Sharia Law in America

[rambone]

Could it happen here? What if our government created repressive laws that punish people for violating arbitrary moral standards? Would you recognize Sharia Law if it came under a familiar flag or philosophy? Would you speak out against unfair social controls if the leaders called themselves Social Conservatives?



Sharia was around 90 years ago:
Women arrested for wearing one piece bathing suits, without the required leg coverings | Chicago 1922

​

Candidate for Ayatollah advocates control over immoral bedroom activities:
Rick Santorum defends support for Anti-Sodomy laws, gay marriage bans

Religious zealots ban co-habitation with opposite sex:
Unmarried couples living together can be arrested in Florida

Moral crusaders push to regulate consenting adults & photography:
Congress and the War on Pornography

Social nannies won't tolerate immoral speech:
Man fined $500 for saying naughty words on a bus

Fashion police control your facial attire:
Wearing a mask illegal in D.C.

Ruling class insists on modesty & asserts that you do not own your body:
Two 15-year-olds face felonies for breaking modesty laws

Morality patrol will punish you for extending the wrong finger:
Man punished for flipping unGodly middle finger

Plant Police punish people for picking the forbidden plant:
Woman gets a 10-year-prison sentence for selling immoral plants

Caliphate bans free association on public streets:
Panhandlers will be arrested in Tampa beginning Nov. 1

Thought Police come after immoral opinions on bumpers:
Tennessee bans "offensive" bumper stickers

Censorship Czar wants public values to trump free speech:
FCC Commissioner pushes for “public values test” on the news

Fashion Police enforce dress code:
Georgia town bans saggy pants
​

Tell me what is the difference between these kind of laws and social repression in the middle east? I see only a slight difference in degree and in enforcement policy. On one side of the world they come after you with stones, and the other they come after you with batons. It all boils down to standards of morality that the majority imposes on everyone else using force.

If "Sharia Law" is ever going to become a real threat to us, it will be imposed by people who look and sound like real flag-waving patriotic Americans. They'll call themselves Social Conservatives and will be the same people who are the most afraid of Sharia Law in the Middle East; so afraid that they'll push for their own rigid social controls to supposedly stop Sharia Law from taking hold. The practical effects will be real repression no better than what we see in the Middle East.


Discuss.

 

[mrjarrell]

Don't forget all the Dry Counties that still exist due to political pressure by church coalitions. They've managed to cost some localities millions of dollars in revenue and driven up the numbers of DUI's for their neighbours.

 

[NYFelon]

Can I be on the mind your own darn bidness patrol?

 

[Kase]

If it were to ever be fully implemented, two words would come to mind...

Total. Anarchy.


It's really the least of any of my worries about this country at the moment

Good points though Rambone

 

[rambone]

It's really the least of any of my worries about this country at the moment

Good points though Rambone

Thank you.

The prospect of Islamofascism in the USA shouldn't worry us one iota as much as the Amerofascism that is already in place and thriving, supported by our own neighbors. Why worry about unrealistic cultural threats from thousands of miles away? In many ways, we've already got Sharia Lite right here at home. We should clean up our own laws before telling other nations how to govern.

 

[Kagnew]

Women arrested for wearing one piece bathing suits, without the required leg coverings | Chicago 1922

​

You're sure that's what that cop was doing?
​

 

[phylodog]

I see most of the oppressive efforts as an attempt to control what society no longer will.

It used to be considered bad taste to curse in public. It used to be considered bad taste to make out in public. It used to be considered bad taste to have your butt cheeks or breasts in plain view in public. Slowly, our once well mannered society has been chipped away by the "tolerate everything" movement and this is the last ditch effort by some to stop the bleeding.

Not saying it's right, but that's how I see it. I wish our society would maintain itself but I also wish I'd win the Powerball. Got about the same chances of either wish coming true. Before my daughter has children there will be very, very little considered taboo any longer.

 

[rambone]

I see most of the oppressive efforts as an attempt to control what society no longer will.

I think the Sharia people in the Middle East probably think the same thing. They see people acting out of the traditional norm and feel it is there place to put them back in line and preserve moral order.

 

[Sylvain]

"What if our government created repressive laws that punish people for violating arbitrary moral standards?"

That's already the case in the US, gay marriage is illegal in most states.That's just an arbitrary moral standard that two men or two women cannot be married.
I hope it will change.

 

[phylodog]

I don't see a problem with moral order. There was a time when the majority of folks in this country felt the same way. There is now a minority that feels that way and they are labeled with all types of lovely names.

I'm not in agreement with laws which violate constitutional rights while attempting to preserve decency. Simply making an observation about how sad it is that our society has deteriorated so badly that some should feel it is necessary.

 

[rush176]

I understand your point about the problems when government tries to legislate morality. But to equate not allowing gays to legally marry seems like a stretch to me. Marriage is made to provide children a safe place to grow up and be protected. Adults think it is for them but it was originally to raise the next generation in an environment that gives them the best chance of surviving to become adults themselves. That is why having both sexes involved in their upbringing is important so the kids have that balance. Gay marriage cannot provide that no matter how well meaning the "parents".

