PDA

View Full Version : The Case for Banning Sharia Law in America



Rockntractor
11-23-2011, 12:20 AM
By JanSuzanne Krasner

The incompatibility of Islamic sharia law with secular courts stems from the underpinning of Islamism -- the unyielding union of the laws and punishments of the Qu'ran and Hadiths with the country's legal and political system. Sharia law is the legislation of these religious and criminal rules, which rejects America's constitutional secularism and legal penalties.

The Qu'ran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia, eventually establishing Islamic law worldwide. Islamic courts want their fatwas to supersede the civil and criminal laws, untying Muslims from civil secular courts.

The facts reveal that in 2008, when the first sharia court was recognized in the U.K., within one year, over 85 recognized sharia courts were established within the U.K.'s Tribunal Court system. The problem with this rapidly spreading dogma is that several of these courts have issued some fatwas that are completely incompatible with British and European law.

As Islam is a male-dominated ideology, the laws of the Qu'ran make half of its devotees, its female population, second-class citizens. This inequality has drawn recent attention to the need for additional British legislation to rein in these courts so they abide by British law.

It appears that once any legal system opens its doors to Islamic law, that door will be hard to close...and eventually, the only thing missing will be a parallel Islamic government.

But even with this reality in front of Americans, there are still many who insist that our laws will prevent such circumstances from ever occurring in the U.S. And because of this nonchalant attitude, there are numbers of people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who believe that sharia law is not a threat to non-Muslim Americans or to the Western liberal democratic rule of law.

Sharia Law Is in the U.S.

The possibility that Muslim-only towns and urban enclaves could be created in the U.S. seems unimaginable to most Americans, but it already is a reality. Just travel 150 mile northwest of New York City to the woods of the western Catskills, and you will find Islamberg, a private Muslim community founded in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani. Sheikh Gilani is said to be one of the founders of Jamaat al-Fuqra, a terrorist organization believed to be responsible for dozens of bombings and murders in the U.S. and abroad.

Islamberg is only one of twenty to thirty Muslim-only communities and training compounds that this Pakistani group supports through Muslim affiliates in America. This radical group has purchased land in isolated areas close to city networks and infrastructure. Jamaat al-Fuqra now has sites in Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, and Illinois, as well as Canada, Venezuela, and Trinidad.

The sharia debate in the U.S. is heating up as more and more Americans are reacting to lawyers requesting rulings based on sharia law, and local judges agreeing to make them. This has happened in a New Jersey divorce case, a Maryland child custody case, and most recently in a Florida property case. These cases are now a precedent for other American-Muslim communities. In addition, according to the Center for Security Policy study that was published in May 2011, there are actually over fifty Appellate Court cases from 23 states that all involve conflicts between sharia law and American state law.

There are numbers of Muslim community leaders challenging the delicate line between religious freedom and the laws against state religion by petitioning in favor of living under sharia law. The moment one court allows the establishment of an independently ruled enclave, others courts in liberal cities across the nation will petition for the same opportunity.

Another example of efforts to usurp the Constitution are the actions of the global Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose main agenda is to have "hate speech" laws enforced against anyone who criticizes Islam. And, unfortunately, there are those determined to enforce sharia on their own who attack and murder any nearby dissenters. The Qu'ran justifies and protects these people's violence by declaring that it is blasphemous to mock or degrade any component of Islam. According to sharia law, such activity is punishable by death.

It is this ongoing effort to shut down public criticism of Islam that presents the gravest danger to America -- one that the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist organizations regard as key to limiting individual rights over the rights of the community. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with other Islamic activist groups, continues to push back, often with demonization of character and follow-up lawsuits. Recently, intimidation and character assassination have been used against U.S. politicians who question Islamism or want hearings on issues relating to radical Islamic terrorism, along with those Congressmen who introduce state legislation to ban all foreign law.

Preventing Sharia through Legislation

The Court of Appeals is the system used to review lower court decisions and believed by some to be the stopgap against foreign law, including sharia, from entering our legal system. However, some Islamic cases that have reached the Appellate Court for review have retained the sharia rulings even in the face of sharia's contradiction to American civil law.

The U.S. is heading towards dangerous territory if its citizens buy into the twisting of constitutional amendments. Indeed, what everyone really needs is the interpretations of the laws as they are written in order to prevent the encroachment of Islamism into the court system.

The establishment of sharia courts within the arbitration laws is a leading objective of every peace-loving, kindhearted, moderate male Muslim. I have asked several male American Muslims whom I know, some living very happily in my community and in the U.S., what their one greatest wish is. The answer is always the same: "Everyone should be a Muslim."

