U.S. Attorney: Feds Could Challenge Missouri Anti-Sharia Legislation

Categories: Community

Islamic-Foundation.jpg
Muslim women take part in the Pledge of Allegiance during last night's event
​U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Richard Callahan visited the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis last night to address the fears and frustrations of Muslim Americans who worry they are being racially profiled and wiretapped -- and to assure them that the Missouri Legislature's attempts to ban Sharia law from being considered in state courts here could face Constitutional challenges.

Seated in front of a large Muslim audience during a town hall-style meeting at the Ballwin mosque, Callahan anchored a panel that included fellow federal attorneys (one of whom was Muslim American), as well as three members of the FBI.

The tenor of the night was polite and respectful, but several members of the crowd expressed anger over what they perceive to be rising trends of Islamophobia in America over the past couple years, citing people burning the Koran and communities banning mosques as examples.

"There is a worse kind of Muslim hatred recently," said Adil Imdad, one of the event's organizers. "Especially in the last two years, Islamophobia and fear-mongering have been spreading like wildfire, and it's causing a lot of stress for our youth."

The problem is now hitting a little closer to home, said Imdad, pointing to three bills currently circulating through the state legislature that seek to limit Sharia law (Islamic law) in Missouri courts. Sharia law could come into play in rulings considering child custody or prisoner rights for Muslims. As we've reported, the bills have become a source of controversy.

Callahan responded by hinting that, should anti-Sharia legislation get passed by the Missouri Legislature, it could be overturned by the federal courts. "The Department of Justice has a good history of challenging laws passed by state legislatures," he said. "If some laws are passed, I think you will see challenges by the federal government on the constitutionality of them."

Audience members also pressed Callahan to respond to instances of being detained and questioned on return trips to America. They asked why the media doesn't seem to cover hate crimes against Muslims, whether their phones are being tapped, and why women wearing hijabs seem to receive automatic pat-downs from TSA agents at airports.

"We come back to the United States and become personae non gratae," said an audience member, addressing the FBI representatives on the stage. "We are detained endlessly for the stamps on our passports."

Zia Faruqui, the Muslim American attorney on the panel, spoke to the crowd using several Arabic phrases, encouraging them to avoid hiding. He defended the justice system, citing 50 prosecutions in recent years against people charged with anti-Muslim crimes.

My Voice Nation Help
125 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
tori
tori

to all the dumb asses that think they know what islam is and what it means to be a muslim, i suggest you 1) shut the heck up2) get your information from a reliable source(maybe actually pick up a real quran and not a fake translated version) and 3) read it yourself, and not rely on some bias or bullshit source that gives you a summary..when you do you will be shocked to find out that islam is a religion

1) of peace, it does not promote violence. stop taking words out of their context and actually read the whole paragraph. killing 1 human unjustly, unlawfully,(not in the act of self-defense) is = to killing all of humanity according to the quran

2) gives women the highest and most elevated status,(read the chapters that talk about her rights and respect due to her, not just how she is to follow her husband's word, like any dutiful wife (muslim or non muslim) would do

also, you'll be shocked to find out that islam recognizes ALL prophets and messengers and mentions them all in the quran, and mentions Mary more than the bible itself.

also, why would PETA need to be contacted regarding halal slaughtering?? find out what halal means before you open your mouth trying to sound smart. it consists of a quick slit so the animal feels the least amount of pain/torture and the blood does not run through his body, sorry that islam doesnt advocate to beat the animal to death or electrocute it senselessly. 

islamophobia will continue to exist with people like the ones on this wall who chose to stay misinformed and spread the lies that most of the media in this country already does so well.

your mom's mom
your mom's mom

So I guess Stormfront did a thread invasion here?

TPaine61
TPaine61

To: AFY...check out the History Channel about the SS & Arab members. The History Channel is a little left of center so you'll feel right at home.

Kms
Kms

Too bad anonymous is so angry. Sucks to be you doesn't it? lol Go on in your fairyland thinking that all muslims are just like us. When one blows you up, or your family maybe you will wake up. Until then be what you are a loser. ha ha

anonymous
anonymous

another scholar chimes in

wri7913
wri7913

as does the liberal racist... hi anonymous turd.

Anonymous
Anonymous

St. Louis Tea Party Roll Call!

Ron Swanson
Ron Swanson

Fuck the Tea Party.

Fuck Islam.

