jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (190 posts)

Sharia law banned in Kansas

  1. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 4 years ago

    The governor of Kansas just signed a bill that prevents foreign laws (including Sharia law) from being enforced in US courts. opponents to the law say that it singles out Muslims despite the fact that "sharia law" is not even mentioned in the bill.
    http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-governor-s … 40632.html

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But I thought that the US was heavily into religion, so how come they will actually come between a man and his religion?
      I am of course thinking about Beth Din here. Are there no Jews in the US and if there are, why would anybody want to come between then and their God?

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Funny making laws for something that would never have come about any way smile

    3. scottcgruber profile image92
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What a sad, cynical attempt to win votes with anti-Muslim bigotry. Pathetic.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sharia law (eye for an eye, etc.) exists with the Jewish and Christian tradition an religion, not only just Muslim. Honoring the laws of another nation is plain rediculous.

          1. Sheepsquatch profile image78
            Sheepsquatchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agree completely. This shouldn't even be considered for a law or that people scream discrimination about it. Americans should be subject only to American laws. It isn't a matter of government officials against religion. It is a matter of not be governed by outside influences.

    4. mio cid profile image64
      mio cidposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      as a liberal and a socialist i find that measure by kansas governor not only commendable but necessary, I would also make sure any person who wishes to become a resident of this country knows they will be required to follow the laws of the land and the constitution of the United  States and not any religious law whatever this may be.

      1. scottcgruber profile image92
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So does this mean I can buy liquor on Sundays regardless of the local Blue Laws?

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Only you can.

    5. Xenonlit profile image60
      Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wish that people would find out what Sharia law is about before commenting. Much of Sharia law is an internal religious practice that is of no concern or harm to society.

      But, when Sharia and any other religious law barges over and attempts to replace our civil laws, then it is time to shut that mess down. No religious leader should be allowed to impose laws that override, violate or replace a nation's laws, freedoms and rights that apply to all.

      We already have  freaks from all kinds of religions and cults issuing death sentences, discriminating, committing crimes, abusing children and women and wreaking havoc.

      Muslims are not being singled out because they are Muslims. The Muslim leaders have become no more arrogant and despicable than other religious leaders have become.

      This is about all pushy religious players becoming power hungry, greedy, arrogant and despicable in their determination to work against everything that God  built and intended for us to continue.

      The fools that follow them are on their own until our civil law is violated. Then we have the right to enforce civil law on them. That is the way it should be.

      I am equally against Catholics, Jews, cultists, protestants and any others  trying to impose their laws outside of their religions. I say shut it all down.

    6. ackman1465 profile image60
      ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      At issue here is not Sharia law or any other "religion based" law.   It's critical that the US courts stand ONLY on USofA SECULAR (or, CIVIL) laws when making decisions.....

      The crucial word, above, is SECULAR.  The secular laws are superior to any religious law in the US.  (I'm not claiming "superior" as meaning "better"... simply that secular laws are the FIRST and PRIMARY (and ONLY) laws to be applied to secular disputes and decisions....)

      The founding documents are very clear on this.    The First Amendment assures that the USofA government will not dabble in "religion"... the reverse is also true... I.E. Religions are NOT free to apply THEIR laws to CIVIL incidents....

      People who would seek relief under religious terms are free to do so WITHIN THE REALM IN WHICH THEIR RELIGION HOLDS SWAY.  They (religious laws) do NOT "hold sway" in civil matters....  There's nothing wrong with passing legislation which simply confirms and codifies this.....

  2. handymanbill profile image61
    handymanbillposted 4 years ago

    Great step forward. The only argument that should be made in any us court is us law. Sharia law should not even be allowed to be mentioned. It is not a part of any county,state or federal law. If you want to Quote and use Sharia Law then go to a country that supports that law.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, I have seen a few stories where judges are referring to this in the courtroom where it has no place.

    2. 910chris profile image74
      910chrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I fully agree with your statement.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What about Beth Din? The US seems perfectly happy with that.

    3. 0
      oceansiderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree completely, HandymanBill.

  3. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 4 years ago

    The Governor of Kansas did the right thing. It never should've never been an issue in the first place. US courts are run by US laws. Nothing else matters.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes he did. It is ironic that the same people who claim this is part of some kind of "Islamophobia" are the same people who are always saying that women and homosexuals don't have enough rights.

