Polygamy Becoming Popular, but not with LDS

[MiserereNobis]

39 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

" the Nehor wanted to know who was stoking the hysteria. I showed him.

This doesn't answer the CFR.

Link to a reputable news and/or academic source that shows that Sharia law is being forced upon non-Muslims in the US or retract your claims.

ETA: I'll help you out here. It'll just be easier to retract your claims, because no one in the United States is being forced to live Sharia law.

Edited July 29, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[strappinglad]

I do not claim the Sharia law is currently being FORCED on anyone in the US. I claim that there is a movement within Muslim communities to establish sharia law as the PRIMARY law for themselves and the video I linked to shows just how easy it was to have the secular gov't enforce those requirements upon non- Muslims. Centuries ago the laws of the Catholic courts were enforceable by the law of the land. Just exactly how did that come about? I'm sure that situation expanded individual rights and freedom of speech . Sharia Law will have the same effect indubitably.

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Centuries ago the laws of the Catholic courts were enforceable by the law of the land

Though I long for those days, as you rightly point out they were centuries ago. Of course, in those instances, there was no separation of church and state.

2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Sharia Law will have the same effect indubitably.

I'm guessing you're not much of a patriot as you have such a dim view of the constitution of the United States.

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I do not claim the Sharia law is currently being FORCED on anyone in the US. I claim that there is a movement within Muslim communities to establish sharia law as the PRIMARY law for themselves and the video I linked to shows just how easy it was to have the secular gov't enforce those requirements upon non- Muslims. Centuries ago the laws of the Catholic courts were enforceable by the law of the land. Just exactly how did that come about? I'm sure that situation expanded individual rights and freedom of speech . Sharia Law will have the same effect indubitably.

That is not Sharia Law. That is tenant law. This guy and his Muslim tenants were ending their lease. He wanted to show the space to new tenants before the lease ended. He did so at times the tenants were not happy with and did not agree to and refused repeated requests to remove his shoes when entering their bedroom. This was their rented property and they have every right to want the landlord to respect their religious rights and their privacy by not coming in without permission and not following basic respectful requests. After repeated attempts to get their landlord to cut it out they sued in a secular (not Sharia) court and he was fined for violating their rights in the property they rented under Canadian law.

The landlord is using the anti-Sharia hysteria to get financial support for his case when he was really just a jerk to his tenants.

So yeah, big surprise......the hysteria comes from those seeking to financially and politically benefit from Islamophobia.

If these are the kinds of cases being trumpeted (and other stories used are equally misrepresented) as a threat it is a tacit admission that there is no threat.

Edited July 29, 2017 by The Nehor

[USU78]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not Sharia Law. That is tenant law. This guy and his Muslim tenants were ending their lease. He wanted to show the space to new tenants before the lease ended. He did so at times the tenants were not happy with and did not agree to and refused repeated requests to remove his shoes when entering their bedroom. This was their rented property and they have every right to want the landlord to respect their religious rights and their privacy by not coming in without permission and not following basic respectful requests. After repeated attempts to get their landlord to cut it out they sued in a secular (not Sharia) court and he was fined for violating their rights in the property they rented under Canadian law.

The landlord is using the anti-Sharia hysteria to get financial support for his case when he was really just a jerk to his tenants.

So yeah, big surprise......the hysteria comes from those seeking to financially and politically benefit from Islamophobia.

If these are the kinds of cases being trumpeted (and other stories used are equally misrepresented) as a threat it is a tacit admission that there is no threat.

The typical lease permits reasonable access for such purposes as showing the property and inspecting the property upon reasonable notice.

Canadian law's weird if it imposes terms out of whack with reasonable expectations based upon usual experience. If the Muslim has unusual expectations, he needs to ask for or at least disclose those expectations to be added to the lease.

Edited July 29, 2017 by USU78

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The typical lease permits reasonable access for such purposes as showing the property and inspecting the property upon reasonable notice.

Canadian law's weird if it imposes terms out of whack with reasonable expectations based upon usual experience. If the Muslim has unusual expectations, he needs to ask for or at least disclose those expectations to be added to the lease.

That is the usual approach but you do have to notify and tenant can object to the time of entry (absent an emergency). Reading over what is publicly available their argument is that the landlord was ignoring them and their requests repeatedly. Based on what I have read (I obviously do not have full story) I would fine the guy too if he repeatedly violated tenant rights.

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is the usual approach but you do have to notify and tenant can object to the time of entry (absent an emergency). Reading over what is publicly available their argument is that the landlord was ignoring them and their requests repeatedly. Based on what I have read (I obviously do not have full story) I would fine the guy too if he repeatedly violated tenant rights.

If.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If.

