I'm Surprised No One Has Posted This Meme Yet, So I Will

[Tennesseer]

It's appearing on Facebook today:



And the rebuttal:

Shari-ya Later
Muslims weren't banned from immigrating to the United States in 1952 under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Snopes: Shari-ya Later

[djAdvocate]

i think it kindof is.....

[fishy999]

Dec 9, 2015 13:35:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It's appearing on Facebook today:



And the rebuttal:

Shari-ya Later
Muslims weren't banned from immigrating to the United States in 1952 under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Snopes: Shari-ya Later

And- the same people are going to believe it no matter what you say.  I gave up comments but you can tell how so many of these losers have paragraphs pre-loaded to launch at any minute at any argument.  They are not smart enough to discuss anything.

Even the most racist and hate filled garbage out there (Trump voters) can do little more than post old memes because they are incapable of independent thought.   

[verrip1]

Dec 9, 2015 23:22:31 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Dec 9, 2015 13:35:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It's appearing on Facebook today:



And the rebuttal:

Shari-ya Later
Muslims weren't banned from immigrating to the United States in 1952 under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Snopes: Shari-ya Later

And- the same people are going to believe it no matter what you say.  I gave up comments but you can tell how so many of these losers have paragraphs pre-loaded to launch at any minute at any argument.  They are not smart enough to discuss anything.

Even the most racist and hate filled garbage out there (Trump voters) can do little more than post old memes because they are incapable of independent thought.   

Somewhat insightful, fishy.  But not quite insightful enough.  You'd be very, very surprised about who all are viewed as being incapable of independent thought ...

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 10, 2015 0:36:39 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Somewhat insightful, fishy.  But not quite insightful enough.  You'd be very, very surprised about who all are viewed as being incapable of independent thought ...

...not the least of whom are the posters in this thread, that apparently can't even be bothered to read snopes.com's analysis.

They rate the claim false for no reason besides the fact that there is no "widely accepted authority on Sharia law", hence Sharia law cannot be said "to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means".

In other words, they're claiming that what many Muslims today call "Sharia law" has been so watered down that it can't be considered contrary to the US government.

Mr. Trump of course is campaigning from the viewpoint that the majority doctrines 70%+ of foreign Muslims call "Sharia law", which we can call "strong Sharia" in honour of the fact that it hasn't been watered down to vacuous social tradition, is in fact antithetical to the US system of laws and government. As much as you may resent it, the facts of global Islam make an excellent case for this viewpoint.

If he's elected President, he's going to do everything in his power to get the US government to recognize strong Sharia as an ideology opposed to the US government. The reason this meme has relevance, therefore, is because if he succeeds, the laws to ban Muslim immigrants are already in place. Snopes can rate the claim 'false' by denying the predicate all they want. The laws are real, and Mr. Trump need only make a case against strong Sharia to use them.

Furthermore, it should be fairly obvious that anyone on the mailing list for this meme i) doesn't deny the predicate, ii) does believe that Sharia law (in all but its most watered-down forms) is antithetical to western society, and iii) on the basis of i and ii, reasonably faults Pres. Obama for not "respect[ing] or uphold[ing] US law" at his disposal. To make this perfectly clear, the blurb asserts why the author believes the law is applicable.

I therefore rate snopes' analysis "mostly false" for failing to account for or even mention any of the above.

I rate posters' commentary thus far posted in this thread "bereft of independent thought" for having vetted neither the blurb nor snopes' analysis.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 10, 2015 4:08:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 10, 2015 0:36:39 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Somewhat insightful, fishy.  But not quite insightful enough.  You'd be very, very surprised about who all are viewed as being incapable of independent thought ...

...not the least of whom are the posters in this thread, that apparently can't even be bothered to read snopes.com's analysis.

They rate the claim false for no reason besides the fact that there is no "widely accepted authority on Sharia law", hence Sharia law cannot be said "to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means".

In other words, they're claiming that what many Muslims today call "Sharia law" has been so watered down that it can't be considered contrary to the US government.

Mr. Trump of course is campaigning from the viewpoint that the majority doctrines 70%+ of foreign Muslims call "Sharia law", which we can call "strong Sharia" in honour of the fact that it hasn't been watered down to vacuous social tradition, is in fact antithetical to the US system of laws and government. As much as you may resent it, the facts of global Islam make an excellent case for this viewpoint.

If he's elected President, he's going to do everything in his power to get the US government to recognize strong Sharia as an ideology opposed to the US government. The reason this meme has relevance, therefore, is because if he succeeds, the laws to ban Muslim immigrants are already in place. Snopes can rate the claim 'false' by denying the predicate all they want. The laws are real, and Mr. Trump need only make a case against strong Sharia to use them.

Furthermore, it should be fairly obvious that anyone on the mailing list for this meme i) doesn't deny the predicate, ii) does believe that Sharia law (in all but its most watered-down forms) is antithetical to western society, and iii) on the basis of i and ii, reasonably faults Pres. Obama for not "respect[ing] or uphold[ing] US law" at his disposal. To make this perfectly clear, the blurb asserts why the author believes the law is applicable.