      1. Jane Bovary profile image88
        Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I've gotta agree with you there onusonus.

        "It's not a matter of liking Sharia, or any other law so much, it is about respect for your fellow man and his religion."

        What about respect for equality and fairness?

        Sharia law is discriminatory and unjust, particularly against women and children.
        Sharia courts in Britain are a quick and cheap route to injustice and do nothing to promote minority rights and social cohesion.


        http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-conte … ritain.pdf

  4. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Actually---some people claim they are run by Maritime law...Olde England. Something about a frayed flag...other symbols...
    Some say we are still owned by the British --incorporated to them.

    what is the name of that entity that first came here????some kind of company...something...d it--my memory!

    fourwinds talks about it: i can no longer go there............EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY!

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "the ndaa is an old British Rowlatt act which the Brits used against Ghandi! Its a rehash of British Imperialism!"

      1. handymanbill profile image61
        handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey lmc if you like Sharia law so much then go somewhere that practices Sharia law. it is the way it should be.

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I wish you would answer John.

          How can you agree to coming between a man and his religion? 

          Is it just the wrong religion?

          Cause Catholic Bishops are suing Obama --you're all for that, aren't you?

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I will LMC,

            The biggest difference between Beth Din and sharia law is that Beth Din while religious in nature is observed only by the Jewish faith, mostly the Orthodox Jews, and does not force itself into the US courts would try to be the law of the land. Sharia law on the other hand is trying to force itself into the US courts and wants to be the law of the United States.

            John also asked what it if two Muslims wanted to get divorced? Well they can get a divorce in their religion of sharia law if that's their choice, they still must get a divorce legally the courts of the United States to recognize it.

            Not to mention decisions handed down by the Beth Din do not result in somebody being stoned to death.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Who is trying to make Sharia the law of the land except some nuts?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Precisely.


                That's what we have been talking about. Not trying to step on someone's rights, but to uphold the Constitution. Now I realize that makes me narrow minded but if you would only broaden your perspective a little you would see that is not so.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No one here is supporting making Sharia the law of the US, it does not have democratic support, the point is this bill was #1 stupid because it is unnecessary, US law supersedes foreign law anyway. #2 The legislation is stupid because using precedent from foreign laws is a well respected tradition. #3 this legislation is stupid because there is no reason why people who choose to be judged under Sharia law should not have the option to be so long as that judgment does not violate US law, so if two people want to get divorced under Sharia law and have their assets split under that law etc. then I see no problem with having a court that can accommodate that like Beth Din is accommodated without complaint. 

                  What irks me is simply that this law serves no purpose at all except to oppress people and was passed with the sole aim of pandering to those idiots who are intolerant towards Muslims and passing laws for that sort of reason sets a very dangerous precedent.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think it is entertaining myself. Loving how much the religionists are enjoying watching the Government Inc pissing money and time up the wall in this fashion. Bet the parasitic lawyers love it every time a religionist opens his mouth.

                    LOL that they don't see it as a Danbury Baptist moment.

                    Ask for protection and discover a wall of separation between Church and State. lol

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you!


              Now just wait for it and it will get turned on it's head and get thrown back in your face. It's what they do.

            3. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And Sharia is only observed by the Muslim faith. And as I said, apart from a few nutters, no Muslim wants Sharia to be the law of the United States, they just want to live a life where they are not put into conflict with their religion.
              And civil cases in Sharia do not result in people being stoned to death.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                See John, this is where you mean well with what you say, but you are way off base. If it was only a few nutters that wanted to observe sharia law the Muslim faith would have pulled away from it.

                The Muslim faith does indeed want courts to follow sharia law. Sharia law is not just religion, it goes way beyond. Invokes punishments for crimes, just like a real court if you break the law.

                And yes, there are several laws under sharia were punishment is stoned to death.

              2. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                “Caning and flogging in public are done in cases where a female is found guilty of a minor sexual infraction, and stoning to death for a wife’s adultery is common in the Muslim world.  Amputation of a hand or foot is considered an appropriate price for thievery, while beheading, crucifying, and hanging are the recommended penalties for murder or blasphemy.  Children can also be harshly treated under sharia law by being forced to remain in the custody of an abusive father after there is a divorce.   

                http://dewgeneral.wordpress.com/2012/03 … ourt-case/

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But it is not going to happen in the US because those things are already illegal...