Thatisall.

jman
jman

Perhaps some members of the federal government should be looked upon as treasonous individuals.

anonymous
anonymous

another white supremacist chimes in

wri7913
wri7913

Kind of like you?

Anonymous turd said "i believe individual actors in a free society are free to refuse service"

What Anony really means that if he is white and wanted to refuse to serve a black person he could do so..... nice guy this turd fellow is.

omar2
omar2

"another white supremacist chimes in"

Don't you mean, "another secular-human-right's-respecting-Constitutionalist-who-believes-in-the primacy-of-man-made-law-rather-than-islamic-supremacism" chimes in?

anonymous
anonymous

beck was the guy who attacked liberation theology and said obama's christianity was a perversion of the gospels

i didn't need to look anything up, you rhetorically challenged schmuck

Stlouiebabe
Stlouiebabe

Sure you do, and since we live in a free country so far at least you can believe what you wish. You can also wish cab drivers can refuse to serve people, but it is against discrimination laws. :)

Stlouiebabe
Stlouiebabe

Are we talking about Beck? I think not! Who cares what religion Beck is. At least you looked up black liberation theology. lol

anonymous
anonymous

liberation theology is a perversion of christianity, but justifying slavery and child labor and glenn beck's mormonism? A-OK

jesus was a pacifist who was executed by the empire of his age

anonymous
anonymous

try reading in context, stlouiebimbo

i agree with pretty much everything jeremiah wright said

Stlouiebabe
Stlouiebabe

Anon please look up black liberation theology. It is basically a mix of marxism and a little Christianity. It has everything to do with race. White man bad, black man good. Look it up, then type. :)

anonymous
anonymous

right, his "very strange black liberation theology church" has nothing to do with race

omar2
omar2

No need for foul language, anonymous - but those people who think Obama is a muslim do so because he attended an islamic school in Indonesia, learned the shahada and attended jummah prayers there, and had a muslim for both father and step-father (and islam is considered to pass automatically from the father's side). Plus, his very strange Black liberation theology "church" showed a surprising amount of deference and respect for Louis Farrakhan by making him person of the year in their special BLT magazine - which is really bizarre. . . . Those that think he's a marxist note that his grandparents and his mother were marxists who sought out the marxists at Mercer university in Washington, attended a universalist church known as the "little red church on the hill," that Obama got his start with the Socialist chicago "new party," that he advocates the need for "redistributive justice" - and that Obama's voting record in the Senate (such as it exists) puts him squarely to the left of Bernie Sanders who ADMITS he's a socialist. Now, none of that has anything to do with the question of whether Obama can actually GOVERN as a socialist (he obviously can't) - but it also doesn't have a d*mn thing to do with the fact that he's black.

anonymous
anonymous

hey omar, i don't fucking care how you've wasted the last five years of your life

if obama wasn't (sort of) black, no way these idiots would believe he's a secret muslim marxist trying to destroy america

omar2
omar2

Ummm, I've been studying and working on this issue non-stop form more than five years, so how could it have ANYTHING to do with Obama (aside from the fact that he is a class A islamo-apologist)? I swear, liberals who think like this are the flip side of the birthers. We should call them the "Racers" because they interpret EVERYTHING through the filter of race.

anonymous
anonymous

no chief, i meant white supremacist

all this paranoia goes back to obama's skin color

gregzotta
gregzotta

It is Islamic jihadists who are strapping bombs to men, women and children killing innocent people in the name of Allah. We had jihadists fly planes into our buildings killing innocent people in the name of Allah. We have jihadists infiltrating our government and military and massacring soldiers in the name of Allah. Muslims are slaughtering Christians around the World. We have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran calling for the destruction of Israel (Little Satan) and the US (Great Satan).

Islam is not just a religion; it is a religious system, a political system and a military system. Muslims can lie to the infidel to promote Islam. Radical Muslims believe Americans are infidels; and the infidels will have to convert to Islam, be enslaved or be killed. The Muslim Brotherhood calls for a “Civilization-Jihadist Process,” in which they would destroy the Western civilization from within and impose Sharia Law on this country. They state, we do not want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy. That is what we want.

Sharia Law is not compatible with the US Constitution. Nevertheless, there was a judge in New Jersey that used Sharia law in his decision. It was overturned, but he did it. A Judge in Florida ruled the use of Shariah law in a civil case on February 23,2011.

