jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (187 posts)

Is Sharia Law incompatible with the tenets of our Constitutional Law?

  1. andrew savage profile image61
    andrew savageposted 3 years ago

    What are the aspects of the two modes of practical law that make one incompatible with the other?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Most of our laws in the U.S. were based on basic laws of God.   God the Creator.  The God of Christians.   Yes, that includes our Constitution's basis of law.
      Sharia Law is Muslim Law, not Christian.
      So, of course Sharia Law is incompatible with the tenets of our Constitutional Law.    AND if Americans don't stop veering away from our Constitutional Law, and if they keep violating Christian Law while rolling out the red carpet for Muslim Law (and a President who defends it),  our land may become subject to Sharia Law.  And even the liberals in America wouldn't want to have to abide by Islam's laws.

      1. andrew savage profile image61
        andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Most of the framers were deist.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That would explain why the US legal system is in shambles.

        Funny though, where in the US is it illegal to ...?

        ...eat shrimp (Lev 11:10)
        ...shave my sideburns (Lev 19:27)
        ...get tattoos (Lev 19:28)
        ...wear 50/50 cotton-polyester shirts (Lev 19:19)
        ...love your parents (Luke 14:26)
        ...refrain from gouging out your eyeballs (Matthew 5:29)

        Odd how that's all okay, but homosexual couples having the option to file their 1040 tax form jointly, isn't.



        Neither is Christianity compatible with Constitutional Law. It says so right in the Constitution...

        The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect just the free exercise of Christianity nor does it suggest that Christianity and Christians should be have special protections and privileges. The authors used the term "religion," meaning that all religions have exactly the same status before the law and the government. If they had thought that Christianity were special, they'd have said so; instead, they treated it like every other religion.

           

        Muslims simply want to have their cases tried by Sharia law instead of US law. They never said they wanted for everyone.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then they should go to a Muslim Country and there petition the Courts or whatever type of legal system they have.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Those countries won't try their cases because they aren't living there.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Bingo.
              People who want Sharia Law instead of American Law should live in a Country that goes by Sharia Law.    If they live in America, they are subject to American Law and should submit to that.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Forgive me for coming late to this discussion. May I add another perspective?

                Unfortunately, some Americans try to spread fear of sharia law in their quest to convince the rest of us that our Constitution is about to be shredded by an evil, foreign adversary bent on subverting our fundamental ideals. Sharia-phobia is rampant and, like many a spore, it grows best in a poorly lit mind.

                Sharia has been part of the law in both Israel and India, two of America's long-standing and democratic allies. In both countries, the sharia law system is a bridge between their colonial past and their multicultural present. It governs issues of personal law for Muslim citizens, like marriage and divorce. It is not, however, superior to existing criminal law, which is uniform for all citizens.

                Sharia courts have been government funded in Israel since the nation’s founding. They are fashioned after the Ottoman Empire’s millet system in which each separate religious community lived by its own rules. India is the world’s largest democracy and it applies sharia law to personal status issues among Muslims who account for less than 20-percent of its population.

                In both countries, decisions based on Islamic law can be appealed to higher courts, which can overturn sharia rulings that are in conflict with basic rights or other laws. Given that Israel and India have openly applied sharia law for over sixty years should at least suggest to any reasonable, open minded person that this scary, foreign-sounding concept is really not as terrifying as many extremist would like us to believe.

                It is extremely unlikely that sharia law will be enforced in any measure in the USA. First Amendment principles will resist every attempt by the state to impose religious law on all. That having been said, however, the First Amendment also guarantees the free exercise of religion leaving open the possibility of some level of voluntary submission to sharia as an expression of religious beliefs.

                Sadly, the wholesale demonization of sharia is the latest despicable wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. Narrow minds are defining it by the worst abuses committed in its name. They irrationally ignore the more complex reality that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is subject to many different interpretations.

                Again, I am sorry for intruding. Please carry on. lol
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. HowardBThiname profile image89
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good post, Quill, but the problem I see arising from allowing sharia courts in the US to determine divorce settlements, is that women are treated unfairly, which goes against our own laws.

                  While a Muslim woman might not loudly object, because she's been trained not to - does that make it right? I know instances of physically abused women who were so emotionally beaten down that they accepted the brutality - thinking they deserved it.

                  The best way to ensure equal rights for all - is to make all legal decisions based on ONE set of common criteria. It should not matter whether a couple is Christian, pagan or Muslim, the same standards should be employed across the board when a judge decides who gets custody of minor children and who gets what in the marital division of assets.