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But all those are criminal offences!

                  I'm not sure how many years Sharia law has been accepted in the UK, but I am sure that there has not been one case that has resulted in caning or flogging in public, stoning to death or amputation or beheading and as for children, English law generally gives custody to the mother, and remember, Sharia does not trump English law.

          2. LewSethics profile image60
            LewSethicsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If a man's religion puts others in danger or discriminates against other groups of people then his religious rights must take a back seat to the civil rights of others.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sort of like gay marriage...

              1. LewSethics profile image60
                LewSethicsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                how so?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Like you said "If a man's religion puts others in danger or discriminates against other groups of people then his religious rights must take a back seat to the civil rights of others"

                  1. scottcgruber profile image92
                    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Excellent point. I wonder how many Shari'a opponents also support banning gay marriage for religious reasons. That would be an interesting Venn diagram.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's not a matter of liking Sharia, or any other law so much, it is about respect for your fellow man and his religion.

  5. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Any US judge at any level who tries or rules on a case usuing any law other than that of the Constitution, which is the law of the land, hould be removed from office immediately and disbarred. They have all sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.....not any other document.

    1. wmhoward4 profile image78
      wmhoward4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Totally agree. At that point they broke their oath to uphold the Constitution.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No one has done that, this is a law passed on what might happen (and probably wouldn't)

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's a nice unbiased source. roll They didn't give any particulars on that case...

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "This is after a Tampa judge ruled that two opposing Muslim parties have their dispute settled under Islamic sharia law ‘pursuant to the Quran’ in spite of the fact that one Muslim group did not want to do this"

              So if You want to sue me for damages and the judge tells you to let the catholic church decide, you are OK with that. Well, lets just toss out all the laws and burn Constitution because all the religions about a make all the decisions from now on

              1. scottcgruber profile image92
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's not even close to what is happening in the Tampa case. The parties made an agreement that certain decisions would be made in arbitration, and a group of trustees are disputing the details.

                The judge in this case would be negligent to not allow Islamic law to at least be presented as evidence in the case. It's a dispute over an arbitration case, that's all.

                Do you worry about "creeping baseballism" when a judge intervenes in a dispute involving arbitration rules for Major League Baseball players?

        2. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is the case I commented on in which the judge said there was insufficient evidence.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The judge in this case, a recent convert to Muslim, objectivity is completely in question. He makes the claim of insufficient evidence and tosses the assault case out. And then goes to tell the the plaintiff that the defendant, the Muslim, was probably in his right to assault them because he made fun of Mohammed.

              To sit there and say the judge tossed out the case for insufficient evidence is only revealing half the story. The judge was obviously prejudice with his decision

              1. scottcgruber profile image92
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And you know this how?

                Edit: Actually, your own source said the judge was Lutheran. And a veteran of the Iraq War. Way to show respect for a veteran on Memorial Day, "American View."

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Scott,

                  I known this how, because I read the transcript of the trial and the decision handed down. He insinuated he was a Muslim in his rendering.I am not the only one obviously after reading the transcript to come to that conclusion. The article that was linked does have an update that said:

                  UPDATE: This commentary has been corrected to reflect the judge's official reason for throwing the case out. Also, even though -- in the recording of the proceeding -- the judge seemed to say he is a Muslim convert, Judge Martin is in fact a Lutheran.

                  I have searched several other articles and it seems to be 50-50 some articles say he's a Lutheran, some article say is a Muslim. I went by the transcripts, but I will go by the article that says he's a Muslim convert and is now Lutheran.

                  1. scottcgruber profile image92
                    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You might try the judge's own words, where he says that he is Lutheran and has been for 41 years. He is not Muslim, nor is there any evidence suggesting that he a Muslim convert who became Lutheran: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/26/ju … -responds/

                    The "Zombie Mohammed" case has absolutely zero to do with Shari'a. And it also has nothing to do with the First Amendment. A judge dismissed an assault case for having insufficient evidence and told a guy not to be a doofus. That's not a prior restraint, just a bit of good advice to a pretty ignorant Atheist who thinks Mohammed rose from the dead.

