News Bogus Claim - Obama wants to implement Sharia Law

[Ivan Seeking]

So I was just told by a tea party/AM radio fan and work associate. Needless to say, I was shocked to hear that he really believes this!

Where is he getting this stuff? This seems to be one source of the claim - what a surprise, Glenn Beck is one of the top hits.

GLENN: How about this story? Not to overwhelm anybody but again, we're at the phase now where you're not going to solve these problems overnight. These problems are going to be solved in time and only solved when you stand up. Judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal norms. Sharia law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts. The United States constitutes an axis of disobedience along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein. These are the views of a man who is on track to become one of the U.S. Government's top attorneys. Harold Koh is his name. He was the dean of Yale Law School. What a surprise. President Obama has nominated Koh to the State Department's legal advisor. Imagine the state department under Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have this guy as their lead attorney. He would forge wide range of international agreements on trade issues to arms control. He would also represent our country legally in places like the United Nations. He is a fan of transnational legal process, arguing that distinctions between the U.S. and international laws should vanish...

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23372/

Is this the source? Perhaps some context is in order here.

 

[Barwick]

I'm not sure about that one's context, but there has been numerous requests (and even successes) in Western Europe where Muslims are allowed to govern certain communities by Sharia Law.

Similar calls have been made in the US, most notably by the left in their attempt to be "tolerant". That's probably where this latest one comes from.

The implications of Sharia Law in the United States, even for a small group of people, are astounding. It would literally rip this country apart. If you knew all the things that have happened in recent times under supposed Sharia Law, you'd likely vomit. Some of the most vile things you've ever heard of.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is clearly pure falsehood; why are we justifying this with a thread?

 

[D H]

Perhaps some context is in order here.

Context: The article you cited in the OP is from March 2009. Beck (along with others; this was apparently a short-lived wacko right meme) slung some conjured mud back that failed to stick to the target because the mud 100% pure fabricated mud.

Context: It's Glen Beck, for crying out loud.

 

[russ_watters]

Why are we discussing what some random radio show call in guest said? does this meet our quality guidlines?

Am I reading right: you heard a call-in guest say something provocative so you googled and found something somewhat similar that Beck said so you posted it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A bit of clarification added. The point is to understand the source and motivation for this latest Obamanation.

 

[lisab]

Similar calls have been made in the US, most notably by the left in their attempt to be "tolerant". That's probably where this latest one comes from.

Got a source for this?

 

[Gokul43201]

A bit of clarification added. The point is to understand the source and motivation for this latest Obamanation.

This needs to at least be a reasonably widespread rumor in order to warrant discussing, don't you think? Is there any evidence that it is?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This needs to at least be a reasonably widespread rumor in order to warrant discussing, don't you think? Is there any evidence that it is?

He didn't come up with this himself. $100 says it was on AM radio during the last week - Rush, Lars, et al. A quick google gave a good number of related hits.

Daniel Pipes Accuses Obama of Enforcing Sharia Law

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/daniel-pipes-accuses-obama-of-enforcing-sharia-law/

Hammas and Obama want GZ mosque moving us closer to Sharia law, Taliban style burkas and slavery

http://www.coachisright.com/hammas-...-sharia-law-taliban-style-burkas-and-slavery/

Sharia law don't want it here how can we stop this garbage

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sharia-law-dont-want-it-here-how-can-we-stop-this-garbage/question-1216135/

Poll: Majority Of GOP Said Obama Wants Sharia Law

http://cbs4.com/campaign2010/obama.muslim.poll.2.1888841.html

etc etc etc

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I want to add that my work associate isn't some gun-toten redneck driving a old beat up p/u with pit bulls in the back. This is a mainstream city guy.

 

[Al68]

I want to add that my work associate isn't some gun-toten redneck driving a old beat up p/u with pit bulls in the back. This is a mainstream city guy.

What could that possible have to do with anything? What is the point of the thread, anyway?

Are you interested in debating whether or not the U.S. should implement Sharia law? Whether your friend is an idiot? Whether Obama is a Muslim? What Glenn Beck's motives are?

This thread seems like an obvious candidate for being locked for extreme nonsensical purposelessness in the third degree.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/daniel-pipes-accuses-obama-of-enforcing-sharia-law/

That's a blog-with-an adgenda, which is an unacceptable source for PF...and a quick read shows it also uses the same straw-man as you did in the OP: The title doesn't match the content they are using the title to criticize.

