This is how it begins?

[poadeleted1]

A friend of mine sent this without attribution. I honestly don't know where it comes from, but....

The Islamification of America begins like this...


And so Shar'ia law begins to take effect in the States, at least in Michigan:

We American Muslims are subject to American law and we have the right of objection only if the law forces us to do something against Islam. ~ Hassan Hathout, Muslim Women's League

​

Come again?

Debbie Schlussel:

There are Muslim polygamist men living not far from me in the Detroit area. They have one wife, to whom they were married in the eyes of the State, and several to whom they are married in the eyes of the mosque. While our government recognizes these marriages for Muslims, it enforces polygamy laws against everyone else. In Dearborn, Michigan--Islamic America' nucleus--statutory rape cases have been dismissed on the grounds that there was a marriage (of a 14-year-old girl! in one case) in the eyes of the mosque.

​

 

[alaskaflyer]

I would point out there are non-muslim polygamist families living in many states here who are never prosecuted for similar reasons. The government seldom enforces polygamist laws against anyone who isn't stupid enough to actually get two (or more) marriage licenses. These people too are making up their own rules - they have for a long time - but the Union still stands somehow

 

[TMetzinger]

It's hard for me to see how any private relationship between one or more adults is a threat to me or my values.

 

[SkyHog]

It's hard for me to see how any private relationship between one or more adults is a threat to me or my values.

But what about the statutory rape mentioned in the OP?

 

[poadeleted1]

It's hard for me to see how any private relationship between one or more adults is a threat to me or my values.

It may not be. The fact is that it is not currenlty recognized as legal IN THIS COUNTRY is the issue. It is the fact that we do not live under muslim law, and for them to impose it on the citizens of the United States, in any way shape or form is just the first step toward the goal of an islamic nation and world. That is known as incrementalism, and not calling any one any names or implicating anyone, but that is what you get when you (or your tribe) compromises your values to accomodate. Today it's polygamy; tomorrow it's mandatory wearing of the habib....then you will have no right to worship the God you choose....or not worship any God if you so choose.

 

[wbarnhill]

It may not be. The fact is that it is not currenlty recognized as legal IN THIS COUNTRY is the issue. It is the fact that we do not live under muslim law, and for them to impose it on the citizens of the United States, in any way shape or form is just the first step toward the goal of an islamic nation and world. That is known as incrementalism, and not calling any one any names or implicating anyone, but that is what you get when you (or your tribe) compromises your values to accomodate. Today it's polygamy; tomorrow it's mandatory wearing of the habib....then you will have no right to worship the God you choose....or not worship any God if you so choose.

So, Muslims are forcing you to be a polygamist?

 

[TMetzinger]

But what about the statutory rape mentioned in the OP?

Note that I said "adults". I define "adult" as someone of sufficient maturity and judgement to be responsible for their own well-being, and of sufficient character as well to be responsible for the well-being of another.

By that standard, I know several adults under 18, and many folks over 18 who do not qualify.

Statutory rape is a legal fiction - a necessary one, but don't forget it's an arbitrary standard and usually set by the local society, and marriage and sexual relations are not mentioned in the Constitution.

This all comes down to how "society" is defined. There is one "society" defined by the US legal code, and then there are many other "societies" within the US defined by local laws and by customs as well.

As an example, nobody found anything strange in the fact that we had knives in school (Kentucky, 1979-1983). Most of us lived in rural areas, and we all had knives and used them for regular activities (hay baling, hunting, whittling,to name a few). Even though there may have been fistfights, I can't remember a time where anybody reached for a knife. That tells me that we had all learned the difference between a killing issue and a fighting issue - something that many people of the same age today apparently have not learned.

My point is that the definition of "society" varies widely from place to place, and one of the great things about this country is that in general we don't go after each other for being different until that difference causes a direct measurable harm to ourselves.

So I really don't care about polygamy - anyone who can make that kind of relationship work inspires a certain amount of respect, as I find it hard enough to live with just one spouse. And if they can't make it work then they've earned all the extra grief they'll get.

 

[mdreger]

While I can see the problem with a enclave enacting "laws" that allow behavior that would otherwise be prohibited by the overlying governments, be they city, township, county, etc. What is the practical difference between the goals, and presumably rules enacted by this enclave and those enacted by homeowner associations? I have heard of some pretty restrictive and IMO silly rules set forth by the HO's. As much as I don't like many of the HO's rules that I have seen or heard of, the folks living there are the ones that agreed to it, just as the ones living in this enclave are the ones agreeing to its rules.