        3. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. scottcgruber profile image92
            scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And what is wrong with this, exactly?

            Consenting parties agreed to abide by Islamic law in matters regarding management of a mosque. Why should they not be allowed to do this? And why should they not be allowed to take their case to the secular courts when one party feels that the ruling of the Muslim adjudicator was unfair? Why do you want to deprive one religious group of their Constitutional rights?

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is more to the story than just management practices

  6. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    This is actually something we should be concerned about.

    No foreign law should be used in the US, but that doesn't mean it won't. It actually hasn't stopped it from happening.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/ … ights.html

  7. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I feel so much safer now.  Just yesterday I was saying to my husband how scared I was that Sharia law was going to be used as justification to require women to undergo invasive vaginal procedures based upon their decisions about their own bodies.

    Oh, wait, that's Christian law.  My bad.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I see....wear a burka do you?

      We have a Constitution. Those are our laws. The judges swear to uphold that document. If they are not doing so they have broken their oath and do not deserve to be judges under the Constitution. If you wish to live under another system find it and go in peace.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Whoooosh! Over your head.... lol

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okay....let's just take a look at this since I am so very unintelligent.

          What do you believe we should do to our legal system?
          Maybe it would be good to get some of the judges from say...Iran to come and adjudicate here for a bit so we can see the benefits?
          The Occupy folks might not like it much as over in Iran they have been known to shoot protestors in the street on camera. But if it will make you happy let's give it a whirl.

          Yes I am aware of Kent State.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know what the hell you are talking about so I have no way to respond.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sure you do but it's ok.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, I don't.  Really.

                When has Sharia law ever affected anyone here in the U.S. in such a way that a law is required to ban it?

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  See we don't get this....

                  What in the wide wide world of sports does Sharia law have to do with the Constitution? You see the difference being the Constitution is the law of T H I S land.
                  Therefore if you are presiding as a judge having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution ad follow it in your judgements...then you have gone extra Constitutional and violated the rights guaranteed to those involved when you use another nations laws to make your decisions....whether Sharia or any other nation.
                  Now I am quite aware that there are those who write Hubs and post comments here who think the US Constitution should be scrapped. They have made that quite clear.

                  That's fine. They are wrong and they have that right.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay, I'm breathlessly awaiting the ban on VooDoo law.  We must protect the constitution from the Tyranny of the Doll.

                    https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtM0b_bPYKEkveG4uVKIgLnOZqyhyqCqTNLrF85dbcjRTHG4Ek_g

            2. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Christian Law made you afraid you would have "...to undergo invasive vaginal procedures based upon their decisions about their own bodies." ??

              You mean this? :

              Matthew 22:37-40

              lol...

              You got conned...

              smile

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can see how Christians making it inconvenient for a woman to kill her baby is comparable to Islamists denying women basic rights like driving, going out in public without being dressed in a circus tent, walking in public beside her husband instead of behind him, etc., I'm sure you would love to live like that more than having to endure the oppression of all those mean Christians out there in America who have fought and died to afford you the most rights that women have ever seen in the history of the world.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, but the difference is us women haven't been forbidden any of those things here in the U.S., yet some legislators felt it was necessary to waste their time on banning Sharia Law.

        I feel so SAFE now.  roll

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh I see then you will be happier if we would just shut up so they can indeed utilize Sharia law.......which would be against our laws....and therefore these actions you fear would come to pass. You would rather that than people try to prevent it?
          Do you realize how the logic of that stands on it's head? Don't interfere because it scares me that you want to protect us from harm?

        2. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not yet. And it looks like you are only safe in Kansas Toto. wink

  8. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 4 years ago

    It's meaningless to ban an alternative legal system that no one at all is supporting.

    If at any time in the future there really is popular support for sharia law, then an existing law on the books wouldn't be impossible to repeal.