                  Women who are subjected to patriarchal religious views tend to think their god wants them to hold a lesser position of import than their male counterparts. That might work well in places like India, where young girls are shoved back in their school to burn because the men outside don't want them exiting without covering their faces - but it doesn't fly here.

                  This isn't about being anti-Muslim. This is about being pro-common sense.

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So I guess you are just as critical of the laws that the Amish make to control their own people and keep the women in their place.

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi there, Howard.  I was happy to see you contribute.

                    Common sense, my friend, is perhaps the rarest of all human traits. Considering that there are no known efforts to implement Sharia law in any part of the U.S. judicial system, I have to wonder why a small fraction of Americans have waged a long and often heated battle against its alleged infiltration of the government. Even further, I am disturbed by the push for legislation that would ban its use in many states. {1} Ignorance, fear, and intolerance fuel these actions and no evidence exists to justify such bias and condemnation. 

                    Furthermore, there is no possibility that sharia law will supplant US law. Even so, a bill banning the influence of foreign laws on court decisions is stalled in the Florida legislature because they can not find a single precedent to justify passing such a law. In Oklahoma, voters approved a referendum that explicitly banned Islamic law that was later stricken down for infringing on the constitutional rights of practicing Muslims.

                    Everywhere I search I find droppings of bigotry. As I digest the anti-Islam rhetoric in this country, I read very little about concerns over the many inconsistencies with US laws. Your comment stands out as an exception and I am sure there will be others like it. However, most of what I read promotes fear and distrust. Many of the voices reveal scant knowledge about sharia, while too many profess the sentiment, “People who want Sharia Law instead of American Law should live in a Country that goes by Sharia Law.” {2} This message, in tone and in content, is blatantly anti-Muslim-American and contrary to this country’s earned reputation as a “melting pot.”

                    Americans who now live in fear of Islamic tradition need to learn that there are a gazillion ways to apply parts of sharia law that do not interfere with US laws. In fact, the legal systems in Israel and India prove that democratic and sharia laws can co-exist at some level. All it took was a shared sense of fairness and the mutual desire to make the system work. Muslims-Americans have a constitutionally protected right to practice their religion and even to have voluntary access to sharia remedies that do not deprive them and others of their constitutionally protected liberties.

                    Have a great night, Howard. I appreciate your viewpoint
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 … 33928.html
                    {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/112319? … ost2391594

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The only problem is a definitional one as in what do you define as cruel or unusual punishment, we have the death sentence and consider that fine but would we consider severing a man's hand cruel and unusual? The only issue is one of opinion in what the writers of the constitution meant in the 8th amendment.
      The truth is Islamic law is pretty much utterly identical to Christian law but it sticks more closely to the "eye for an eye" thing, of course original Christian law is also completely incompatible with the constitution (i.e Kill heretics and stone people to death for not being virgins on their wedding night, that sort of thing.)

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Excuse you, but Christian law isn't like that.     Yes, in Biblical days, the Law was literal.  God set down those rules, and there was literal punishment for breaking the laws of God.   But Jesus "spiritualized" the Law.     Now mankind suffers spiritually if they break the laws of God,  and Christians and American Law doesn't literally punish someone for breaking even the Laws of God unless there's a reason for justice to be served in that particular case.
        Because there are still Laws that have to be dealt with literally.   We have to have a way of punishing a murderer, taking him/her out of public access so that other people are protected from them;  so we put them in jail or execute them.   We have to punish thieves somehow or other so that they don't rob everyone blind;  there has to be some semblance of order in society.  And there are still laws against (and literal punishment for) lying IF that lie affects others and is of public/societal importance instead of just lying to another individual.   But we don't literally mete out punishment on someone who chooses to be an atheist or someone who lusts or engages in immorality or isn't a virgin, etc.

        However, yes our Laws were based on the ideal of obeying God's Laws literally.    God's Law is about right and wrong,  obedience and sin.    America has simply done away with the literal interpretation and literal punishment for breaking (most) Laws.
        So.........if you want to compare Sharia Law to "Christian" Law, go ahead.   But you'd be in error.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh my Brenda read the bible for once.
          "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

          Jesus never "spiritualised" the law or anything else he supported the old testament law, and the old statesman has it's laws clearly written for all to see and they are just as incompatible with our constitution as the Islamic laws.

