A Peaceful and Amicable Request to the President About Religion and the Citizenry

a reply to: WarminIndy

And once again you manage to read a statement specifically about other people making disparaging about and towards my children and somehow interpret that as a direct statement against you. Is it a guilty conscience or a martyr complex?

And yes, you are wrong regarding your statements on moral relevance in general and Christians specifically. I'm not opposed to any religion or denomination. What I am against is intolerance and the superiority complex exhibited by so many Christians. Just to clarify since that's apparently necessary, that doesn't mean you. Unless it applies to you.

Your reaction though is exactly what I was talking about though with Christians crying about their persecution Yet you deny the reality and push that mindset on Atheists, agnostics et al. You are coming off rather petty based on misconstrued reading and then tossing accusations at me that you are in fact guilty of.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

And once again you manage to read a statement specifically about other people making disparaging about and towards my children and somehow interpret that as a direct statement against you. Is it a guilty conscience or a martyr complex?

And yes, you are wrong regarding your statements on moral relevance in general and Christians specifically. I'm not opposed to any religion or denomination. What I am against is intolerance and the superiority complex exhibited by so many Christians. Just to clarify since that's apparently necessary, that doesn't mean you. Unless it applies to you.

Your reaction though is exactly what I was talking about though with Christians crying about their persecution Yet you deny the reality and push that mindset on Atheists, agnostics et al. You are coming off rather petty based on misconstrued reading and then tossing accusations at me that you are in fact guilty of.

Listen, I say that whoever says mean things to your children, should not say it. I wouldn't do it.

Nope, moral relevance is just that, what is moral to you is relevant to you and what is moral to me is relevant to me. But since moral relevance doesn't work, then that's not an argument people can make.

We can argue moral relevance all day, but if your moral framework is from yourself, then you have to be morally superior for that framework to actually be superior. That's impossible for anyone.

Are you worried that some Christian might come along and take this thread as serious and try to enact it? Is that what you are really afraid of? You seem morally outraged, but I don't really hear the same outrage from you on threads when people vow their lives to get rid of religions. Are you not morally outraged when Christian children are called "religitards"?

originally posted by: WarminIndy


OK, Peter Vlar, you would have Shariah here if Christians didn't stop it, because all you guys are doing is saying "coexist".

Is that an admission that you lied when claiming cities are under sharia law in this country?

And no... It's not Christians that hold back Sharia Law, it's the value system if Americans as a whole understanding what Sharia would do, especially to women, Christians, atheists and homosexuals. It's our secular government not allowing this to occur. You may not implicitly state that Christianity is superior but you certainly imply it with statements like that. It's as if you're saying I should be thankful to Christians for preserving my way of life when it's a tenet of the faith to both prosyletize to and condemn me for not believing.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy


OK, Peter Vlar, you would have Shariah here if Christians didn't stop it, because all you guys are doing is saying "coexist".

Is that an admission that you lied when claiming cities are under sharia law in this country?

And no... It's not Christians that hold back Sharia Law, it's the value system if Americans as a whole understanding what Sharia would do, especially to women, Christians, atheists and homosexuals. It's our secular government not allowing this to occur. You may not implicitly state that Christianity is superior but you certainly imply it with statements like that. It's as if you're saying I should be thankful to Christians for preserving my way of life when it's a tenet of the faith to both prosyletize to and condemn me for not believing.

Have I condemned you for not believing?

Please, show me where.

(Amazing, we have kept the T&C so far, the mods haven't had to intervene).

Really though, do you think coexist is viable with them?

Shariah in American Courts

originally posted by: WarminIndy





Listen, I say that whoever says mean things to your children, should not say it. I wouldn't do it.

Nope, moral relevance is just that, what is moral to you is relevant to you and what is moral to me is relevant to me. But since moral relevance doesn't work, then that's not an argument people can make.

You're missing my point. While it may be MY moral compass, my moral compass is based on my Catholic upbringing and
Further enhanced by the US Constitution and Federal laws. If certain things weren't in
Violation of the law I would likely keep quiet about it in public.

We can argue moral relevance all day, but if your moral framework is from yourself, then you have to be morally superior for that framework to actually be superior. That's impossible for anyone.

Then you might want to explain that to the overly vocal Christians who claim the superiority of the moral high road while ignoring many if Christ's teachings. The hypocrisy demonstrated by many Christians is baffling.

Are you worried that some Christian might come along and take this thread as serious and try to enact it? Is that what you are really afraid of?