[crackpot link]

[crackpot link]

Hey, you found a couple of random crackpots on the internet! Congratulations! But still unacceptable sources, even for the purpose of debunking.

Poll: Majority Of GOP Said Obama Wants Sharia Law
http://cbs4.com/campaign2010/obama.muslim.poll.2.1888841.html

A news source that should know better than to use such a deceptive title. It implies that the poll asked and people responded that Obama wants to implement Sharia law here in the US, which isn't true. What is actually in the poll is only tangentially related to the crackpot claim in the OP.

Perhaps it was an unintentional and unfortunate truncation, but I'm not sympathetic to such things.

 

[russ_watters]

What could that possible have to do with anything? What is the point of the thread, anyway?

It appears to me that Ivan is saying that the crackpot cited in the OP is a mainstream Republican for the purpose of claiming that a high fraction of mainstream Republicans are crackpots. Perhaps that's the purpose of this thread?

 

[G037H3]

It appears to me that Ivan is saying that the crackpot cited in the OP is a mainstream Republican for the purpose of claiming that a high fraction of mainstream Republicans are crackpots. Perhaps that's the purpose of this thread?

This seems to be the case...

 

[drankin]

How many posts does it take to unveil the obvious? :)

 

[Char. Limit]

The world may never know.

On the other hand, conservatives do tend to say wacky things... but then so do liberals.

 

[drankin]

The world may never know.

On the other hand, conservatives do tend to say wacky things... but then so do liberals.

We all say wacky things on occasion. I call it passion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

How many posts does it take to unveil the obvious? :)

It appears to me that Ivan is saying that the crackpot cited in the OP is a mainstream Republican for the purpose of claiming that a high fraction of mainstream Republicans are crackpots. Perhaps that's the purpose of this thread?

That's a blog-with-an adgenda, which is an unacceptable source for PF...and a quick read shows it also uses the same straw-man as you did in the OP: The title doesn't match the content they are using the title to criticize.
Hey, you found a couple of random crackpots on the internet! Congratulations! But still unacceptable sources, even for the purpose of debunking. A news source that should know better than to use such a deceptive title. It implies that the poll asked and people responded that Obama wants to implement Sharia law here in the US, which isn't true. What is actually in the poll is only tangentially related to the crackpot claim in the OP.

Perhaps it was an unintentional and unfortunate truncation, but I'm not sympathetic to such things.

What could that possible have to do with anything? What is the point of the thread, anyway?

Are you interested in debating whether or not the U.S. should implement Sharia law? Whether your friend is an idiot? Whether Obama is a Muslim? What Glenn Beck's motives are?

This thread seems like an obvious candidate for being locked for extreme nonsensical purposelessness in the third degree.

Got a source for this?

Why are we discussing what some random radio show call in guest said? does this meet our quality guidlines?

Am I reading right: you heard a call-in guest say something provocative so you googled and found something somewhat similar that Beck said so you posted it?

Context: The article you cited in the OP is from March 2009. Beck (along with others; this was apparently a short-lived wacko right meme) slung some conjured mud back that failed to stick to the target because the mud 100% pure fabricated mud.

Context: It's Glen Beck, for crying out loud.

This is clearly pure falsehood; why are we justifying this with a thread?

Can this thread be locked now?

 

[Evo]

When Ivan asked me to reconsider, I stepped back to look at it from the perspective of all of the crackpot claims being circulated on the internet about Obama.

I read a lot of news blurbs on yahoo (to keep up with what might be posted in the lounge) and the comments about Obama at the bottom of any article are just insane to the point that it makes me cringe. So, I do see the usefullness of a thread addressing this type of nuttiness.

Ivan, perhaps delete this thread and start over with a thread about the growing trend of rumor mongering about Obama? It has become somewhat of a disturbing phenomena.

 

[turbo]

When Ivan asked me to reconsider, I stepped back to look at it from the perspective of all of the crackpot claims being circulated on the internet about Obama.

I read a lot of news blurbs on yahoo (to keep up with what might be posted in the lounge) and the comments about Obama at the bottom of any article are just insane to the point that it makes me cringe. So, I do see the usefullness of a thread addressing this type of nuttiness.

