It took me a minute to realize that this wasn't a progressive march against GOP policies.

Ya "Trump is just another republican we had to have one sooner or latter."..bullshit!


The ‘March Against Sharia’ Protests Are Really Marches Against Muslims
And they’re attracting neo-Nazis, white supremacists and armed anti-government groups.

[wades into this very carefully]

There's a kneejerk reaction here on the part of the left, where a march against Sharia Law "must" be "against" Muslims. Now it may very well be, or judging from the linked npr report, it has attracted some well meaning as well as some not so well meaning people, but just as being critical of Israel doesn't make you an anti-Semite, being critical of Sharia Law - or terrorism supporting extremist Muslim groups - doesn't make you anti-Muslim.

Or to put it another way - you gain nothing by trying to shut people down before they've had a chance to show everyone where there at. Maybe they have legitimate grievances, maybe they are just a bunch of racist asshats. Let them march and don't give them any more attention than they deserve.

Nothing good comes out of boxing everyone into "fa, antifa" groups. It just ends up minting extremists.

Good points, in essence. However, in this instance ACT for America, the sole sponsor of these marches, has shown itself to be anti-Muslim. Its founder has said Muslims are a natural threat to civilization and incapable of being loyal citizens to the US. Protesters should be aware of who is calling them to action.

There is no danger whatsoever of Sharia law in the US, so they cannot, by definition, have any legitimate grievances.

What a fantastic thread - its like a time machine back to the old Saint Marck SE days, and maryyugo's epic copy-and-paste meltdowns about guys with brown skin and funny looking hats.

Now if we could only get incpenners do a special guest cameo and chime in, it would be perfect.

That's why you make the big bucks Steele!

It's perfect then, because Fish is incpenners.

incpenners is Abe Vigoda?

Not quite.
http://www.sensibleendowment.com/profile.php/845

The right rallying against Sharia when it isn't even a thing here would be funny if it wasn't, y'know, bigoted.

How is it that opposition to Sharia is, y'know, bigoted?

Why are you, or the people who organize and attend these rallies so deathly afraid of Sharia? Something that is practiced thousands of miles, oceans, and continents away from your home? So much so that they feel the need to protest it with skinheads and organized by outwardly white supremacists.

Why doesn't this group protest the extrajudicial killing of suspected drug dealers in the Philippines? Estimated six thousand to date. That's a humanitarian disaster right there. Or how about the purge, torture, and death of many that were "accused" of a military coup in Turkey? You guys must really be concerned about that, right? I'd say that stands a greater chance to occur in the U.S.

It's lovely how intolerant conservative authoritarians standing behind christianity are protesting intolerant conservative authoritarians standing behind Islam half a world away.

Nah, this protest is just about sharia, and how bad it is because you so goddamned concerned with human rights abuses in arab countries. Even though sharia doesn't stand a chance in hell to take a foothold in western civilization. Not even close, yet civilian paramilitary groups are sent to protect protesters?

If I owned a dog, it'd be standing at attention wondering where the high pitched whistle is coming from.

Signal to noise ratio is pretty low here, but when you skip the overwrought invective and red herrings, you seem to be asking:

“Why do people attend rallies against Sharia; Something that is practiced thousands of miles, oceans, and continents away from their home?”

I would suggest the answer is obvious and twofold.

Seems to me protests about human rights abuses needn’t be as parochial as you seem to believe. Tossing gays off tall buildings for Allah (PBUH) is unseemly, even if it’s not happening in your own back yard. But then that’s pretty fucking obvious, so let’s skip that vapid comment and move on…

Point number two – is just plain ignorant. Sharia is endorsed and practiced in the United States. Pious Muslims frequently perpetrate honour killings, sexual mutilation of children, and the murder of homosexuals in the name of Islamic law. There are ample headlines on this site to stand testament to this simple statement of fact. In recent times, I would be inclined to point you in the direction of the charnel house that was the Pulse nightclub and/or the FGM practitioners in Detroit who are cutting up the little girls - They’re actually arguing (in American court) that they are being persecuted for practicing their religion. That will be Sharia.

So, it is happening abroad, and it’s happening at home, and people are protesting against it.

Its incredibly revealing that pisses you off.

'frequently'? Really? 'ample headlines'? Gonna have to see some statistical evidence of that.
Also I'll just point out two of your specific examples- the Pulse shooter may have 'sworn allegiance' to ISIS and any other Islamist group he could think of, but we also know he was a patron wrestling with his own sexual identity. As for FGM, it's a cultural/ethnic tradition that has absolutely no Quranic basis.
And in case you didn't know- all the terrible activities you list here happen to be pretty well covered by existing criminal statutes in the US. Go ahead and name one single case where anyone used a religious defense.

Your denial about this is breathtaking.

Like a good liberal I expect you to play apologist for the motivation behind the deadliest act of violence against LGBT people in United States history. I guess we'll just ignore the call  during the shooting, where Mateen identified himself as a "Soldier of God”.