Yes, but whether he did or did not this is not the threat of Sharia law some seem to want it to be.

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but whether he did or did not this is not the threat of Sharia law some seem to want it to be.

No argument here: unless de facto sharia is created by regulatory impositions

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No argument here: unless de facto sharia is created by regulatory impositions

Possible but it is also possible that alien killer crabs could descend to the earth to kill us all. I will give both scenarios little attention unless something happens to convince me that either is a real threat.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Possible but it is also possible that alien killer crabs could descend to the earth to kill us all. I will give both scenarios little attention unless something happens to convince me that either is a real threat.

I'm in that business and such things do happen. But that's a rabbit hole I'm sorry I brought up

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm in that business and such things do happen. But that's a rabbit hole I'm sorry I brought up

The killer crabs one?

 

.....I want to believe....

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The killer crabs one?

 

.....I want to believe....

😂

[MiserereNobis]

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, speak for yourself, mate!   I love talking with my spouse.  I'd rather talk to her than anyone else!

i do too. but seriously LDS aren't exempt from the problems that afflict too many couples.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I agree with Stargazer...  I understand this can and does apply to some spouse relations, but was certainly not mine... your statement is incredibly broad TSS, so I will say simply not true for the majority of LDS.  Is this something that applies to you?  

GG 

What makes you think that LDS are somehow immune from the problems that plague other marriages?  Yours is essentially a old faux sociological claim that "all Indians walk in single file. I saw one do it once".  To answer your questions no it doesn't apply to my marriage. but like every other marriage there were times between young kids at home, both of us working outside the home, and all the things that it takes to make a modern family function. Just sitting and talking to my beloved wife had to take second place.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Possible but it is also possible that alien killer crabs could descend to the earth to kill us all. I will give both scenarios little attention unless something happens to convince me that either is a real threat.

Alien killer crabs unlikely, alien killer head crabs almost a certainty.

[Garden Girl]

On 7/28/2017 at 8:13 PM, Garden Girl said:

I agree with Stargazer...  I understand this can and does apply to some spouse relations, but was certainly not mine... your statement is incredibly broad TSS, so I will say simply not true for the majority of LDS.  Is this something that applies to you?  

GG 

 

On 7/28/2017 at 0:46 PM, thesometimesaint said:

That is one thing about our subculture that is disappointing. We marry for not just this life but for Eternity, then ignore the very ones we're married to.

 

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What makes you think that LDS are somehow immune from the problems that plague other marriages?  Yours is essentially a old faux sociological claim that "all Indians walk in single file. I saw one do it once".  To answer your questions no it doesn't apply to my marriage. but like every other marriage there were times between young kids at home, both of us working outside the home, and all the things that it takes to make a modern family function. Just sitting and talking to my beloved wife had to take second place.

Hello TSS...

You make the mistake that many on this board make... You don't read a post carefully or completely... You did not read my post carefully...(see the first one listed above, which was in response to your very broad and positive statement in tone, made as if it were actually factual.  (See the middle statement,  which should have actually been listed first followed by my response).  I would normally just let this go, but your response to me of one hour ago so misrepresents what I said that I just can't...  

First, you make a very broad and positive statement, without any qualification whatsoever, that one thing about our (LDS) subculture that is disappointing is that we marry not just for this life but for eternity, then ignore the very ones we're married to.  Again, without any qualification... just as if it is a general fact of our subculture.  Well it is not a fact, so I responded that:  I understood that this type of thing can and does occur in some spouse relations, but that it was not true for the majority of LDS.   You completely ignore my statement that yes it can and does occur, and accuse me of thinking LDS are somehow immune from problems that plague other marriages, and of having an "old faux" sociolocical view.  (Not true!)

Second, if I was a non-member reading your original statement, I would come away with the impression that in the LDS subculture, it is disappointing that even though they marry not just for this life but eternity, they then ignore the very ones they're married to...  It is not until your post of one hour ago that you admit that, like mine, this is not the case with your marriage either... and offer a clarification...

By the way TSS, I hope this finds you well... we are all abuzz here on the coast because of the upcoming eclipse on Aug 21st... Every hotel/motel is booked for outrageous prices... community services are planning for an influx of 100,000+ additional visitors to our normal summer increase.  The sun's/moon's paths start across the U.S. right here in Depoe Bay/Gleneden Beach where I live... and is expected to plunge us into darkness beginning at 10:21 a.m. for approx 2 mins... it's going to be a logistical nightmare for emergency services/local med facilities.  We locals have been advised to stock up on food supplies, gas. water, meds, pet food, cash, etc, to stay off of our electronic devices. and to stay home... I believe all of our Church meetings for that week are cancelled...  Some locals are renting out parking spaces in their driveways, and for tents on lawns... police/fire are marking off spaces in open areas for camping, etc... yesterday I bought a pair of special glasses for viewing the eclipse... the store clerk said they had already sold over 100 pair so far that day...

