[quote=BondGuy]

4. The escalated events that follow are the fault of the Christians, who refused to follow the orders of event security when asked to stop video taping. When they refused to follow that order, they were asked to leave. If they had left, peacefully, there would have been no escalation of hostilities. If you really believe this escalation was caused by Sharia law, try this: This weekend go to a college or NFL football game. While there, be confrontational to those seated around you. Be a real pain in the ass. Disrupt the viewing of the game. Scream this is america, I have a right to free speech and will yell whatever i like. When security shows up to toss you, get in their face too! On Monday come on here and let us know how long it took you to get bailed out of jail.  

[/quote]

So many comments could be made from your post but I will cherry pick this little piece here and remind you that if someone PAYS for a ticket to watch a ballgame, they should not have to put up with someone being disruptive that obviously didn't purchase a ticket for its intended purpose of sale. 

As for the video, it is interesting because I decided to watch it the first time without sound. IMO it is obvious these guys (Christians?) are there to cause trouble. If they truly came only to "ask a question" then there would be no reason for the cameras.Yes this is America and free speech is a right but in my personal opinion it is a right that should be used and not abused. If you watch the video without sound you could not tell if this was a religious disagreement or abortion or gay rights or any other debated topic. Both the "Christians" and the "Muslims" should have held themselves to higher standards in this situation. If these guys were breaking a law i.e. trespassing or disturbing the peace then the security should have called law enforcement.

p.s. as for the +1, +2 etc, I guess I should have dumbed it down a little for you so let me help you by saying +1 = additional point of reference to the comment by Anunabuttkiss and not you (BG) on your debating skills as being somehow superior to another.

p.s.s. was that a better ending?

ND, ending? ahh, it was Ok. Still no real kick ass punch. I'll go back and reread your post and pick up what you say I missed.

I watched the vid only once, with sound. This was an organized event. Like political rallys, visits by the prez, controversial gatherings ie abortion, clan etc, the police designate an area for protesters to gather to practice their rights to assembly and free speech. While personally, i disagree with this, it's just the way these things are handled these days. At this event the event security personel can be heard telling them to go to the designated area. That they, as protestors, in effect, were trying to crash the event  my best guess is that they gave up whatever rights they think they had. And, getting into it with security is getting into it with security, paid admission or not. Personally, i thought event security handled themselves well. Especially the guy who seemed to be in charge. Getting in these guys faces and not putting down the camera, the Christian agitators were asking for it. They were purposely provoking the Arab security members. i was waiting for one of the security people to put one of the Christians on the floor. The Christians were lucky not to get hurt. Not that would have been right, but understandable. Incidents, like these, quickly can get out of hand. And, the police don't want to hear who threw the first punch and neither do the courts.

 At a protest earlier this year in Philly, several protestors just exercising their first amendment rights spent up to several weeks in jail.

[quote=Times7]

Thoughtful advisors don't rip off their clients with VUL policies.

No, they cop an attitude about permanent protection early in their careers, and impose their own limited financial knowlege on every client equally, often leaving them unprotected or losing term policies right when coverage is needed most. Or vulnerable to (the expiration) of estate taxes.

Many advisors don't even bother to adequately protect their own families. They don't understand the implications of insurance in a changing economy.

But hey, pitching debt and imposing your progressive ideas for the redistribution of wealth is more fun.

You don't even have your CFP, do you? You're not a financial planner, you should consider investing in yourself before you advise others. Most planners, as they mature, begin to see the light about a lot of things, including the importance of positive peer leadership.

Be honest and note that as planners mature in their careers, they usually take a broader approach to hedging against the uncertainty of death, increasing taxes, health changes, job and benefit loss, family needs, bankruptcy protection for small business owners and others,  and so on. You don't know what you don't know.

Sitting here listening to Obama. Man does he sound defensive!

[/quote]

Thanks for the insurance pitch. With the advent of the DNC  I hadn't heard it in a while. or, was that a validation speech? Why are you so touchy about what you do?

