Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Thought this one was in the Pit. Sorry, Perciful. And tom.
Okay.
Why is this a problem, Perciful? Why aren’t banks allowed to offer whatever products they want? I have a problem with proposals like Sharia family court systems but I don’t see the issue here. Do you understand what this actually is? It’s not a separate monetary system or anything. If you want to strike terror into the heart of Americans, “their banks don’t charge interset or late fees!” is probably not going to do it. 
You know, there are just a fewChristian private schools in this country. Jewish ones, too. Do you understand what the separation of church and state means?
Erm, yes. Is this supposed to be a question?
What the hell are you talking about? There are a few million Muslims in the U.S. Do you think they’re about to dominate the financial system?
This is not a Constitutional issue in any way.
This makes no sense from a religious or financial standpoint. Why should all banks be forced to include interest rates and late payments? By the way, Christianity opposes charging interest, too.
Actually neither of these is a religion. Sharia is a system of Islamic law. Jihad, as I understand it, is supposed to be a struggle for righteousness but is frequently incorporated into terrorism.
And what if we don’t? Or more importantly, what if we’d like to get our facts straight before getting all riled up about nothing in particular?
So what?
Seriously. I’ve noticed that this obsession with the absolute disaster of whites becoming some kind of minority in this country is mostly held by people who are afraid that whites as a minority will be treated the way whites have historically treated minorities.
Even acknowledging the complete unlikelihood of Muslims becoming a larger demographic group than European-descent Christians in the US, the answer to demographic decline is not paranoia and panic. It’s treating minorities the way we’d want them to treat us when/if we become the minority. If you aren’t a complete dick to someone, they’re generally not going to be a complete dick to you, given the opportunity.
It’s worth noting that 34% of American Muslims are white.
Well, you’re talking reality. People who moan and cry about demographic decline in regard to Muslims don’t even know where reality is.
Fairly naive. The first paragraph is true: I’ve even implied that in this thread. However, the basis of the fear is actual: it’s human nature. Revenge is merely a component of motivation.
It was human nature. In modern secular democracies, that stuff doesn’t really happen. We’re not Zimbabwe.
Uhhh, I am no expert but this is flat out wrong. I have been told many times by Muslim colleagues, even the very pious sort, that family planning and birth control are absolutely not a problem. I am sure someone can google us up some support.
Bloody hell, that is one powerful set of paranoid lunacy as a post.
The rate of Muslim population growth in the US fell significantly when you compare the 1990s and the 2000s. Just for the record.
Are you going to try to force us Jews to “live like Americans” and eat pork, too? I should warn you, some other empires have tried that, and it didn’t work out so well.
There are mutual funds with various social agendas, like investing in green technology or avoiding investing in companies involved with things like abortion. Are you going to ban those and make those people “invest like Americans”, too? People who are pro-environment and anti-abortion have committed acts of terrorism, too, you know.
I’d like a cite on where, exactly, in the Constitution it says anything about how banks have to work.
The statement was certainly directed toward the legal system and the introduction of Sharia law. It’s silly to suggest dietary requirements.:dubious:
Banking regulations are well established and regulated by law. No cite is needed.
In what possibly way does Sharia-based banking regulation conflict with banking regulations already enshrined by law?
Yet it’s not silly when people make the claims that Muslims are going to build their own schools in violation of church and state (
) and other such silliness. In the Pit version of this thread, some folks were claiming that we’d all be in burqas. I don’t see this as any differently silly.
And funnily enough, nothing about the banking practices described above seems to conflict with our laws. Have you noticed any big regulatory push to change banking laws? Wouldn’t it be splashed all over the news by the Percivals and Valterons of the world?
My point is, we have our own system of laws that are not the same as American laws, too. The best-known of these are the dietary laws, but there are others as well. That doesn’t mean we’re trying to take over the US and establish it as a place where Jewish law is the law of the land.
Cite? No.
Relevance? That is surely needed. Perciful made a wild claim that linked Islamic banking practices to ignoring the Constitution. Unless you have evidence that the banking practices are in violation of the Constitution, her wild claim and your odd defence are both silly.
You are correct, (without it being much of a point), that banking regulations are enshrined in law. How a bank lawfully operating, (quite obviously following those laws in that they are not being closed down by any Federal or state regulatory agency), is in any conflict with the Constitution is the question that you and Perciful need to answer unless you are each simply throwing mud at a wall, hoping some of it sticks.
If you re-read Perciful’s post, she was talking about “sharia banking”- which is banking done in accordance with Islamic principles. It does not require any alteration of the legal system or the banking system. They’re not trying to stop anyone else from charging interest. It’s a type of banking that is legal on its own and also has some extra restrictions that comply with Islamic rules. They don’t feel the banks are moral, so they bank their own way. They don’t want to invest in certain companies, either - but lots of people take that into account when they’re investing.This seems like a perfectly acceptable free market solution.
If you operate a monetary banking exchange then it falls under banking rules. The banking system exists under the umbrella of constitutional law. To say banks are a function of the constitution is a restatement of their existence under the legal constraints allowed by it.
Maybe I’m missing something in this conversation.
I would suggest that you’re missing an understanding of the subject.
UK has Sharia banks, nothing in law - other than some tax oriented adjustments of the rules on sale-lease backs if I understand correctly - needed to be changed.
Charging interest (well explicit interest) on a finance deal has nothing constitutional about it at all.