GG

Edited July 30, 2017 by Garden Girl

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"Unfortunately"?  Brigham Young commented, when he first heard of the order to practice plural marriage, ""I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time.  And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse"  Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, 100; JD, II:266.

I should have turned on the sarcasm back-up beeper.

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, the old xenophobe's canard. Why worry more about that then Catholic or LDS courts? We have a lot more of those and no one even mentions them. If we are seeking to impose LDS law courts as the law of the land I want in on this.

Sharia is similar. Most people have no idea what it is but Sharia law itself says it does not apply to non-Muslims. Who is stoking this hysteria about it and why?

How can we have laws that only apply to one group?

[carbon dioxide]

17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I do not claim the Sharia law is currently being FORCED on anyone in the US. I claim that there is a movement within Muslim communities to establish sharia law as the PRIMARY law for themselves and the video I linked to shows just how easy it was to have the secular gov't enforce those requirements upon non- Muslims. Centuries ago the laws of the Catholic courts were enforceable by the law of the land. Just exactly how did that come about? I'm sure that situation expanded individual rights and freedom of speech . Sharia Law will have the same effect indubitably.

Muslims are about 1-2% of the total population of the US  It is unlikely they will even get to 5% by the end of the century.  They simply do not have the numbers in the US to attempt to force Sharia on any non-Muslim.  The primary law of the land is the Constitution.  Muslims probably could get away with some aspects of Sharia among themselves as long as they do not violate the law of the land.  It it simply is not plausible that such a small group could impose it on the vast majority. Especially an armed vast majority.

[strappinglad]

It's called accommodation. That is what I was referring to at the beginning of this thread when I said that the Muslims are likely to be the ones establishing polygamy as legal. We have seen laws adapt to populations of about 3-5% as attitudes change within the general population. In Canada there was a great to do because a Muslim woman wanted to take the oath of citizenship wearing  full face covering. Will the gov't allow passport photos for such? No, not yet anyway , but there are some who push for driver's licenses to allow face coverings for ' religious reasons ' Special meals for Muslims in schools? Why not ? Special prayer times and places for Muslims in schools?  Mixing church and state  ?

http://globalnews.ca/video/3175786/peel-district-school-board-votes-to-accommodate-muslim-friday-prayer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575724/Parents-fury-pork-sausages-banned-school-menu-replaced-halal-meat.html

Edited July 30, 2017 by strappinglad

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

It's called accommodation. That is what I was referring to at the beginning of this thread when I said that the Muslims are likely to be the ones establishing polygamy as legal. We have seen laws adapt to populations of about 3-5% as attitudes change within the general population. In Canada there was a great to do because a Muslim woman wanted to take the oath of citizenship wearing  full face covering. Will the gov't allow passport photos for such? No, not yet anyway , but there are some who push for driver's licenses to allow face coverings for ' religious reasons ' Special meals for Muslims in schools? Why not ? Special prayer times and places for Muslims in schools?  Mixing church and state  ?

http://globalnews.ca/video/3175786/peel-district-school-board-votes-to-accommodate-muslim-friday-prayer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575724/Parents-fury-pork-sausages-banned-school-menu-replaced-halal-meat.html

I can see polygamy being made legal not based on accommodation to Muslims but based on the concept that the First Amendment protects the practice based on the free exercise of religion.  Muslims or anyone else should be able to practice it if it is a part of their religious practice.  The government will not allow people to take passport photos with their faces covered as it has to do with security and identity issues.  Passports are not a protected right under the constitution.  The government can impose limits on who gets them and the conditions on them.  Same with drivers licenses.  If a person asserts they have a religious right to drive 150 mph down the freeway, the government can overrule that for public safety and that it is a violation traffic laws.  Government can take a person license away if they violate the laws.  The freedom of religion is that we have a right to practice our religious views without the government imposing its will on us.  We however do not have a right to use our religious views to impose them on the government.   When it comes to polygamy, a person has the right to practice it according to their beliefs according to the First Amendment.  A polygamist however does not have the right to force the government to sanction it or accept it. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Muslims or anyone else should be able to practice it if it is a part of their religious practice.

I agree. I think it was wrong  that Mormons were not allowed to practice polygamy.

Heck, if the Supreme Court had decided in favor of the LDS church, you all might be polygamist today. Interesting to think about

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree. I think it was wrong  that Mormons were not allowed to practice polygamy.

Heck, if the Supreme Court had decided in favor of the LDS church, you all might be polygamist today. Interesting to think about