The line must be drawn in states' legislatures, not in the courts. It is imperative that we recognize the differences between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islamism. Political correctness is leading to interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments that are pushing America across that line.

If non-Muslim Americans do not recognize how close they are to the precipice, then they are beyond a shadow of a doubt going to fall victims to an Islamic conquest. Time is running out.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_for_banning_sharia_law_in_america.html#ix zz1eV016351

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 12:33 AM
Just travel 150 mile northwest of New York City to the woods of the western Catskills, and you will find Islamberg, a private Muslim community founded in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani. Sheikh Gilani is said to be one of the founders of Jamaat al-Fuqra, a terrorist organization believed to be responsible for dozens of bombings and murders in the U.S. and abroad.

Why is this person allowed to stay here? Why is he not in jail?

(And TSA is feeling up US soldiers at airports?)

Rockntractor
11-23-2011, 12:45 AM
Why is this person allowed to stay here? Why is he not in jail?

(And TSA is feeling up US soldiers at airports?)

We have a president and a justice department that are sympathetic to Islam.

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 01:07 AM
We have a president and a justice department that are sympathetic to Islam.

Sheikh Gilani has apparently been living there since 1980. That's a lot of Presidents and JDs that have let him off the hook. What do you want to bet that he did not get questioned after 9/11?

Rockntractor
11-23-2011, 01:22 AM
Sheikh Gilani has apparently been living there since 1980. That's a lot of Presidents and JDs that have let him off the hook. What do you want to bet that he did not get questioned after 9/11?

I am sure there is more than one government employee who's sole responsibility is to observe what he is doing.

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 01:42 AM
I am sure there is more than one government employee who's sole responsibility is to observe what he is doing.

Let's hope.

In the meantime, how long before Europe is majority Muslim?

Rockntractor
11-23-2011, 01:47 AM
Let's hope.

In the meantime, how long before Europe is majority Muslim?

I have seen some quotes as soon as 20 years, I hope they wake up and realize their own demise before then.

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 01:49 AM
I have seen some quotes as soon as 20 years, I hope they wake up and realize their own demise before then.

Good Lord! That's one generation. That will mean sharia law will only increase. What is the endgame?

CueSi
11-23-2011, 02:30 AM
Good Lord! That's one generation. That will mean sharia law will only increase. What is the endgame?

Psh, could be redoing the 'let's march the Jews into the sea'. . .or maybe they're coming right for us (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us).

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
11-23-2011, 02:30 AM
I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.

It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.

Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.

Wei Wu Wei
11-23-2011, 02:39 AM
This should only apply to people who have agreed to this, and should be legally treated as an issue of contracts. I believe civil courts deal with issues of contracts, so if two adults enter into a contract based on Islamic Law, Jewish Law, family tradition, or just a random mish-mash, that contract should be upheld as long as it is legally binding.

Of course religious law should not supercede criminal law, but I see no problem using it for the purpose of civil contracts.

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 03:09 AM
Psh, could be redoing the 'let's march the Jews into the sea'. . .or maybe they're coming right for us (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us).

~QC

Now, now....;)

CueSi
11-23-2011, 03:14 AM
Now, now....;)

I'm not saying it will happen, but if people can concede there is a demographic crisis in Europe, maybe we can start talking honestly. The native population is slowly being displaced by something that may not be friendly to the indigenous culture.

We're Americans. We know what that shit looks like. Maybe it's time to use that knowledge to our advantage.

~QC

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 03:19 AM
Of course religious law should not supercede criminal law, but I see no problem using it for the purpose of civil contracts.

Let's take domestic abuse, which is currently being handled by sharia courts in England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

Beating one's wife is a criminal act. Yet, it is being handled by these sharia courts. The punishments meted out to abusive husbands are "anger management classes". Nothing further. If you read the telegraph article, the Islamic court was more concerned with "saving the marriage" than protecting the woman from abuse.

We can also look at civil actions such as divorce and child custody, for which sharia law does not bode well:

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-law-is-code-of-despair-code.html


Only someone who really doesn't understand sharia law could OK it as a parallel legal system. You certainly must be a male, Wei Wu Wei, since any female would understand these possible pitfalls. And like other left wing males I have met, if it doesn't affect you, then it's fine. What's another oppressed and beaten female who loses custody of her children?

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 03:21 AM
I'm not saying it will happen, but if people can concede there is a demographic crisis in Europe, maybe we can start talking honestly. The native population is slowly being displaced by something that may not be friendly to the indigenous culture.

We're Americans. We know what that shit looks like. Maybe it's time to use that knowledge to our advantage.