  9. Nick Hanlon profile image59
    Nick Hanlonposted 4 years ago

    Yeah we had a similiar problem in Australia when there was a move to submit Aborigines before traditional tribal law.Problem was it was too brutal to tolerate and there was no written law as such,only a spoken tradition.The Koran does indeed give strict instructions in order how to behave and this is the basis of it.It is also highly modified by the hadiths.Only senior male clerics may interpret this law.There can be no common ground between Sharia and Western law.The first difference is equality.The second is how these laws are made.The third is implementation.i think the governor was right to ban the upholding of laws that have not been voted on by the elected officials or passed by initiative or referendum<From memory I don't Kansas has referendum or initiative-could be wrong>Nope,when you became a citizen you take a vow to uphold the constitution so suck on it if you don't like it.You would have to give up your democratic values in order to tolerate Sharia.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In the UK Muslims are allowed to take civil cases under Sharia law, but only were there is no conflict with UK law.
      For instance, if you were in arrears with your mortgage and Sharia law said that you had to dance naked in the street to make restitution, that would be against UK law so would never happen.

      I don't see the constitution being so inflexible that the same couldn't occur in the US or Australia even.

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Imagine that!

      But I guess I should be nice for these well meaning folks and let Sharia rule. That's what they want after all.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Twaddle, how on earth does it affect you if two people decide to be bound by Sharia law?

        It doesn't does it? You just can't bear the idea of personal freedom!

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not aware, and neither are you, that Sharia represents personal freedom in any way. It's the progressive way to argue with convention no matter what.
          Even if they are taking no harm before. Gotta force people into all those new ideas that aren't new.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, two Muslims want a divorce. Their religion doesn't recognise a US style divorce so they choose to divorce under Sharia law.

            Who is being forced into anything?

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I've got one for you: A Muslim man is found to be gay. Should we deny him his right to be crushed to death by a concrete wall?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If it is OK by US law then go for it, if it isn't then no it would not be allowed.
                What don't you understand about conflict?

              2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No matter how much some Christian pastors would like that, it's against the law.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                2. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Aside from an insignificant fringe group of hate mongers, the majority of Christianity is against murdering homosexuals. You can't say the same thing about Islamist countries.

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well let's examine this.

              They made a decision to move to a non-Muslim nation but that nation is supposed to turn itself into a pretzel to accommodate one couple? Perhaps they should just divorce where they live. They obviously didn't want to live where it would matter to Islam.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So if you just happened to move to say Saudi, you would immediately give up your Christian religion!

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No and I never said that, and you know good and well that I didn't.
                  You have come up with a hypothetical and I examined it. Yet the solution to your argument is an entire established society must completely overhaul everything for two people. Religion or no.
                  That should not have to occur.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And I never said that either!
                    Who on earth is talking about an entire established society overhauling anything for two people!

                    I'm talking about the US accepting any religion, as I think the constitution allows and not discriminating on the grounds of religion, which I do believe is against your constitution.

              2. scottcgruber profile image92
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The nation isn't doing anything but allowing people to come to a mutual contractual agreement according to their own religious principles.

                Does the nation get "turned into a pretzel" whenever Major League Baseball changes its rules about players using legal performance enhancing drugs? This is the exact same situation as consenting Muslims using Shari'a in the U.S. 

                Amputating limbs without a medically-necessary reason is illegal in the U.S., so no Shari'a adjudicator can issue it as a ruling. Killing someone for adultery is homicide, which is illegal in the U.S., so no Shari'a adjudicator can issue this as a ruling either.

                As for this bill, foreign law already doesn't apply in the U.S. That's how law works. This bill does nothing but make bigots feel like they won a victory against brown people.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok.....

                  If I move to Iran can I expect to get a ruling there according to US law?
                  More likely to get decapitated just for suggesting it.
                  I think moving to the US or UK would be an incredibly liberating event for someone from one of the more fundamental Muslim countries.
                  That should not however mean that we would entertain changing our legal system to accommodate.

                  Go to a Mexican restaurant and try to order swordfish. Same idea.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So you are saying we should be like Iran?

                    All citizens of permanent residents of the US have the right to campaign to change the country, it is a fundamental right and one I have no problem with people exercising, if there is no public support for the change then nothing will happen if there is maybe the change will occur this strengthens our democratic process.

                  2. scottcgruber profile image92
                    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No. In Iran they use Iranian law.  In the United States we use U.S. law. That is how law works.



                    Nobody is suggesting changing U.S. law to make it more like Iran. (Except, perhaps, for some fundamentalist Christians.). The entire argument is a straw man.

