Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/20/AR2010092004257.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Boy, I really hate it when American judges try to impose harsh Islamic sharia law. You know, with all those grisly lashings, stonings and beheadings. What's that you say? No such thing is happening, and you wonder where I got such a crazy idea? Why, Newt Gingrich told me.

On Saturday, speaking at the conservative Values Voter Summit, Gingrich issued a thunderous call for action against an imminent threat that exists only in his fevered imagination -- or, perhaps, in his political machinations.

"We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich declared, to a standing ovation.

Okay, but would this include Judge Judy? Because I've always suspected that when she gets really mad, and she snaps the heads off both the plaintiff and the defendant, she might be slipping a little sharia into the American subconscious -- you know, preparing an unsuspecting nation for the real deal. Maybe we need another law that covers fake judges on daytime television, with punishments that begin with flogging.
But seriously, folks, Newt says we have to halt the insidious encroachment of sharia law, and we have to halt it here and now. In July, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, he went on at great length about the supposed sharia menace, which he sees as part of a "stealth" campaign to impose Islam on all of us.

"Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence," Gingrich said at AEI. "But in fact they're both engaged in jihad, and they're both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of sharia."
He threw in a perfunctory disclaimer -- that there is "a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world" -- and then proceeded with a speech that essentially paints Islam as the new Red Menace. The "stealth jihadis," I suppose, must be like the "known communists" on the list in Sen. Joseph McCarthy's hand.

Along the way, in the July speech, Gingrich painted liberals as a bunch of fellow travelers. "How we don't have some kind of movement in this country on the left that understands that sharia is a direct mortal threat to virtually every value that the left has is really one of the most interesting historical questions," he said.

Where to begin? First, I guess, by stating the obvious: There is no left-of-center movement dedicated to fighting the steady, stealthy insinuation of sharia into America's legal system because no such thing is happening. Gingrich invents an enemy and then demands to know why others haven't sallied forth to slay it.

Gingrich and the Islamophobes have found one solitary case to bolster their "sharia is here" theory. In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, N.J., denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. Judge Joseph Charles Jr. said he did not believe the man "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife because he was acting in a way that was "consistent with his practices."

The judge was clearly in error, as a state appeals court two months ago reversed his decision. The man's religious beliefs, the court ruled, do not exempt him from state laws. Thus ended the one and only instance of stealth sharia that anyone has been able to find.

Andrew Silow-Carroll, the editor in chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, cited that case in a column last month blasting Gingrich's "sharia-phobia." Silow-Carroll pointed out two things: First, the system worked -- the judge made a boneheaded call, and he was overturned. Second, our system already allows some civil matters -- but not crimes -- to be settled through other means of arbitration. "Among those alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinic law court," Silow-Carroll wrote. "Every day, Jews go before batei din to arbitrate real estate deals, nasty divorces and business disputes."

If Newt were aware of this, would he blow a gasket? Somehow, I doubt it. His objection seems to be faith-specific.
And his purpose seems to be political. If Muslim-bashing draws a rise -- and apparently it does -- then he's not going to be outdone. Watch out, Judge Judy. He may be coming for you next



Go ahead; I’m just dying to hear the defence of this new Newt words of wisdom. Please .... :rolling:


These are the Republican Leaders who want to run America. :crazy: Oh My God .. these are really Nut-Jobs :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
When Gingrich and Bauer and some of the other wackos started talking like this ... it came out of nowhere ... at the value voters summit, all I could say was ... that's it, that's all she wrote ...


:buhbye:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
When Gingrich and Bauer and some of the other wackos started talking like this ... it came out of nowhere ... at the value voters summit, all I could say was ... that's it, that's all she wrote ...


:buhbye:


:laughing: I’m surprised … where are all the Small Government Supporters?

Another New Federal Law? :surprised
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
:laughing: I’m surprised … where are all the Small Government Supporters?

Another New Federal Law? :surprised
They're gearing up for the next *Beck the prophet because geese fly-by in V-formation* ralley ...


:laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
They're gearing up for the next *Beck the prophet because geese fly-by in V-formation* ralley ...


:laughing:


Wow … they are so quiet … No Newt Sharia Law Supporters on The Digital Corvette News Forum? :surprised

Come-on … say it ain’t so! :rolling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Wow … they are so quiet … No Newt Sharia Law Supporters on The Digital Corvette News Forum? :surprised

Come-on … say it ain’t so! :rolling:
Why would they ?
The only people that would be getting stoned for adultry would be Republicans ... including Gingrich ...

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Why would they ?
The only people that would be getting stoned for adultry would be Republicans ... including Gingrich ...

:devil:
:laughing::cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hummm ... still no Support. :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Go ahead and ignore the fact that our legal system often goes out of it's way to allow religious groups to practice their religion even if it breaks laws. Some Native American religions use drugs in their rituals that are illegal everywhere else. You don't have to step too far in the future to imagine that some Muslims would use religion as a cover for their mistreatment of women in ways that are not acceptable under our laws, and it isn't hard to imagine the Ninth Circuit Court upholding their right to this. It's not too early to think about this prospect and have a plan rather than waiting until it happens. I guess this falls under the heading of the Do-Nothing Democrats. :laughing:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
Go ahead and ignore the fact that our legal system often goes out of it's way to allow religious groups to practice their religion even if it breaks laws. Some Native American religions use drugs in their rituals that are illegal everywhere else. You don't have to step too far in the future to imagine that some Muslims would use religion as a cover for their mistreatment of women in ways that are not acceptable under our laws, and it isn't hard to imagine the Ninth Circuit Court upholding their right to this. It's not too early to think about this prospect and have a plan rather than waiting until it happens. I guess this falls under the heading of the Do-Nothing Democrats. :laughing:
:agree:
With the stupid and uneducated people in this country it wont be long before the first amendment-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Is interpretted to the point that our common wealth laws shouldn't apply to muslims under the tenent of freedom of religion.

I honestly think it can only be curbed by an uprising of women similar to suffrage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,052 Posts
The "Moon God of Arabia" worshipers crack me up......

google it if you don't know!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Go ahead and ignore the fact that our legal system often goes out of it's way to allow religious groups to practice their religion even if it breaks laws. Some Native American religions use drugs in their rituals that are illegal everywhere else. You don't have to step too far in the future to imagine that some Muslims would use religion as a cover for their mistreatment of women in ways that are not acceptable under our laws, and it isn't hard to imagine the Ninth Circuit Court upholding their right to this. It's not too early to think about this prospect and have a plan rather than waiting until it happens. I guess this falls under the heading of the Do-Nothing Democrats. :laughing:
Yep there's an outbreak of Sharia Law ... :rolling:

We need a Federal Law ... says the Small Government gang ... :laughing:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
small govt = less govt buracracy, not less laws....although there are waaay to many useless laws around.

i love how people take a term like small govt and try to twst it to what ever they feel it means at that moment.

i give you a 1/10 for trolling...a 1 simply because you believe what you babble
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
small govt = less govt buracracy, not less laws....although there are waaay to many useless laws around.
i love how people take a term like small govt and try to twst it to what ever they feel it means at that moment.

i give you a 1/10 for trolling...a 1 simply because you believe what you babble
Ok so I'll put you down for a Big Fat YES ... for a Federal Sharia Law. :thumbsup:

Way to go ... Mr. NO useless Laws :rolling:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
except this wouldn't be a useless law, although the fed govt seems to pick and choose which laws it wishes to be enforced
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
except this wouldn't be a useless law, although the fed govt seems to pick and choose which laws it wishes to be enforced
So … I assume this is a big problem in your neighborhood?
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top