Not at all. We still live in a secular country so it's not a concern unless that changes.

You seem morally outraged, but I don't really hear the same outrage from you on threads when people vow their lives to get rid of religions.

Can you link me to one of these threads about getting Rid religion that I took part in? I would be able to respond easier if I cod see the context.

Are you not morally outraged when Christian children are called "religitards"?

How many times do I have to say that I will always defend
Your 1st amendment rights? Anyone that says that to any child is morally repugnant. Though I find it interesting that the slur is against religion in general but you're only concerned with Christian children.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Have I condemned you for not believing? Please, show me where.

After you show me where I said that YOU condemned me.

(Amazing, we have kept the T&C so far, the mods haven't had to intervene).

Why? Do you feel that I am incapable of civilly discussing the issue?

Really though, do you think coexist is viable with them?

Shariah in American Courts

Yes. I have lived with them. Served with them. Am still friends with some of "them". It's fascinating that you're so offended by being lumped in with all Christians yet that is exactly what you do with Muslims.

There is a huge difference between your claim of entire cities being under Sharia Law and and allegation of its implementation in state appellate courts. Can you cite those cities or will you admit you were wrong?
The page your link directs to doesn't even claim proof positive of imementation of Sharia. It says quite clearly the word "suggest"

The study’s findings suggestthat Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

a reply to: peter vlar

Then if we both agree that we defend each other's rights, yours to not believe and mine to believe, then we are in agreement.

I also have a problem with people saying things about Jewish children, believe that. And furthermore, I don't say things against any children, they are children. Just like I don't agree with people saying things about Obama or Sarah Palin's kids, they are off limits so I don't agree with people on that one.

There are many threads, you should ask that question of some of the same people on this thread who align themselves with you, but it would take hours to post all the comment links.

Ask Prezbo if that sentiment hasn't been passed around, but I hear that over on Conspiracies in Religion thread, they say all kinds of things over there.

Those Christians who take the moral high ground, they aren't all right. I admit that. But you have to understand, not all Christians think the same way. I think the problem is that for some people, they hear "Christian" and the immediate knee jerk reaction is "Christians are going to burn me at the stake".

But go ahead, ask Prezbo, I simply don't have time to link you to all the threads. Even one, those comments are buried in almost every religious thread.

a reply to: peter vlar

Overall, the whole thread has not been flagged...

Geesh, that wasn't personal.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Overall, the whole thread has not been flagged...

Geesh, that wasn't personal.

It was a joke. Sarcasm. Take a deep breath, everything will be alright.

a reply to: WarminIndy

No. I don't think the knee jerk reaction from most of us is "oh Christian, They wanna draw and quarter me" or some other medieval inquisition methodology. The knee jerk reaction is to be prepared to be talk down to and not have a discussion as equals but as if I'm receiving a lecture from my betters. And honestly, that is often what goes on both on ATS and in the real world.

I am however still waiting for any city in America under Sharia law to be demonstrated

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

No. I don't think the knee jerk reaction from most of us is "oh Christian, They wanna draw and quarter me" or some other medieval inquisition methodology. The knee jerk reaction is to be prepared to be talk down to and not have a discussion as equals but as if I'm receiving a lecture from my betters. And honestly, that is often what goes on both on ATS and in the real world.

I am however still waiting for any city in America under Sharia law to be demonstrated

OK, let me clarify, Shariah hasn't taken over a city, but I have, however, provided you with the link for Shariah enforced in American courts, in American cities, so yes, it would indicate that Shariah has taken over a city if Shariah overrides the city laws, wouldn't you say?

Sharia in Arizona

One case, one city, transplant of Shariah law over American, in an American city, and if Shariah law overrides American law in a court, then that means Shariah has overtaken that city.

No?

464*464 In the trial court Nationwide contended that the Islamic law of Morocco applied and that under that law the funds used by Zouheil were his sole and separate property. The trial judge apparently agreed with this contention in awarding judgment in Nationwide’s favor. On appeal we became concerned with the applicability of Islamic law to the Zouheils who were neither citizens of Morocco, nor Moslems.

a reply to: WarminIndy

It's a state appellate court so it's hardly supplanting a city's laws in any way shape or form. Did you read the actual ruling on the case you linked? The people in question were Christians for one thing and the claim of Sharia Law is a massive stretch of the truth. In Arizona, for foreign nationals, property law in a case such as The one in question is decided by the individuals nation of citizenship and how they base their property laws. In this case it would have been Lebanon and Syria. Neither if those countries operate under Sharia law. The judge did err in that he used the property laws of Morocco where the couple were living at the time if the lawsuit. In Morocco, the property laws do follow what is in Sharia but Sharia is not the law of Morocco in the way you are thinking. They do use portions of it as the basis for some laws but it is limited to things like marriage, child custody and property rights. In the case you reference the husband was arguing that property owned was community property with his wife, not Solely his. In Morocco apparently they considered it only the husbands because when he purchased it his wife was not in the US yet. All of this applied in the original trial only.