I therefore rate snopes' analysis "mostly false" for failing to account for or even mention any of the above.

I rate posters' commentary thus far posted in this thread "bereft of independent thought" for having vetted neither the blurb nor snopes' analysis.

maybe, rather than resorting to name calling, we could resort to facts?  how about that for an idea?  let's start with this:


this is a map of the application of sharia law worldwide.  the green zones are majority muslim countries where sharia plays no role in the judicial system.  the yellow zones is where it is applied for personal relationship law (ie contract law, marriages, etc) but not in the courts.  in the purple states, it has full legal standing.  and the orange states are mixed personal and legal standings, depending on the region.

i really have no idea where the majority of Muslims live, nor do i have any idea who is an independent thinker on this board- but i do know this:

since the 1950's, Islamists have been trying to overthrow EGYPT politically.  they have tried by every means imaginable, and they have failed every time- including by coup in 2013.  this, despite the fact that Egypt is 95% Muslim, and of a fairly conservative strain.

one might conclude that it doesn't matter what individual Muslims think about issues of SCRIPTURAL* Law, just as it doesn't matter what individual Christians think.  it only matters what societies think- and quite often you will find that they choose to govern themselves in a way that they would never wish to be governed by someone other than their God.

(covers his head in preparation for a barrage of insults and accusations of being woefully ignorant)

[Virgil Showlion]

1. Muslims care about issues of Qur'anic law, not Biblical law.

2. Which of the coloured nations would you say is a good place to live?

[b2r]

  

[djAdvocate]

Dec 10, 2015 12:31:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

1. Muslims care about issues of Qur'anic law, not Biblical law.

2. Which of the coloured nations would you say is a good place to live?

1) you are playing semantics games with me, but i would rather accede in this case, than argue.  please read my EDIT*
2) i am not following your question.  in what sense do you mean "good place to live"?  nice weather?  good career opportunities?

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 10, 2015 14:16:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 10, 2015 12:31:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

1. Muslims care about issues of Qur'anic law, not Biblical law.

2. Which of the coloured nations would you say is a good place to live?

1) you are playing semantics games with me, but i would rather accede in this case, than argue.  please read my EDIT*
2) i am not following your question.  in what sense do you mean "good place to live"?  nice weather?  good career opportunities?

2) Suppose you knew your heart would explode one year from today if you didn't pack up and move to another country. Wasting no time, this evening you compile a list of all the countries you might want to emigrate to, starting from the most desirable and ending with the least desirable.

At what point on this list would we first find one of the coloured nations on the map, and which nation would it be?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 10, 2015 15:11:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 10, 2015 14:16:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

1) you are playing semantics games with me, but i would rather accede in this case, than argue.  please read my EDIT*
2) i am not following your question.  in what sense do you mean "good place to live"?  nice weather?  good career opportunities?

2) Suppose you knew your heart would explode one year from today if you didn't pack up and move to another country. Wasting no time, this evening you compile a list of all the countries you might want to emigrate to, starting from the most desirable and ending with the least desirable.

At what point on this list would we first find one of the coloured nations on the map, and which nation would it be?

i have considered Brunei.  but lately, the political situation there has deteriorated.
the Maldives are nice. 

other than those two, i would have to really look into everything.

but keep in mind that i would not be interested in all but one country in South America, no countries in Southern Africa, nothing in SE Asia except possibly Korea, and almost all of Europe.  most of these places are very much Muslim minorities.  so asking ME what i would consider is probably a bad idea.  i have done enough research to give me an appreciation for what i have.  i am also fairly wealthy and picky, so i have "other concerns" that many don't. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 10, 2015 15:20:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 10, 2015 15:11:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

2) Suppose you knew your heart would explode one year from today if you didn't pack up and move to another country. Wasting no time, this evening you compile a list of all the countries you might want to emigrate to, starting from the most desirable and ending with the least desirable.

At what point on this list would we first find one of the coloured nations on the map, and which nation would it be?

i have considered Brunei.  but lately, the political situation there has deteriorated.
the Maldives are nice. 

other than those two, i would have to really look into everything.

but keep in mind that i would not be interested in all but one country in South America, no countries in Southern Africa, nothing in SE Asia except possibly Korea, and almost all of Europe.  most of these places are very much Muslim minorities.  so asking ME what i would consider is probably a bad idea.  i have done enough research to give me an appreciation for what i have.  i am also fairly wealthy and picky, so i have "other concerns" that many don't. 

I'm just suggesting that the map more or less defines my own "least appealing places on Earth to live" list (minus North Korea), and I don't think that's a coincidence.