Yeah - the motivation there is real unclear.

Your second bit of bullshit is just as egregious, playing apologist for child mutilation. The accused themselves are arguing that female genital mutilation is an "Islamic right". That will be the "religious defense" you ignorantly or dishonestly claim doesn't exist.

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/female-genital-mutilation-religious-right-us-first-case-fgm-detriot-michigan-a7748736.html)

You are, as always, shooting blanks. But like the others here, it's telling who you are taking the time to defend.

Yeah, pointing out there are criminal laws to address these matters is playing 'apologist'. And while you can certainly cite the Pulse shooter's claimed motive, even call him a terrorist (which is fine by me btw), as a lone actor how was he in any way enforcing 'Sharia'?
I'll give you a point for citing the religious defense in the Detroit case, which I didn't know about and I see is the first ever such case. Let's just see how that turns out (if you read that article the religious defense actually hinges on proving that no actual physical harm was inflicted).

Mad?

That you?

Yeah, obviously my random incoherent sentences give me away.

I'll just leave this right here for your perusal. Absolutely abhorrent Crimes and they are claiming for religious reasons in court. And yes other religions claim that bs for their own heinous practices, but theres no reason to expand where not needed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/detroit-genital-mutilation-charges/index.html

Arrest and federal charges doesn't really seem like expanding.

No, but the point is that if sharia law is allowed to expand that more things would be pushed under the radar. Many people would feel pressured to handle things via the court/sharia law than taking it to the legal system. Abuse of women would be taken to the local "court" and essentially dismissed.

I can't understand how anybody would want that.

if sharia law is allowed to expand
It isn't. The FGM article is not about sharia law, it's about local custom, like tattooing, or scarifying, also things that are illegal to do to children. And it's not expanding.

That absolutely was religious. Even their lawyer stated that. Religion is often local custom. The link to sharia is that according to sharia these types of things are ok. The post is about a march against sharia. I merely stated that its expansion (see uk's 85 sharia courts) would be a bad thing that i would disagree with. Not the religion per se but sharia. That people would feel pressured to take their grievances to their local court instead of having it handled by the US legal system.

Can you not agree that that would be a bad thing? If not, why? How can handling things in that nature be good if they frequently allow abuse of women/gays and you claim to stand for human rights?

Expansion of sharia is an imaginary thing, it isn't happening in the US. I don't know about the UK, but the post is about a march in the US, protesting something that doesn't exist.

I agree. Its not happening right now in the US, but it could. That being said, marches for things that haven't happened yet occur all the time to allow people to voice their opinion about something before it happens (For the record, I've never attended any marches/protests )

I'd still like an answer though:

Can you not agree that that would be a bad thing? If not, why? How can handling things in that nature be good if they frequently advocate abuse of women/gays and you claim to stand for human rights?

Of course, sharia law sucks, like pretty much all religious-based laws. And abuse of the vulnerable sucks, no matter who's doing it. This march appears to be an attempt to demonize muslims (another vulnerable minority in the US) by conflating sharia, FGM, and ISIS terrorism, which are different things.

"Conflating sharia, FGM, and ISIS terrorism, which are different things."

Indeed, “different things”, with only one thing in common.

Remember kids, Islamic Law has nothing to do with Islam.
(Seriously, how often do we have to tell you that?)

Point number two – is just plain ignorant. Christianity is endorsed and practiced in the United States. Pious Christians frequently perpetrate rape of children, sexual mutilation of children (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america), and the murder of homosexuals in the name of Christian law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people#United_States). There are ample headlines on this site to stand testament to this simple statement of fact. In recent times, I would be inclined to point you in the direction of the FBI building destroyed and/or the faith healing practitioners in TN who are letting children die (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/child-abuse-religious-exemptions-tennessee/503063/) - They’re actually arguing (in American court) that they are being persecuted for practicing their religion. That will be Christianity.


Excited for your protest of Christianity you will be marching in to be posted soon!

Thank you for this. This is an excellent coda to my post. I had failed to use Christians as a comparison, I appreciate you doing so.

One woman victim of FGM by a Christian in the US.

One.

That’s about zero. Which proves my point.

An eleven-thousand-word entry about gay bashing without a single mention of Christ, Christians, or Christianity (None.)

Nothing in 11,000 words.

Then there is my very favorite, the canard spewed by conspiracy minded bigots for 20 years, the Oklahoma City Bombing, which had nothing to do with Christianity. Check the wiki page, read the motivation, read the whole seventeen thousand words, and you will find no mention of Christianity anywhere. You’re making shit up.

Nothing in 17,000 words.

So yeah. For the most part, Christians don’t mutilate girls, commit mass murder against gay people while explaining during the killing that it’s God’s work, nor do the throw people off buildings, kill apostates, cut off hands, flog people, fly planes into buildings for their God – they are, as your post makes so very clear, for the most part, eminently worthy of emulation, which is why so many oppose Sharia Law.

