Machjo

The US Constitution does not allow for the outlawing of Shari'a seeing that Church and State are separate. All the Constitution can do is to enforce US law. That means that any Shari'a law that is in conformity with US law is permitted, and any Shari'a law that runs counter to US law is not. but for the US government to eitehr enforce or ban Shari'a, that would be unconstitutional. Exactly. This is why Shari'a as such is neither enforced nor banned in the US.

No, he canot. And le'ts not fool ourselves that he wouldn't get even half of his proposals through the House and the Senate. That said, he'd at least stand the line against increased government spending. Now, where support for him could backfire would be if he succeeded in cutting taxes but failed to reduce spending in line with the tax cuts. Then we'd be right back to where we are now, only worse! The hope behind supporting him (and yes, this would be a gamble) would be that he'd fail to cut taxes but succeed in reducing spending at least enough to balance the budget. And seeing that he's an isolationist, we can imagine that his first priority would be to shrink military spending, though granted he'd try to reduce social spending too. If he should succeed in cutting both, so much the better. If he should succeed only in cutting military spending, still a step forward. if he should fail to cut spending but succeed in reducing taxes, then we're in trouble, seeing that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy already. Also, Paul would certainly not support corporate bailouts. he might not help the poor, but he certainly would not help the rich either. Or we could argue that he would help the poor in his own way by balancing the books, lowering inflation and interest rates, assuming of course the best case scenario that he succeeds in cutting government spending but fails to reduce taxes at least until the debt is paid off.

Here's a quote from the link in the OP: "If we are to face down shariah, we must understand what we are up against, not simply hope that dialogue and “engagement” will make the challenge go away. Those who today support shariah and the establishment of a global Islamic state (caliphate) are perforce supporting objectives that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights the Constitution guarantees and the representative, accountable government it authorizes. In fact, shariah’s pursuit in the United States is tantamount to sedition." So it would seem to me that as long as the Constitution stands, there is no need to fear its subversion by Shari'a. Now of course a Muslim is free to practice Shari'a in his own daily life, such as not engaging in alcohol, gambling, drugs, extramarital sex, theft, lying, murder, the eating of certain animals, etc. etc. etc., as long as it is in conformity with the law of the land. But as long as it is in conformity, then it is a non-issue. The OP itself essentially acknowledges it by pointing out the constitution.

That's fair enough. But the idea that the US government would pass a law explicitly recognizing Shari'a on its own merits would be unconstitutional anyway since it would conflict with the separation of church and state. Just to take Prohibition in the 1930s as an example. Sure the government could prohibit the consumption of alcohol, whether for health, social or other reasons, if it should be the express wish of the people that the government do so. however, had they tried to pass a law stating that all that prohibited alcohol on the basis that it was nonconformant to Shari'a, it could not have passed. So I really don't see the issue here.

I can certainly agree with that. But if that's the case, then whether a law agrees with shari'a or not becomes irrelevant.

I used to be an atheist, and not just a passive one. Even as an atheist I would have felt uncomfortable muttering words I did not believe in. Again, I'm not necessarily against those students participating in the prayers. However, only if either they were of the legal age of maturity or if they had explicit parental consent to participate. Otherwise, no. Now, let's say the student insists on participating in the prayers in spite of the teacher informing him that it's not the wish of the parents, then perhaps I could see a case for the teacher allowing the student on the grounds that he would have been violating the student's freedom of religion by prohibiting him from participating. Though even then the teacher should still at least inform the student that he does not have parental consent, so as to at least clear responsibility from himself. He should also ensure that the student is n fact doing so of his own initiative. In most cases though, I would feel uncomfortable taking students to any place of worship without first planning the trip.

I agree, he's not very solid on the economy on a number of fronts. First off, a modern government does need to ensure all get an education in one way or another. Sure the education system could be privatized to a degree such as through voucher programmes and such. but at the end of the day, we must ensure all get a decent education. Another point has to do with rapid and drastic tax cuts. Tax cuts are fine, but only once spending and debt are brought under control. Also, on foreign policy, he wants to withdraw from the UN, NATO, and essentially all other international organizations. While I can agree there is currently way too much overlap, and it would be wise to remain a member of one catch-all organization like the UN and just withdraw from all the others, it would not be very bright to withdraw from all of them. That's another issue I take with Ron Paul. Then again, seeing how little the US respects UN resolutions anyway, I guess withdrawal wouldn't make that big of a difference anyway. So he does have a point there of sorts I guess. Beyond those points though, Ron Paul has some good ideas. Overall, it's not so much that I agree with everything he says, but that he's honest about what he believes He has character, integrity, and so can be trusted to do at least what he genuinely believes to be right. And he'd stand as a good counterbalance to those who lean too far in the opposite direction. He'd serve as a healthy counterbalance in US politics today. He may swing too far towards libertarianism, but then again, most other US politicians swing too far towards big government. Good counterbalance there.