                    The only way Shari'a can apply in the US is by agreement between consenting parties who agree to settle disputes according to Islamic principes. And this only applies to issues outside of secular civil and criminal law - secular law trumps arbitration rules. 

                    And I have had some good swordfish in a Mexican restaurant, actually. Sometimes it's good to open up your perceptions of people beyond a very narrow stereotype. You might learn something.

                2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

              3. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This is not a non Muslim country, this is a non any religion country, our constitution grants complete freedom of religion for every religion Muslim people ave just as much right o live here and practice their faith as any other believer or non believer, as for Sharia obviously Sharia law should not supersede the law of the US but where it does not clash I see no problem with it being practiced by those who wish to follow it, in Australia for example quite near my house there is an Indigenous court where people who wish to be tried under that law can be so long as that law is secondary to the law of the state.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak...

                  All I ever said was that any ruling by a judiciary based on Sharia would be using something besides our laws which that person cannot do as they have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.


                  Right?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No.... Not at all, nowhere in the constitution does it say that other legal systems cannot be used in the US, as long as they are not violating the constitution there is no problem. When you say our laws what do you mean? The Muslim population is part of that "our" and they have every right to campaign for whatever they want and do whatever they want so long as they do not break (emphasis on break) US law.

  10. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "I can see how Christians making it inconvenient for a woman to kill her baby is comparable to Islamists denying women basic rights like driving, going out in public without being dressed in a circus tent, walking in public beside her husband instead of behind him, etc.,"

    It's exactly the same.

    You think you know better than me about me, and you are going to force me to live my life your way.....American Taliban.

    Your wordage is evil. God save your soul.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just a thought....

      Veterans of war suffer from PTSD. So do rape victims. Vietnam Vets were called baby-killers. So are rape victims seeking an abortion.

      Don't know what "God" is served by this evil outpouring...certainly not one of Love.

  11. TheMagician profile image89
    TheMagicianposted 4 years ago

    I'm not too knowledgeable on this Sharia Law in the US business, but is it really necessary to ban it?

    I read somewhere that in the UK, courts upheld their laws first and foremost, and Sharia law was only optional if there was a part of their law that didn't cover or address the issue at hand. It's not like it was chosen over UK law... so would that be such a big deal here, especially since I mean, US law seriously already covers and addresses pretty much everything in existence? What's the worry?

    I'd love some input on this.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is. If people want to live their lives according to the dictates of their consciences as long as it does not violate the laws of the land then have at it, and deal with people in your own communities the way you see fit. But having a Legally binding Sharia court in America when it is in fundamental opposition to the United States constitution and the rule of law, then it has no place here.

      1. TheMagician profile image89
        TheMagicianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you really think it'd get to the point that there'd even be a Sharia court that can go above and beyond US law, though? Because that seems a little much to me.

        I think the issue is that people in America are paranoid of their rights and freedom being imposed on. This country was founded to be the best, by the best, with people coming from all walks of life who wanted to be free and escape oppression. As generations passed, these people continued to instill their "America is the best and we can't let ourselves become oppressed" idea, even though there really wasn't much worry after so long, but paranoia runs deep... causing for there to be more laws that actually impose on ourselves than we realize because we're trying to protect ourselves. This is my excuse for the existence of hillbilly rednecks who've no education and run around toting shotguns and screaming 'MURCIA! lol

        But seriously, all jokes aside, I can understand where you're coming from. I just couldn't imagine Sharia law > US law. I guess that's just me, though. I guess since I'm so on the fence about it, I don't really have much of a fully formed opinion here.

        1. Moshka profile image61
          Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think that American liberalism is prone to pushing their agenda onto the people. Once the flood gates are open there will be concessions made in the name of tolerance. And if we oppose the abridgment of our basic freedoms we will be labeled hate mongers. I personally do not want to see someone getting their hand chopped off for stealing, or public lashings and stonings for infidelity or homosexuality. I think American culture is above these things, and the tenants of Sharia come down from the dictates of the government and the clerics, whereas American laws come from the power of the people where it should come from.

          just my opinion. On with the debate.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think Sharia law allows chopping off of hands for civil matters!

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Then either you don't know or haven't paid attention.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What! You mean you ask for a divorce and they chop your hands off, unlikely I say.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You should check out a little of what goes on in some of those nations in the name of Islam.
                  Mohammar Gaddafi  was particularly fond of using that type of punishment.