At the end of the day it was a result of the Arizona law. One which applies to foreign nationals only and bases it off of the country they hold citizenship in. If they were from Germany, it would have been based on German property laws. If the judge had ruled properly it would have been based on Lebanese or Syrian law. It is a matter of coincidence that it fell under Moroccan law for purposes of the ruling. Again, it was a property issue In an appellate court so it had nothing to do with any cities laws. And the end result was that the appellate court based their ruling on Lebanese law where there is NO Sharia at all.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

It's a state appellate court so it's hardly supplanting a city's laws in any way shape or form. Did you read the actual ruling on the case you linked? The people in question were Christians for one thing and the claim of Sharia Law is a massive stretch of the truth. In Arizona, for foreign nationals, property law in a case such as The one in question is decided by the individuals nation of citizenship and how they base their property laws. In this case it would have been Lebanon and Syria. Neither if those countries operate under Sharia law. The judge did err in that he used the property laws of Morocco where the couple were living at the time if the lawsuit. In Morocco, the property laws do follow what is in Sharia but Sharia is not the law of Morocco in the way you are thinking. They do use portions of it as the basis for some laws but it is limited to things like marriage, child custody and property rights. In the case you reference the husband was arguing that property owned was community property with his wife, not Solely his. In Morocco apparently they considered it only the husbands because when he purchased it his wife was not in the US yet. All of this applied in the original trial only.



At the end of the day it was a result of the Arizona law. One which applies to foreign nationals only and bases it off of the country they hold citizenship in. If they were from Germany, it would have been based on German property laws. If the judge had ruled properly it would have been based on Lebanese or Syrian law. It is a matter of coincidence that it fell under Moroccan law for purposes of the ruling. Again, it was a property issue In an appellate court so it had nothing to do with any cities laws. And the end result was that the appellate court based their ruling on Lebanese law where there is NO Sharia at all.

Yes, I read that they were Christian, so?

The point is, the corporation being sued was Nationwide.

Three from Virginia

Shariah, no?

a reply to: WarminIndy

No, nationwide was the plaintiff in the case. They were actually the ones who pushed for accepting the Moroccan laws instead of the Lebanese property law. Either way, it's the result of the Arizona law. If they were from Europe or Canada the laws of those countries as well would have applied in regards to the property issue. It wasn't an implementation of Sharia. It was coincidental that Morocco practices sharia on a limited basis that led to deciding the property rights in the case. But again, it wasn't forcing Sharia on Americans. It was the way the Arizona law works and would have applied to citizens of any country anywhere in the world.

In the 2nd case you present it is again a stretch to say they are implementing Sharia. The judge had to decide the legality of a marriage. It wasn't valid in Britain where the initial ceremony was done but was valid in Pakistan where the ceremony was completed. It led to the wife being granted a divorce and splitting of property based on Virginia law. Not Sharia. The Closest it got to sharia was "were they legally married in Pakistan?" The answer being yes led back to implementation of Virginia law for the divorce.

I'm sorry but the website you are using as a source is an alarmist stretching the bounds of truth to the very edges of reality. The way you were talking earlier in the thread you made it sound like all the laws in multiple cities were taken over by Sharia and it affected every resident of said city which obviously isn't remotely true. Would you agree? These aren't really cases if Sharia in the US and it definitely isn't implementing it in these cases. It's scare tactics by bigots for bigots. I'll certainly go through the site a little more later when I have
Time. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

No, nationwide was the plaintiff in the case. They were actually the ones who pushed for accepting the Moroccan laws instead of the Lebanese property law. Either way, it's the result of the Arizona law. If they were from Europe or Canada the laws of those countries as well would have applied in regards to the property issue. It wasn't an implementation of Sharia. It was coincidental that Morocco practices sharia on a limited basis that led to deciding the property rights in the case. But again, it wasn't forcing Sharia on Americans. It was the way the Arizona law works and would have applied to citizens of any country anywhere in the world.