But: 1. Had they reached the legal age of maturity? and, 2. If they were still legally dependent, did they have parental consent to participate, regardless of their willingness to do so? As a parent, I'm quite open to my children exploring other religions, and would grant them the freedom to participate of their own free will should they feel comfortable doing to. That said, I also recognize that they might not feel comfortable, and so I would want assurances that they would not be forced to participate against their will, and also recognize that not all parents would feel so comfortable.

This I tend to disagree with. Teaching the Bible as literature, meaning that literary criticism will apply to it like any secular literature, means that students are taught to read the Bible for themselves and understand it for themselves. After all, there can be multiple understandings of the same book. The same ought to apply to Qur'an studies or any other study of any religious text It ought to be studied as literature along with all that entails.

Unless of course the student has reached the legal age of maturity or has been granted the freedom to participate by his legal guardian, which does not appear to be the case in this video mind you.

I have to disagree. Observing and participating are two different things. If I'm invited to a Christian, Muslim or any other service whereby I'm free to simply observe without feeling forced to participate, I'll feel quite comfortable and will participate on my own terms, and will appreciate the freedom granted me. By the way, I have in fact observed Muslim Friday prayer, and was quite free to do so without any pressure to participate. I've also attended Catholic masses where I'd felt quite uncomfortable owing to everyone rising and sitting and reciting on command, making me stand out like a sore thumb in the crowd. When I'd attended the Friday prayer, one gentleman was kind enough to ask me whether I would participate, and when I said I wasn't ed to just observe, he'd proposed I stand near the back. This way, I did not feel out of place to simply stand and observe. When I was invited to most Christian services, my hosts took me to the back, again to ensure no awkward moment. Whenever I'd been invited to a catholic mass, I'd be taken to sit down among the crowd, making it quite conspicuous when I did not participate, along with odd looks about me. Needless to say I'm less likely to accept an invitation to a Catholic mass as a result. Surprisingly enough, I was raised Catholic and even did my Confirmation, admittedly under pressure owing to my attending Catholic school. But since I don't believe in it, i don't feel comfortable participating in it. And while any church is free to invite me or reject me, should it invite me it should take it upon itself as a good host to ensure before mass, if it's aware I'm not a believer of course, to council me, to inform me of what to expect and advise that if I won't participate, that I might wish to sit at the back.

I actually agree with this to a degree. A Bible or a Qur'an can fit nicely into a child's book bag. No need for a field trip. Also, depending on the church or mosque attended, it could potentially give a false or distorted view of the religion. By actually reading the sacred texts of the religion, they're more likely to know what the religion really teaches independently of the actions of its followers. Literature can give some insight too. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, not only gives a balanced account of Islam and the Christian faith, but also stands as a literary masterpiece of the English language in its own right. OK, to be fair, Gibbon, a Deist, is somewhat biased against organized or revealed religions, including both the Christian and Muslim Faiths. That said, he is at least honest about his biases in his book, and also still gives credit where credit is due, to the extent that even Muslims and Christians, though they may disagree with his views, can still agree on the factual content of his book none the less.

My conclusion after all these posts: 1. Different people oppose the project for various reasons. 2. Some have approached local and other government officials to ask for official sanction of the project. Others, still believing in freedom of religion and the Constitution, oppose such petitions to the government, but still support the right of public protest. 3. The main argument coming from the camp supporting the freedom of the centre to be built is that since a person should be judged on his own actions and not those of his religious affiliation, the investors in their project should therefore not suffer any legal sanction for the actions of the perpetrators of 9/11. And of course this camp would oppose any official sanction of the project on Constitutional or other grounds relating to freedom of religion. This same group is likely to be divided between those who believe that even public protest represents the harassment of an innocent group simply practicing freedom of religion, and those who believe that they should protest on the grounds that we should be sensitive to what others do in association with our ethnic, religious, or other identity.

Separating the boys from the girls may have been a valuable lesson of how that Muslim community operated. Inviting the boys to participate in prayer was not out of line in itself, but I do believe that if those boys were under the legal age to be legally independent, then parental consent should also have been required to have those boys participate. Also, seeing that Islam is actually defined not by the behaviour of Muslims but rather by the text of the Qur'an and Ahadith, if the purpose was to teach about Islam itself, then teaching the contents of the Qur'an and Ahadith would have made ore sense. However, if the purpose was not so much to teach about Is;am but rather about the local Muslim community, then yes it would make more sense to visit the mosque. In the end, it really depends on what the learning objective was.