You have Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up people (infidel’s) who have alcohol or dogs, etc. You have Muslim cashiers at Target who refuse to check out people with bacon. Christians in Dearborn Michigan were arrested June 2010, for handing out excerpts of the Bible on a public street outside of a Muslim festival to people who wanted the info. The Christians won their case and are now suing for Civil Rights violations, but they were arrested. Yet, at the 2010 Labor Day State Fair Muslims passed out literature on Islam to people inside the grounds. The UN wants to impose a law where no one can speak out against Islam.

As a State Senator, Obama said we must have empathy for the jihadists who attacked this country on 9/11.He also invited the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. Barack Hussein Obama is an appeaser and shows weakness to the world endangering Americans.

These things are happening TODAY and that is why we must remain vigilante against this invasion. As I stated, look at what has been happening in Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with Muslims.

Pita Morelos
Pita Morelos

"You have Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up people (infidel’s) who have alcohol or dogs, etc."When did this happen?

"You have Muslim cashiers at Target who refuse to check out people with bacon."No, you don't. The store would discipline and/or fire those cashiers quickly. The Muslim cashiers at Target have to do what the company wants

anonymous
anonymous

they moved them to another department in the store, which is their choice as a private employer--right?

anonymous
anonymous

"You have Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up people (infidel’s) who have alcohol or dogs, etc. You have Muslim cashiers at Target who refuse to check out people with bacon."

gee sounds like someone hates freedom

TPaine61
TPaine61

Hey Anon & Shelly :

One of your ' muslim freedom fighters just got DOUBLE TAPPED''...may no peace be upon him.

gregzotta
gregzotta

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called protecting the civil rights of Muslims a “top priority.” Recently, he filed a suit on behalf of a Muslim teacher for not doing her job when she took off school to go to the Middle East for an Islamic function. What about the STUDENTS? Do they have rights? According to the article this Muslim teacher resigned, so what is the suit about? His department has filed other legal actions on behalf of Muslims. Unfortunately, Holder also has filed actions against the American people for wanting to protect themselves such as with the Arizona suit. Then again, what else would you expect coming from this RACIST Eric Holder, who failed/refused to prosecute the members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Holder is a RACIST and puts his beliefs ahead of the law. Holder needs to be FIRED.

anonymous
anonymous

the bush administration downgraded the investigation of the philly voting precinct nonsense to non-criminal.

you're the racist, slick, and clearly fucking paranoid like most right-wing dumbasses.

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous lying turd said - "i despise rand paul but agree with him that parts of the civil rights bill are unconstitutional

i believe individual actors in a free society are free to refuse service

aside from that taxi drivers not wanting dogs in their cabs isn't much of a jihadist takeover"

-------------------------------------------

So you mean to say if I wanted to refuse service to you because you were Black, I could?

This is exactly what you are saying.

Muslim Taxi Drivers refusing service like this can and should lose their jobs. Just as anyone refusing service to Blacks should lose their jobs as well.

anonymous
anonymous

correct shitbird, this is what i'm saying.i believe private citizens/businesses have the right to discriminate in a free society. pretty straightforward. unfortunately white americans are so addicted to racism that the civil rights act was necessary to ensure blacks would be accommodated at all in parts of the country

not wanting a dog or booze in a taxicab is hardly comparable to apartheid, though, and it's pretty amusing to see the yerushalmi fanboy pretending to care about black people when it suits his argument

gregzotta
gregzotta

Anonymous, you are too gutless to use your name and suffer from Bush derangement syndrome. Bush is no longer President. It was Eric Holder who refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. It is Eric Holder who brings up the race card you FOOL. You also wrote, "You have Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up people (infidel’s) who have alcohol or dogs, etc. You have Muslim cashiers at Target who refuse to check out people with bacon."gee sounds like someone hates freedom Your comment does not make sense. Those things are occurring, so what freedom are you talking about? I just inform the people as to what is going on. As for you, you can crawl back under your rock.

anonymous
anonymous

i despise rand paul but agree with him that parts of the civil rights bill are unconstitutional

i believe individual actors in a free society are free to refuse service

aside from that taxi drivers not wanting dogs in their cabs isn't much of a jihadist takeover

Stlouiebabe
Stlouiebabe

No anonymous taxi drivers do not have that right. It is called DISCRIMINATION. They are required to take the person in spite of them possibly being blind and having a dog, or bringing a bottle of wine back on a trip. This was at the airport in Minneapolis. The taxi drivers if they do refuse a fare are then fined and have to go to the back of the line to wait for other fares. These laws were put in place so a driver could not refuse a black person or any other paying customer. This is the law in the USA whether muslims like it or not. No SHARIA here.

anonymous
anonymous

bush was still president for 2+ months after the election, and his justice department determined there was no criminal case. sorry boutcha greggy, them's the facts.