              2. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                John is in fact correct, the punishment of cutting off the hand is for criminal offenses only, furthermore sharia law allows for divorce without any punishment, indeed for a religious divorce all one party need sot do is say I divorce you three times in a row to their partner.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Now I posted originally because I believed he was in disbelief that they would do so as a criminal punishment. That's where I was coming from there. However if those two hypothetical folk moved out of there native land they should expect to be bound by the laws of their new national home.

            2. Moshka profile image61
              Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Don't be so sure, I think I've seen them do it in Iran.

              1. Moshka profile image61
                Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Here's a detailed article on amputation as a punishment in Islamic law.

                http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Amputation

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Note: Criminal law.
                  Nobody is suggesting that Sharia should encompass criminal law in the US, well a few nutters maybe, but the average Muslim isn't.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Then do as we do in the UK and allow Sharia law where it is not allowed to conflict with UK law.

        And how exactly s Sharia in opposition to the US constitution and law?

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    So basically this whole thread was an excuse to attack Islam. So many do not seem to understand that religion-based governments and laws...of any kind...should be avoided at all costs.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No it wasn't. There were some questions asked and those activities do indeed go on.

      My beef was watering down our laws with those of another nations and ideology which would be totally inappropriate. The UK is making a big error in allowing that to go on. Other nations as well for that matter.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So I'll ask again, this time somebody might answer.
        What about Beth Din? It isn't American law as such but has happily co-existed for a long time.

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    I did read of one case which CBN and other sites are calling a Sharia Law ruling. A Muslim man was acquitted for attacking an atheist who was making fun of Muslims in a Halloween parade. The judge said it was due to lack of evidence.

  14. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    On the other sign of the freedom coin, Kansas has decided to repeal another repressive law that has had many lonely Kansans up in arms....

    http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/sub10/do-not-do-sheep.jpg

  15. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    I really don't understand why this 'ban' was even necessary in the U.S. Here, city laws can't overrule county, county can't overrule state, state can't overrule federal. Church law has standing, but, civil law still overrules it. Case in point. A church can't decide to withhold medical care for a parishioner.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It isn't necessary, but then racism never is.

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Muslim and Islamic are not racial terms. It would be more a case of a religious nature.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But how, generally, are they viewed?

          1. Druid Dude profile image61
            Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And it is my belief that the founding fathers were addressing the persecution felt by Protestant christians. England was in deference to the Vatican, and those who were coming here from Europe did so in deferrence to the Church of England and the Vatican. The fact that the founders were myopic in their vision should come as no surprise. They were referring to christians. Everyone else has just jumped on the bandwagon.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              OK!

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is no viewpoint any more racist than the progressive.
        You view people as victims because you believe in their inferiority and you promote that within their social circles.
        Utter and complete racism bordering on slavery.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You think that funny?

            it's quite true.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In your mind it is.

            2. scottcgruber profile image92
              scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Prove it.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Simple:
                You have done to them the same thing the wildlife and parks department does not want you to do to the bears which is feed them.

                They grow dependent and won't fend for themselves.

                Get it?

                1. scottcgruber profile image92
                  scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Got it. Social safety net = racism. And poor people = bears.

                  Yup - that makes complete sense. Excellently argued.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok since you are having difficulty I will explain this so even you can understand.

                    You have taken a race, races actually and made most of them dependent to YOU because you want to give them everything. They don't have to get up. They don't have to go to work. Just wait for the check and make sure you vote for the Democrats and they will make sure you never have to do anything. Isn't that great.

                    What is is is insidious and deplorable. Now just in case you think it's just me there's a hubber here who is black who just did a forum about this very thing.

                    But it's no big deal to you because you won't agree to that anyway. but it's true. All of it.

  16. paxwill profile image80
    paxwillposted 4 years ago

    In other news, Kansas law is banned in Muslim countries. Go figure.

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They didn't pay it much mind anyways.

  17. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    They? Them? It is not just one race that is dependent on social assistance.  Most people just use it as a temporary thing...yes there are many slackers but that is not everyone. Nothing wrong with giving people a chance.

  18. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Whew! Now I won't have to detour around Kansas on my next driving vacation out west!

 
working