ok UG, thanks.:rolleyes:

I raised what I think is a legitimate and serious issue of most (not all) of the conservative Republican candidates for president and some (not all) American conservative "thinkers" playing to the anti-Muslim fears of some (not all) American conservative voters through unsubstantiated allegations, inuendo and guilty by association and you want to shift the discussion to Sharia law in France? WTF?

Why not just post one of your tasteless anti-Muslim jokes. :rolleyes:
(note the smiley)

I took Classic's post as a legitimate question. Your position appears to be that sharia law is no threat to American society. He asked if you had seen some of the repurcussions of the issue in France.

While I may be wrong about his intent, you have to admit that sometimes a question is just a question.

More legitimate than if you and I were having a discussion of liberal v conservative positions on the Second Amendment and I raised the issue of gun control in France and the EU?

More:
Here's another example. It is illegal for the media in France to publish pictures of "perp walks" with persons in handcuffs, until they are found guilty.

The point is the two systems of justice are different in many respects.

IMO, it was a convenient way to dodge the issue of the level of intolerance among the religious social conservatives in the US. The same ones who want to amend the Constitution to deny rights to selected citizens.

You brought it up initially.
Question related to post...
snark... back on talking point

more snark...
2nd attempt ...

So the reality is that you brought up a subject and when a legitimate question (related to the topic you brought up) was raised, you didn't actually want to discuss it.
and you say "WTF" :rolleyes:

And I pointed out why I thought it was illegitimate, irrelevant and a dodge, given the significant differences in the systems of justice.

So we disagree on legitimacy and I guess that makes me like UG? :rolleyes:

As a liberal, I can find common ground for discussions with most fiscal conservatives. You and I demonstrated how that is possible.

When it comes to social issues, I find it much more difficult, particularly when the issue is deflected (to circumstances in a different country with different laws) by the other side rather than be addressed head on. IMO, that deflection is a common theme among religious social conservatives (not suggesting that Classicman fits that characterization, but simply that his deflection was characteristic).

The UG comment was a joke (see smilie).

There was no dodge. Just another post of yours bashing the "other team."

And yes, we disagree on the relevance.

So because we disagree and I explained why, I am "bashing" the other team?:rolleyes:

The problem with looking to France for the impact of sharia on their society is that there is just as much, probably more in fact, fearmongering about it there as F&B is suggesting for the States.

Much of the negative impact is actually to do with the protest/counter protest dynamic, rather than the effects of sharia itself. The stuff about the veil ban is a typical example. Whatever one's opinion on the veil, it seems overkill to legislate against an item of clothing which is/was only actually worn by a few thousand women (around 4000 I think) in the entire country.

Lot of histrionics about threats to native culture and enforced integration, which was only engaged in for electoral purposes. Being 'strong' on Islam is a little like being 'tough on crime'. All the politicians are vying against each other to be the toughest. Any politician who dares suggest that the situation should be looked at with a clearer head and maybe points out the smallscale of the 'problem' gets shouted down as 'soft' on Islamic fundamentalism.

Add to that the historic problem of fraught relations between white and arabic communities in France (legacy of their colonial era), and it is easy to see how such fearmongering finds a very easy audience.

We have a similar issue in the Uk but focussed on the Pakistani community rather than Arabic.

Seriously. Do not be looking across to Europe for a reasonable attitude to Islam and muslims.

now now ... no need to get defensive.

I don't really see why you two are arguing. You seem to be at cross purposes rather than actually disagreeing as such.

If the only place to find a reasonable attitude toward a group is within that group itself, then maybe there is a reason for that.

You know the old saw: "If someone tells you you are a horse, laugh at them. If two people tell you you are a horse, look in the mirror. If three people tell you you are a horse, then you'd better saddle up."

I've tried to avoid any direct personal snipes.

But this, coming from one who appears to whine anytime someone might even raise a question about the intent or meaning of your posts? :rolleyes:

I'll save the discussion of what I believe is a level of intolerance among the religious social conservatives in the US for someone on the right more interested in an honest discussion of the issue.

How very intolerant.

[youtube imam]You cannot get away with comparing the religion of peace to a horse! Where do you live? I need your address so I know where to send the death threats. [/youtube imam]