Official OK with Islamic law in Netherlands

[DoctorDoom]

The Netherlands' justice minister says he would welcome Islamic law, or Sharia, to his European nation if the majority of his people vote for it.

Piet Hein Donner wants the Netherlands to give Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions, reported the NIS News Bulletin, a Dutch online publication.

"For me it is clear: If two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist," Donner said. "It would be a disgrace to say: 'That is not allowed!'"

Donner was reacting to a plea by a parliamentary leader, Maxime Verhagen, who wants to ban parties seeking to establish Islamic law.Official OK with Islamic law in Netherlands (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51957)

The fool wants to sign the death warrant for the nation of the Netherlands. Islam does not tolerate any law but its own.

[Wolfcounsel]

"For me it is clear: If two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist," Donner said. "It would be a disgrace to say: 'That is not allowed!'" --Piet Hein Donner from DoctorDoom's link

This clown has got to be the owner of the biggest set of Islamic butt-kissing lips.

[markus3622]

Isn't the politician correct. If enough americans wanted to enact sharia law, the elected politicians amended the constitution to do so, etc, etc, shouldn't sharia be allowed?

They key is to convince people not to vote for sharia

[Wolfcounsel]

"Isn't the politician correct. If enough americans wanted to enact sharia law, the elected politicians amended the constitution to do so, etc, etc, shouldn't sharia be allowed?" --markus3622

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies within and without, including Islamic assholes and their cheerleaders who say it is okie-dokie to change the Constitution to sharia, I might add. Sharia should be allowed? If I had my way, all Islamics and their cheerleading butthole buddies would be deported to Hell or Iran, their choice! Are you a cheerleader for the cult from Hell?:evilgrin:

[Ant]

"Isn't the politician correct. If enough americans wanted to enact sharia law, the elected politicians amended the constitution to do so, etc, etc, shouldn't sharia be allowed?" --markus3622

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies within and without, including Islamic assholes and their cheerleaders who say it is okie-dokie to change the Constitution to sharia, I might add. Sharia should be allowed? If I had my way, all Islamics and their cheerleading butthole buddies would be deported to Hell or Iran, their choice! Are you a cheerleader for the cult from Hell?:evilgrin:


He said if the Constitution was amended. The Constitution does allow for amendment, you know. Does that mean you would protect and defend the amended Constitution?
Posing a question about a subject does not, in any way, mean you are in favor of the subject of your question.
Hopefully, the difficulty of amending the Constitution will continue to protect us from any future idiotic fads that may be adopted by the majority.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Isn't the politician correct. If enough americans wanted to enact sharia law, the elected politicians amended the constitution to do so, etc, etc, shouldn't sharia be allowed?


Democracy through birth rates? Fornicate to freedom? Or sex for slavery if you prefer? Either the Constitution is independantly clear and separate from all demographics or it is not clear. If humping statistics alone guaranteed a lock on legislatation en total, then ethnic groups might as well have little 4 way fuk-way programs to insure their barrio gets institutionalized, the Consitution be damned.

Your point infers that sex is the legislator, not the common idea that makes America, America which is that 'we find these things to be self-evident....'

[Ant]

Your point infers that sex is the legislator, not the common idea that makes America, America which is that 'we find these things to be self-evident....'

Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, you must admit that if enough of the population wants it done, good or bad, it will be done.

[Wolfcounsel]

1. He said if the Constitution was amended. The Constitution does allow for amendment, you know. Does that mean you would protect and defend the amended Constitution?" --Ant, about markus3622

Do you think that millions of veterans are stupid to take the oath if the Constitution can be amended in the negative? Take the Bill of Rights, the unalienable rights with which every peson is born. Go ahead and convince some political clown to eliminate the Second Amendment, and you will see all Hell break loose. How about you? Are you a cheerleader for Islam?



"Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, you must admit that if enough of the population wants it done, good or bad, it will be done." --Ant, to Wyatt_Junker

It will be done if the bad guys win in the war from Hell. If you are one of the bad guys, you don't stand a chance against the good guys.:evilgrin:

[Ant]

Do you think that millions of veterans are stupid to take the oath if the Constitution can be amended in the negative? Take the Bill of Rights, the unalienable rights with which every peson is born. Go ahead and convince some political clown to eliminate the Second Amendment, and you will see all Hell break loose. How about you? Are you a cheerleader for Islam?


No, fortunately for us, I don't think it is likely to happen, but it is theoretically possible.

No, I am not a cheerleader for Islam. What about my post would make you think such a thing? Do you understand the difference between talking about an idea and actually advocating it?

[markus3622]

I'll also answer that I'm not a cheerleader for Islam - I'm just arguing that it is possible to argue for Sharia to be adopted anywhere if most people want it.

Actually, on a similar note, that's one of the problems being faced in the Middle East right now. Bush is right to push for democracy in the middle east, but the policy faces the problem that many (if not the majority) will vote for "one man, one vote, once" and vote for Sharia.

[Wolfcounsel]

"What about my post would make you think such a thing? Do you understand the difference between talking about an idea and actually advocating it?" --Ant

Do YOU understand the difference between me asking you nonchalantly if you are a cheerleader for Islam, and me asking you the question because I actually believe you are?

[Wyatt_Junker]

I'll also answer that I'm not a cheerleader for Islam - I'm just arguing that it is possible to argue for Sharia to be adopted anywhere if most people want it.


Not true. If Sharia, in all its honor killing splendor, was enacted then it isn't 'possible', even if people want it.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, you must admit that if enough of the population wants it done, good or bad, it will be done.

And if Sharia, in any of its forms, is ever amended into the Constitution, we deserve whatever we get.

[Republican_Legion]

And if Sharia, in any of its forms, is ever amended into the Constitution, we deserve whatever we get.

No Doubt about it that sharia law would declare the constitution illegal.

[Republican_Legion]

Well if the Libs like markus are open to Sharia law being able to be voted in then what do they feel about jewish or christian law being drafted ?

[Ant]

Well if the Libs like markus are open to Sharia law being able to be voted in then what do they feel about jewish or christian law being drafted ?

He's not open to it. He's saying it would be theoretically possible.

Once again: discussing != advocating

[Ant]

And if Sharia, in any of its forms, is ever amended into the Constitution, we deserve whatever we get.

If Sharia, or any other theocratic/authoritarian system is ever enacted, I'm moving.

[heikediguoren]

Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, you must admit that if enough of the population wants it done, good or bad, it will be done.

In regard to the Dutch Constitution, any changes must undergo ratification by the King, similar to the President's ratification of bills passed by Congress:


Article 139
Amendments to the Constitution passed by the Parliament and ratified by the King shall enter into force immediately after they have been published.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nl00000_.html

Therefore, sharia can only become law in the Netherlands if the King permits it.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Once again: discussing != advocating" --Ant

How about-- ...discussing <> advocating?

[Ant]

"Once again: discussing != advocating" --Ant

How about-- ...discussing <> advocating?

Sure, if VB is your thing.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Sure, if VB is your thing." --Ant

Okay. How about discussing ≠advocating?

[Kathy30]

It is theoretically impossible in the United States. In order for the US to have sharia law it would have to become a theocracy. Then it wouldn't be the United States anymore, even if it still claimed the same name.

The Netherlands is an example of liberal thinking following itself right up it's own asshole. If the majority of the people vote to make the koran the supreme law of the land, then the koran would become law, and the secular nature of the Netherlands would be decapitated.

Secular liberals having no reference points between good and evil, bad and good, simply cannot made sound decisions. If the majority of the people voted to kill all the Christians and Jews, that would be fine. Liberals lacking a reference point to make this unacceptable behavior would just accept it as a consensus of mob rule.

[heikediguoren]

"Once again: discussing != advocating" --Ant

How about-- ...discussing <> advocating?

~((discussing -> advocating) U (advocating -> discussing)) is also equivalent.

