Bogus Claim - Obama wants to implement Sharia Law

[mheslep]

I assume most people had already heard about the lunatic NJ judge that let a guy off for assaulting his wife when the guy claimed he had that right under Sharia (since overturned). If Oklahoma is being a bit paranoid, the M. Gazette article was being overly cute, at least in its title.

"We must realize there is a major campaign in Europe to impose Sharia law and Sharia is beginning to be cited in a few U.S courts. It is completely incompatible with our Constitution," says Woolsey, who also says that he is not advocating interference with Muslims practicing their religion

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html

 

[Evo]

I assume most people had already heard about the lunatic NJ judge that let a guy off for assaulting his wife when the guy claimed he had that right under Sharia (since overturned). The M. Gazette article was being overly cute, at least in its title.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html

I read the domestic violence case. The judge wasn't agreeing to implementation of sharia law, he was trying to abide by "freedom of religion", IIRC. I blame the abuse of the "freedom of religion clause". I seriously doubt that the people that founded this country ever imagined the ways in which this would be stretched and distorted to cover things they never even dreamt of.

 

[mugaliens]

I read the domestic violence case. The judge wasn't agreeing to implementation of sharia law, he was trying to abide by "freedom of religion", IIRC. I blame the abuse of the "freedom of religion clause". I seriously doubt that the people that founded this country ever imagined the ways in which this would be stretched and distorted to cover things they never even dreamt of.

+1. I'd add that I'm sure they envisioned different religions, as they were well-read and were no strangers to non-Christian faiths. Everyone cite's Jefferson's "separation of church and state "clause," but that's not what 1A's religious clause says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson's "separation of church and state was merely in response to a minister's concern regarding governmental control of his church, and holds no more weight in law than anyone of any other President's letters or speeches given since the dawn of our country. Presidents do not make law, and "separation of church and state" is not law. It is, however, one of the most misused, airbrushed, and misapplied phrases in the history of the United States, so much so that when people learn that Thomas Jefferson opened up the Treasury building for church services, they're aghast in disbelief, thinking, "How can that possibly be?!" The answer lies in the fact that what's amiss is the misappropriation of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to support concepts never envisioned by Jefferson, and which both his actions and other words he wrote and spoke do not support.

This distortion has grown so extreme that people singing Chrismas carols near any of the moments in Washington D.C. are directed by the Park Service to stop (I know, as I was once so directed). Apparently, they've been told that allowing it would be "respecting an establishment of religion," despite the fact that the Park Service is neither Congress, nor do they make laws.

Should Sharia law ever be allowed to creep into U.S. law, that would most certainly be a gross violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Al68]

Polk? Grant? Harding? Buchanan? Pierce? Surely any person with a reasonable understanding of US history would say that Obama couldn't *possibly* be the worst president.

What did any of those Presidents do that was so significant as to qualify them for consideration as the "worst" President? According to my "reasonable understanding of US history", none of them stand out as important enough to be considered one of the worst (or best) by anyone's standards.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What did any of those Presidents do that was so significant as to qualify them for consideration as the "worst" President? According to my "reasonable understanding of US history", none of them stand out as important enough to be considered one of the worst (or best) by anyone's standards.

Let me turn that around (as I'm presently too tired to coherently answer your difficult question): who would you list as candidates for worst (and best)?

 

[Al68]

Let me turn that around (as I'm presently too tired to coherently answer your difficult question): who would you list as candidates for worst (and best)?

Candidates for both this century would be FDR and Reagan. Which is which depends on whether you agreed with or opposed what they did. Both did significant things that many people loved while many others hated.

Polk, Grant, Harding, Buchanan and Pierce sound more like candidates for "most mediocre" than either best or worst. Just my humble opinion.

 

[mheslep]

Candidates for both this century would be FDR and Reagan. Which is which depends on whether you agreed with or opposed what they did. Both did significant things that many people loved while many others hated.

Polk, Grant, Harding, Buchanan and Pierce sound more like candidates for "most mediocre" than either best or worst. Just my humble opinion.

Worst is FDR? Not Wilson or Richard "wage and price controls, exploded regulation, exploded SS and Medicare spending, I am not a crook" Nixon?

 

[Char. Limit]

Worst is FDR? Not Wilson or Richard "wage and price controls, exploded regulation, exploded SS and Medicare spending, I am not a crook" Nixon?

What's wrong with Wilson? He kept us out of war until there was no other option.

 

[mheslep]

What's wrong with Wilson? He kept us out of war until there was no other option.

Horrendous, 18th century style bigot and wannabe totalitarian dictator.

E.g.:
The film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation" was released during Wilson's term; it glorified the Klan, it demeaned blacks and incited gang violence them. After Wilson watched the Birth of Nation at the Whitehouse,

with members of his cabinet, and their families. Wilson was reported to have commented of the film that "it is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.

 

[Char. Limit]

Horrendous, 18th century style bigot and wannabe totalitarian dictator.

Source? I'd like to see some proof that he was a "wannabe totalitarian dictator".

 

[mheslep]

Source? I'd like to see some proof that he was a "wannabe totalitarian dictator".

That's my three word opinion of course, based on numerous writings and statements of Wilson.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=792":

Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

More to come

 

[CRGreathouse]

Polk, Grant, Harding, Buchanan and Pierce sound more like candidates for "most mediocre" than either best or worst. Just my humble opinion.

I'm not a fan of the corruption that came with the Pierce and Grant administrations; maybe this is less important for you. It's harder to judge the two you list: they made sweeping changes, possibly good and possibly bad, in response to their respective crises. Frankly, neither of their core policies worked particularly well, but it's difficult to say what might have happened if they hadn't tried.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Actually, 18th (or 19th)-century seems a fair description of Wilson. He had wide, sweeping (good) goals and plans, but they all seemed to to have a certain 'white man's burden' feel to them, a 'we can civilize the world' flavor. I like him, on the whole, but I can't disagree with that characterization.

 

[Al68]

Worst is FDR? Not Wilson or Richard "wage and price controls, exploded regulation, exploded SS and Medicare spending, I am not a crook" Nixon?

LOL. My list of candidates wasn't all-inclusive.

 

[Al68]

It's harder to judge the two you list: they made sweeping changes, possibly good and possibly bad...

Yeah, that was my point. FDR, for example, probably had more influence on the size and type of government we have today, both by his actions, and his influence over the judicial branch, than any other President this century. That should put him on everyone's short list for either "best" or "worst".

And while I do care about the corruption of other administrations, it pales in comparison, IMHO.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yeah, that was my point. FDR, for example, probably had more influence on the size and type of government we have today, both by his actions, and his influence over the judicial branch, than any other President this century. That should put him on everyone's short list for either "best" or "worst".

FWIW he does make my list (thought I respectfully decline to state which!). For the purpose of this thread I chose less-contentious ones.

And while I do care about the corruption of other administrations, it pales in comparison, IMHO.

What pales in comparison to what? What administrations are you saying were more corrupt than the two I gave?

 

[Al68]

What pales in comparison to what? What administrations are you saying were more corrupt than the two I gave?

Pales in comparison to the damage done by more influential and powerful Presidents, regardless of how corrupt or honest they were. As an example, FDR's legacy, to those that oppose his agenda, far outweighs the examples you gave. And while FDR's administration was certainly corrupt, his legacy stems mainly from things he sincerely believed in.