Ivan, perhaps delete this thread and start over with a thread about the growing trend of rumor mongering about Obama? It has become somewhat of a disturbing phenomena.

And how to illustrate the insanity? None of the really disturbing crap is posted on sites that meet PF guidelines, and can't be linked to without risking trouble here. There is some truly insane stuff being flung around out there. The sad part is that some gullible people will believe it and repeat it.

 

[Evo]

And how to illustrate the insanity? None of the really disturbing crap is posted on sites that meet PF guidelines, and can't be linked to without risking trouble here. There is some truly insane stuff being flung around out there. The sad part is that some gullible people will believe it and repeat it.

Here are two sites that talk about the myths. This was just a quick google.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/...-labor-and-illegal-immigrants-social-security

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/right-wing-myths-about-ob_n_212571.html

And this article

Consider for a moment the long and growing list of patently false and utterly irrational claims (especially about President Obama and his administration):

The abjectly crazy "birther" and "Obama-is-a-Muslim" movements,

The allegations about health care reform "death panels,"

Last year's absurd claims that, by addressing American schoolchildren, Obama was trying to "indoctrinate" them and spread a "socialist" ideology,

The myth that the Obama administration was "coming to get" the guns of law abiding citizens,

The claims that plans to expand the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps were part of an effort create a "civilian national security force" and to herd young people into "re-education" camps.

The claim that Obama was launching a nefarious plot to mandate circumcision!

It would be one thing if these moronic assertions were merely the flotsam and jetsam of the blogosphere - wacky urban myths that occasionally "go viral" on the Internet at the hands of spammers and other troubled souls who spend too much staring at computer screens. It's quite another, however, when these claims are repeated as fact by supposedly serious politicians affiliated with supposedly responsible political parties.

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/cms/2010/05/07/urban-myth-as-campaign-talking-point/

This is the kind of thing I was anticipating being discussed.

 

[Evo]

Has Obama ever criticized sharia for being the evil system of law it happens to be?

Or has he, rather, been fervent in praising islamic culture&traditions, even bowing his head to one of the very worst dictators on the planet, namely the king of SA?

But it's one thing to criticize an action that you don't approve of and completely another to believe wild myths. One is acceptable and understandable, the other is ignorance or worse.

Bush bowed down and kissed the Pope's ring, but there was no flack over that. Bush walked holding hands with Middle Eastern leaders. That happens to be an acceptable custom there and Bush decided to follow their traditions.

 

[arildno]

But it's one thing to criticize an action that you don't approve of and completely another to believe wild myths. One is acceptable and understandable, the other is ignorance or worse.

Correct.
But why is it that hardcore Obama supporters dismisses all valid criticism of him through guilt-by-association to the ones on the rabid right?
That is basically what Ivanseeking is doing in this thread.

Bush bowed down and kissed the Pope's ring, but there was no flack over that.

And?
Is there a moral equivalence between the actions of the Pope and the king of Saudi Arabia?
If not, then there is no moral equivalence between the two president's signs of respect, either.
(A better example would be consistent, and continuing support of the utterly evil SA kingdom from BOTH presidents).

Bush walked holding hands with Middle Eastern leaders. That happens to be an acceptable custom there and Bush decided to follow their traditions.

And bowing is, according to ME customs, a sign of..subservience, rather than a sign of equal standing.

 

[Evo]

Correct.
But why is it that hardcore Obama supporters dismisses all valid criticism of him through guilt-by-association to the ones on the rabid right?

Hey, I criticize everyone.

 

[arildno]

I wouldn't label you as hardcore, Evo. (hmm..that gave unintended associations).

After all, you were not the one making a specious argument in the wind farm thread just in order to rush into defense of Obama, quite the opposite, you called the scam "sickening".

So, my comment about "hardcore supporters" wasn't aimed at you at all.

 

[Jack21222]

I'd argue the pope has done FAR more harm to the world than the Saudi king, but that's going off topic.

 

[Barwick]

Got a source for this?

You didn't hear anything about this?

Oh, wait... there's no way ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc, would report it.

