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
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?
Funny making laws for something that would never have come about any way
What a sad, cynical attempt to win votes with anti-Muslim bigotry. Pathetic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
I agree, I have seen a few stories where judges are referring to this in the courtroom where it has no place.
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.
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.
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
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!
"the ndaa is an old British Rowlatt act which the Brits used against Ghandi! Its a rehash of British Imperialism!"
Hey lmc if you like Sharia law so much then go somewhere that practices Sharia law. it is the way it should be.
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?
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.
Who is trying to make Sharia the law of the land except some nuts?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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/
But it is not going to happen in the US because those things are already illegal...
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
Totally agree. At that point they broke their oath to uphold the Constitution.
No one has done that, this is a law passed on what might happen (and probably wouldn't)
That's a nice unbiased source. They didn't give any particulars on that case...
"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
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?
That is the case I commented on in which the judge said there was insufficient evidence.
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
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."
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.
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.
Your own article says the following:
"In this statement, Martin denies being a Muslim. The tape appears to show him saying that he is, but he would know. In the end, the judge’s religion should never have been part of the proceeding to start with"
Even the reporter in this article says the "tape appears to show him saying that he is". Here's a reporter is talking about the court tapes of the preceding that he watched and came away with the same conclusion many others have that the judge was a Muslim. The transcript bears it out, the tape airs it out, I would doubt that many journalists could be wrong. The judge may not have meant it that way and corrected himself afterwards, but reality is it came off much different.
I agree with the writer, religion has no place in the courts. Unfortunately sharia law thinks differently.
How can religion have no place in the courts when the case is an alleged assault that happened because a guy was making fun of somebody else's religion?
A judge's personal religious bias should not have a place in the courts - I agree. So should a judge's political or ethnic or socioeconomic or other biases. But in this case, religion absolutely did have a place - it is the reason the incident occurred.
As for "so many journalists being wrong," that happens easily when one person mis-transcribes a source and a few dozen bloggers parrot it. A mistake doesn't become true just because it is widely repeated.
So it is OK to assault someone because of religion? That is what you are saying. Bottom line is an assault is an assault. No matter the reason, one cannot just attack someone. Whether is is because someone makes fun of religion or your hair color, assault is wrong and religion has no place in the decision of guilt or innocence
No, it isn't. It is not what I am saying at all.
I am saying that in a case where religion played a role in an alleged criminal incident, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss religion in the court proceedings.
That's it. That is all I am saying. Anything you add to that is a product of your own deranged imagination.
Here's the judge's quote, as reported:
Note that he repeatedly refers to Muslims as "they" or "their" or "they're." Generally people would not use "they" to refer to fellow members of their own religion. They would say "we."
The only way that the second paragraph makes any sense is if the judge's statement is "I'm not a Muslim." The transcriber seems to have left out this crucial word, either deliberately or not. It may have been that the judge said it quietly so it's not audible, but given the context of the rest of the speech - and the fact that the judge is Lutheran - it is clear that the judge meant to say "I'm not a Muslim."
Seems to me that this entire controversy is based on a typo. Well, that and a heap of Islamophobia.
So you say it is based on a typo despite as I showed your link the reporter said " The tape appears to show him saying that he is" The TAPE, not a typo.
There's more to it than that. What it's about is someone believing his religious ideology should be protected from insult and apparently the judge agreed. No ideology should have that privilege, no matter how offended people get. The guy might have been a dufus but for the judge to try and defend the assailant's position by creating some sort of cultural/religious argument is to devalue freedom of speech in favour of special treatment for an ideology. More than that - he seemed to be excusing the violent response.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about so I have no way to respond.
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?
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.
Okay, I'm breathlessly awaiting the ban on VooDoo law. We must protect the constitution from the Tyranny of the Doll.
See your reply in is in no way a true response to what I said.
Are you one of those folks who no longer wants a Constitution?
It was my response, which I believe is a proper one.
No, I don't want to get rid of the Constitution.
By the way, when is the vote to ban VooDoo law happenin'? I wanna watch the debate on CSpan.
Make sure you help obstruct any attempt to keep the Constitution as our legal system.
Oh, but Chams, you can't sleep now! There is so MUCH to be done to protect our Constitution! Bans on VooDoo Law, Scientology Law, Yahweh Law, Aphateism Law....
Don't worry Pretty, they are willfuly refusing to understand and just trying to stir up hate. Same here, people were yelling about a family charged with honor killing and talking about Sharia Law...they were still convicted by a Canadian court under Canadian law... We didn't have to pass a law...we already have laws.
Christian Law made you afraid you would have "...to undergo invasive vaginal procedures based upon their decisions about their own bodies." ??