~QC

I'm with you on that.

Suggestions?

Wei Wu Wei
11-23-2011, 03:28 AM
Let's take domestic abuse, which is currently being handled by sharia courts in England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

Beating one's wife is a criminal act. Yet, it is being handled by these sharia courts. The punishments meted out to abusive husbands are "anger management classes". Nothing further. If you read the telegraph article, the Islamic court was more concerned with "saving the marriage" than protecting the woman from abuse.

We can also look at civil actions such as divorce and child custody, for which sharia law does not bode well:

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-law-is-code-of-despair-code.html


Only someone who really doesn't understand sharia law could OK it as a parallel legal system. You certainly must be a male, Wei Wu Wei, since any female would understand these possible pitfalls. And like other left wing males I have met, if it doesn't affect you, then it's fine. What's another oppressed and beaten female who loses custody of her children?

It's not my place to tell women what religion they can follow or what contracts they can enter into, it's not my place to pretend to know better than they do.

If a woman wants to enter into a sharia-based contract, that's her business. I'm not going to question her motivations or act like she has no agency of her own.

Also, I think here in the US we should stay firm with our distinction between civil contracts and criminal law. Domestic abuse is a criminal issue and it should remain that way, regardless of what a contract says.

I'm happy with being very firm on establishing limits between contracts and criminal laws, but adults should be able to live according to their own rules within the scope of criminal laws, and that includes religious laws and contracts.

Elspeth
11-23-2011, 03:42 AM
It's not my place to tell women what religion they can follow or what contracts they can enter into, it's not my place to pretend to know better than they do.

If a woman wants to enter into a sharia-based contract, that's her business. I'm not going to question her motivations or act like she has no agency of her own.



Does this also apply to "honor" killings? Should that be allowed under the same umbrella?




Also, I think here in the US we should stay firm with our distinction between civil contracts and criminal law. Domestic abuse is a criminal issue and it should remain that way, regardless of what a contract says.

I'm happy with being very firm on establishing limits between contracts and criminal laws, but adults should be able to live according to their own rules within the scope of criminal laws, and that includes religious laws and contracts.

Of course you're happy. It doesn't apply to you. You're conveniently tolerant when it comes to the suffering of women. So are all the left wing men I know.

Let's change it up a bit. Suppose a tolerated religious legal system required that every family donate one child to the religious life, regardless of how many children they had. (The Catholic Church used to require that families tithe children to the church in the middle ages. That is how Hildegard von Bingen became a nun: her family tithed her to the Catholic church.)

Let's say it was you, Wei Wu Wei, who were the tithed child in your family. You did not wish to be tithed, you wanted to get married and have a family. You are afraid of the church and of the potential for sexual abuse. Should there be an intervention by the legal system of the nation preventing your being tithed?

CueSi
11-23-2011, 11:03 PM
It's not my place to tell women what religion they can follow or what contracts they can enter into, it's not my place to pretend to know better than they do.

If a woman wants to enter into a sharia-based contract, that's her business. I'm not going to question her motivations or act like she has no agency of her own.

Also, I think here in the US we should stay firm with our distinction between civil contracts and criminal law. Domestic abuse is a criminal issue and it should remain that way, regardless of what a contract says.

I'm happy with being very firm on establishing limits between contracts and criminal laws, but adults should be able to live according to their own rules within the scope of criminal laws, and that includes religious laws and contracts.

In many cases, she may not have any agency of her own. And she may not be entering this contract willingly.

~QC

CueSi
11-24-2011, 05:52 PM
I'm with you on that.

Suggestions?

My solutions flux from day to day. Sometimes I really do think we should insist on acculturation. Not just teach the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but teach what they actually mean to everyday people, and if they cannot accept it, no, you cannot become a citizen. If you can't accept the culture of the US, GTHO.

If a murder involves an honor killing, use those hate crime sentence amplifiers. Make it clear we will protect our women/kids/lbgt's no matter where they may have been born. No one should even think of killing their daughter/wife/son for going against the will of Allah.

Spy on mosques... people watch churches for violating IRS/501 3c rules for crossing the line into politics, maybe we should do the same for mosques and terror.

Start using the Israeli method in airport security. My aunt is the biggest nervous nelly I know, but she manages to make it to and from Israel w/no problem. Maybe because they're smart enough to know a little old Jamaican lady in a mantilla isn't going to blow nothing but the bathroom.

Tax breaks for native born American citizens (no matter their race) who have more than two children and both parents in the house. It's a minimal measure to prevent the possible European demographic bomb.