"race card" is one of the white racist's favorite phrases, as it paints centuries of dehumanizing treatment as a fantastic/convenient excuse. basically, every time a black person alleges racism, you dismiss it, but you're convinced that blacks are going to subjugate whites as soon as a person of color assumes the presidency and will grasp at pathetic trivia like the new black panthers as proof of the conspiracy.

don't taxi drivers have the freedom to decide what to allow in their cabs? doesn't target have the right to decide whether to terminate their own employees?

Kenwa02
Kenwa02

Banning Sharia Law is just about nonsensical. First off, what exactly would it mean from a legal standpoint to ban it? That would require you to actually be able to define it, which by the way isn't even clear. Then you would have to determine what you mean by banning it. Cause I'm pretty sure the Constitution is the basis for Law in our society, so if we need a law to back that up I'm pretty sure I'd agree with Shelly that this is just thinly-veiled messages to the Islamic community that they are not welcome here. And if banning it means something like it cannot be the basis for legal action in MO, well that even is nigh impossible to enforce or determine. Since what Sharia law is isn't even fully agreed upon, and saying something is or is not based on sharia would pretty much be impossible to determine. So really this law will not accomplish anything, so why waste everyone's time with it?

omar2
omar2

There are quite a few artist and writers living in the United States who are either working under psuedonyms (Ibn Warraq), operating with intensive security (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), or flat out in hiding (Molly Norris) because they have violated islamic blasphemy laws. There are many more women who are under threat from honor crimes violence for failing to submit fully to islamic law.

For a look at what's ahead, watch what happened to Las Vilks at Uppsala University a short time ago (his house was fire bombed a day or two later):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Here is another recent manifestation:

http://www.americanthinker.com...

Kenwa02
Kenwa02

Yeah, the violated sharia law in another country and are in asylum here. That clearly has nothing to do with banning sharia law here. Because we obviously do not have blasphemy laws in effect, which is why these people fled to our country in the first place. "Banning" sharia law would have no effect on these people's security since the people trying to kill them already are committing a crime in the current situation regardless of the motivation.

Kenwa02
Kenwa02

Again this law would still do nothing to stop what you are suggesting. For that to happen first of all we would have to abandon the American Constitution. It still doesn't answer though the issue that I argued either that there is no clear understanding of what we would actually be banning either. Blanket bans on things without definition are dangerous and easily result in abuse sometimes to those least expected originally by the law. Not to mention that as you marginalize a group it often results in the ghettoization and radicalization that we have seen in Europe

omar2
omar2

True - and to some extent I agree with you - that legislation of this type is generally superfluous under the Constitution. Nonetheless, there is a phenomenon peculiar to islam and islamic law that needs to be addressed, and legislation that looks "something" like this is probably the best way to address it. Let me explain:

First, high level islamic authorities have openly stated their intentions to form parallel states within western states under islamic law and to wage terroristic warfar against the host states or neighboring states to enforce their fascistic religious demands. (I'm thinking here of the the N. American Strategy Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood from the HLF Trial, if you're not familiar, and statements like that of Sheik Usmani - the highest authority of deobandi islam, documented in an article called "Our People Must Live in Peace Until Strong Enough to Wage jihad" in Timesonline). Also, there is a clear pattern of actual conduct demonstrating that the end result of islamic migration is domination rather than assimilation in the formation of numerous "no-go zones" in France, the Uk, and various scandinavian countries. Also, there are numerous Instances of revolutionary islamic insurgencies to establish islamic law and/or create autonomous regions under shariah, including Khomeinism in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistam, the creation of Pakistan, Al Shabaab in Somalia, Hamas in Gaza, Milf in the Phillipines, the Sudanese genocide, and the Chechnya under Kadyrov which has negotiated a cease fire with Russia in exchange for the right to impose islamic law (now women who fail to comply with islamic veiling practices are being shot with paint balls in the street and the President actually PRAISED the honor murders of some women of alleged ill repute). Second, Physical violence is used in an organised, highly political, even ritualised pattern to force compliance with islamic norms - particularly against muslim women and non-muslims. . . . I will continue later. Something has come up.