In the 2nd case you present it is again a stretch to say they are implementing Sharia. The judge had to decide the legality of a marriage. It wasn't valid in Britain where the initial ceremony was done but was valid in Pakistan where the ceremony was completed. It led to the wife being granted a divorce and splitting of property based on Virginia law. Not Sharia. The Closest it got to sharia was "were they legally married in Pakistan?" The answer being yes led back to implementation of Virginia law for the divorce.

I'm sorry but the website you are using as a source is an alarmist stretching the bounds of truth to the very edges of reality. The way you were talking earlier in the thread you made it sound like all the laws in multiple cities were taken over by Sharia and it affected every resident of said city which obviously isn't remotely true. Would you agree? These aren't really cases if Sharia in the US and it definitely isn't implementing it in these cases. It's scare tactics by bigots for bigots. I'll certainly go through the site a little more later when I have
Time. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

Oklahoma banned it but then the court of appeals said the ban was unconstitutional.

Wikipedia about Shariah bans If there is no threat, there would be no reason for it to come up through to Appellate Court.

The fact that it makes it that far means that is has already gone through the lower courts. But when the ACLU can't dissemenate a religion from a political ideology, which it was the ACLU that had Oklahoma's ban overturned, to allow Sharia to be exercised in Oklahoma.

Let's see here, the same ACLU that you said was ok to take down the sign in the courthouse lawn...

Laws that single out Sharia violate the First Amendment by treating one belief system as suspect

Hold on a second, the ACLU is defending Shariah under religious right, to be exercised in American courts, but that same ACLU, you just defended for having the courthouse sign removed.

Explain please.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Oklahoma banned it but then the court of appeals said the ban was unconstitutional.

The reason the appeals court found it unconstitutional was because it singled out Sharia law. The law not calls from all foreign laws to not be considered in reaching decisions in court cases under their jurisdiction. And honestly, it was made into law in the first place because of massive public paranoia, not because of any real, extent threat of Sharia being imposed upon anyone. As I pointed out in earlier replies, your "examples" of Sharia in the US were not actually examples of Sharia law. It was recognizing property rights and the validity of a marriage. One case was 30 years old and the other 26 or 27. The one case I can think of that was recent that did invoke Sharia law was the case of a woman who was forced to perform sexual acts on her husband against her will. By any other standard it would be rape. The trial judge decided that because the husband grew up under Sharia law, that he was doing what to him, was culturally appropriate. The case was quickly overturned on appeal.

There is no actual Sharia law implemented or upheld by the courts. There is very definitely no town or city in the US that operates under Sharia. It's little more than paranoia and fear of the bad muslims by people who refuse to try to understand the other side of the coin. I've served with Muslims, fought with them, lived with them, bled with them and would do it all over again. They are at the end of the day, just human beings like you or I. There are definitely some whack jobs. There's no arguing that and they are so far beyond extreme that they make Westboro Baptist Church look like a kitten in comparison. But just like we don't judge all of Christianity on groups like Westboro, we shouldn't judge every Muslim based on ISIS or Al Quaeda.

The fact that it makes it that far means that is has already gone through the lower courts. But when the can't dissemenate a religion from a political ideology, which it was the ACLU that had Oklahoma's ban overturned, to allow Sharia to be exercised in Oklahoma.

It went through A lower court and then was appealed. Went to a federal judge then the 10th circuit court where it was struck down.

I think you mean differentiate not disseminate. As Sharia is taken directly from the Q'ran it is indeed a religious set of laws. Their religion, depending on the sect they belong to, has a profound influence on their ideologies but it's still a religious basis.

Let's see here, the same ACLU that you said was ok to take down the sign in the courthouse lawn...
Hold on a second, the ACLU is defending Shariah under religious right, to be exercised in American courts, but that same ACLU, you just defended for having the courthouse sign removed.

Explain please.