For the love of God, strengthen the border. I've seen enough Arabs that look like Latinos and Latinos to look like Arabs to make me think, "Some jackass at Al-Queda is already doing Spanish Rosetta Stone."

~QC

DumbAss Tanker
11-24-2011, 08:15 PM
See, in America, we don't actually ban any ideas, even stupid or evil ones. You can be a Nazi, or even a Liberal, if you want to.

Novaheart
11-24-2011, 10:38 PM
We have a president and a justice department that are sympathetic to Islam.

Since 1980?

Rockntractor
11-24-2011, 10:45 PM
Since 1980?

You don't think Carter was?

Novaheart
11-27-2011, 02:39 AM
You don't think Carter was?

Is there a reason I should? PS- Carter was president until January 1981. Mr. Dithers then had eight years to do something about it, followed by four years of Bush the elder.

txradioguy
11-27-2011, 05:56 AM
Is there a reason I should? PS- Carter was president until January 1981. Mr. Dithers then had eight years to do something about it, followed by four years of Bush the elder.

Yes there is a reason. Carter's the reason the Ayatollah Kohmeni was able to return from exile in Paris...forcing the Shah to leave instead of helping him stay in power opened the flood gates for what we have today going on in the Middle East and in America today.

MrsSmith
11-27-2011, 01:18 PM
I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.

It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.

Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.

As the basis of Sharia law blatantly breaks many laws, your arguments for that system are not well considered.

Odysseus
11-27-2011, 01:40 PM
I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.

Sharia law does break federal and state laws. Disputes that require testimony, for example, give more weight to testimony from Muslim men than Muslim women or infidels. That conflicts with the rules of evidence in every state, not to mention the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.


It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.
US law in custody disputes demands that the needs and interests of the child are the primary concern. Sharia defines children as the property of the father. Custody cases therefore cannot take Sharia into account. Sharia divorce is accomplished by the husband unilaterally announcing the divorce three times. A wife cannot do the same, and all marital property accrues to the husband automatically. This violates dozens of laws regarding contracts and divorce, especially in no-fault states.


Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.
Jewish and Christian households do not seek to impose the Talmud or the canon of church law onto the rest of us, nor do either sets of laws state that in conflicts with secular law, the religious law is supreme. The traditions of both religions demand that adherents be good citizens as well as righteous, while Sharia commands that the righteous are only those who work to impose Sharia on all people.

Psh, could be redoing the 'let's march the Jews into the sea'. . .or maybe they're coming right for us (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us).

~QC
Islam is an imperialistic political doctrine as well as a religious doctrine. The history of those nations conquered by Islam demonstrate this. They are coming for us. Maybe not today, but soon.

This should only apply to people who have agreed to this, and should be legally treated as an issue of contracts. I believe civil courts deal with issues of contracts, so if two adults enter into a contract based on Islamic Law, Jewish Law, family tradition, or just a random mish-mash, that contract should be upheld as long as it is legally binding.

Of course religious law should not supercede criminal law, but I see no problem using it for the purpose of civil contracts.
But once a Sharia court exists, even those who do not want to be under its jurisdiction have no choice. A Muslim who refuses to submit to Sharia arbitration is subject to accusations of apostasy, which carries a death sentence in Islam, and the same agency that governs Sharia, the local imams, also govern the fatwas on apostasy. So, if you don't submit, you die.

It's not my place to tell women what religion they can follow or what contracts they can enter into, it's not my place to pretend to know better than they do.

If a woman wants to enter into a sharia-based contract, that's her business. I'm not going to question her motivations or act like she has no agency of her own.

Also, I think here in the US we should stay firm with our distinction between civil contracts and criminal law. Domestic abuse is a criminal issue and it should remain that way, regardless of what a contract says.

I'm happy with being very firm on establishing limits between contracts and criminal laws, but adults should be able to live according to their own rules within the scope of criminal laws, and that includes religious laws and contracts.

Oh, please. You'd negate every contract in the country if it suited a socialist government. Once again, you are taking the side of an anti-American, anti-western process.

txradioguy
11-27-2011, 01:51 PM
As the basis of Sharia law blatantly breaks many laws, your arguments for that system are not well considered.

Wee Wee doesn't care about that part. That it goes against the very foundations of American law and culture is what makes Wee Wee so supportive of Sharia Law.

MrsSmith
11-27-2011, 02:31 PM
Wee Wee doesn't care about that part. That it goes against the very foundations of American law and culture is what makes Wee Wee so supportive of Sharia Law.

It sure seems like it. If it's different than "American," it's good for WW.