          1. Patriot Quest profile image61
            Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus disregarded many things in the old testament Josak, for one he added indefintie forgiveness of ones brother, in the old testament it was 7 times, Jesus said forgive 7 times 70,  I believe Brenda is right, he wanted spiritual growth and spiritual thinking, physical laws would not get one into heaven and that was his desire,

        2. Justin Earick profile image80
          Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Conservatives govern only in accordance with biblical law. 
          Why else would they fight contraception, fight sex education, fight abortion, fight same-sex equality, fight science in general ...?
          Just look at them preaching their Islamophobia, acting as though there is any difference.  The Old Testament is just as violent as parts of the Koran.
          They are equally dangerous because the of fundamentalists and extremists on either side who take ancient scrolls literally and cherry-pick verses out of context (and with bad translations) - to use their god as justification for perpetual suspicion of, hatred for, and war with each other.

          1. Patriot Quest profile image61
            Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            why else????? Because we believe morality builds great societies and financial markets..........in the 50s 5% of babies were born out of wedlock, today that number is 40%!  75% of the country claimed Christianity in the 50s and children said prayers in school............Am I getting your attention now? Wake up sonny!

            1. Justin Earick profile image80
              Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But you believe that your personal view of morality is all that matters.
              Prayer in school?  Completely unconstitutional, bright eyes.
              You know why more kids are born "out of wedlock"? Because daughters were expected to marry and reproduce immediately without any thought of a career of further education.  Women are free to pursue their own goals in society today, without the permission of a man.
              75% Christian - is what why women "knew their place"  & blacks had no rights?
              The 1950s were only pleasant for non-poor white males - everyone else suffered.  The fact that you yearn for those times tells us a lot about your world view.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Omniscience must be difficult.

          2. andrew savage profile image61
            andrew savageposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Being a conservative does not necessarily mean that you are Christian. There are plenty of conservative atheists and other religions.

        3. peoplepower73 profile image87
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What sets this country apart from other countries is our first 10 amendments to the constitution, which forms the Bill of Rights.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from wielding unjust power against the people. And the first Amendment states that the government cannot impose any religion on the people.  They are free to have their religion of choice.  Their is no reference to any one type of religion including Christianity. 

          In Eisenhower's administration he put "one nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance to make a distinction from the Soviet Union during the Cold War of the 50's.

          Our constitution ensures a democracy.  Sharia Law is a Theocracy.  Which means it is not only their law, but also God's law as they see it, which governs their day-to-life.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How come no one replied to my comments?  Are there no arguments for what  I said? That would be a first!!

    3. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe there is such a thing as Christian law. Peter stood up in the Jerusalem Church and stated that gentile believers should simply abstain from food sacrificed to idols, animal blood, and sexual immorality. If they followed these guides they would do well. The Catholic Church has issued its catechisms which are supposed to direct the beliefs and obedience of Catholics, but that is not Christian law.

      Western 'Christian' countries set their law upon common sense not biblical interpretation. Shariah law is directly derived from the Quran.

    4. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sharia is a "supreme" law for all actions civil, religious, cultural, societal, dietary, etc.  This makes it entirely incompatible with what little is left of the Constitution.  Sharia requires all who live in a Muslim nation live according to its dictates, Muslim or not.

    5. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Neither Christian nor Muslim law is suitable to govern us today. Both are faulty, violent, and repressive.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          -1

  2. Justin Earick profile image80
    Justin Earickposted 3 years ago

    Sharia-law is equally as compatible with the Constitution as Christian law.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No it isn't.  You're confusing Christian law with the tenets of the old testament and the large majority of Christians have grown out of that.  They no longer accept those commands and certainly don't accept the punishments as appropriate in this day and time.  They have in, general, developed along with the rest of civilization in growing and improving their sense of morality, of what is right and wrong. 

      Muslims, while improving, have not.  There are still large regions where the old laws are considered right, and Sharia law is the bastion of those beliefs.  A great deal of that law, still accepted and in use, is not compatible with our constitution.  As Muslims become more civilized (and many areas are) that will inevitably change, but for now they have lagged far behind Christians in throwing off the barbaric practices and laws of the past.

      1. Justin Earick profile image80
        Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Please, bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors is a current practice celebrated by many christians.  Domestic terrorism is generally a right-wing tactic used by evangelical extremists. (Left-wing terrorists rarely if ever kill - they block ports and roads, break into animal testing facilities, and chain themselves to trees.)
        Christians simply don't view their own extremists as terrorists - while they are quick to label Muslims as such.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Please, bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors is a current practice celebrated by many christians."

          No, these things are being done by a very, very small percentage of Christians, and the much larger majority are quick to condemn it by both words and actions.