" That’s about zero. Which proves my point." - So... there are "about" 0 honor killings in the US, but you used that in your points. And you didn't talk about the murder of children from lack of care.

RE: Wikipedia on gays - you can click on many of those references to find Christian backgrounds for those crimes. And on the pages itself you didn't parse too carefully - "ennessee Williams was the victim of an assault in January 1979 in Key West, being beaten by five teenage boys. He escaped serious injury. The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister.[113]" | On November 18, 1980, Ronald K. Crumpley, a former Transit Authority policeman, fired 40 rounds from a semiautomatic rifle and two Magnum pistols (all stolen from a Virginia gun shop) into a cluster of men standing in front of two gay bars—Ramroad and the next-door Sneakers—in West Greenwich Village, killing 21-year-old Jörg Wenz, from the Netherlands, the Ramrod's doorman, and 32-year-old Vernon Kroening, from Minnesota, a church organist, and wounding six others. Rene Malute, 23, later died of his wounds. A survivor described the shootings as "a massacre, a bloodbath." Crumpley admitted to having paranoid delusions that gays were agents of the devil, stalking him and "trying to steal my soul just by looking at me." He was found not responsible by reason of insanity and committed to maximum-security Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center on Ward's Island. In 2001, a judge denied Crumpley's request to be transferred to a less restrictive psychiatric facility.



Timothy McVeigh was a Catholic. The Oklahoma City bomb was detonated on the anniversary of the raid on David Koresh's Christian militia in Waco. Obviously he had problems but if you think there isn't a link between local paramilitary right wing groups and Christianity, you are insane. I didn't even get into attacks on health clinics.


Haha and your final paragraph is truly troll worthy, congrats.
"For the most part, Christians don’t mutilate girls, commit mass murder against gay people while explaining during the killing that it’s God’s work, nor do the throw people off buildings, kill apostates, cut off hands, flog people, fly planes into buildings for their God"

For the most part, Muslims don't either.

Look, there are too many conspiratorial loons on the Internet for me to give you the time you so clearly need. It would require a team. McVeigh was Catholic, the bomb was detonated on the anniversary of the raid on Koresh, Koresh was a Seventh Day Adventist… Do you have any idea how retarded you sound?

Clearly not.

Wiki doesn’t even mention a religions component to the attack, in hundreds of words, and dozens of footnotes.

Why?

Because it’s not true.

As for the routine mutilation of little girls, throwing gays off of buildings, killing apostates, cutting off hands, flogging people for having sex – those aren’t outliers, those are government programs.

Can you discern the difference?

I thought not.

Your question is answered in my one-sentence comment above.
Because 'Sharia' as expressed and understood by these protesters isn't even a thing, especially in the US, except as panicked fake news propagated by Islamophobes.

Do you have a point/argument/principle you are tying to enunciate by trolling me Ankylosaur?

I didn't think so.

The fact that you don't seem to know what "trolling" means helps explain why you're so bad at it.

So, tell us your opinion of Antifa. I totally pinky-swear promise I won't use what you say as evidence you support fascism.

You mean the geniuses that cover their faces to attack anyone that they deem a nazi?

Sorry, did I miss something?

This is a post about a “March Against Sharia"

What does your comment have to do with that?

I’ll ask again, why the downmode?

Was there a point/argument/principle you were trying (failing?) to make? 

(If you answer the question I pinky swear I won’t conclude you're total pinhead)

The question also applies to arrowhen if he, you know, is capable of writing...

Antifa was part of the story, if you bothered to read it.

Here's your logic behind your original comment: This is a march against sharia. Sharia is bad. Here are some leftists criticizing the march against sharia. Therefore the left is defending sharia, which is a bad thing that I can fault the left for.

The problem with your reasoning is that the criticism from the left against the MAS is not based on defense of sharia, but that the march organizers and participants have an ulterior motive - attacking all muslims - and that they are using the otherwise reasonable position of being against sharia law (but oddly not Biblical law or other similar forms of religious totalitarianism which are more common in the US) as a cover to attack all muslims, regardless of their position on sharia.

Can you show otherwise? Where are the leftists actually defending sharia itself, not just attacking something claiming to be against it?

My comment about antifa, which again are mentioned in the article as the main antagonists to the sort of MAS participants being criticized, was drawing the obvious parallel that criticizing a group that styles itself as "anti fascist" doesn't necessarily make one a fascist. But since many on the right, including those mentioned in the article, see antifa as a bad thing, it would be easy to pull the same faulty reasoning that you used to smugly say "The right defending fascism would be funny if it were, you know, funny."

So, are you anti-fascist? Or do you oppose Antifa? By your logic you can't be both.

Nice comment, but 3333 knows all that already. There's no need to waste your time feeding the troll.