No evidence that sharia is becoming accepted in the US. What city/county/state uses it?>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't this fly in the face of sharia, which is becoming more and more accepted in the US? How can we respect other religions and their customs while prosecuting the men who are allowed to rape and beat their wives?
...so confusing...

Doesn't this fly in the face of sharia, which is becoming more and more accepted in the US? How can we respect other religions and their customs while prosecuting the men who are allowed to rape and beat their wives?

...so confusing...

Hmm. I'm an atheist, but I kinda disagree with them on this one.

It is an elective course. Don't like it, don't take it -- just like they said. And yes, I would say the same thing if it was an elective course about the Quran or Sharia law.

I took an elective "World Religions" class in my public High School. It was very cool -- we talked about comparative numbers of adherents of various religions and non-religious people, regional and national religious trends, religious shifts over time and what caused them, etc. etc. This was in Kansas, so it could easily have been some conservative Christian right-wing nut just trying to push an agenda, but it wasn't. In my opinion, it was interesting and objective.

However, even if it wasn't, it still would have been an elective class. Hell, even in required classes, I had people pushing subjective opinions down my throat as though they were facts. "Shakespeare was the greatest Western writer in history." The best thing that I learned from classes like that was that sometimes opinions differ, and that is OK -- don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sudan, woman, whipped, for, wearing, trousers, muslim, islam, shira' to 'sudan, woman, whipped, for, wearing, trousers, muslim, islam, sharia' - edited by hpqp

Yes, by all means, let us see what happens next. He'll be back on the streets in no time and the efforts, and cost, of the police operation will count for nought. It pains me to say this, but some aspects of sharia law, at times, seem quite attractive.

The Archbishop of Canterbury disgracefully said; "the introduction of the Islamic justice system in the UK is 'unavoidable." Islam (submission) is an all encompassing ideology and MUST be avoided. 84 sharia courts exist in the UK and the popularist, frightened, excuses we have for leaders, think that is ok? Gaddafi said; "All my muslim brothers have to do is wait. Well, soon our politicians will have plenty of time to reflect on how their waiting and appeasing took us back to the dark ages.

The Archbishop of Canterbury disgracefully said; "the introduction of the Islamic justice system in the UK is 'unavoidable." Islam (submission) is an all encompassing ideology and MUST be avoided. 84 sharia courts exist in the UK and the popularist, frightened, excuses we have for leaders, think that is ok? Gaddafi said; "All my muslim brothers have to do is wait. Well, soon our politicians will have plenty of time to reflect on how their waiting and appeasing took us back to the dark ages.

I have mixed feelings on this contentious issue. Of course we in the west respect individual liberty (allegedly), but when people see how our liberties, ideals and freedoms are openly despised by so many muslims ( those who proclaim that the islamization of the west is coming soon, along with sharia), is it surprising when attitudes like this surface? Interestingly, in an islamic country like saudi arabia, if she walked into a shop unescorted by a male guardian, she would not be served either.

Alive again.

ps: nice profile image!

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
*dead

Ron Paul deserved to be booed, but you can be pretty sure that the crowd was right for all the wrong reasons.

Al Qaeda listed support for the state of Israel at the top of the USA's crimes. Paul is correct in pointing that out. He is WRONG to simply leave it at that, as though by capitulating and turning our backs on Israel that we could live at peace with Al Qaeda.

The truth is, the majority of people killed by Al Qaeda and similar jihadist groups are muslims living in the middle east. Either Shia's for simply not being Sunni's as the late Osama was, or for any other failure to adopt the specific brand of Sharia that the jihadist groups want.

These terrorists have killed countless more of their neighbouring muslims than imperialist Americans, it is dishonest, contemptible, and worthy of booing Ron Paul suggesting American actions made the difference between the attacks of these terrorists and them leaving us to our own ways. These terrorists ARE enemies of the free world, starting most importantly with their own fellow muslim neighbours.

Absolutely. One of the top comments on YouTube was something along the lines of, "Any Christians completely horrified that their scriptures command this? Check out Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Your god commands it too."

Thankfully almost every Christian on the planet is a cafeteria Christian: choosing which parts they like and skipping the parts they don't.
>> ^hpqp:

Such is life under Sharia Law... which is mostly copied from Judaic law (for this particular case, see Deut. 22:28-29).

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

Such is life under Sharia Law... which is mostly copied from Judaic law (for this particular case, see Deut. 22:28-29).

Meanwhile in Sharia-run countries, gays are strung up in public and women stoned. To each their barbarism I guess...

I'm glad he brought up the point that people painted the tea party with a broad brush, but it wasn't just a reaction to a few nuts, but from a larger consensus within the movement. On the other side, they encountered one muslim, and it's the sharia invasion.