GudFolk:

Manny4Life, you fail to understand the root of all human problems. EQUALITY is an illusion.

A brief summary of America before an today:
In the past America was a religious society with a Secular constitution speaking of religious freedom because they did not understand Shari'a law. By denying the practice of Shari'a law in any part of the USA, the religious freedoms of Muslims are being denied.

This was the argument homosexuals used to FORCE homosexual marriage on the whole society including forcing religious institutions to accept homosexual marriage by government filing lawsuits like the one against the Boy's Scouts of America by a group of homos.

So in the past America was religious with a Christian domination. Marriage revolved around Christian values and was forced on society. Today America is extremely secular with a hatred for all religions. To make things worse Homosexuality is FORCED down the throats of everybody even internationally by lobbying for it in the U.N. charter.
In the future, with increasing Muslim population worldwide and immigration to the USA, the anger by religious Muslims will force them to find ways to use religious freedom and introduce Shari'a in some states and slowly ensure it enters the USA completely. Muslim rights are being denied in USA and the West. Homosexuality is being worshiped.

The truth is forcing the rights of a minority on a majority is not EQUALITY but tyranny with Minority becoming the oppressors of a Majority. Or you have segregation with everyone free to practice in small cubicles and society a Feudal State and not united federation. Unity requires common values. There is nothing common between homosexual abomination and divine Shari'a law. The USA must choose. But Muslims procreate rapidly while homos do not.

The majority must resist a world where homosexuals will oppress us all. Homos have already conquered Europe.

Perhaps our American Founding fathers were under great illusion when they were righting the constitution.

Dude you can stay here and claim about Muslims taking over the U.S. and introducing Sharia law, Muslims have to secure at 60% of Congress seats first because the last time I checked, legislative powers was delegated to Congress and Congress only. While the president does have executive powers, he doesn't make laws without consulting Congress. If u think both homos and heteros will seat and watch Sharia taking place, think again. Again I don't see it happening now or even in the future, so let's forget it. America gave them immigration and citizenship, America can revoke that same immigration and citizenship. Since they procreate faster, I have suggested Sharia to be introduced to NIGERIA first.

manny4life:


Perhaps our American Founding fathers were under great illusion when they were righting the constitution.

Dude you can stay here and claim about Muslims taking over the U.S. and introducing Sharia law, Muslims have to secure at 60% of Congress seats first because the last time I checked, legislative powers was delegated to Congress and Congress only. While the president does have executive powers, he doesn't make laws without consulting Congress. If u think both homos and heteros will seat and watch Sharia taking place, think again. Again I don't see it happening now or even in the future, so let's forget it. America gave them immigration and citizenship, America can revoke that same immigration and citizenship. Since they procreate faster, I have suggested Sharia to be introduced to NIGERIA first.

Hi, Manny! Are you still talking about the Founding Fathers as if they cared about equality for all? Remember, unless you were White, male AND a property owner, they weren't concerned with you or your feelings about equality. I wish people would stop looking to the past to change the present.

As for Sharia law taking place in the US, why not? As long as it only affects Muslims that agree to be ruled by that court, let it happen. I know some Jewish-Americans agree to follow the rulings of the Beth Din, so I'm not sure of what the problem is with Sharia passing judgment on consenting Muslim-Americans.

na paper naija guy de tasi

the man name is coward so he is nothing than a coward.
and the Nigeria guy i pity the woman that carried him for nine months,he is nothing but a dirty idiot

Travelista:

Hi, Manny! Are you still talking about the Founding Fathers as if they cared about equality for all?  Remember, unless you were White, male AND a property owner, they weren't concerned with you or your feelings about equality. I wish people would stop looking to the past to change the present.

As for Sharia law taking place in the US, why not? As long as it only affects Muslims that agree to be ruled by that court, let it happen. I know some Jewish-Americans agree to follow the rulings of the Beth Din, so I'm not sure of what the problem is with Sharia passing judgment on consenting Muslim-Americans.

Perhaps you have a more broad definition and understanding of how they meant "All men were created equal under God". First, don't forget, history says that these men were devoted Christians, when they were writing it, thus were inspired so I learnt. Second, I would believe that's why the Bill of Rights came into passage; where the amendments fall into. My point to you regardless of whether they meant it or not, the "Bill of Rights" were later incorporated into the Constitution which every U.S. citizens has access to be it Muslims, Christians, Gays, Lesbians, Heterosexuals and the list goes on.