You mean this? :
You got conned...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi … wanted=all
The Bible is not law.
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.
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.
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?
Not yet. And it looks like you are only safe in Kansas Toto.
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.
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.
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.
But I guess I should be nice for these well meaning folks and let Sharia rule. That's what they want after all.
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!
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.
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?
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?
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?
No matter how much some Christian pastors would like that, it's against the law.
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.
So if you just happened to move to say Saudi, you would immediately give up your Christian religion!
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.
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.
There is a great difference between discriminating based on religion and giving a ruling that is outside the prevue of the judge. Just because one is Muslim or whatever they may be they are still bound by the laws of T H I S land.
They may be Muslim or Hindu or a one-eyed one horned flying purple people eater. Makes no difference.
Bingo. So why is this even an issue?
Oh, right - because white conservatives need to fire up their racist base since they've failed to fix the economy with their austerity policies.
This was an issue because some bonehead judge somewhere...likely California....actually did try a ruling using a foreign statue and people were upset and they have every right to be.
And by the way I personally know a helluva a lot more racist progressives than I do conservatives. It's sort of built into it.
... Ok I would like you to do me a favor. I would like you to go to Stormfront.org and find me as many people as you can who are political progressives or vote Democrat.
Statistically according to several studies conservatives have a much higher rate of racism. Racism also concentrates on people without higher education and considering the massive advantage that liberals hold in respect to having a higher education it's pretty clear which side has most of the racists.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell … acism.html
So their religion says that divorce must take a particular form and you claim that not allowing that particular form is not discriminatory and further more is protected by the constitution!
As I said in an earlier post if they can agree amongst themselves.......outside our legal system....I really don't care what they do.
But.....a US judge is sworn to the Constitution and if that case takes him outside the Constitution then NO he can't do that. That's not discrimination that's him doing what he is supposed to be doing.
The constitution has nothing to do with this argument outside of the issue of freedom of religion, they are trying to change our legal system through legal means and they have every right to do that, also as far as the foreign law judgment, using a precedent from another country if no national precedent is available is an accepted practice.
Your argument there turns the Constitution against itself you know. Nice try.
No it doesn't! As I understand it under the constitution you have freedom of religion, I'd say that it was your argument that turns the constitution against itself!
You have freedom of religion yes. So if I'm a Universal Breakfatarian whose holy meal is Breakfast and Holy holiday is the Overpass where I go to the highway and throw rocks at cars the Constitution should be on my side?
It sounds to me as though our folks we have been discussing can settle what they need outside of court. Better yet maybe a Muslim holy man can care for their needs.
Up to, but excluding going to the overpass and throwing stones at cars, because that would be against the constitution and against the law in any civilised country.
Exactly. And that is how Shari'a would apply here. The kinds of issues that would be settled out of court according to a mutual agreement could be ajudicated by an Imam instead of a jurist. In an ideal situation, the secular courts wouldn't ever need to be involved.
Now - here's where it gets tricky - imagine a hypothetical where two Muslims agree to have a contract dispute settled under Islamic law by an Imam. Then later one of the disputants finds out that the Imam was receiving favors from the other disputant that may have impaired his impartiality.
If the complainant were to attempt to sue the Imam in a Kansas civil court for violating the terms of their contract, the judge would have to throw out any argument that even mentioned Islamic law, even though it would be relevant to the case.
This law deprives Muslims of their right to due process and equal protection under the law in situations like this.
It also hinders a court's ability to rule in matters of international trade where state and local laws might be conflicting with treaty provisions that hinge on compliance with foreign laws. Say, a local law prohibiting importing of goods produced by child labor. A strict interpretation of Kansas law means that a judge cannot even discuss whether child labor is legal or nor in Cambodia as part of a ruling in such matters.
No good can come from a law that prevents judges from considering a broad category of evidence in a courtroom. If a judge makes a bonehead ruling from time to time, good. That's what the appeals system is for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You agree with me more than you understand. I am sorry you dislike that I am a Christian. I really don't care as it goes with the territory.
My entire argument has been a judge who swears to uphold the constitution must stay within that. This isn't let's make a deal. The argument I keep getting is anyone who comes here would be able to ala carte(keeping in the ding theme) our laws and system to suit.
Sorry. That's not hateful or narrow it's the truth.
I didn't dislike your Christianity before, but now I do after reading your knee-jerk bigotry.
Okay. A judge has to enforce Federal, State, and Local law. That's true. It's also completely irrlevant.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own invention, not Shari'a as it would apply here.
Look if two people want to settle their own affair I have no issue with that. The whole point of this thread and discussion was whether our legal system should accommodate a foreign legal system. The answer should be no. Here or in the UK or wherever.
