jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (12 posts)

We will not allow sharia law in the USA, Bill 97 passed.

  1. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 2 months ago

    There should not have been a need at all for Senate Bill 97 in the United States. 

    The House voted 56-44 to prohibit sharia law. 

    I'd like the names of the block heads who voted against that bill, they should be voted out for wanting foreign laws to replace the Constitution of the USA.

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13463646.jpg

  2. Nathanville profile image89
    Nathanvilleposted 2 months ago

    I’m intrigued colorfulone.  American’s who I’ve conversed with by email in the past have been critical of the UK for allowing Sharia Law Courts, thinking it’s an alternative legal system that overrides British laws.

    Of course, their criticism is unfounded and based on misinformation (which the web is full of), and misconceptions; but when I try to explain the realities to them it just falls on deaf ears.

    Without going into full details at this point, there are no Sharia Courts in the UK, as all UK residents and visitors are subject to UK law; without exception. 

    There are however, some Sharia ‘councils’ (as there are Jewish religious councils in the UK) who arbitrate on civil religious matters just like any other arbitrator does during a dispute between two parties; but it’s not legally binding.  It does not override British law and it doesn’t prevent either party from pursing the matter further through the British Courts.  Also, any aspect of Sharia law that conflicts with British law is illegal anyway.

    So what is Bill 97, is it in relation to the Muslim community wanting Sharia law to override USA law (which would surprise me, and which obviously would be inappropriate), or is it simply a case of Muslims wanting the option to arbitrate on their own religious civil matters within the confines of USA law.

    1. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      This was about upholding Constitutional law in state courts and not allowing foreign law to be used in US state courts.  The only foreign law that was mentioned in the Republican and Democratic debts was sharia law, but this was about not allow foreign laws period. 

      It would have been a big mistake to allow foreign law in state courts in my opinion, especially sharia law which is Islam's religious governance.  Crazy that it even had to go a vote.  People are losing their minds.
      http://billingsgazette.com/news/governm … f91a8.html

      1. Nathanville profile image89
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks colorfulone for explaining. 

        Yes it is crazy, because only British law can be used in British courts, and I would have imagined that would have been the case in America.  So it does seem crazy that the issue even arises and that your politicians even had to go to a vote on it.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          You got me curious, because I know there is so much that I am not aware of here and across the pond.  I just stumbled onto this.  There is some informative reading material if you are interested in law.
          The Impact of Foreign Law on Domestic Judgments: England and Wales
          https://www.loc.gov/law/help/domestic-j … dwales.php

          Added:  Also, I came across this:  good changes happening.
          'Political correctness' allowing Islamist extremism to flourish in British prisons, report warns
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 … ourish-in/

          We have had the same problem in our prisons.

  3. Marisa Wright profile image93
    Marisa Wrightposted 2 months ago

    I'm with Nathanville.  The question is - was there ever any question that any other kind of law COULD be allowed in American courts? 

    There have been suggestions for similar bills in Australia and, I think, Britain, prohibiting foreign laws  - and in both cases they have been brought by people who are simply trying to score a cheap political win, because it's not necessary - the current setup prohibits it anyway.

    1. Nathanville profile image89
      Nathanvilleposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I fully agree Marisa; you’ve hit it spot on.  As you said, it’s always the ‘people who are simply trying to score a cheap political win’ who make such unnecessary and unfounded claims.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, yes.  The US seems almost unique on it's massive insistence of freedom of religion; to the point that the laws of the nation are often challenged in court by God's laws.  There hasn't been a tremendous amount of success (although there have been some), but there is certainly an on-going effort to change man's laws to conform to God's.  (Certainly hope it never works; I like pork chops too much! smile)

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Non-muslim inmates, their families and attorneys were up in arms when the Obama Administration banned all pork products in prisons.  I was like, "No, he wouldn't dare."  Imama Obama tried to imposed sharia law with a pork ban, that included 'pork chops'.  He was testing to see if he could get away that.  That wasn't going to be good for the pork industry and jobs so the gloves came off and it got reversed at high speed!

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Hadn't known about that, but it is what we see happening far too often.  The public is forced to conform to religious tenets under the guise of "freedom of religion".  In this case, how about not going to jail in the first place?  Once the decision to commit a crime is made, you have lost the right (religious or not) to purchase the foods you wish to.  IMO.

        2. Marisa Wright profile image93
          Marisa Wrightposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Here is the Washington Post version of that story:

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed … 3e5e36c8e1

          If you read it, you'll see it says they'd got down to serving only two pork dishes and they just decided to cut it altogether.  Makes sense, if you buy and cook in bulk it's cheaper to simplify the number of different items you buy.

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Interesting that WaPo had the lead story on that.  I can't imagine that being good with some of their advertisers in the long run.   Thanks for sharing that (I got a chuckle).

            Remembering a survey or a reported years ago that the greatest majority of inmates on death row in our prisons requested breakfast with eggs, ham or bacon for their last meal.

 
working