Lanie
11-27-2011, 04:21 PM
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_for_banning_sharia_law_in_america.html#ix zz1eV016351

I agree that legislators need to step in with new laws. However, they shouldn't have to. Whether you agree with this interpretation of the constitution or not, it was declared a while back that the first amendment meant the separation of church and state. That means Muslims should not get some special rights to their own legal system. The Supreme Court should be able to shoot Sharia Law down if it's brought to them by a lower court. Suppose a woman loses custody of her kids because some ignorant judge allowed the case to be ruled by sharia law. The woman could fight all the way up to the Supreme Court. At that point, they should be able to shoot it down, using the very same first amendment that some Muslims are trying to use.

Lanie
11-27-2011, 04:27 PM
I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.

It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.

Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.

Well, first of all, who are you asking if they want this type of agreement? Depending on who can benefit from it is who will say yes. In Sharia law, the men will want it to rule their way. Muslim women will probably prefer a secular court. Let's wander away from Islam for a moment. Supposed a man tells his wife "I'm gay" and suddenly she's trying to take rights away to see their child. Do you really want that dispute to be handled by a fundamentalist Christian court? I don't. Jews are not without their problemos. Suppose there's an orthodox family (not common in the US, but let's pretend) in which one of the members wants to marry a Christian. Uh, are we going to have an all orthodox Jewish court deciding if the marriage can happen?

We have separation of church and state for a reason. It's so our government does not show a preference toward one set of religious beliefs. It's like Obama said a while back. If you had an all Christian country, would it be James Dobson's Christianity or Alan Sharpton's? You don't want courts set up this way. It's opening up a can of worms for everybody including those in that religious group.

Lanie
11-27-2011, 04:30 PM
You don't think Carter was?

Okay Rock, it's not about the President. Why did this guy stay there during the Reagan and Bush years?

The authorities obviously don't have enough evidence on this guy yet.

txradioguy
11-27-2011, 04:31 PM
We have separation of church and state for a reason. It's so our government does not show a preference toward one set of religious beliefs. It's like Obama said a while back. If you had an all Christian country, would it be James Dobson's Christianity or Alan Sharpton's? You don't want courts set up this way. It's opening up a can of worms for everybody including those in that religious group.

And once again you prove you have zero clue as to what the separation of church and state is all about.

txradioguy
11-27-2011, 04:32 PM
Okay Rock, it's not about the President. Why did this guy stay there during the Reagan and Bush years?

The authorities obviously don't have enough evidence on this guy yet.

Obtuse much?

Elspeth
11-27-2011, 04:34 PM
As the basis of Sharia law blatantly breaks many laws, your arguments for that system are not well considered.

Best comment of the thread.

Thank you.

Novaheart
11-27-2011, 05:01 PM
Yes there is a reason. Carter's the reason the Ayatollah Kohmeni was able to return from exile in Paris...forcing the Shah to leave instead of helping him stay in power opened the flood gates for what we have today going on in the Middle East and in America today.

I would say that what we have in the Middle East was the inevitable consequence of subjects (not to mention religious fanatics) outnumbering kings. What we have in the US was entirely preventable, and since Ronald Reagan was Mr Amnesty for illegal aliens, one might as well lay it at his feet as anyone. But in reality, it's not Ronald Reagan's fault. It's the naivete of the American people and our ill founded belief that everyone in the world is basically the same, and they all want the same lifestyle and style of government that we do. Clearly, we were wrong. That's a collective we. There are people in this world who really do believe in angry desert gods and that life in service to mythology is preferable to self determination and liberty. We have some of our own.

Rockntractor
11-27-2011, 06:30 PM
I would say that what we have in the Middle East was the inevitable consequence of subjects (not to mention religious fanatics) outnumbering kings. What we have in the US was entirely preventable, and since Ronald Reagan was Mr Amnesty for illegal aliens, one might as well lay it at his feet as anyone. But in reality, it's not Ronald Reagan's fault. It's the naivete of the American people and our ill founded belief that everyone in the world is basically the same, and they all want the same lifestyle and style of government that we do. Clearly, we were wrong. That's a collective we. There are people in this world who really do believe in angry desert gods and that life in service to mythology is preferable to self determination and liberty. We have some of our own.

I didn't know you could still get LSD.:confused:

djones520
11-27-2011, 06:34 PM
I didn't know you could still get LSD.:confused:

It's more commonly known as Acid now.

Wei Wu Wei
11-27-2011, 07:28 PM
Does this also apply to "honor" killings? Should that be allowed under the same umbrella?

Of course not, that clearly falls under the scope of criminal law.

What I'm talkin about only applies to contracts. The religious nature of the contract only specifies the rules of the contract, but it doesn't not overrule the laws concerning how contracts function.