What is the vig on a VUL these days? Whatever it is, no reason to feel guilty about it with a validation speech to us. We all know the truth, so, no converts on this bus.

Oh, one more news flash for the sole resident of myopicville, Just because i defend Obama, doesn't mean i'm a fan. So, fire away with anti Obama rhetoric to your heart's content, just keep it factual.

BG - Let's get back to Dearborn.  I can see where you could say Nabeel, the leader of the group, and his friends were inciting and looking for a fight.  It's not my style of witnessing, but he has a ministry called Acts 17 Apologetics that is all about witnessing to Muslims.  I can see where he might find a few Muslims to witness to at an Arab festival. 

The reality of what's going on in Dearborn is troubling to me as a Christian.  If you search on YouTube for Dearborn Muslim, you'll see several other videos by the same group where they get arrested at that same festival the next year.  For talking to people.  Not for inciting a riot.  Not for handing out Bibles inside the festival.  Under Sharia law it is illegal for a non-Muslim to witness to a Muslim.  Evidently the Dearborn police agree because they keep arresting these guys.  In one video Nabeel was talking with a group of teenagers who approached him and started asking  him questions.  They were actually having a civil conversation, well as civil as you can have with a Muslim questioning a Christian, when the police show up and arrest Nabeel. 

So, what it sounds like to me is that if you live in Dearborn, MI and there's a festival of some sort going on and you have a differing opinion than they do,  you're not allowed to go to that festival and discuss your viewpoint with the people at the festival for fear of being arrested.  So, if there was a gay pride festival going on and a group of heterosexual people showed up and started answering questions they were asked about why it's better to be straight than gay, they'd be arrested?  Or do these rules only apply to religious events?  More specifically, to Christians?   

To Sharon Angle's point, I agree with her than anytime US laws are superceded by Sharia law, even if it's just an Arab Festival in Dearborn, MI, it should concern us all.  It's the proverbial foot in the door.  The question is where does it stop?  That's what we should be looking into. 

Angle needs to calm down.

Space, I can only respond to the video i watched.

I guess one question would be: If witnessing to Muslims is against Islam then why aren't the Christian's respecting the values of the Islamic religion? Just that, is reason enough to escalate a chat into a fight. By it's very nature it's provocation. And, quite frankly, I find that lack of respect reprehensible.

These guys are being arrested for breaking american laws. Most likely disorderly conduct laws by not keeping with police emergency regs usually in force at these types of events. In other words the Arabs have the right to be there but the Christians don't. At least Christians trying to cause trouble don't have the right to be there. Same rules for abortion protests political rallies etc. gay festivals etc.  If the cops say stay out, well, then stay out! Regardless of the purpose of the festival or gathering. The christians aren't being singled out, nor are the arabs being given preferential treatment.

As for Angle, Sharia law had nothing to do with what happened in dearborn. I'd like to say that she knows better, but i can't. Angle's comments were meant to plug into the anti-muslim sentiment that you've demonstrated here. No doubt, because the Christians got the crap end of the stick on this video, many believe as you do, that the Arabs are at fault and are being supported by a sympathetic law enforcement community. This is the energy that Angle sought to capture.

The centered no skin in the game POV is that the Christians are at fault. Some may think the arabs over reacted, but there is no doubt that it is the Christians provoking a fight and disrupting the gathering. Because that is the case we see Angle's comments for what they are: Islamic fear mongering.

Space, while i respect your right to practice your religion, that right ends at my property line. If for some reason you believe your God is telling you to violate my rights I assure you my God disagrees and your God will either need to bail you out or give you a ride to the ER if you don't immediately follow my order to stop.

I realize that some Christains believe they are entitled to violate the rights of others because they believe they answer to God's law only or God's law above man's. It is this type of entitled reasoning that is getting the Christians arrested in Dearborn.

