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

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (12 posts)
  1. colorfulone profile image83
    colorfuloneposted 19 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 image93
    Nathanvilleposted 19 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 image83
      colorfuloneposted 19 months agoin 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 image93
        Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin 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 image83
          colorfuloneposted 19 months agoin 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 image98
    Marisa Wrightposted 19 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 image93
      Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin 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 image97
      wildernessposted 19 months agoin 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 image83
        colorfuloneposted 19 months agoin 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 image97
          wildernessposted 19 months agoin 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 image98
          Marisa Wrightposted 19 months agoin 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 image83
            colorfuloneposted 19 months agoin 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

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)