          On the other hand, some 70% of the people in Afghanistan support Sharia law, at least until it's applied to them personally. 

          And that's the difference.  A handful of Christian radicals vs a country composed primarily of radicals.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Go to poor Christian countries and you can see the same radicalism in action, religious radicalism always occurs amongst poverty and a lack of education.

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If you asked Christians how any of them favored introducing bible law what kind of percentage response do you think you would get?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Very close to zero.  Personally, I've never known any Christian that would not wear a blend of cloth, eat pork or stone women for not being virgin upon marriage.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ah yes but the question was not would they be hypocrites or do they even know what that means it was do you think they would answer that they supported it because that is what the people in Muslim countries are answering, "would you support the legal system of your faith" I think most Christians would say yes without really considering the implications (or even knowing them in many cases).

                Certainly when it comes to same sex marriage many Christians use a religious argument to support not allowing it and that is pure old testament, not even mentioned in the new.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Same sex marriage may not be mentioned directly in the New Testament   (after all,  I guess even the heathens back then didn't have the audacity to even suggest forcing that kind of union into its laws!  wow....)
                  but the sin of homosexuality is very definitely mentioned in the New Testament.

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Jesus does talk about marriage and it is never in neutral terms but always a man and a woman.

                  2. Justin Earick profile image80
                    Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Brenda, no it is not.
                    There was no word for homosexual in Hebrew, or in Latin (early biblical translations were Latin).  Homosexuality wasn't identified until the 19th century - before that time, same-sex relations were simply considered an excess of lust.
                    At issue is the translation of two words, arsenokoitai and malakoi.
                    In Romans, Paul is comparing forsaking God to forsaking your "nature".  If you are gay, then forsaking your nature would mean sleeping with the opposite sex.
                    The term Paul uses for "nature" is the same word he uses to describe men having long hair (1 Corinthians 11).  But a man's nature is for his hair to grow - so "nature" only means customary, nothing to do with orientation.
                    And 1 Corinthians 6 is describing sexual exploitation, not consensual same-sex relationships (again, there was no recognition of sexual orientation in those times, they only considered passive or aggressive sexual roles).

                  3. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually at the time that the New Testament was written a form of gay marriage was already legal within the Roman empire.

            2. Justin Earick profile image80
              Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              34% of Americans responded just last month that Christianity should be the national religion. 
              I would be willing to wager that 99.99% of those idiots are Christians, and 100% of them have no clue about the Constitution whatsoever..
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 … 22255.html

          3. Justin Earick profile image80
            Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, you are a funny guy.  Christian terrorists only represent a small percentage - but Muslims embrace it?  What a ridiculous statement.
            70% of Muslims approve of Sharia law?  Sharia law is not terrorism.
            I am willing to bet that at least that amount of Christians believe that we should be a Christian nation governed by biblical law.
            Do I need to list the examples again?.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Guess you'd better.  Which Christian groups support stoning people for wearing a blend of cloth?  Of for (women) not being virgin on their wedding day?

              I very carefully said that in certain regions 70% of muslims support sharia law.  Those countries are in the minority, but they do exist.

              The point was that "Christian law" (if there is such  a thing) has changed enormously in the past 2,000 years - sharia law, as far as I'm aware, has not.  It is still barbaric and still virtually enslaves over half the opulation.

              1. Justin Earick profile image80
                Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Again, what does Sharia law have to do with terrorism?  That is just like linking the 10 commandments to abortion clinic bombers.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  About as much as bombing abortion clinics has to do with Christian law.  Nothing, at least so far as I understand Sharia law.

                  Again, what biblical laws are still embraced by Christian law AND are in disagreement with our constitution?  Laws that the average Christian would like to see put into effect in the US?

          4. jlpark profile image91
            jlparkposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A very very small amount of Christians bomb abortion clinics....okay. I agree with that.  I also understand why people would like not to be tarred with the same brush as their more extreme counterparts.

            I note that we are quick to jump to the defence of "Very few, but I as a Christian am not one, and you shouldn't judge me like that". 

            Yet, we are also quick to tar all homosexuals with the same brush. VERY VERY VERY few homosexuals are paedophiles (majority are actually straight, or not attracted to adults of EITHER gender) - yet many (no not all) Christians are quick to label all homosexuals as such.

            Hypocritical? I think so

        2. Patriot Quest profile image61
          Patriot Questposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Justin I love it you think Christians bomb abortion clinics, (they) may claim Christianity but no Christian claims them as one of their own,  On the other hand one seldom heres Muslim leaders denounce suicide bombings,  Most believe the leaders are the ones financing terror,  Ever look to see where the money came from to support the lifestyles of the 911 bombers????????