The old testament has rules and punishments including stoning, as well as dietary restrictions. If a person wanted to use the old testament guidelines to formulate a contract that specified what foods would be served in a certain situation, that would be perfectly legal because serving certain foods does not violate criminal law. If, however, someone wanted to use old testament guidelines to make a contract that allows stoning someone to death for a breach of rules, that would not be legal because such a contract violates criminal law, and is therefore not a legally binding contract.

You can have contracts follow whatever rules you like, it doesn't matter if they are from a religion or not, or which religion, as long as the contract falls within the scope of criminal law. If it does, then the contract is legally binding and therefore falls under the scope of civil law, where people are expected to fulfill their obligations agreed to in legally binding contracts.






Of course you're happy. It doesn't apply to you. You're conveniently tolerant when it comes to the suffering of women. So are all the left wing men I know.
:rolleyes:

I want women to be able to exercise their freedom every bit as much as men. I don't want women to suffer, but I'm not their daddy, it's not my place to tell them what they are allowed to do, even if I think it's not good for them.




Let's change it up a bit. Suppose a tolerated religious legal system required that every family donate one child to the religious life, regardless of how many children they had. (The Catholic Church used to require that families tithe children to the church in the middle ages. That is how Hildegard von Bingen became a nun: her family tithed her to the Catholic church.)

Let's say it was you, Wei Wu Wei, who were the tithed child in your family. You did not wish to be tithed, you wanted to get married and have a family. You are afraid of the church and of the potential for sexual abuse. Should there be an intervention by the legal system of the nation preventing your being tithed?

No there shouldn't. Parents are allowed to send their kids to boarding school, to military school, to church camps, to "pray the gay away" treatment centers, to live with relatives, or even to be adopted. Sending to a church seems to fit just fine within that scope of parental rights.

As long as the children are free to make their own choices when they come of age, and as long as the parents aren't deliberately putting them in harms way (which would be child abuse), then I don't see any issue with it.

Wei Wu Wei
11-27-2011, 07:35 PM
As the basis of Sharia law blatantly breaks many laws, your arguments for that system are not well considered.


I'm curious about what you mean here, could you elaborate on what about Sharia blatantly breaks laws?

I'm not a Muslim scholar, but from what I can tell, the aspects that are against criminal law cannot be part of a legally binding contract, the aspects that are not against criminal law should be fine.

It doesn't take any new laws to deal with this:

If a person makes a sharia-based contract, and that contract violates criminal law, then the contract is not legally binding and the criminal courts can deal with it.

If a person makes a sharia-based contract and it doesn't violate criminal law, then it is legally binding and is dealt with in civil court.

Conservatives claim they are against larger government intrusion into personal matters, so this thread is a little confusing.

Wei Wu Wei
11-27-2011, 07:56 PM
Sharia law does break federal and state laws. Disputes that require testimony, for example, give more weight to testimony from Muslim men than Muslim women or infidels. That conflicts with the rules of evidence in every state, not to mention the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.

Okay so that rule cannot be part of a legally binding contract. Simple enough.



US law in custody disputes demands that the needs and interests of the child are the primary concern. Sharia defines children as the property of the father. Custody cases therefore cannot take Sharia into account. Sharia divorce is accomplished by the husband unilaterally announcing the divorce three times. A wife cannot do the same, and all marital property accrues to the husband automatically. This violates dozens of laws regarding contracts and divorce, especially in no-fault states.

I don't know all the laws concerning these matters, but again, it's just a matter of which parts can be considered legally binding and which cannot. IF the couple decides that the husband can end the marriage with three declarations, then fine, they can be "separated", but they will still require proper divorce proceedings.

All of the marital property accrues to the husband? That sounds like a prenuptial agreement, which is perfectly legal and practiced often.







Jewish and Christian households do not seek to impose the Talmud or the canon of church law onto the rest of us, nor do either sets of laws state that in conflicts with secular law, the religious law is supreme. The traditions of both religions demand that adherents be good citizens as well as righteous, while Sharia commands that the righteous are only those who work to impose Sharia on all people.

it doesn't matter.

I can make up a set of 12 rules on my own, rules 1-10 can be totally arbitrary and stupid, but still legal. Rule 11 can be illegal in my country, and rule 12 can state that my rules are supreme above US law.

I can still create a contract based on some of these rules: rules 1-10 would be legally binding, rule 11 could not be legally binding, and rule 12 won't mean a damn thing if I went to court.

Just because some of the rules conflict with secular laws doesn't mean the entire set of rules cannot be used, it just means those specific rules cannot be used.

