Originally Posted by cabo35

... I believe so much in our American culture and our way of life that it occurs to me that domestic Muslims who subscribe to rigid Sharia standards will, in time assimilate into our culture and establish reformed Sharia consistent with our Constitutional and statutory standards. This will not be a process without great acrimony, suffering and pain. It may even take the form of a multi-generational progression, but it will occur....

Good point, Cabo. It seems to already be happening in places like Dearborn, Michigan, the largest concentration of Muslims this side of Baghdad. As you point out not without some acrimony, but assimilation is happening nonetheless.

There is a problem in the Dearborn schools, where the young male students widely disrespect the rights of the girl students because of their training at home. As I understand it, so far the teachers and school administration has kept the situation under control and consistent with our secular laws and standards. But the teachers are largely Christian Americans, not Muslim first or second generation Americans. I suppose if the school system in a place like Dearborn could find enough Muslims trained to be teachers, the situation might be a bit different. They would still have to follow the rules laid down by the city, state and federal educational administrators, but tensions could arise.

My sister was a first grade teacher in Brooklyn, where the majority of her students were Muslim. She reported that they were uniformly polite, if not always well-behaved. What amazed her was their following of their religious laws and beliefs at times like Ramadan. She described the Muslim kids rejecting morning milk and snacks and sitting in the lunchroom at noon, talking quietly but eating or drinking nothing, consistent with their religious beliefs.

Now that I think about it, how much different is that from the Catholic kids not being able to eat meat on Fridays when we were kids? By the way, do they still do that, or is that one of the things that disappeared along with Latin masses?

But so far, the concentration of Muslims in Dearborn seem to be doing exactly as you suggest, assimilating into American society and culture with only minimal problems.

OK. Now that that's all resolved, we can get back to a good dog-poop thread, or maybe a good old loathe-the-rich-developer thread.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

The founding documents and their liberal use of Christian language, as used by the Christians who authored them would seem to contradict John Adams statement in the opinion of many.

Establishment is a noun? So?; what's the point of your complaint? You lost me on that one.

It's a bit of a hot button of mine and I should fully explain.

Most people seem to think that the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of *a* religion". The meaning being that there would be no 'official' religion as there was (and is) in Great Britain.

But that's not what it says. In the misinterpreted version, they think that "establishment" is a verb, and in "to establish". It's a noun.

A church is a religious establishment. A pub could be called an alcohol establishment. In that context, "establishment of religion" is everything from a church to religious schools. It's one of the reasons churches don't pay property taxes.

One of the original reasons for that clause were the kinds of laws that were seen in Great Britain that might have said "no Irish Catholic could be recognised as a lawyer". It says the state will not 'respect' one religion or any religious establishment over another.

This is also why challenges to things like nativity scenes are ripe for misinterpretation. SOme town bans the nativity scene and suddenly the hue and cry is either "war on religion" or "no Christmas". What that really turns out to be are wimpy town officials since the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that you CAN have religious displays on public grounds but that you cannot discriminate. It means you can have your nativity scene so long as you allow a menorah, should someone ask to put one up.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Now that I think about it, how much different is that from the Catholic kids not being able to eat meat on Fridays when we were kids? By the way, do they still do that, or is that one of the things that disappeared along with Latin masses?

Vatican II kind of got rid of the "fish on Friday" rule.

I'm still waiting for the "priests will not rape children" rule.

for all you non-catholics let me assure you that catholics still observe the meatless fridays of lent...back to the subject of co-existing with our muslim immigrants, there is a simple solution...if we insist on no sharia law being used in our country, only constitutional law, then the muslims who are westernized and want to assimilate into our culture will accept that and stay here...the muslims who are truly devout in their faith will leave and return to countries where they may use sharia law...it is against their religion to live where they cannot observe sharia law. this is our LEGAL way to protect our culture, as provided to us by our constituion, and we had better defend our rights now, as i said, or that future majority will wipe out our culture with nary a shot fired.

Originally Posted by cabo35

Your concerns are well taken. I share those concerns. I do not view the future of Islam and its impact on my descendants with an eminent, elevated state of alarm and panic. Optimistically speaking, I believe so much in our American culture and our way of life that it occurs to me that domestic Muslims who subscribe to rigid Sharia standards will, in time assimilate into our culture and establish reformed Sharia consistent with our Constitutional and statutory standards. This will not be a process without great acrimony, suffering and pain. It may even take the form of a multi-generational progression, but it will occur. We need to keep ourselves informed and we need to be vigilant. I will loan you my rose colored glasses if you need them. Be of good cheer and have fun in the Villages.