[quote=BondGuy]In other words the Arabs have the right to be there but the Christians don't.[/quote]

I know it probably wasn't your intent to confuse the two but be careful to not compare a religion with a race. As a muslim, I find it frustrating when the term Muslim is thrown around so loosely to categorize terrorists rather than "Saudi's, Afghanis" etc while Lebanese muslims, Indonesian muslims, Indian muslims and American Muslims are flipping through TV stations eating popcorn or minding their own business.

O'Reilly did this too when he compared the attack from the muslims on 9/11 to the attack on pearl harbor by the japanese

*shakes head*

Well, a real question is whether we are fighting extremists, or nations that clandestine use extremist groups for cover. I think that the answer to the question is more than clear in the case of Iran, and old Iraq. Libya certainly was, but when given the ultimatum, backed down.

If the Tea party is astroturf, then maybe home-grown extremism is fake.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/07/nation/la-na-us-radicalization7-2009dec07

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

[quote=BondGuy]In other words the Arabs have the right to be there but the Christians don't.[/quote]

I know it probably wasn't your intent to confuse the two but be careful to not compare a religion with a race. As a muslim, I find it frustrating when the term Muslim is thrown around so loosely to categorize terrorists rather than "Saudi's, Afghanis" etc while Lebanese muslims, Indonesian muslims, Indian muslims and American Muslims are flipping through TV stations eating popcorn or minding their own business.

O'Reilly did this too when he compared the attack from the muslims on 9/11 to the attack on pearl harbor by the japanese

*shakes head*

[/quote]

Point taken.

BG - you're seeing what you want to see with this video.  First, the guys with the cameras didn't tell anyone they were Christians.  Second, they went into a the tent to ask a question about a brochure they were handed earlier.  That was the purpose of the tent.  According to the video, the people inside the tent knew they had a camera.  Third, they asked both uniformed police officers and security at the event if they were allowed to video tape what they were doing.  Both of them said yes.  Fourth, throughout the short discussions with the people in the tent, nobody mentioned religion or Christianity. 

Did you hear the guy telling his camera man to turn off the camera at the beginning of the tape when he was asked to by the guy at the booth?  Did you see the hand reach up and grab the camera before the camera man had a chance to shut it off  Who was being disrespectful of whose religion? I've watched that video probably half a dozen times now and find that the only people being disrespected are the Christians. 

All of the Christians that I know try to follow both the laws of the land and the laws of our religion.  The laws of the land are typically much easier, BTW. 

As to BF's question about fighting extremists, in many instances I believe the answer to that is yes.  That's not fear mongering or racism, it's just watching the news.  How many terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Christians?  Hindus?  Athiests?  It's difficult to see report after report of this Muslim group or that Muslim group blowing up a market or a police station or a bus stop or hearing about a planned attack on an airport or Jewish religious center or office building and not think that there is a contingent among them that believes they are doing the will of Allah when they do that stuff. 

So, if we as Americans don't like the way the Muslim majority runs a country like Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan but we start to see some of their rule of law creeping into our society, don't you think the obvious thing to do is investigate it?  Does it have to get to the point where that Muslim community condones the stoning of a woman for adultery (under Sharia law) on US soil before someone takes action? 

[quote=BondGuy]

I guess one question would be: If witnessing to Muslims is against Islam then why aren't the Christian's respecting the values of the Islamic religion? Just that, is reason enough to escalate a chat into a fight. By it's very nature it's provocation. And, quite frankly, I find that lack of respect reprehensible.

[/quote]

If a fundamentalist Muslim living in the US believes his book of faith teaches him to stone his wife for adultery, should I watch from a distance as he does it so that I don't "disrespect" him?  I would hate to disrespect his values and intercede on his wife's behalf.

IH, you need to come up with a more ridiculous example.

Space, the guy in the vid was wearing some type of shirt with a symbol or design that made him easily identifiable. And, did the vid start at the beginning or was there interaction before the camera's were rolling? The event organizers already knew who these people were.

I watched the video objectively. In fact maybe more on the Christian's side because based on your post i was waiting for the Christians to get their butts handed to them in some outrageous way. What i saw was the christians provoking a fight.