Just because I have a rule that says my rules are higher than US law desn't mean my rules can't be used in a contract either, it just means I'm going to be upset when a US court ignores that 12th rule.









Islam is an imperialistic political doctrine as well as a religious doctrine. The history of those nations conquered by Islam demonstrate this. They are coming for us. Maybe not today, but soon.

But once a Sharia court exists, even those who do not want to be under its jurisdiction have no choice. A Muslim who refuses to submit to Sharia arbitration is subject to accusations of apostasy, which carries a death sentence in Islam, and the same agency that governs Sharia, the local imams, also govern the fatwas on apostasy. So, if you don't submit, you die.

IT sounds like you have absolutely no faith in your own country.

If people are able to use their own contracts to settle disputes (as everyone is already entitled to do), then the entire society will fall apart and all current US laws and courts will be nullified. It's ridiculous and paranoid.

Allowing people to enter into contracts governed within civil law and superceded by criminal law is not going to destroy the legal system. Contracts have always been allowed, and conflicts about what is legally binding have always arisen. It's nothing new. The only difference is that this concerns Islam and you seem to be believing the dogmatic ramblings of Islamophobics.



Oh, please. You'd negate every contract in the country if it suited a socialist government. Once again, you are taking the side of an anti-American, anti-western process.

Once again, you are trying way too hard and relying on hyperbole to avoid having a real sensible discussion.

Wei Wu Wei
11-27-2011, 08:05 PM
Well, first of all, who are you asking if they want this type of agreement? Depending on who can benefit from it is who will say yes. In Sharia law, the men will want it to rule their way. Muslim women will probably prefer a secular court. Let's wander away from Islam for a moment. Supposed a man tells his wife "I'm gay" and suddenly she's trying to take rights away to see their child. Do you really want that dispute to be handled by a fundamentalist Christian court? I don't. Jews are not without their problemos. Suppose there's an orthodox family (not common in the US, but let's pretend) in which one of the members wants to marry a Christian. Uh, are we going to have an all orthodox Jewish court deciding if the marriage can happen?

We have separation of church and state for a reason. It's so our government does not show a preference toward one set of religious beliefs. It's like Obama said a while back. If you had an all Christian country, would it be James Dobson's Christianity or Alan Sharpton's? You don't want courts set up this way. It's opening up a can of worms for everybody including those in that religious group.

I think I explained my thoughts on this well enough in my previous posts but I'll reiterate and clarify here for you as well:

I'm not saying that these contractual agreements should be able to supercede existing criminal law, I'm saying people should be allowed to enter into these contracts as long as the contracts are legally binding.

I don't know the current laws regarding contracts that involve custody disputes. I believe, but I may be wrong, that parents can agree to the terms of future custody disputes in the event of divorces As long as the child's welfare isn't in jeopardy, I believe (again, without thorough knowlede), that the agreement will dictate the custody issues.

You bring up an interesting situation, suppose a couple write up a legally-binding agreement before marriage, the agreement states that if the couple seperates, the father will retain custody. Years later, with children, the father says he is gay, and the couple needs to divorce. The father says according to their agreement, he is entitled to custody. However, the wife takes their contract to a fundamentalist christian arbiter, who says the father's homosexuality creates a bad environment for a child and rules that part of the contract as non-binding. Here we will have a conflict.

However, part of the issue would be stipulating within the contract that it would be a christian court acting as arbiter. I don't think the wife would be able to take that contract to a fundamentalist christian court without both parties agreeing to it, otherwise it would de facto go to a government civil court.

I wouldn't want a fundamentalist christian court to decide that, but if both parents agreed to it before hand, then that might be totally legal. Of course is the arbiter made a decision that a civil court decided was illegal, it could still be overruled.

MrsSmith
11-27-2011, 08:32 PM
IT sounds like you have absolutely no faith in your own country.
You may have noticed that we live in a country in which 70% of voters consistently vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman, and that the will of the people has been overturned repeatedly by courts and state governments...all of which ignore the Federal Defense of Marriage law. Maybe those of us that pay attention have reason to doubt our country.


Allowing people to enter into contracts governed within civil law and superceded by criminal law is not going to destroy the legal system. Contracts have always been allowed, and conflicts about what is legally binding have always arisen. It's nothing new. The only difference is that this concerns Islam and you seem to be believing the dogmatic ramblings of Islamophobics.