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sooner: "the way abortion providers are threatened with murder is indefensible."

            Brenda: "The way people legalized abortion is what's indefensible." 15 hours ago.

            Such a strong condemnation tongue

            But seriously if you think Muslim leaders are not condemning terrorism all over the place then you have your head in the sand, you do realize that Muslims are most often the victims of Muslim terrorism right?

            Yup the money came from three wealthy families in Saudi Arabia.

            1. Justin Earick profile image80
              Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is a perfect example of how the religions are exactly the same - seeing a bunch of dudes talk about how women shouldn't have any say over their own bodies.
              Submissive women without a say over their own reproductive system is a religious fundamental.

  3. jlpark profile image91
    jlparkposted 3 years ago

    Except te Bible promotes Slavery. I know which out of the two issues in discussion actually harms people - and it's not being gay.

    1. Justin Earick profile image80
      Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The bible certainly condones slavery - and certain individuals have been quick to cite the bible in defense of slavery.
      Cherry-pickers use ancient scrolls to excuse their own prejudice.  At points in history: they legitimize slavery, they require submissive women willing to cede control of their own bodies and love lives, they ban gay & interracial marriage, they burn "witches", they hate the left-handed. 
      The Crusades; the entire Old Testament! 
      "God" is a serial mass-murderer, far beyond even genocide and infanticide.

  4. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago

    Here Ya Go Retief....


    "Merely because a practice finds acceptance in the moment by multiple societies is no demonstration of its superiority.

    Antisemitism, pedophilia, slavery, fascism, communism, spiritualism, vampirism, etc... have all waxed and waned leaving little lasting mark on societies except the desire to expunge the most offensive, disruptive or destructive aspects of those various practices - until the next waxing.

    <b>The moral relativism</b>....

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Moral relativism is your phrase not mine.  You are certainly free to (mis) interpret anything you like.

  5. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    And by the way, there are deliberate moves, yes, to impose Sharia Law into our American society.   When it's not done outright and blatantly,  it's done like this:

    http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/ … urity-firm

    So....America's common-sense activities of hiring for jobs, even, is being twisted into a mess of controversy.    The firm should've been able to assume that the woman would go by the employee dress code instead of using her hire-in apparently as a way (most likely) to get unemployment for free and without due cause while, yes, imposing her religion upon a company.   
    This kind of thing is happening more and more.  It's ridiculous and it's insidious and it's unAmerican to try to do such things.   If the job requirements weren't to her liking, she should've refused the job.   And if it were known ahead of time that she'd make an issue of such a thing,  the employer should've never offered her the job.

    1. junkseller profile image90
      junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Back in 1964 they passed this thing called the Civil Rights Act. You might want to look up. Most Americans I know think it is a pretty good thing, so I have no idea why you are calling it un-American. Perhaps you are just a bit behind on your reading.

      You might be interested to also know that it is often used to protect people of many different faiths. Like Christians who are fired for not working on the Sabbath or women who are fired for not wearing pants, for example.

      A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Golly, Ms. Durham. While each of us is entitled to our opinions, they are not a license to distort facts, twist definitions, or to make up personal interpretations of our Constitution. Let me see if I can address some of your claims.

      First, some Catholic Americans go to confession in a church, some Christian Americans get dunked in tanks filled with water to be born again, some Muslim Americans, who may have been born in this country, go to a mosque to settle private disputes according to sharia law. Permitting the first two while denying the third is called “Religious Intolerance.” They are ALL Americans enjoying their constitutional rights to follow the dictates of their different religions. Anyone saying that one of these actions is un-American is in dire need of sensitivity training.
      Ms. Durham, this statement is false. “Muslim” is a noun identifying people who follow the religion of Islam. There are many Muslims who are also American citizens and it is quite appropriate to use the term Muslim-American to identify their group from other subsets of Americans.
      Thank you for this link. I read the article and it clearly explains that the company broke the law and had to pay a fine. The young lady did nothing illegal.
      Actually, the firm should not have assumed anything. They were fined because they assumed their employees would follow the law and not insist she remove religious garb that did not interfere with her duties. Furthermore, your assuming she “most likely” wore a khimar to qualify for unemployment compensation is absurd.
      Your statement is as un-American as un-American can get. The US is a very small part of a much bigger world filled with many other cultures, religions, and traditions that are much older than our own. America represents a standing invitation: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

 
working