The Christians said they were there to ask questions. That leads to this question: Were the Christians really seeking answers? We all know the answer to that question is no. The Christians were there to film an ambush video. They have no interest in islam beyond destroying it. Regardless, of how you want to spin it, the chisitans approach was dishonest at best.

As for the police, the Christians by being disruptive got what they had coming to them. They broke american law. On a finer point, you could be standing outside a 7-11, if a cop tells you to move along if you resist, you're going to jail.

Sharia law is not creeping into our country.

Lastly, if a group of Muslims came to your church this Sunday and started chanting "Allahu akbar" how long before the cops show up? And, why would the cops be called?

BTW, I disagree with the mosque being erected near ground zero. Even though the Muslims have the right to build, respect for our wishes would go a long way towards helping relations.

[quote=BondGuy]

IH, you need to come up with a more ridiculous example.

Space, the guy in the vid was wearing some type of shirt with a symbol or design that made him easily identifiable. And, did the vid start at the beginning or was there interaction before the camera's were rolling? The event organizers already knew who these people were.

I watched the video objectively. In fact maybe more on the Christian's side because based on your post i was waiting for the Christians to get their butts handed to them in some outrageous way. What i saw was the christians provoking a fight.

The Christians said they were there to ask questions. That leads to this question: Were the Christians really seeking answers? We all know the answer to that question is no. The Christians were there to film an ambush video. They have no interest in islam beyond destroying it. Regardless, of how you want to spin it, the chisitans approach was dishonest at best.

As for the police, the Christians by being disruptive got what they had coming to them. They broke american law. On a finer point, you could be standing outside a 7-11, if a cop tells you to move along if you resist, you're going to jail.

Sharia law is not creeping into our country.

Lastly, if a group of Muslims came to your church this Sunday and started chanting "Allahu akbar" how long before the cops show up? And, why would the cops be called?

BTW, I disagree with the mosque being erected near ground zero. Even though the Muslims have the right to build, respect for our wishes would go a long way towards helping relations.

[/quote]

Aint a big fan of Muslims

Hate peeps blowing stuff up

hate peeps that hate

Think maybe this religion allows you to hurt others who dont beleive

Biggest problem in world today....................

having said all that.....cant block Mosque.  this is America.

You block that mosque you become them.   Chavez, Putin.

BG - I disagree that it was going to be an ambush video.  Now, I don't know what question they were planning on asking, other than it was a question about the Muslims' fight against terrorism.  The main guy says that at the beginning of the video.  I have no doubt that they disagreed with the contents of the brochure and were going to attempt to discuss it with the guys in the tent.  I don't believe that they were there to cause trouble.  In fact, they say that they had asked the people at the table a couple of times if they could video tape their converstions and were told yes.  Maybe a different guy was at the table when they came back.  That session could have turned out a lot differently.  But we don't really know how that it would have turned out because they never got to ask their question. 

I know you'll find this suprising, but I'm not sure what American law they broke?  If you're looking only at what happened on that clip, the only people who broke any American laws were the ones assaulting the guys with the video cameras. 

I realize that it's pointless to debate this with you.  You're not going to change your mind. 

As to your question about a group of people chanting "Allahu akbar" in my church,  I think it would depend on how they handled themselves.  If they just ran into the room yelling it, I'd suspect they'd get tackled.  Mostly because the majority of people believe that when a middle eastern looking guy walks or runs into a crowded room and says Allahu Akbar, the next thing that happens is he blows himself up.  If they walked in a weren't trying to cause a fight, they'd probably be allowed to stay.  They might get asked to leave, but IMHO it would take more than that to get kicked out of a typical American church. 

Heck, if they went into a Pentacostal church they might get to preach.  If they're speaking in tongues before the service even starts, they obviously have the Holy Spirit with them and He wants to be heard. 

Space, good point on things go boom right after Alla Akbar. I was really strectching for a point, which was these people, even of good intent, would be disrupting your service. And, though some churches might be tollerent, calling the police wouldn''t be out of line.