Wow! What a shockingly unique position to take. Countries should have their own laws and follow their own laws.
What groundbreaking legal argument will you make next? That water must be wet? That the sky must be blue? That up and down must be opposite?
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.
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.
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.
The Constitution of the United States are the laws of the United States.
You know that.
If I decide to reside somewhere else I must abide by their laws and they will not hesitate to make that plain to you.
Not to mention if they are looking for a solution or judgement from Sharia that is not the same thing as looking for a solution in our legal system. If it were they wouldn't be looking to Sharia and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The very notion indicates that they have a problem or situation that our laws don't cover or in some way disagree with.
But of course we must scrap our Constitution. I understand that.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I don't think Sharia law allows chopping off of hands for civil matters!
Then either you don't know or haven't paid attention.
What! You mean you ask for a divorce and they chop your hands off, unlikely I say.
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.
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.
Don't be so sure, I think I've seen them do it in Iran.
Here's a detailed article on amputation as a punishment in Islamic law.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
It isn't necessary, but then racism never is.
Muslim and Islamic are not racial terms. It would be more a case of a religious nature.
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.
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.
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.
Got it. Social safety net = racism. And poor people = bears.
Yup - that makes complete sense. Excellently argued.
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.
Oh, now I get it. Black people and Mexicans (and bears) are all lazy and we liberals are racist for enabling them while virtuous white folk do all the work. And you know this because your Black Friend told you, so it must be true.
Got it. Yeah, I can see how we're the racists in that scenario.
No.....you enabled the laziness. They are not inherently that way but you just made a Freudian slip that let's everyone know that's how you feel.
You know I used to think I was a liberal and then I grew up.
So tell me - do you have the same objections to churches that run soup kitchens? After all, they're enabling laziness and dependency too, by handing out free food to those lazy poor people. And/or bears.
You give them money. I have no issue with feeding the hungry.
You make it possible for the to successfully underachieve.
But you lose a big part of your voter base if you stop. You have them addicted.
It's sad...then you turn around and blame someone else.
No I can likely be one of those feeding people. You are the one ruining them.
So giving free food to poor people (aka Communism) is good, but giving them money so they can buy food (aka Capitalism) is racist.
You believe that Capitalism is racist. Now I understand.
By the way, where does handing out billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies fall in this scenario? Is it virtuous like a soup kitchen or racist like a food stamp?
When you make it where all they have to do is just sit in one place and they get money......regardless of their ability to work which usually is possible.....then why should they be productive?
Of course if they stand on their own to feet they might not want to vote for your guy anymore and they might have some feeling of self worth. I know you wouldn't want anything like that.
Also the oil companies have nothing at all to do with anything in this thread until a progressive who is losing his argument needs a leg to stand on.
Surprised I didn't get called racist. That's usually the out.
Oh, kind of like a regressive who brings welfare into an argument about civil liberties for Muslims?
Hey.....I made a statement and you demanded I substantiate and here we are.
That friend of mine I was talking about:
"There is no viewpoint any more racist than the progressive."
Who calls people racist? You do.
Oh for pete's sake you know what I said is true and you have never used that huh?
Don't give me that.
You didn't happen across any of my explanation of any of that did you? i thought not.
And yes progressives are the most racist of all. It's part of the whole package.
I'm a progressive. I'm not a racist. I believe in equal rights for everyone. I even believe that conservatives have the right to misrepresent what they stand for.
If you're a conservative because you want a strong army...that's cool
If you're a conservative because you want people to work for their money..that's cool too
However, if you're a conservative because you believe that marriage is an issue that the government has a right to step into...welllll
That's very interesting. I always thought conservatives wanted smaller government and personal liberty.
In other news, Kansas law is banned in Muslim countries. Go figure.
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.
Whew! Now I won't have to detour around Kansas on my next driving vacation out west!
by andrew savage4 years ago
What are the aspects of the two modes of practical law that make one incompatible with the other?
by Susie Lehto5 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...
by weholdthesetruths7 years ago
Whatever the social or anti-social implications of his actions, Terry Jones was making a statement protected as free speech, absolutely protected as free speech. Certainly, had he chosen to burn the flag, instead...
by Jimbo'daNimbo5 years ago
Here's the story:http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/obama … ado-court/Oops! Another chink in the armor huh?
by costa-rhymer7 years ago
Lord Phillips the most senior judge;in both England and Wales,Has said Sharia law could play a partif our legal system fails.-------------------------------------My faith in the English judiciary hasbeen turned over,...
by Liam Hallam6 years ago
Should we adopt shariah law to dealo with crinimality?A friend recently had their car stolen. Should the thief have a hand/ foot cut off to ensure they can't do this again? Controversial I know but sometimes we have to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.