You mean like Native Americans did? My experiences with Tribal Courts over the years is that these folks have their own way of deciding issues.

There are enough of the Muslim population hell bent on following the dictates of their militant leaders; and that does greatly concern me just as did the Black Panthers or the white supremist. However the Muslim movement is an entirely different thing. If you want to view the future just look across the pond.

I referenced Scientologist and Wiccans because in many peoples view they are faux religion hiding under the guise and protection of religion giving them the ability to gain protection under the US Constitution. I do not desire to engage in a debate regarding these enities but only opine. It will be left to others to draw their own conclusions.

I also wish that when people gingerly raise the issue of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church they remain open enough to include other religions, Universities, Boy/Girl Scouts of America, Day Care Centers, etc the Catholic Church does not have a corner on this market.

Finally I keep repeating that we are a nation of laws and as such are at the advantage or disadvantage of dealing with the encroachment of Muslims and their laws upon this nation based upon this nation's laws. Some may be right and it will all come down to being just too emotional about this issue. But then, I wonder if that is what the Europeans believed too? By the way a key factor in this puzzle rests with our Immigration Policy. Some nations have simply refused any additional immigrants. What will our leaders do????

Originally Posted by djplong

It's a bit of a hot button of mine and I should fully explain.

Most people seem to think that the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of *a* religion". The meaning being that there would be no 'official' religion as there was (and is) in Great Britain.

But that's not what it says. In the misinterpreted version, they think that "establishment" is a verb, and in "to establish". It's a noun.

A church is a religious establishment. A pub could be called an alcohol establishment. In that context, "establishment of religion" is everything from a church to religious schools. It's one of the reasons churches don't pay property taxes.

One of the original reasons for that clause were the kinds of laws that were seen in Great Britain that might have said "no Irish Catholic could be recognised as a lawyer". It says the state will not 'respect' one religion or any religious establishment over another.

This is also why challenges to things like nativity scenes are ripe for misinterpretation. SOme town bans the nativity scene and suddenly the hue and cry is either "war on religion" or "no Christmas". What that really turns out to be are wimpy town officials since the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that you CAN have religious displays on public grounds but that you cannot discriminate. It means you can have your nativity scene so long as you allow a menorah, should someone ask to put one up.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the wimpy officials!
I also think that it prohibits the establishment of an official religion for the country.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the wimpy officials!
I also think that it prohibits the establishment of an official religion for the country.

Yes, you are correct in that the clause prohibits an 'official' religion. It's the common misinterpretation that it stops there.

I find it ironic that the original intent of the 'wall of separation' that was later described by Jefferson, described protecting the CHURCH from the STATE (I'm guessing to prevent a King Henry VIII-like 'reformation' or something like that). Nowadays it has to be used to protect the STATE from the CHURCH.

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/2...vert-to-islam/

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/2...vert-to-islam/

Didn't even look at the link....but I bet you are a fan of Lowe's.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

Didn't even look at the link....but I bet you are a fan of Lowe's.

Dale...really...you should "look at the links" before you comment.

This is the headline of the link that Katz posted:

Chicago Man Kills 5 Family Members that Refused to Convert to Islam

He killed his mother, his pregnant wife, his infant son and two nieces because they would not convert. He was from Madison, Wisconsin.

djp....men rape children...it just so happens some of those MEN happen to be priests! Just as they are found in almost any statistical group one would want to investigate.

btk

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/2...vert-to-islam/

This man CONVERTED to Islam --
I live in Miami --we have had individuals who are Christians, Hispanics, Haitians, Jews, etc. Kill loved ones for any number of reasons --it had to do mire with their mental health than with their religion

Originally Posted by HelenLCSW

This man CONVERTED to Islam --
I live in Miami --we have had individuals who are Christians, Hispanics, Haitians, Jews, etc. Kill loved ones for any number of reasons --it had to do mire with their mental health than with their religion

Muslims who kill people who won't convert to Islam is a symptom of a mental health disorder? Really? Are you really saying that? It's not fanatic religiosity that's the cause?

It brings to mind the President's decision to classify the mass killings of soldier's in Ft. Hood, Texas, by a Muslim officer as "work place violence".

The rose colored glasses do not make you see better.