[DoctorDoom]

... the elected politicians amended the constitution to do so ...First, kid, you have to learn about subjects, and THEN post.

Poiliticians do NOT amend the Constitution.

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.Constitutional Amendments (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html)

[markus3622]

Poiliticians do NOT amend the Constitution

Yes they do. (Unless I'm missing some nuance in your post, politicians, whether they are in congress or at the state level, have the power to change the constitution)

[markus3622]

Well if the Libs like markus are open to Sharia law being able to be voted in then what do they feel about jewish or christian law being drafted ?

As Ant explains, I'm not advocating it, and I would oppose it, but it is theoretically possible for the US to become a Christian, Jewish or Hindu theocracy if so desired.

[markus3622]

Secular liberals having no reference points between good and evil, bad and good, simply cannot made sound decisions. If the majority of the people voted to kill all the Christians and Jews, that would be fine. Liberals lacking a reference point to make this unacceptable behavior would just accept it as a consensus of mob rule.

I'm a secular liberal, and I'm struggling to see how any criteria could be devised to state that exiling members of a particular religion from the US (see other thread) would be on the side of good.

[Wolfcounsel]

"I'm a secular liberal, and I'm struggling to see how any criteria could be devised to state that exiling members of a particular religion from the US (see other thread) would be on the side of good." --markus3622

Exiling legal immigrants on the basis of felonies, do you go along with that? I go along with exiling natural-born, on that basis. Anyway, people who belong to cults, do you notice how many exclusions some cults have? How many pathetic conditions one must follow to belong to one? The one about women having second-class rights in an inheritance rings a bell, or do you know about that one at all? Islam is a cult! It is not now, and it has never been a religion. I really don't give a rodent's anus what any world leader or scholar has to say about it, also.

[heikediguoren]

Exiling legal immigrants on the basis of felonies, do you go along with that? I go along with exiling natural-born, on that basis.

What place do you favor as a destination for deported natural-born citizens? For example, will a Mayflower descendant have to return to England?

[d'urville]

As Ant explains, I'm not advocating it, and I would oppose it, but it is theoretically possible for the US to become a Christian, Jewish or Hindu theocracy if so desired.

Well, yeah, you could amend the US Constitution into sharia law in theory if the amendments appeal virtually every clause. It would render it unrecognizable and be a switch from a representative republic to a theocracy, still a revolution.

[Lazarus]

I'm a secular liberal, and I'm struggling to see how any criteria could be devised to state that exiling members of a particular religion from the US (see other thread) would be on the side of good.So you're saying, in principle, that it would be ok for the Constitution to be replaced by Sharia law as long as the majority of the people choose it, but when that same majority also votes to outlaw all non-Muslim beliefs, that's when Markus is going to swing into action and bolding stand in the gap in the name of freedom - Did I get that right?

After having seen example after example of the kind of slavery this cult puts into practice in every country where they have ever taken control, you still dont see the irony of your legalistic position...

In reference to the specific subject of this thread that Doc raised, I can see The Netherlands becoming the next Lebanon - So saturated by mindless liberals, they will allow an Islamic state within their own national boundaries, and the Dutch Hezbollah will be lobbing rockets across the border at their neighbors, while the official Dutch government stands around and shrugs and says, "We're not strong enough to stop them"...

The Netherlands is appropriately named - they are just a gnat's ass away from slipping into the Netherworld...

[Kathy30]

The Netherlands is so saturated with mindless lliberals that it has absolutely no idea that under sharia law their mindless liberal state will no longer exist.

Already, now, today, the muslim immigrants and second and third generation muslims call the Dutch the enemy that must be destroyed.

[Wolfcounsel]

"What place do you favor as a destination for deported natural-born citizens? For example, will a Mayflower descendant have to return to England?" --heikediguoren

Any country that wants them. If there are no takers, they can spend their lives in prison under less than mediocre standards. For murder and other heinous crimes, take out the garbage.<!-- / message -->

[Lazarus]

I feel the Netherlands will serve as an historic object lesson for future generations when they read about the great Muslim war in Europe...