Explain what?! I'm not a spokesman for the ACLU. I agreed with them filing suit to remove religious signs from courthouses. It doesn't mean the organization has my unilateral support on everything they do. It's not as if 1 person is running the ACLU like the wizard in the Emerald City from Oz. There are various state, national, local and regional groups under the ACLU umbrella. Sometimes you're going to get them going after or for something that even their most ardent supporters are scratching their head at and asking what the hell they're doing. Supporting Sharia under the guise of the 1st amendment is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. If I go to another country, I have to follow their laws. If I smuggle drugs into Malaysia, I need to be prepared to be executed if caught. If I go to Saudi Arabia I need to be prepared for the most stringent application of Sharia in the world where I could be brutally whipped for insulting Islam and if I brought my wife, she would have to cover herself under their traditions, customs and laws. Likewise, the same should follow suit here. Whether visiting or emigrating, following the laws of the US is a fundamental part of that. The idea isn't to import their laws here but to follow the ones we currently have on the books.

a reply to: peter vlar

So you agree that an Islamic person who just may be a citizen in the US be granted special privilege of Sharia laws implemented for them, as an American citizen?

But how would that work out for someone who is in the military? Should Islamic Shariah be implemented for Muslim soldiers in the military? They do have Shariah laws pertaining to military law.

But here's the kicker, you..as an American non-Muslim, is taken to court by a practicing Shariah Muslim, because let's say you violated the restriction on dressing up on Halloween as Mohammed. Would you, as the American, be subject therefore to the city laws or Shariah?

Pennsylvania considers it to be a foreign law.

But really, the ones who I feel should be allowed to implement their own laws are Native American reservations. They are in essence sovereign through treaties, but they aren't allowed to enforce tribal laws outside of their tribe, That's why the Cherokee were sued for the Freedmen being taken off the rolls.

However, as we do not live by a treaty with Islam, nor any Muslim lives sovereign in the United States, then they are subject to the laws of the United States. When they appeal to Shariah, they are appealing a non-law here, but the ACLU defends it. But you, oh dear American citizen, if you offend a Shariah enforcer, then you will be sued under Shariah.

Yes, what about the Zombie Mohammed Halloween guy? The judge invoked Shariah and the guy lost.

Here you go. Reliance of the Traveler Now you tell me which particular one of those laws you would be compelled to defend about the laws of the US.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

So you agree that an Islamic person who just may be a citizen in the US be granted special privilege of Sharia laws implemented for them, as an American citizen?

Huh?!?! That's the exact opposite of what I said. I have no idea where you got that from at all. What I said was that there is no implementation of Sharia in the US and that the laws against it are based on irrational fears, paranoia and bigotry.

But how would that work out for someone who is in the military? Should Islamic Shariah be implemented for Muslim soldiers in the military? They do have Shariah laws pertaining to military law.

exactly what part of UCMJ falls under Sharia law? that's a new one to me. UCMJ is totally separate from all state and federal laws, it's a completely separate justice system administered solely by the military and DOD They don't even have to adhere to the US Constitution.

But here's the kicker, you..as an American non-Muslim, is taken to court by a practicing Shariah Muslim, because let's say you violated the restriction on dressing up on Halloween as Mohammed. Would you, as the American, be subject therefore to the city laws or Shariah?

Since there is no Shariah law in the US and no cities operate under the provisions of Sharia, I would be subject to local and state laws just like anybody else.

But really, the ones who I feel should be allowed to implement their own laws are Native American reservations. They are in essence sovereign through treaties, but they aren't allowed to enforce tribal laws outside of their tribe, That's why the Cherokee were sued for the Freedmen being taken off the rolls.

personally, I'd rather see them get electricity, running water, proper sewage and septic and some healthcare on the reservations. then we can try to make them more sovereign.

However, as we do not live by a treaty with Islam, nor any Muslim lives sovereign in the United States, then they are subject to the laws of the United States. When they appeal to Shariah, they are appealing a non-law here, but the ACLU defends it. But you, oh dear American citizen, if you offend a Shariah enforcer, then you will be sued under Shariah.

As I pointed out earlier, the decades old cases you cited weren't about implementation of Shariah law in any way shape or form. It's a paranoid fear mongering website exaggerating everything to the Nth degree for maximum effect. What the ACLU appealed was the fact that Shariah was singled out and their position was that it was bigoted and discriminatory. The laws were reworded to say foreign laws instead of Sharia laws and then passed muster.

Yes, what about the Zombie Mohammed Halloween guy? The judge invoked Shariah and the guy lost.

I'm not familiar with the case so I can't comment on it. Show me a link and I'll be happy to give my opinion

Now you tell me which particular one of those laws you would be compelled to defend about the laws of the US.

It seems that no matter what I say, you misconstrue my words and turn them 180 degrees. I was pretty clear that I'm not in favor of implementing Sharia law. I'm arguing that you're part of a fear mongering campaign started by paranoid whackadoodles and that other than a few isolated instances by judges, it doesn't even come close to happening and even then its overturned on appeal.

a reply to: peter vlar

Then we are agreed, no Shariah law for the US.