I'm sure you've heard of the Ground Zero Mosque. The most prominent person involved in that (Imam Rauf) has called for Sharia in the United States. He's hardly a "non-noteworthy" person with all the attention he's gotten.
Edit: Removed link to inappropriate site.

There's been others, but you get the point.

And I should have clarified: It isn't the majority of the left that's saying we should impose Sharia Law. What I meant was, when a call is made for Sharia Law to be allowed in a community or certain segment of the population, it is the Left that is most commonly heard saying "I'm ok with that".

 

[turbo]

You didn't hear anything about this?

Oh, wait... there's no way ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc, would report it.

I'm sure you've heard of the Ground Zero Mosque. The most prominent person involved in that (Imam Rauf) has called for Sharia in the United States. He's hardly a "non-noteworthy" person with all the attention he's gotten.

Edit: Removed link to inappropriate site

There's been others, but you get the point.

And I should have clarified: It isn't the majority of the left that's saying we should impose Sharia Law. What I meant was, when a call is made for Sharia Law to be allowed in a community or certain segment of the population, it is the Left that is most commonly heard saying "I'm ok with that".

Why didn't you just call it the "Victory Mosque" and avoid the pussyfooting? Muslims are free to worship in all kinds of places, including the Pentagon, the site of one of the 9/11 attacks. What is wrong with allowing religious freedom?

 

[lisab]

You didn't hear anything about this?

Oh, wait... there's no way ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc, would report it.

I'm sure you've heard of the Ground Zero Mosque. The most prominent person involved in that (Imam Rauf) has called for Sharia in the United States. He's hardly a "non-noteworthy" person with all the attention he's gotten.Edit: Removed link to inappropriate site


There's been others, but you get the point.

And I should have clarified: It isn't the majority of the left that's saying we should impose Sharia Law. What I meant was, when a call is made for Sharia Law to be allowed in a community or certain segment of the population, it is the Left that is most commonly heard saying "I'm ok with that".

That's a right-wingnut site, complete with an Ann Coulter banner - total BS.

I bet you can't find a *legitimate* source of someone - anyone - in America who is "ok" with implementing Sharia law in the United States.

 

[Barwick]

That's a right-wingnut site, complete with an Ann Coulter banner - total BS.

I bet you can't find a *legitimate* source of someone - anyone - in America who is "ok" with implementing Sharia law in the United States.

They are quoting the Imam's own book. Is that a right-wing nut site?

*crickets*... *chirp*...

 

[lisab]

They are quoting the Imam's own book. Is that a right-wing nut site?

*crickets*... *chirp*...

You originally said there are "those on the left" calling for Sharia law in the United States. You did not back that up, instead you posted some dumb-@ss right wing blog - not a reputable source - that the mosque is a so-called 'victory mosque':

I also think it's close to the nature of what it is to open a mosque. It opens up a seat of government. When a mosque is open, there's a claim of territory. When you open a mosque it establishes Islamic law within the purview of the mosque. There is a history of Islam putting up mosques that are associated with claims of victory.

The site you linked is full of lots of that kind of crap, like this:

He (the Imam) seems to suggest (Sharia) should replace the U.S. Constitution.

Bolding mine. "Seems to suggest"? Really? That counts as a legit source? Again, I'm calling it BS. I know you really, really want to believe what you wrote - see "truthiness".

The crickets you hear are an echo.

 

[loseyourname]

The zaniness you find at the bottom of an internet article is hardly limited to rumors about Obama. People think the Federal Reserve System intentionally crashed the world financial markets so that JP Morgan Chase could gobble up debt-riddled competitors, for Christ's sake. The internet naturally gives voice to every single whack job you would have never known existed before its advent.

 

[Barwick]

You originally said there are "those on the left" calling for Sharia law in the United States. You did not back that up, instead you posted some dumb-@ss right wing blog - not a reputable source - that the mosque is a so-called 'victory mosque':

No I didn't, go back and read the post... I said those on the left were sympathetic to the calls for Sharia Law:

And I should have clarified: It isn't the majority of the left that's saying we should impose Sharia Law. What I meant was, when a call is made for Sharia Law to be allowed in a community or certain segment of the population, it is the Left that is most commonly heard saying "I'm ok with that".