 

[rambone]

I don't see a problem with moral order.

What is to be gained? Is it to try and force people into heaven by creating strict guidelines for people to follow? A truly moral person doesn't need government to be their Moral Compass.

 

[buford t justice]

I dont think society is any more or less evil,promiscuous,indecent,or what ever word you want to use,than it was 20/50/or100 years ago.
People are not persecuted now like they were for these types of behavior so the don't have to hide from the moral police like in the past.
Like I have said before the myth of the good old days is exactly that a myth.

 

[rambone]

But to equate not allowing gays to legally marry seems like a stretch to me. Marriage is made to provide children a safe place to grow up and be protected..

The first legal marriage licenses in the U.S. were put in place by states intending to prevent the intermixing of races. They would deny couples the "privilege" of marrying when the couple didn't fit their moral standard of what a couple should look like. As science advanced, they also used marriage licenses to deny people who were sick/genetically inferior from marrying. All of this equates to more social engineering by the moral majority.

 

[rambone]

I dont think society is any more or less evil,promiscuous,indecent,or what ever word you want to use,than it was 20/50/or100 years ago.
People are not persecuted now like they were for these types of behavior so the don't have to hide from the moral police like in the past.
Like I have said before the myth of the good old days is exactly that a myth.

I think spouses were just as promiscuous in those days, but divorce was taboo so they stayed in miserable relationships to keep up airs.

 

[phylodog]

What is to be gained? Is it to try and force people into heaven by creating strict guidelines for people to follow? A truly moral person doesn't need government to be their Moral Compass.

I'm not disagreeing with you Rambone. I don't believe it should be the government's job to force people to be moral. I'm simply saying that it's sad that it would require government intervention to live in a moral society these days.

I dont think society is any more or less evil,promiscuous,indecent,or what ever word you want to use,than it was 20/50/or100 years ago.
People are not persecuted now like they were for these types of behavior so the don't have to hide from the moral police like in the past.
Like I have said before the myth of the good old days is exactly that a myth.

Maybe it isn't where you live but when I was a kid I had the run of the neighborhood and my parents had no fear of my whereabouts or safety. I won't let my daughter walk 120 yards to the corner and back by herself unless I'm standing at the window watching her. It's not my imagination that makes me paranoid, it's what I've seen with my own eyes.

It hasn't always been like this. I'm a police officer so yes, I see the worst out there. My father worked 28 years as a police officer and he didn't have the concerns about my safety that I do for my daughter.

 

[sbcman]

Don't forget all the Dry Counties that still exist due to political pressure by church coalitions. They've managed to cost some localities millions of dollars in revenue and driven up the numbers of DUI's for their neighbours.

Sorry, but I got a kick out of this one!

This may be the way it is someplaces for dry counties, but where I'm from (KY) my county was dry because the bootleggers, not "church coalitions" wanted it that way.

Oh, and we had plenty of "in-county" DUI's.

 

[NYFelon]

Phylo, I understand your point about bare breasts, even though I don't agree with it. That point notwithstanding, does your position about bare breasts apply to breastfeeding mothers as well?

 

[Sylvain]

I understand your point about the problems when government tries to legislate morality. But to equate not allowing gays to legally marry seems like a stretch to me. Marriage is made to provide children a safe place to grow up and be protected. Adults think it is for them but it was originally to raise the next generation in an environment that gives them the best chance of surviving to become adults themselves. That is why having both sexes involved in their upbringing is important so the kids have that balance. Gay marriage cannot provide that no matter how well meaning the "parents".

Yes gay marriage provides that to the children, in the US and in other countries gay parents provided a happy and safe family for their kids.
It has been like that for decades.
And they are real parents, not "parents".Would you say that a heterosexual couple that adopt kids because they cannot have their own are "parents" and not real parents.Of course you wouldn't.
You can be great parents without being the biological parent of the child.
That happens in millions of families, with homosexual or straight parents.
People with step fathers or mothers call them their parents even if they are not their biological parents.
And kids have that balance even in same sex marriages, it has been proven for decades.
Many kids who live with same sex parents are more happy than kids who live with both sex parents.
Many married couples dont provide a safe environement for their kids, they abuse their kids, the husband hits the wife, they have drug problems or whatever you want ... It has nothing to do with the sex of the parents.
Some parents are very bad parents, it has nothing to do with their sexuality.
Usually gay parents really love their kids and take good care of them because they have to adopt them.They really want them.
It's not like some straight parents that just had kids "by accident" and decided to raise them poorly anyway.

 

[phylodog]

Phylo, I understand your point about bare breasts, even though I don't agree with it. That point notwithstanding, does your position about bare breasts apply to breastfeeding mothers as well?

I think it can be, and should be done with some discretion in public. If an infant needs to eat, it needs to eat. Doesn't mean a boob needs to be flopped out and dangle for all to see while the mother gets the child out of the stroller. There doesn't need to be a law against it, just a shame that some don't seem to understand, our more likely dont care, that others may not care to see it or have their children see it.