 

[Brian Austin]

While I can see the problem with a enclave enacting "laws" that allow behavior that would otherwise be prohibited by the overlying governments, be they city, township, county, etc. What is the practical difference between the goals, and presumably rules enacted by this enclave and those enacted by homeowner associations? I have heard of some pretty restrictive and IMO silly rules set forth by the HO's. As much as I don't like many of the HO's rules that I have seen or heard of, the folks living there are the ones that agreed to it, just as the ones living in this enclave are the ones agreeing to its rules.

Bad analogy. HOA's don't violate basic US laws nor local community standards. The members of a HOA are there voluntarily. The same cannot be said for the women and children of these types of enclaves.

 

[wbarnhill]

No young William. That is part and parcel of incrementalism. Let them have their poligamy. Then what? What other part of islamic law will they have to have that takes precedence over the law of the land - the Constitution of the United States???

So essentially, what you're saying is that if we allow gay marriage, then homosexuals will take over america?

If we legalize marijuana, pot heads will take over state by state?

Your fears are simply unfounded. Remember that Freedom of Religion covers your freedom to practice as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of another. A consentual polygamist marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

[poadeleted1]

So essentially, what you're saying is that if we allow gay marriage, then homosexuals will take over america?

If we legalize marijuana, pot heads will take over state by state?

Your fears are simply unfounded. Remember that Freedom of Religion covers your freedom to practice as long as you are not infringing upon the rights of another. A consentual polygamist marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights.

You believe what you want. No one can change your ideas about right and wrong and it looks to me like you are one of those folks who learn when you get burned.

The law is the law. Polygamy is illegal. You don't like it, change the constitution. Human sacrifice is not legal either, but some religions think it is valid. Knock yourself out, but be prepared to suffer the consequences.

End of discussion wrt me and you. It will only get ugly from here and you are not worth me getting worked up over, nor are you worthy of being the reason for me to get a slap from Chuck. One day you'll learn. It will be painful, but you'll learn because you don't listen from people who went before and you know better.

have a great life. and remember that the only real difference between a 2LT/ENS and an E2 in any branch of service is that the E2 has already been promoted once.

 

[Greebo]

The law is the law. Polygamy is illegal. You don't like it, change the constitution. Human sacrifice is not legal either, but some religions think it is valid. Knock yourself out, but be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Where is marriage defined in the Constitution?

Marriage is a state controlled legal concept, and a religion controlled moral one.

 

[poadeleted1]

Where is marriage defined in the Constitution?

Marriage is a state controlled legal concept, and a religion controlled moral one.

I stand corrected. Change the laws of your state to allow polygamy then. Or just eliminate any morals, norms and standards from society and let everyone do whatever they feel like doing. I mean, everyone has a right.

 

[poadeleted1]

At least the muslim woman got one part right: "We American Muslims are subject to American law...."

end of the story. Don't like being subject to American law? There are numerous other countries on the planet. Find the one you want and have a nice life.

 

[mdreger]

Bad analogy. HOA's don't violate basic US laws nor local community standards. The members of a HOA are there voluntarily. The same cannot be said for the women and children of these types of enclaves.

I guess it is a bad analogy based on the original post regarding polygamy and statutory rape, but if you re-read what I posted: "While I can see the problem with a enclave enacting "laws" that allow behavior that would otherwise be prohibited by the overlying governments".

I see the problem with polygamy [as a legal matter] and statutory rape.

I don't see the practical difference between a community/enclave [in this case Muslim] having a dress code for its residents or another having a code prohibiting certain class of vehicles.

In both cases the residents knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed up for their particular community/enclave. They both signed or otherwise pledged their obedience to that set of rules.

Again this is for behaviors that are not already prohibited by higher laws of this nation.

Also, in both cases there may be individuals that are there "against their will". But then again, most every teen ager in this nation is subject to their parents/teachers/societal/etc. rules "against their will".

 

[Greebo]

I stand corrected. Change the laws of your state to allow polygamy then. Or just eliminate any morals, norms and standards from society and let everyone do whatever they feel like doing. I mean, everyone has a right.

When you involve children, legal protections are absoluetly called for - but as for morals among adults...

Morals and standards are all well and good within groups, but different groups have different views and morals. I have friends of both gender who are gay, I know of people who live in happy, polyamous relationships, I know people who choose to live alone. None of what any of those three groups do affects me in any personal way, and how they choose to live is their own business. They're all adults and so am I. That's the key point - they are adults, free to make their own choices.

 

[poadeleted20]

In any further contributions to this thread, the contributors are reminded that stereotyping or prejudging people on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, or gender is a violation of the RoC.