But the link I gave you for the book, is the compendium of Shariah laws. It's pretty involved. But you have to understand, that in their system, it applies also to you, non-Muslim.

The first degree consists of knowing the
wrong act. One should not eavesdrop at another's
house in order to hear the sounds of musical
instruments, or try to catch the scent of wine, or
feel for an object concealed beneath someone's
shirt to see if it is a flute, or ask a person's
neighbors to see what he is doing. But if two
upright witnesses (def: 024.4) come and inform
one that someone is drinking, one may enter his
house and take him to task.

And if you are caught drinking in your own house, they can come into your house and beat you up for it. That doesn't sound to me like there's much freedom there. But now, suppose these Muslims say according to Shariah, they had the right to go into someone's house and beat them up for drinking, while the US laws in states and towns say that you may drink whaever you want in your own home, so the guy who gets beat up goes to court to sue, he's not even allowed to sue according to that, but he can be sued...we are agreed that Shariah should not be enforceable or implemented, but the ACLU says that they defend the Sharia law for Muslims, so they don't defend the legal right for a person to drink in their own home? But defend the rights of the others to enter and beat him up for it....

Which means, you non-Muslim, may not be permitted to give alcohol in your own home to a Muslim, because that Muslim is under Shariah, and not the laws of the US that said it was legal. That's how it affects you.

Good thing we are agreed on no implementation.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Then we are agreed, no Shariah law for the US.

But the link I gave you for the book, is the compendium of Shariah laws. It's pretty involved. But you have to understand, that in their system, it applies also to you, non-Muslim.

Im well aware of how Sharia works. Ive studied it as part of my anthropology studies and Ive lived and served with Muslims thus having an excellent source to pick the brains of people who had emigrated from the Middle East and lived under Draconian regimes who enforced Sharia Law giving me first hand stories of what it was like to live under it. As for it applying to me, I dont live in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan so I'm not terribly concerned about it. Its the same as being here amd civil law applies to everyone, citizen or not. Likewise, for anyone living in these countries the law of the land applies across the board, muslim or not.

And if you are caught drinking in your own house, they can come into your house and beat you up for it. That doesn't sound to me like there's much freedom there.

No, but them again their not supposed to drink under their religion so...
Its their culture, Im not going to go out of my way to be overly judgemental. Despite my opinion that they're living much like Christian Europe pre-Rennaisance in the late 14th early 15th centuries, under tge thumb of their Church, the Pope amd their Bishops. or in this case the Imams at the mosque. As long as they keep their culture in their countries Im happy to be friends with them. That doesnt mean that I dont understand tgat one of tge tenets of their faith is to spread it across the entirety of the globe, by force if necessary. Until they attempt that here Im happy to let them kill each other in places like Syria.

But now, suppose these Muslims say according to Shariah, they had the right to go into someone's house and beat them up for drinking, while the US laws in states and towns say that you may drink whaever you want in your own home, so the guy who gets beat up goes to court to sue, he's not even allowed to sue according to that, but he can be sued...

Thats not remotely how it goes, we're back to paranoia and fear again. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Sharia does not exist here, it isnt going to make its way through legislation with 70% of the country active or self identified Christians. Its a fear thats not going to be realized until they kill us off, convert us
or outbreed us.

we are agreed that Shariah should not be enforceable or implemented, but the ACLU says that they defend the Sharia law for Muslims, so they don't defend the legal right for a person to drink in their own home? But defend the rights of the others to enter and beat him up for it....

But again, its a drastic over exaggeration promoted by far right Christian groups. Yes, they worked against the Oklahoma law but thst isnt the same as fully supporting Sharia law in the US. They still have to work within the legal framework under the constitution.

Which means, you non-Muslim, may not be permitted to give alcohol in your own home to a Muslim, because that Muslim is under Shariah, and not the laws of the US that said it was legal. That's how it affects you.

In this instance its more equitable with a Catholic not eating meat during lent. The drinking is entirely a religious thing and any aspect covered under Sharia varies with the government behind it. For the most part though, practicing Muslims wont drink alcohol anyway so the example is rsther moot

Good thing we are agreed on no implementation.

Good thing? Its good that we can exercise our fst amendment rights and express our opinions, sure. I dont think we necesarily agree for the same reasons though.