Stlouiebabe
Stlouiebabe

Shelly is really hopeless and not worth anymore comment.Muslims state they want sharia law here. They bring their filthy habits and ways to this great land, and think we are to accept them. Muslims keep your honor killings, your polygamy, your wife beating and clitorectomies in muslim lands. They are not tolerated here. If you don't come to the great USA to assimilate then go back where you came from.

bonnieblue2A
bonnieblue2A

Sharia has no place in Missouri courts or US courts, period. We have laws in place that are not discriminatory. We do not need to allow Sharia to creep into our judicial system.

stopsharianow dot org

Right Klik
Right Klik

"...worry they are being racially profiled..."

Which race is Islam?

omar2
omar2

It's clear that Shelley needs some remedial education on the subject of modern islam and islamic law. Here's a good place to start:

"Dispatches Channel 4: Undercover Mosque":

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

Have a look, Shelley, and tell me what you think.

Shelley Powers
Shelley Powers

I don't need to learn about Muslims through the eyes of bigots.

There are radical Islamic elements. Only a fool denies this. But then, there have been radical elements based on other religions, philosophy, taxation, race, even opinions about abortion.

Unless you're telling me that Osama bin Laden's deep undercover ploy is to send people over to the US to study law at Harvard and take over as the judges of the land, what the hell does this have to do with Sharia law in a Missouri court room?

You're fond of handing out links, so how about this one

http://motherjones.com/politic...

One of the leaders of the anti-Sharia law movement is a white supremacist, who also doesn't believe that either women or blacks should have the right to vote. The concept of republican law is too complex for black minds, you see.

When Curtman, who brought up this obscenity--one of too many in this session of the Missouri General Assembly--was asked to specifically name one instance where international law was used in US courts, he couldn't find one.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi...

All these anti-Sharia laws do is make Missouri look stupid. In fact, that seems to be the primary purpose of this session of the General Assembly. Certainly hasn't been about jobs.

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous turd, show me where he said something that was racists and I might believe you. The report Ms Shelley Powers linked? I didn't see any racists remarks in it... but go head and prove me wrong. Maybe I missed something.

anonymous
anonymous

if you don't see anything racist in advocating a return to restricting voting rights to white male landowners, i can't help you

omar2
omar2

Why does every issue with the left devolve into accusations of racism? And I really mean EVERY ISSUE. Shelley, I've been studying this topic for more than five years now and the people who founded it and write about it are nearly all, without exception, arguing from a universal human right's perspective. Many are either islamic apostates themselves (Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Sam Solomon, Wafa Sultan), gay rights activists (Bruce Bawer), secular/atheists (Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali) or feminists (Phyllis Chesler) or all three. There are even some liberal, anti-sharia muslims in the mix (Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah, Salim Mansour). There is, in fact, a VAST body of work on the subject, and only now, when the issue begins to gain some traction, do we hear the old familiar strain of RACIST, RACIST, RACIST. It's pathetic. Anyway, here's a fairly detailed piece by Sam Harris on the intense efforts to impose islamic blasphemy laws on the US media, including some anecdotes that involved the authordirectly - and the guiding emotion behind these efforts is fear of physical retaliation by muslims and fear of accusations of- you guessed it - RACISM, from the left. (P.S. It was published in Huffpo, so it's certified racist free and guaranteed OK for liberal consumption). There have been other incidents since the writing - most notable, the South Park/Comedy Central episode, the public disappearance of Molly Norris ("Everybody Draw Mohammad Day"), several more assassination attempts against public islamic critics like cartoonists Lars Vilks and Kurt Westergaard, and the refusal of Yale press to publish the Danish cartoons in a book ABOUT the Danish cartoons over the objections of the author):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

And please do consider looking at the documentary I linked above. Channel 4 Dispatches is one of the most respected documentary producers in the UK - and the mosques in question are extremely prominent, not fringe at all. In fact, the entity which holds title to most mosques in the US, NAIT, is also a Saudi Wahabi affiliate.

anonymous
anonymous

well, most of you people are racist. that has a lot to do with it.

you don't like it, take it up with them.

wri7913
wri7913

Shelley,

Had you taken the time to read through the article you linked on the motherjones site, you would have noticed that he was talking about why the founding fathers setup voting process the way they did.