The confrontation derailed the christian's orgininal intent when it got into a pissing match about the cameras.  Still, all the christians had to do was shut up and leave. They didn't do that.

As for the law broken, i don't know what laws were broken. Probably disturbing the peace and or failure to follow a police order. The protestors were, apparently, anticipated, given a place to protest, and no doubt told to stay in that area if they wished to protest. That these people were out of that area and were then involved in a confrontation is an automatic arrest. Like i said, if they'd just left.

BG - You keep trying to make a point by using places that are not "public". You asked "what if someone stood up in a football stadium and started shouting" and now you are saying "what if someone enters a church and starts shouting". In both instances, I would say the "someone" has an ass whoopin coming.

Now back to the video, if there is no requirement to "decline" admission to the Muslim event then these Christians have the right to do as they please to the point of not disturbing the peace. If there is some kind of "gatekeeper" (ticket taker or city permit that allows for participation restrictions) one would have to "pass" by to enter the event then it should be assumed to be a non-public event which IMO limits free speech.

We cannot tell from the video if this event would be considered "open to the public" or some version of "by invitation only". The invitation could be made by the gatekeeper or prior to the event. Either way doesn't matter.

IMO free speech is not and should not include every square inch of real estate in the country. I hate that people choose to protest at funerals but if someone wants to protest a funeral then they should have that right but the cemetery should limit entrance to the cemetery during the burial.

OK, BG, I'll condede the point that the guys with the video cameras should have just gone home.  But you've got to concede that they got treated unfairly by the Muslim security folks.  There's enough fault on both sides to go around. 

Let's shift our attention to Oklahoma.  Why?  Because BG states that he believes Sharia law isn't trying to get it's foot in the door in the US.  According to the Huffington Post, the most factual website in cyberspace, there was a vote on the Nov 2 ballot in OK that would "prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases."  Sounds pretty simple.  The courts in OK can't look at Sharia Law, Hindu Law, Russian Laws, Australian Laws, etc when forming an opinion.  Well, guess who got his panties in a wad?  A guy named Muneer Awad, a Mulsim living in OK who feels his rights are being violated.  He believes that the new law, which was passed by a 70% vote by the people of OK, violates his rights.  He complains that "the measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into 'an enduring condemnation' of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion."

The judge agreed with him temporarily.  So, the Attorney General, I believe, of OK has until Nov 22 to make the state's case or the judge is going to throw out the vote.  Hmmm...so, the people of OK voted overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment to their state's constitution, but a judge can say never mind and override them all?  Sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me.  

Let's say that the vote does get thrown out and  a few months later Mr. Awad finds out his teenage daughters are dating (gasp) non-Muslim boys, going to dances, and doing other things to dishonor the family.  So, as a devout Muslim, he decides that an honor killing is in order.  He gets them into his car and then honorably kills them both.  Does he then have a legal foot to stand on when he stands in front of the judge and tells him that under Sharia law, which as a Muslim he follows, he is justified in his honor killing?  Whose laws does the judge follow?  Do they follow American laws which say you can't kill people or does he follow Sharia law which holds honor evidently above the lives of your children?  I think an activist judge could have a lot of fun with that. 

How many instances do you need in this country of honor killings, court injunctions, Christians in handcuffs, etc before you wake up and realize that there is a radical religious group out there trying to work it's way into our culture like it has in the UK, France, and Germany?  Do you think our current Supreme Court has the cajones to tell the international community, much less the Muslim community here, that we're not going to play that game?  With a President going around the world bending over backwards to the Muslim community apologizing for the attitudes of the people of HIS country toward Muslims?  I have my doubts. 

So, BG, still want to tell me Sharia law isn't creeping into our country? 

Let's don't have an academic debate about the special legal rights of Muslims in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2VkIu8TL_I&feature=related

My comment was qued for moderation. Don't know if moderation is going to be cutting it for me here.