In fact, just to ensure neutrality, it might even be preferable to simply take the children to a World Religion Day event where many religious communities are present to each present their faiths together.

I'd say that was out of order. I'm not against a school taking children to any faith community for the value of the educational experience per se, as long as: 1. There is a clearly defined learning objective that could not be taught equally well in the classroom alone, 2. They are taken to a legal establishment, 3. Children not be required to participate unless requested to do so by their parents, and even be prohibited from participating without explicit parental consent. The most that should be allowed without parental consent is that they observe and no more. Yet seeing that it's likely off-campus, getting parental approval for a field trip might still be appropriate there too. Indeed that outing was botched, unless of course all the above was in fact implemented.

Many parts of Canadian law are in agreement with Shari'a. To mention but a few: 1. Laws against murder and theft. Shari'a prohibits these. 2. Laws against fraud. Shari'a has no law against fraud as such, but it does have laws against lying and against theft. Seeing that fraud is really just theft through lying, therefore our anti-fraud laws are also Shari'a compliant. 3. Laws placing certain restrictions on gambling and drinking, such as age limits. Shari'a prohibits these altogether, but certainly these laws move us closer to Shari'a. 4. Laws against indecent exposure in public. Shari'a also requires decent dress in public places. I could go on, but I think you see the point. To eliminate all laws that are compliant with Shari'a or that move in its direction would be chaos, seeing that many rules of Shari'a are also generally accepted by most civilized societies.

I'll admit that Ron Paul does go too far towards libertarianism for my taste. However, I guess part of the attraction is that he could serve as a valuable counterbalance to big government politicians. I'll also say that for all his flaws, he does come across as more honest than many other politicians. Like him or not, at least you know where he stands.

That is what I like about him overall. Agree with him or not, he is quite consistent. Cut help to the poor... along with help to the rich. Levels the playing field.

I won't write a check today, but I did two weeks ago, as I regularly do. That said, I don't see how you fail to see the relationship between government spending and personal spending power. Clearly increased government spending, at least when it is ill-managed which is the usual case, regardless of whether it's from the right or the left, contributes to government debt, inflation and higher interest rates, all of which bite into our incomes. Cut back on government spending, and though there would be no guarantee that I'd give even more than I do now, at least it would put an end to inflation and high interest rates, thus raising the value of the money I give. And who knows, maybe I would give even more if taxes dropped. Again, I'm opposed to socialism too, but it's still the next best thing after libertarianism as opposed to neo-conservatism. When spent wisely, it can go towards education and job training for the unemployed to help them back to work... in the private sector so as to make them temporarily dependent. With military spending, they make it a career to be supported by taxes. Agreed. Even when a socialist government is in power, much of the money goes to waste and bureaucracy. Partially agreed. I agree in principle, but if it comes down to a choice between that money going towards fighting wasteful wars abroad and retraining the unemployed at home, then I'd still want it invested, not wasted.

Also, how is helping the poor with your own money of your own free will 'socialist'? Seems pretty capitalistic to me. Again, I'm all for government spending on social programmes. That said, if it's a choice between spending on social programmes and the military, then social programes are more of an investment at least. Also, high government spending to send troops abroad on humanitarian missions in Haiti, Pakistan, etc. is not the same as social spending, except abroad? OK, now when military spending is on humanitarian missions abroad, then yes I'll agree that it's an investment too, unlike pre-emptive wars like in Iraq. But still, would it not be preferable to lower government spending instead so as to strengthen the value of the currency so that people could give more to charity of their own hard-earned money? This is where the right and left are often very similar without realizing it. The military industrial complex really is just nothing more than a right-wing version of big government. Ron Paul and a few others manage to transcend that.

How is reducing government spending so as to reduce either taxes, inflatin or interest rates so as to pt more money into people's pockets a bad thing. Of course they should be free to do what they want with their money. But I'm sure you'll agree that reduced government spending will in fact put more money into people's pockets. OK, you don't like helping the poor as an example. Let's try another example then: It will raise your purchasing power so you can buy that Harley you always wanted. Is that better?

OK, maybe 'brains' is the wrong word. Being all brains and no heart is no good either. Both need to work together. I think Ron Paul has the right balance.

On occasion, at least moderately. But again, they tend to cut taxes faster than they can cut spending, and that is what essentially makes them fiscal liberals in my book. A truly fiscally conservative party would first cut spending, and then consider the possibility of cutting taxes in response, but be more cautious on that front. When it comes to spending cuts though, the government does need to be more aggressive.

You didn't get what I meant. If you reduce spending on the military and pre-emptive wars (also not in the Constitution), then you could reduce taxes, inflation or high interest rates slightly over time, so as to give ordinary citizens the more spending power to give to the poor should they so choose. That is what I meant.