out any American's who believe in Sharia law, but we should have them on a watch list. I think that we should have any US citizen on a watch list who believes in radical/violent ideas like Sharia. I don't think that it would be unfair to deny access to America if someone holds those kind of ideas either.

[Brownshoe]

(07-16-2016, 05:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes, there are some absolutely repugnant parts of it, and there are parts that are just standard practices in their religion. The point being, you cannot lump it all together as a bad thing. If I were a Muslim who followed all of the day to day practices, I would technically be following Sharia. HOWEVER, even if someone did believe that it SHOULD be right to do that, the 1st Amendment still protects their right to think that, just not do it or tell others to do it.

It's like lumping in the idea that you can rape a girl if you marry her and pay her dad in with honoring your mother and father. 

Yes, if you follow the day to day practices you would be following Sharia, but when you see a non-muslim marrying a muslim and don't kill them then you're no longer following Sharia, or if you hear someone criticizing your religion and not kill them you are no longer following Sharia law.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2016, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The thing is that Sharia law still has a LOT of radical things in it, and we shouldn't let in people who believe in it. Having freedom of religion is one thing, but when it starts effecting other peoples freedoms and well being we can't have that. 

[Brownshoe]

(07-17-2016, 12:38 AM)GMDino Wrote:

So you think it's ok to let people in America who believe that you should kill people who disagree with their ideology? And you don't think that if they're already in America we shouldn't watch the people who think it's ok to kill other people for insulting their ideology? I think we should watch anyone who thinks it's ok to kill people on the basis of their ideology or physical attributes

[*bfine32*]

I've only got one question; as the back and forth has me confused:

Are there folks in this thread that are saying Muslims should be allowed to practice Sharia Law in this country?

[GMDino]

(07-17-2016, 03:31 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So you think it's ok to let people in America who believe that you should kill people who disagree with their ideology? And you don't think that if they're already in America we shouldn't watch the people who think it's ok to kill other people for insulting their ideology? I think we should watch anyone who thinks it's ok to kill people on the basis of their ideology or physical attributes

I think it is wrong to allow someone's religion to:  "starts effecting other peoples freedoms and well being".


ANY religion.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2016, 03:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've only got one question; as the back and forth has me confused:

Are there folks in this thread that are saying Muslims should be allowed to practice Sharia Law in this country?

I don't know about what's been said in the thread, but I would say that. As long as we allow Jews to practice/follow Mosaic Law that is within the parameters of civil/criminal law then we not only should, but legally have to extend the same to Muslims with regard to Sharia.

If the law in question violates a legal statute then it can't be applied and it only applies to those adherents that voluntarily choose to. That has been the way it has been approached all over the country for both as far as the law is concerned.

[Brownshoe]

(07-17-2016, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think it is wrong to allow someone's religion to:  "starts effecting other peoples freedoms and well being".


ANY religion.  

I agree. Religions shouldn't be involved in anything to do with government. I don't even like "in God we trust" on currency, or "one nation under God" in the pledge.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2016, 10:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know about what's been said in the thread, but I would say that. As long as we allow Jews to practice/follow Mosaic Law that is within the parameters of civil/criminal law then we not only should, but legally have to extend the same to Muslims with regard to Sharia.

If the law in question violates a legal statute then it can't be applied and it only applies to those adherents that voluntarily choose to. That has been the way it has been approached all over the country for both as far as the law is concerned.

I suppose this is why I'm a fan of "When in Rome..."

[GMDino]

(07-17-2016, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose this is why I'm a fan of "When in Rome..."

Then you agree with Matt.  That they should be and are allowed to practice their religion so long as it doesn't not interfere with civil laws.

Good.

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2016, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose this is why I'm a fan of "When in Rome..."

I am as well. But Constitutionally speaking they have the right to practice their religion as long as it does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. Sharia Law and Mosaic Law/the Mitzvot are very similar in a lot of ways and are made up primarily of guidelines for adherents to use to live their lives. To outlaw one and not the other would be unconstitutional, to outlaw all of these types of things would be the same. We can say that they can't carry out capital punishment according to the law because of the rights of others and we can use the same for other limitations, but outright prohibition would be absolutely unconstitutional.