"There is a reason the founding fathersdid not give women or black slaves the right tovote. You might not agree or like the idea butthis country’s founders, otherwise held in thehighest esteem for their understanding ofhuman nature and its affect on political society,certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Werethey so flawed in their political reckonings thatthey manhandled the most important aspect of a free society –the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberaldemocracy as we “know” it today, why did they limit the vote sodramatically?"

The report in which this was mentioned was actually quite detailed about various issues about Race, Biology and various other factors that affect our society as a whole. He also mentions how its almost taboo to discuss the possible biological differences between people. It's almost as if Multiculturalism has gone mad. According to Multicultural mantra, everything and everyone is equal, to think differently is blasphemy worthy of a sticker called "Racist" or "Bigot".

My father worked in the Education board and was trying to bring up points about how men and women learn differently in the hopes that both could be improved so they would learn better. For his efforts, he was called sexists for believing that men were better, even though he never said such things. This is the behavior of Liberal Multiculturalists who are bent on making everyone believe we are all the same.

I can tell you biologically I'm different from you. I'm deaf. My experiences and my ability to adapt in this world is based on my deafness. There are some things I simply cannot do and some things I will be able to do. Pretending that my deafness does not affect anything is what a Multiculturalists would do and this is wrong-headed thinking.

Allowing Felons to vote while still incarcerated is the absolute worst idea I've ever heard from Liberals. In FL, I believe there is a 6 year window in which the felon has to prove that he or she is reformed and has become a productive member of society. Once they have proven they will not break the law or cause more trouble, they would be given back their right to vote. Why should we as a society allow criminals to determine the vote in a Presidential election? What kind of moron would think that is a good idea?

But go ahead and believe stuff you hear from other liberals without reading through the reports. It just makes you look more like an idiot when you speak without knowledge.

anonymous
anonymous

here's the paragraph that preceded the one about the founding fathers and their transcendent genius in keeping blacks from voting:

"Now we return to race. If science were to trump the Open Society?Uncertainty card and begin to theorize, investigate and establish as empirical fact that the differences between races are more than skin deep and that these differences seems to affect behavior and the culture that develops out of behavior in ways that make a society more or less safe, or more or less productive, or more or less aggressive, and if we couldn't blame this on slavery, oppression or poverty simply, the very idea of democracy and the Open Society would be at risk. If you don't see why immediately, you might ponder the following."

NOPE NOT RACIST AT ALL

if that isn't disgusting enough, he goes on to extrapolate from allowing blacks and women to vote to eventually allowing children to vote, and then to legalizing bestiality and "consensual" (his quotes) sex with minors

a real prize, this yerushalmi

anonymous
anonymous

OBNOXIOUS DEAF RACIST FUCKFACE vomited:

" He was talking about in the past how the Founding Fathers had a certain level of requirement for people to be able to vote. Back then you had to own land or house (or both), meaning that you were paying taxes that the Government is spending etc. If you didn't own house or land and were not paying taxes, you had no say in the vote. That was the general idea back then. Those criteria back then were relevant for the time and for a specific reason. If you owned property and house, you had vested interest in where the government money was going to be spent since in effect it is your money. Why should someone who didn't own land have a say in how the money was spent. I think that is the point he's making............ If you pay no taxes, hold no job, then you cannot vote or something of that nature. Any racial, sexist or religious criteria should not be allowed but some method of proving fiscal responsibility or proof of civic duty should be met as criteria. What we are doing in some ways hypothetically speaking is allowing homeless to be the guardians of the bank. Why wouldn't the homeless not help themselves to the money in the bank?"

the essay is clearly about race so this interpretation is 100% bullshit fantasy on your part

anonymous
anonymous

the essay is about race, the passage is about race. endorsing the founding fathers' conception of who should be allowed to vote in an essay on "inherent racial differences" is flagrantly racist, and no amount of self-aggrandizing, condescension, inane alternate theories involving daddy/deafness/felons, or demanding a quote (as if the "OUR FOUNDERS KNEW THOSE N-----S WERE TOO DUMB TO VOTE riff isn't enough) is gonna change that, sport

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous lying Turd said - "correct, white supremacist shitbag yerushalmi is claiming political correctness prevents us from discussing certain racial differences: namely, white intellectual superiority

that's what his horseshit about the founding fathers is about, OBVIOUSLY--not deaf people or felons or your dad or whatever inane garbage you want to introduce. he's saying they were wise in keeping black people from voting. that is inexcusably, inarguably racist, period.

you repeatedly addressed me as "turd", so you can shove your whining about attacks up your clueless, racist, deaf ass"

---------------------------------------

Whatever dude, Anyone on this site can download and read the article themselves and see if what you or I am saying is true or not.