As for Sharia law(s), I would say it's gonna hit a dead rock because laws established within these court guidelines would cause a conflict with Federal law. Federal, and state laws must be at peace at all times so as not to stir conflicts within system of government and so if a Muslim [b]American [/b]is tried under Sharia Law, that has caused a conflict with both state and federal law just because of the fact that he's American. By the Constitution, every American enjoys certain rights which in certain instances is revoked under Sharia law. For instance, minor theft cases that would be treated with a fine and or community work under state jurisdiction might carry severe penalties under Sharia law. Although u do make a good point, however, citizens would try and stop it introducing Proposition (whatever it is which I will support) to stop it. Even if Muslim Americans consent to it, it won't fly at all. There are so many issues wrong if it's established, you think is all Muslims that like to be tried under Sharia courts? What if a Muslim to be tried decides he wants state court (because he has a right to) what happens? In my own little opinion, that would not fly and the Govt would not give any exemption.

Please cite a case for me that was tried in the U.S. by a Jewish court?

manny4life:

Perhaps you have a more broad definition and understanding of how they meant "All men were created equal under God". First, don't forget, history says that these men were devoted Christians, when they were writing it, thus were inspired so I learnt. Second, I would believe that's why the Bill of Rights came into passage; where the amendments fall into. My point to you regardless of whether they meant it or not, the "Bill of Rights" were later incorporated into the Constitution which every U.S. citizens has access to be it Muslims, Christians, Gays, Lesbians, Heterosexuals and the list goes on.

I don't have a 'broad definition' or 'understanding of how they meant'; what you're trying to do is rewrite history and that does everyone a disservice. From 5th grade onward, we were told ad nauseum that when the Founding Fathers spoke of equality, that 'equality' was intended for a protected section of society. No amount of 'equality means this' is going to change their original intent, which is well documented. And what does being 'devout Christians' have to do with anything? History is showing that some of the FF were more monotheists than Christians; judging by their participation in occultic behavior (it's documented; Ben Franklin was a veritable freak to say the least), I'm wondering about their 'inspiration'. These same 'devout Christians' were proud to own fellow human beings (that they felt were subhuman enough to not count as a full person) and you think they wrote The Bill of Rights with homosexuals (who would have been considered sexual and social deviants by the period's standards), Muslims (that have had a bad rep since the days of Saladdin in Christian circles) and Blacks (that they considered dumb animals) in mind? 

Which is it: that The Bill of Rights has been adopted to ensure fair protection and equality for all in modern times or that the FF originally called for it when the document was written? You've said both in the space of two sentences and I want to be sure that I understand what you're trying to get across.

manny4life:

As for Sharia law(s), I would say it's gonna hit a dead rock because laws established within these court guidelines would cause a conflict with Federal law. Federal, and state laws must be at peace at all times so as not to stir conflicts within system of government and so if a Muslim [b]American [/b]is tried under Sharia Law, that has caused a conflict with both state and federal law just because of the fact that he's American. By the Constitution, every American enjoys certain rights which in certain instances is revoked under Sharia law. For instance, minor theft cases that would be treated with a fine and or community work under state jurisdiction might carry severe penalties under Sharia law.

You can say whatever you like but if it were to be allowed, how does it affect YOU? As I originally wrote, if a Muslim (American or not, really) agrees to be judged by such a court, it's their right and their prerogative. Not yours. And definitely not mine. If they don't like the ruling (under US law), they have loopholes to disregard anything the court decides. The community will probably frown upon them but that is their right.

manny4life:

Although u do make a good point, however, citizens would try and stop it introducing Proposition (whatever it is which I will support) to stop it. Even if Muslim Americans consent to it, it won't fly at all. There are so many issues wrong if it's established, you think is all Muslims that like to be tried under Sharia courts? What if a Muslim to be tried decides he wants state court (because he has a right to) what happens? In my own little opinion, that would not fly and the Govt would not give any exemption.

What I don't understand is how YOU are showing your hypocrisy without so much as batting an eyelash. In this thread (and others that deal with gay rights), you scream and scream about people having the constitutional right to live free from persecution and interference from outsiders and here you are wanting to police another minority group. So much for being 'open-minded', right? I never said anything about 'all Muslims'; I was very clear in my first statement about Muslims having to agree to participate in Sharia. Again, s/he has the right to choose to be tried in a US court and (hopefully) no one actually objects to such a move. From what I see, there aren't any 'issues wrong' other than the fact that you don't like Sharia law. There's nothing wrong with admitting that but what you're trying to do is underhanded and no different than what the Prop 8 supporters did in 2008.

manny4life:

Please cite a case for me that was tried in the U.S. by a Jewish court?

Are you serious? I gave you the actual name of the court and you're asking ME to find you a case they've tried on US soil? Is Google blocked on your computer or what?

*sigh*

Have fun: http://www.bethdin.org/

Someone has already mentioned this but the concept of 'equality for all' is difficult to ensure. If you protect one group, chances are, there's another group that will claim to be infringed upon. In situations like this, you're between a rock and a hard place to ensure that the majority is taken care of, while ensuring that the minority isn't marginalized.