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2016, 12:16 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The thing is that Sharia law still has a LOT of radical things in it, and we shouldn't let in people who believe in it. Having freedom of religion is one thing, but when it starts effecting other peoples freedoms and well being we can't have that. If you cherry pick all of the non radical things in Sharia law and ignore all of the radical things then it's not really Sharia law.

I don't think that we should kick out any American's who believe in Sharia law, but we should have them on a watch list. I think that we should have any US citizen on a watch list who believes in radical/violent ideas like Sharia. I don't think that it would be unfair to deny access to America if someone holds those kind of ideas either.

(07-17-2016, 12:26 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Yes, if you follow the day to day practices you would be following Sharia, but when you see a non-muslim marrying a muslim and don't kill them then you're no longer following Sharia, or if you hear someone criticizing your religion and not kill them you are no longer following Sharia law.

Again, Sharia covers a large number of things. You want to put people on watch lists for fasting during Ramadan? 

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2016, 03:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've only got one question; as the back and forth has me confused:

Are there folks in this thread that are saying Muslims should be allowed to practice Sharia Law in this country?

Aspects of it, yes. If a Muslim wants to take a pilgrimage, fast, celebrate his holidays, donate to charity, or follow his daily prayers, he should be allowed to.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Newt is just using the "Look Over Here" strategy.
I don't think he wants to deport people who practice Islam but if he does for real want that, he's an idiot.
Although, it worked and a little bit of attention is off of Trump.

We will see more and more of this until election day from both sides. Lies will be flying left and right, fake stories, outrageous comments thrown around by everyone except the candidates themselves who will be acting more and more moderate.

[Brownshoe]

(07-17-2016, 11:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, Sharia covers a large number of things. You want to put people on watch lists for fasting during Ramadan? 

No, now you're just ignoring my point. You're no longer following Sharia law when you don't do the radical things it has in it, and a LOT of Sharia law is radical things. Need 2 women to equal 1 man in court, women can't drive cars, cutting off the right hand of a thief, killing someone for insulting Islam, Muhammad, a non-muslim marrying a muslim, ect. Once you don't do one of those things you're no longer following Sharia law.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 02:13 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No, now you're just ignoring my point. You're no longer following Sharia law when you don't do the radical things it has in it, and a LOT of Sharia law is radical things. Need 2 women to equal 1 man in court, women can't drive cars, cutting off the right hand of a thief, killing someone for insulting Islam, Muhammad, a non-muslim marrying a muslim, ect. Once you don't do one of those things you're no longer following Sharia law.

Actually, any Muslim not living in the Caliphate is not following Sharia. Sharia also dictates that the Caliphate provide health care and a form of social security, etc. And when the Caliphate is formed, all Muslims must make their way to it, but if there is no Caliphate, then Sharia is not in effect.

So, just like the Mitzvot some adherents follow the parts that are applicable to their lives today. Even though in the case of Sharia if there is no Caliphate then the law shouldn't apply. In the end, no Muslim living outside of a Caliphate is technically following Sharia.

[BmorePat87]

(07-18-2016, 02:13 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No, now you're just ignoring my point. You're no longer following Sharia law when you don't do the radical things it has in it, and a LOT of Sharia law is radical things. Need 2 women to equal 1 man in court, women can't drive cars, cutting off the right hand of a thief, killing someone for insulting Islam, Muhammad, a non-muslim marrying a muslim, ect. Once you don't do one of those things you're no longer following Sharia law.

No, you're the one ignoring my point. 

No one wants Muslims to be able to legally kill people for blasphemy or stone women. The problem is that Newt, and apparently you, have decided to take "Sharia Law" and associate it with only the practices we find backwards or a violation of others' rights. The point is that it means much more, so saying no Sharia means no religious freedom. Instead of just saying "no Sharia Law", be more accurate. Especially if you're the former Speaker of the House. 

Not to mention, merely believing in these things but not practicing them is still covered under the 1st Amendment.