It's plainly obvious that you can't comprehend what the article is about. It's almost as if you read the word racist and that's what you assume he is talking about. It's not surprising, this is what most liberals do.

anonymous
anonymous

correct, white supremacist shitbag yerushalmi is claiming political correctness prevents us from discussing certain racial differences: namely, white intellectual superiority

that's what his horseshit about the founding fathers is about, OBVIOUSLY--not deaf people or felons or your dad or whatever inane garbage you want to introduce. he's saying they were wise in keeping black people from voting. that is inexcusably, inarguably racist, period.

you repeatedly addressed me as "turd", so you can shove your whining about attacks up your clueless, racist, deaf ass

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous lying turd said "if using the success of black athletes to defend the founding fathers' racism seems reasonable to you, there's a pretty simple explanation for that

i read the entire fucking essay, and the import of his argument is rather obvious--we should be honest about racial differences, specifically the fact that whites are more intelligent than blacks "--------------------------

If there was evidence to support your contention that he was either implicitly stating that or implying you would show proof of that by quoting parts of the article to support it.

Rather than do that, you refuse to quote anything from the article because you know it wouldn't support your claims. Instead you just attack me and then claim he's implying that. If you had read the whole article in the report you would realize that he is saying that because of political correctness it is taboo to talk about racial differences in such a way. Your attitude justifies his belief and the article.

anonymous
anonymous

if using the success of black athletes to defend the founding fathers' racism seems reasonable to you, there's a pretty simple explanation for that

i read the entire fucking essay, and the import of his argument is rather obvious--we should be honest about racial differences, specifically the fact that whites are more intelligent than blacks

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous lying turd said "the passage in question is from an essay he wrote defending his own racist assumptions, which included gems like "blacks are the most murderous of races", and essentially argued that blacks are too stupid for representative government--though they're good at sports!"----------------Mr. turd - You didn't quote anything to support your statement. This is just your interpretation of the article (assuming you even read it). I have a copy of it and I do not see any statements that infer what you are saying. You are correct that he states that blacks are inherently better at certain sports. Like I said maybe this fourth time reading through I missed that little "gem" that you quoted. Please quote from the article with surrounding text so I can find it in the article.

"Why are we not prepared to discuss race and thedifferences between races in a serious way? Why does scienceavoid these distinctions like the plague? The hard sciences likebiology steer clear of these investigations, and when they runinto them head-on they erupt into polemics of race-baiting. Thesoft sciences like sociology and anthropology work so hard todeny the differences that position statements on race sound likemore like a political campaign platform than anything else. Andhere of course is where we hit on the answer. Go back and readthe link provided immediately above (reproduced here). This isthe American Association of Physical Anthropologists’“Statement on Biological Aspects of Race.” In a word it says,buried deep within its political message, that there are biologicaldifferences but they don’t have to remain that way and they havebeen diluted over the years by intercontinental migration,intercultural interaction, and intermarriage between races. Giventime, all race-based distinctions will disappear, they predict.Penetrated for meaning, the AAPA Statement really wants you tobelieve that all biological differences between the races are onlyskin deep. They of course ignore the medical research ofsignificant racial distinctions in incidences of disease andreaction to medications and the research arising from sportsmedicine suggesting Africans have a significant advantage overwhites in certain motor skills and that there is even a distinctionbetween West Africans and East Africans relative to sprintingand long-distance running. But let’s not let a little science blurthe social message.

What he said seems reasonable and not so racist to me. There are inherent differences between blacks and whites. Blacks are predominate in sports like Football and Basketball. Is it because of the racial differences or is it because those are the sports that Blacks tend to play? Hockey and Soccer are quite different and are dominated by more Caucasian players with very few Blacks playing. Is it Racial or is it Cultural? This is the point he is making, Because of political correctness it is impossible for any science like biology, sociology or any other science to consider differences based on genetics and race even though there are some. As he pointed out, Blacks suffer from Sickle cell and that requires special attention in the Health field. Is it racist for a Hospital when they treat blacks differently than whites and only blacks because they are the only ones carrying sickle cell? This is the insanity that you support.

anonymous
anonymous

sorry chief, you're the one with the reading comprehension deficit

the passage in question is from an essay he wrote defending his own racist assumptions, which included gems like "blacks are the most murderous of races", and essentially argued that blacks are too stupid for representative government--though they're good at sports!

there's no defending it unless you're a white supremacist like yerushalmi which is certainly possible.