Now, do I go around calling MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc all "dumb-@ss socialist propaganda machines"? No. Though that's what they are, I judge the stories on each site on an individual basis.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now, do I go around calling MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc all "dumb-@ss socialist propaganda machines"? No. Though that's what they are, I judge the stories on each site on an individual basis.

What you think they are is irrelevant. For the purpose of sourcing claims on this forum, citations to original sources are required whenever possible. A blog may be acceptable if it is directly quoting a primary source, but not if it is providing its own interpretation and commentary.

 

[Evo]

No I didn't, go back and read the post... I said those on the left were sympathetic to the calls for Sharia Law:

So, back that up with a mainstream acceptable source, not someone's personal opinion. It's against forum rules to state opinion as fact.

 

[Barwick]

So, back that up with a mainstream acceptable source, not someone's personal opinion. It's against forum rules to state opinion as fact.

What do you want? Transcripts from meetings? What "major, mainstream" media outlet is going to report on something so small and seemingly insignificant to most Americans?

 

[Evo]

What do you want? Transcripts from meetings? What "major, mainstream" media outlet is going to report on something so small and seemingly insignificant to most Americans?

So, you have no valid source. Thanks for confirming that, not that there was any doubt.

 

[Barwick]

So, you have no valid source. Thanks for confirming that, not that there was any doubt.

No, the news outlets that cover this aren't biased towards your liberal point of view like the so called "mainstream" media is. Since when do YOU get to define what is mainstream?

Regardless:

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

The case was later overturned by a more sane court:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

Now, if I didn't think you're going to ignore my references STILL, I'd go and find more, but why should I waste my time arguing with you?

 

[Evo]

No, the news outlets that cover this aren't biased towards your liberal point of view like the so called "mainstream" media is. Since when do YOU get to define what is mainstream?

Regardless:

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html



The case was later overturned by a more sane court:



Now, if I didn't think you're going to ignore my references STILL, I'd go and find more, but why should I waste my time arguing with you?

This doesn't support your claim.

A mainstream news source is a well known recognized news source, it is not a blog, it is not an opinion piece. This is what the mentors have agreed upon for this forum.

 

[Barwick]

This doesn't support your claim.

A mainstream news source is a well known recognized news source, it is not a blog, it's is not an opinion piece. This is what the mentors have agreed upon for this forum.

You think "mainstream news sources" aren't opinion pieces?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/d...ng-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

Oh, and in case that isn't "mainstream" enough for you, I'll link the Fox News article (mainstream yet?) that quoted and used the Daily Caller as its source for their article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tted-protect-candidate-obama-jeremiah-wright/

Oh and here's another, but it has the word "Christian" in the name of the company so it must be full of wackjobs

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0722/JournoList-Isolated-case-or-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

So far, news organizations like the Post and National Public Radio, whose journalists took part in the list and have been quoted by the Daily Caller, are staying mostly mum about the scoop. The Post – which is at the center of the JournoList debacle because the list was run by Post reporter Ezra Klein – has declined comment, citing it as a "personnel matter."

And as testament to my point about your high and mighty "mainstream" sources, get on Google and type in the word "Journolist". Click through page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... and tell me when you come to a "mainstream" source that has an article on Journolist, and ISN'T an editorial. Good luck. To find that one on Fox News I had to search site:www.foxnews.com[/URL] Journolist and start digging before I found that one.

 

[Evo]

You think "mainstream news sources" aren't opinion pieces?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/d...ng-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

This isn't mainstream.

Reported news in a mainstream news source is acceptable as a source, editorials and opinion pieces are not acceptable and this has been made clear to you several times.

And as testament to my point about your high and mighty "mainstream" sources, get on Google and type in the word "Journolist". Click through page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... and tell me when you come to a "mainstream" source that has an article on Journolist, and ISN'T an editorial. Good luck. To find that one on Fox News I had to search site:www.foxnews.com[/URL] Journolist and start digging before I found that one.[/QUOTE]What is a "Journolist"? Why would I need to look for an article on it? And what does that have to do with you making bogus claims that you can't back up?

Edit: Journolist - a private Google Group. This has nothing to do at all with your claim.

 

[Barwick]

This isn't mainstream.

Reported news in a mainstream news source is acceptable as a source, editorials and opinion pieces are not acceptable and this has been made clear to you several times.

