First of all, what in the hell is David Barton, of all people, doing on the John Daily show. After all, he is no comedian and the Daily Show is a “comedy” show. Why does he even waste his time giving Daily a chance to humiliate him? Is it money? Is it fame? Is it attention? Does he REALLY believe he can somehow convert the liberals that worship John Daily? I am amazed and can find no good reason why he would show up there, but there is more.
Yes, Mr. Barton, who I had the upmost respect for, until now, showed up on the Daily Show and he talked. Boy did he talk! He talked and talked and talked some more. He defended Sharia Law in America Dearborn , Michigan
Folks, this David Barton fiasco, is one of the very reasons I keep pounding and pounding my point home. The point being, once a person gets involved with Hollywood
"I am very proud, that I pray to and worship our Judea/Christian, God Almighty. I am very proud to be an American, who loves all his family and all his fellow patriots. I will defend the original Constitutional. I will defend the rights and lives of patriots to the best of my ability and, if time and resources permit will even defend other Americans, who may fail to believe as I do, but I will never defend a quran practicing muslim. They are my ENEMY!
Remember, be proud of, and promote, your beliefs! Be proud you're an American and promote that with pride! Be proud of your families and your fellow patriots and promote that with pride! And last, take some kind of real action and pray “everyday” for God to lead you correctly! Believe me.....this will lead to success.”” -- JOHN L SULAK
...and there you have some more opinions from me, Th' Dumb Ol' East Texas Boy. Take care out there, okay. IN GOD WE DO TRUST!
"He defended Sharia Law in America! He felt the muslims of Dearborn, Michigan had the right to RULE the city, under majority rule. He felt it was Constitutional. He gave accreditation to Islam as a religion and not a cult. To me, it was shameful!"
ReplyDelete---------------------------
I do not mean this in an insulting way, but did you actually watch the footage of this? I just did and I believe the point David Barton was trying to make is that according to the Constitution of the United States, and the intentions of the founding fathers, if a state wanted to allow Shariah law, it can. The federal government had no place dictating whether or not a religion, or laws based on that religion, could exist. What he didn't say here (John Stewart is good about disrupting guests that might not fully agree with him and are about to make a point), but I've heard him say elsewhere, is that where the federal government steps in is IF these laws violate our inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Basically, I agree with David from a legal point of view. If we say that someone's community rule cannot be based on a certain religion, where do you draw the line. (Yes, as much as you and I disagree with it's core beliefs, Islam is a religion. A sick, cultic one, but none the less a religion.) After they tell the same to Buddhists? Jews? Native Americans? Christians? The point is if we say one religion or set of rules based on a religion are not allowed simply because it isn't what we agree with, then we have to do the same for all rules and religions. The way our founding father's had set it up was that the state could decide whether or not there was an official religion AND it could make it's own laws which held greater authority / power than federal law in that state. Again, those laws could not violate our inalienable rights. If you didn't like the state's ruling on such issues, you were free to move to another state. Sort of like if you don't like one church or even town, you are free to move on to another.
All that being said, I am NOT for Shariah Law. I do not want it in my city or my state. Even if I were not a Christian, I would be against it for the simple reason that it squashes a woman's rights, lowers her to the position of property, it carries very harsh sentences for even the smallest of crimes and devalues life. That is where the government is to step in. If the state can adopt the parts of Shariah Law (probably not much there) that does not violate our inalienable rights, then the federal government says, "That's fine, go ahead." If the state can't, then the fed should step in and say, "Get rid of the bad stuff or get rid of all of it."
Yes, that's an over simplified way of illustrating the federal government's role in all of this, but that is basically the way it was intended to be. AND, for anyone wanting smaller government, they would most likely agree this is best. It's the big government that tries to manage every aspect of our lives, including religion, education, careers, how many kids you can have, what health care you receive, where you live, what you eat, etc.
I do not see David as being inconsistent on this issue. I see him as being dumb enough to put himself in a position where someone can cut him off before he can explain anything in any amount of detail. Again, that is what John Stewart is good at.
Schnookie - thanks for your comment, but you missed one point. What you are saying is true, if you recognize Islam as a religion. Sharia is the muslims constitution. It is not a religion. Adopting Sharia, in any form, goes against our Constitution. Muslims are using a terchnical point to completely bend America to their will. It would be the same is comunists called communism a religion. We cannot let a mere play on words destroy our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Shariah Law is to Islam as Halakha, Talmudic and Rabbinic Law is to Judaism or any other law that is unique to a religious group. So yes, Islam is their religion, and yes they are trying to take over and use every means available to them along with any they can get away with inventing. They have been open about wanting to create a Caliphate. The point I was making is that we can't forbid law from taking place based on religious background but we can and should forbid it if it violates any of our inalienable rights. Again, I'm a Christian and hate to see anything Islamic come to fruition in our country, but if we are to ban one group's laws based on their religion alone, we would have to ban all other laws based on every other religion out there too.
ReplyDeleteSo Schnookie, under your explanation, we are to allow islam to go on, even if it means our ultimate death or enslavement? My friend, I have read the quran and it gives a direct command to kill or enslave non-believers. You are not thinking straight. This is the only so-called religion, which DEMANDS death or enslavement to non-believers! They are using "word play" to proceed with our demize and you are defending their right to do so! BALONEY! You know full well that our founders would never allow this. I do not recognize islam as a religion, PERIOD! Just because muslims call it one does not make it so!
ReplyDelete