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous turd said "uh, he says it right in the passage you quoted, dumbass "

I'm guessing your reading comprehension is pretty poor. He was talking about in the past how the Founding Fathers had a certain level of requirement for people to be able to vote. Back then you had to own land or house (or both), meaning that you were paying taxes that the Government is spending etc. If you didn't own house or land and were not paying taxes, you had no say in the vote. That was the general idea back then. Those criteria back then were relevant for the time and for a specific reason. If you owned property and house, you had vested interest in where the government money was going to be spent since in effect it is your money. Why should someone who didn't own land have a say in how the money was spent. I think that is the point he's making.

The same principle can be said of today's world. Why should Felons be allowed to vote? They have shown no responsibility financially by holding a job and being a responsible citizen. Why should their values be the same as someone who pays taxes, holds job, pays off house/car etc when a felon steals from THOSE people? Doesn't make sense. Felons should PROVE they are being responsible and in some states like FL, they are give up to 6 years to prove this before being allowed to vote again. You want to vote? Play by the rules. The criteria of the Founding fathers would not apply to today's world. Back then there were no apartments, but people today do have that along with jobs and other things. Some criteria should be met. This is what is meant by "If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we “know” it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically?" Because the vote has to mean something to you, your vested interest because you own a house, land or whatever the criteria that you need to meet.

If you pay no taxes, hold no job, then you cannot vote or something of that nature. Any racial, sexist or religious criteria should not be allowed but some method of proving fiscal responsibility or proof of civic duty should be met as criteria. What we are doing in some ways hypothetically speaking is allowing homeless to be the guardians of the bank. Why wouldn't the homeless not help themselves to the money in the bank?

anonymous
anonymous

uh, he says it right in the passage you quoted, dumbass

wri7913
wri7913

Anonymous turd... nice dodge. Do me a favor. Pull up that report and quote for me where he says that. I'm asking for direct proof that he stated that and you just tell me you think he did. I read the report and I didn't see him state that. Maybe I missed it when I read it. If so please prove me wrong, otherwise I have no reason to believe he is a racist when all his report did was simply point out differences. If you have no quote to give me then I have no reason to believe you and think you are full of sh*t. Please prove me wrong.

anonymous
anonymous

yerushalmi is a disgusting racist, it's laughable that you would employ such condescension in defending him

Stlouiebabe
Stlouiebabe

Educate yourself Shelley. There are many examples of USA judges allowing sharia law in the USA. There are two that I will post, but there are more.One is a woman living in USA repeatedly raped by her husband. Yes in the USA there are laws against marital rape. American women have right to say no. Muslim women under sharia law do not. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010...The following is a lawsuit between muslims living in USA.http://www.politico.com/blogs/...God bless Paul Curtman for introducing the anti-sharia law in Missouri. We need more great men like him.

Shelley Powers
Shelley Powers

What part of overturned by the Appellate Court did you miss?

There's also the case where the judge that sued a dry cleaner for $55 million because of a ruined suit. There are a boat load of nutty judges, which is why we have a system of appeals in place.

As for judges ruling against women, how many women have gone through rape trials, only to have the defendant set free because some good ole boy sat on the bench, and after all, boys just want to have fun?

The second case was based on arbitration, which occurs outside of the court room. As the judge later said, those who agree to arbitration can agree to the laws they'll follow when arbitration occurs.

The only reason this was in court is one group was disputing the arbitration results:

"The two parties reportedly agreed ahead of time to use an imam and Islamic Law to resolve any potential differences through arbitration.

Legal observers say there are several cases in which agreements between two parties can supercede general laws in Florida -- like when a couple makes a prenuptial agreement.

"What the judge has said is that he will apply the Islamic Law, because that is what the two parties agreed to in their arbitration clause," Shahzad Ahmed, an attorney with NeJame Law Firm in Orlando, told the station. "This concept of agreeing to a different set of rules outside of state law is not unusual."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011...

Right now, companies force people to agree to arbitration, on their rules and via their chosen arbitrators, every time you sign a credit agreement. It is little different.

That's it? Two cases, one of which was overturned, the other of which was really an issue of arbitration?

Where are the multitudes of Missouri cases that would drive the need to spend legislator time and energy on these bills?

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...