The west has its problems, but I can still attend church here without fear of being burned or bombed. My wife can go to the store unattended and without a bag over her body. Although rape is becoming increasingly prevalent here, there aren't marauding bands of armed men hunting down victims in the streets. There's no widespread factionalism or deep ethnic hatred here going back centuries. We value hard work, creativity, and free enterprise. As an added bonus, the percentage of our population that believes it's a good idea to strap on a bomb vest and blow up government building for Allah ...or a hotel ...or a preschool is tolerably low.

You're operating on the assumption that Muslims immigrating to the west are motivated to drop all the vices that made their nations of origin insufferable. To some small degree that's probably true. My personal observation, however, is that they import more than they assimilate, especially when they come in numbers large enough to form ghettos, and especially when they're refugees who are only immigrating because they were forced out of wherever they were living before.

Do I think that banning all Muslims entry to the US is a good idea? No. Not at all. It's a bad idea and a horrible precedent.

It pains me to say this because I really don't want these dead weight Syrian refugees coming into Canada, but not inviting in 25,000 (now 50,000, thank you PM Trudeau) refugees and banning all Muslims from entry are two entirely different things.

Going back to the OP of this thread, I'm going to reiterate a point that Paul made earlier, which is that the "RACISTBIGOTSEXISTHOMOPHOBE!!" hysterical response the media has mounted against Mr. Trump is 90% of the reason the man's popularity is surging. Heck, I admit it's a terrible plan, but the backlash is hitting such record highs on the kiss-Muslim-arse-o-meter that even I'm tempted to support it.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 10, 2015 23:11:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 10, 2015 15:20:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i have considered Brunei.  but lately, the political situation there has deteriorated.
the Maldives are nice. 

other than those two, i would have to really look into everything.

but keep in mind that i would not be interested in all but one country in South America, no countries in Southern Africa, nothing in SE Asia except possibly Korea, and almost all of Europe.  most of these places are very much Muslim minorities.  so asking ME what i would consider is probably a bad idea.  i have done enough research to give me an appreciation for what i have.  i am also fairly wealthy and picky, so i have "other concerns" that many don't. 

I'm just suggesting that the map more or less defines my own "least appealing places on Earth to live" list (minus North Korea), and I don't think that's a coincidence.

The west has its problems, but I can still attend church here without fear of being burned or bombed. My wife can go to the store unattended and without a bag over her body. Although rape is becoming increasingly prevalent here, there aren't marauding bands of armed men hunting down victims in the streets. There's no widespread factionalism or deep ethnic hatred here going back centuries. We value hard work, creativity, and free enterprise. As an added bonus, the percentage of our population that believes it's a good idea to strap on a bomb vest and blow up government building for Allah ...or a hotel ...or a preschool is tolerably low.

You're operating on the assumption that Muslims immigrating to the west are motivated to drop all the vices that made their nations of origin insufferable. To some small degree that's probably true. My personal observation, however, is that they import more than they assimilate, especially when they come in numbers large enough to form ghettos, and especially when they're refugees who are only immigrating because they were forced out of wherever they were living before.

Do I think that banning all Muslims entry to the US is a good idea? No. Not at all. It's a bad idea and a horrible precedent.

It pains me to say this because I really don't want these dead weight Syrian refugees coming into Canada, but not inviting in 25,000 (now 50,000, thank you PM Trudeau) refugees and banning all Muslims from entry are two entirely different things.

Going back to the OP of this thread, I'm going to reiterate a point that Paul made earlier, which is that the "RACISTBIGOTSEXISTHOMOPHOBE!!" hysterical response the media has mounted against Mr. Trump is 90% of the reason the man's popularity is surging. Heck, I admit it's a terrible plan, but the backlash is hitting such record highs on the kiss-Muslim-arse-o-meter that even I'm tempted to support it.

i can't speak to what is a coincidence for you.  edit: or perhaps i should say, i won't.

[fishy999]

Dec 10, 2015 12:31:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

1. Muslims care about issues of Qur'anic law, not Biblical law.

And neither matter when it comes to US law- just saying


HOWEVER!!!!  Before anyone brings it up there is nothing wrong with using religious law to settle civil disagreements between willing parties- consider it binding arbitration- as long as it does not run afoul of our criminal law.  This is the small window Islamophobes use to preach their 'encroaching Sharia law' nonsense.

[b2r]

Jimmy Carter Announces ban on Iranian Immigration to US

[Tennesseer]

There is a difference. With Carter, it was not blanket ban just because of 1.6 billion people's religion.

Snopes: Jimmy Starter

Did President Jimmy Carter ban Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. in a manner similar to Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims?


WHAT'S TRUE: President Jimmy Carter announced sanctions against Iran in 1980, including the cancellation of visas for Iranian citizens.
WHAT'S FALSE: Carter's sanctions resembled Trump's suggestion to ban Muslims from entering or immigrating to the U.S.


Jimmy Starter

[b2r]

theysmell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/snowball.png  Oh magic snow snopesball...tell me what I just saw and heard is not true! 

[NoNamePerson]

I'm surprised that it's posted here      Hadn't seen it on FB so now I get to see it on YM.