What is a "Journolist"? Why would I need to look for an article on it? And what does that have to do with you making bogus claims that you can't back up?

Good Lord... this is exactly what I am talking about.

You're the moderator, take the time to read what I submitted, even though it's not "mainstream" according to you. It answers all the questions you just asked me.

Since your view of "news" is only what comes from obviously biased sources, I will give you a bit of old news:

Journolist was a group where liberal (yes, they were all admittedly liberal) journalists conspired together to suppress news stories that were detrimental to Barack Obama's election, both during the primary vs Hillary Clinton, and in the general election. They also said some nasty things about conservatives, wishing people died, talking about how it would be funny, yadda yadda... They discussed making up claims of racism about conservatives in order to distract people from the real issues, despite there being no evidence, etc.

It is all true, and admitted to by the people who were later exposed. It resulted in resignations, etc. Heck, here, have a billion and a half references on the scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList#References

It's one of the biggest scandals exposing the media of modern times, and yet you haven't heard about it. Honestly, just for ONCE, please open your mind and read something other than what you consider to be mainstream. As a physicist, I'm sure you're glad that SOMEONE listened to Galileo and Copernicus, despite the powers-that-be in what was at the time a corrupt version of the church, refusing to listen to their reason. There IS in fact truth out there outside what you think is "mainstream".

 

[Barwick]

Edit: Journolist - a private Google Group. This has nothing to do at all with your claim.

*covers ears* LALALALALALALALALALALALAAAA!

Nothing to see here folks! It's true because I say so!

You have GOT to be kidding me... there's enough evidence in the Journolist archives (if the full archives exist anywhere), that if bias were illegal, we could convict these people in a court of law.

 

[Evo]

Good Lord... this is exactly what I am talking about.

You're the moderator, take the time to read what I submitted, even though it's not "mainstream" according to you. It answers all the questions you just asked me.

I don't see a single news report stating that

those on the left were sympathetic to the calls for Sharia Law:

Post the news article from a mainstream source that backs up your claim. I need the specific quote and the link. You're breaking forum rules by continuing to post off topic.

 

[Barwick]

I don't see a single news report stating that

Post the news article from a mainstream source that backs up your claim. I need the specific quote and the link. You're breaking forum rules by continuing to post off topic.

I'm done trying to argue with you. I just showed how mainstream sources like your precious CBS, MSNBC, etc are NOT going to write about things like this because they are biased, and yet you demand I find something that isn't present from biased media sources.

At least admit my point that these "mainstream" sources you demand are NOT in fact neutral and do NOT report on everything that is out there, therefore your demand is unfulfillable.

 

[Evo]

I'm done trying to argue with you. I just showed how mainstream sources like your precious CBS, MSNBC, etc are NOT going to write about things like this because they are biased, and yet you demand I find something that isn't present from biased media sources.

At least admit my point that these "mainstream" sources you demand are NOT in fact neutral and do NOT report on everything that is out there, therefore your demand is unfulfillable.

No one is saying that they are neutral, the point is that since they are well known, it is well known what their bias is. That's the point.

Posting someone's opinion and claiming it as a fact as you did is a violation of the forum rules.

 

[Jack21222]

Is it against forum rules to suggest a poster seek psychiatric help for paranoid delusions? I'm not necessarily talking about anybody in this thread, of course...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oklahoma "Sharia Law Amendment", State Question 755 (2010)

The Oklahoma International Law Amendment is on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_(2010 )

 

[Amp1]

Rabid declaimers often make up myths and untrue stories usually when they don’t have legit claims. Sharia law wasn’t instituted by the prophet Muhammad instead it was introduced later in Islam’s history. My opinion is that some zealous, puritanical persons found in the introduction of Sharia law a means of mass control of a particular population. Since the ME societies are for the most part patriarchal, it made it easier to deny human rights to women and/or others who are not a part of that ruling body.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My last post had a bad link.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_"Sharia_Law_Amendment",_State_Question_755_(2010)

Also

As the country grapples with its worst economic downturn in decades and persistent unemployment, voters in Oklahoma next week will take up another issue — whether they should pass a constitutional amendment outlawing Islamic law, or Shariah...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/MEASURE+WOULD+OUTLAW+SHARIA+OKLAHOMA+WHERE+DOESN+EXIST/3743178/story.html