@Travelista,

The Bill of Rights often Known as the 10 Amendments were not incorporated in "Modern times". The bill of Rights is as old as the U.S. Constitution. I just want to highlight you on that. The purpose of the bill of rights was to expand in broader view as in further interpretation of freedom, equality covered in the Constitution like the founders intended it to be.

Secondly you are right, it does not affect me however, when a culture or religion becomes a burden to the people, which is what I'm saying, then that's grounds for it not be accepted.


Sharia laws or not it's their problem. What I've always argued is Sharia law cannot and will not be implemented as law in U.S. city/state. Those laws will cause conflicts of interest within levels of government. My point is whether they agree or not, no government will make such exemption under their governance to accommodate such. At least the Federal Govt will not because such laws has to go through Congress even if they asked for a waiver. I'm not policing anyone,

what@Gudfolk said was introducing Sharia law to everyone, which I objected because I'm not Muslim and therefore shouldn't practice it either.

As for the link you gave me, I will research it once I get to work, so give me the weekend to come back with answers and if it's accurate, then I have to agree with you.

To be clear, if all religious groups in the U.S. was to ask for each of their own religious law to be implemented, imagine how much chaos that will be. To me that's enough grounds that it won't go anywhere. You have a right to practice your religion and do as you like, but NO ONE ELSE should have to follow you when it isn't their will and special exemptions shouldn't be given because it will cause other religious groups to ask for theirs as well

[size=18pt][B]ABOMINATION![/B][/size]

هذا هو هراء في حياتك ، قد يغفر الله لكم وتبين لكم الحقيقة والطريق الصحيح.

Blah blah blah

I guess those advocating gay rights under the guise of it being between two consenting adults will have no problem when parents decide to have relationships kids with their (own) grown children. We are already that desensitized.

Homosexuality is sick and those advocating it are sick.

Tudór6:
Chill out and stop blaming everything on the ''devil''.

Do you know Jesus was a homosexual??
Hanging out with 12 hefty disciples for his sexual pleasure. Simon peter was the most sodomized.

So chill, God is actually a homosexual too, since jesus is his son.

May God forgive u.

na2day!:
To former vicar Colin Coward, it is nothing short of a marriage made in heaven. But the 65-year-old is expected to raise a few traditional eyebrows when he walks down the aisle with the man in his life – a 25-year-old Nigerian model called Bobby.

Mr Coward and his African partner are due to hold a civil partnership later this year, followed by a service at the vicar’s church, St John the Baptist church in Devizes, Wiltshire.



The couple met at a Christian conference three years ago, and are planning to make their relationship official in a few weeks’ time.

Bobby Ikekhuame Egbele, a fashion designer and model, grew up in Nigeria and runs an online clothes shop. Currently in the UK on a holiday visa, he and his ‘husband-to-be’ are waiting for the green light from the Borders Agency, which has requested details of their relationship and residency.

This is expected to be a formality but the ‘marriage’ cannot go ahead until permission is granted. Mr Egbele, who will then become a British citizen, said yesterday: ‘I’m excited about the wedding and that people are interested in it.

‘We want it to be a public thing to inspire other people, but a marriage is also private so that feels a bit strange.’

Mr Coward, who is no longer employed by the Church but still has permission to preach, added that he hopes their public commitment will set an example to other gay people within the Anglican community.

Mr Coward, who lives with Mr Egbele in the Wiltshire village of Marston, said: ‘My goal is for everyone within the Church to feel comfortable with the situation because at the moment the majority of gay Christians marry secretly.

‘It is a taboo subject but the Church is now under huge pressure to change its stance and that pressure will only increase in the future. '



‘Clearly the blessing is going to be quite a sensitive issue. I know that many people will see it and view it with horror. But we are both deeply committed Christians so it would be unthinkable for me not to do it in church and not to do it with the congregation and with all of our friends.‘

'I hope my wedding will inspire others and set a visible example to the church that we are not afraid.’

Mr Coward, a former architect and now a gay campaigner, met Mr Egbele in 2007 at a Christian conference in Togo, West Africa, and the pair got engaged earlier this year.

The men are due to ‘marry’ on October 9 at the Register Office in Devizes before having a service at St John the Baptist church.

However, the service will not be a blessing, which is forbidden by the Anglican hierarchy for homosexual couples. But Stephen Green, director of campaign group Christian Voice, yesterday described Mr Coward’s marriage ‘an abomination before God’.

Mr Green added: ‘Mr Coward is just an emotionally disturbed man trying to inflict his predilections on the rest of the Church I fail to recognise him as a Christian because he doesn’t keep the commandments of Lord Jesus.’ A spokesman for the Diocese of Salisbury confirmed it has permitted the service to go ahead but described it as ‘separate’ from the civil ceremony.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304674/Gay-vicar-65-marry-Nigerian-male-model-half-age.html

There is something worrying about the second picture, the Nigerian look sick, maybe he need to get checked up.