You may have noticed that Oklahoma voters passed a Constitutional Amendment that would block courts from regarding international or sharia law, maintaining the traditional practice of requiring courts to judge based upon Constitutional Law. You may have noticed that this voter-passed Amendment was almost instantly blocked by a Federal judge based on the opinion of CAIR, a group that supports Islamic terrorists. You have to wonder why, if our laws will anyway override sharia, CAIR is working so hard to keep our laws from stating that they override sharia. Could it possibly be because in Europe and the UK, CAIR and other terrorist groups have managed to force courts to follow sharia instead of traditional law? Hmmmm...


Conservatives claim they are against larger government intrusion into personal matters, so this thread is a little confusing.
Conservatives are quite willing to have government uphold the will of the people...it's the left that insists on forcing larger government intrusion into everything from speech in churches to speech in all public areas to forced praise of homosexuality in schools. As for details, it seems quite a few details have been listed already, and you are meeting them all with your standard, "See not, hear not."

Elspeth
11-27-2011, 09:25 PM
You may have noticed that Oklahoma voters passed a Constitutional Amendment that would block courts from regarding international or sharia law, maintaining the traditional practice of requiring courts to judge based upon Constitutional Law. You may have noticed that this voter-passed Amendment was almost instantly blocked by a Federal judge based on the opinion of CAIR, a group that supports Islamic terrorists. You have to wonder why, if our laws will anyway override sharia, CAIR is working so hard to keep our laws from stating that they override sharia. Could it possibly be because in Europe and the UK, CAIR and other terrorist groups have managed to force courts to follow sharia instead of traditional law? Hmmmm...


This is absolutely alarming.

Novaheart
11-27-2011, 09:37 PM
In Sharia law, the men will want it to rule their way. Muslim women will probably prefer a secular court.

Were the Mormon women at Warren Jeffs' compound standing my their men and religion or were they liberated in the bust of the compound some time ago?

djones520
11-27-2011, 09:42 PM
Were the Mormon women at Warren Jeffs' compound standing my their men and religion or were they liberated in the bust of the compound some time ago?

Bit of a differance here. Raping a minor was the impetus behind that, not polygamy.

Novaheart
11-27-2011, 09:43 PM
Let's take domestic abuse, which is currently being handled by sharia courts in England:



Not defending the indulgence of Sharia or any other religion for that matter, but the Sharia "courts" in England are not actual Crown courts, they are closer to mediation. The foundation for that was lain in allowing similar Jewish "courts" as an accommodation to that religion in a secular society and government. In essence, it's like a voluntary court. Now the question is, how voluntary can participation be when you are dealing with people who have been brainwashed since birth by religious mythology and customs.

Of course, it's only because these religions are considered "major religions", related to Christianity, and largely practiced by caucasians that they are tolerated at all. It's hard to imagine a voodoo court or some aboriginal mythology from South American being allowed , oh wait, we have American Indian courts too. Nevermind.

Novaheart
11-27-2011, 09:45 PM
Bit of a differance here. Raping a minor was the impetus behind that, not polygamy.

The difference is irrelevant to the point. Lanie seemed to think that Moslem women are captives of oppression, when in fact as we have seen in Iran and elsewhere: the women can be as oppressive as the men. The men don't cut off clitorises and sew vaginas shut, the women do. More than one woman has said that she would feel disgraced had she not had it done to her, and she cannot bear the thought of her daughter not being so honored.

These people is crazy.

Elspeth
11-27-2011, 09:57 PM
Not defending the indulgence of Sharia or any other religion for that matter, but the Sharia "courts" in England are not actual Crown courts, they are closer to mediation. The foundation for that was lain in allowing similar Jewish "courts" as an accommodation to that religion in a secular society and government. In essence, it's like a voluntary court. Now the question is, how voluntary can participation be when you are dealing with people who have been brainwashed since birth by religious mythology and customs.

You haven't gone far enough: How voluntary can participation in domestic violence "mediation" be when a people have been brainwashed into a religious-oriented misogyny that considers beating one's wife as something to be chatted up among males and not be legally punished for the brutal assault that it is?

And read the links I posted. They're from mainstream sources and it's CLEAR that criminal proceedings on domestic violence of Muslim women are being handled by the Sharia "courts". These women are British citizens and residents, and should be protected by the rights of the the land in which they live.

Lanie
11-28-2011, 12:47 AM
And once again you prove you have zero clue as to what the separation of church and state is all about.

Mind explaining instead of just insulting?

Lanie
11-28-2011, 12:51 AM
I think I explained my thoughts on this well enough in my previous posts but I'll reiterate and clarify here for you as well:

I'm not saying that these contractual agreements should be able to supercede existing criminal law, I'm saying people should be allowed to enter into these contracts as long as the contracts are legally binding.

I don't know the current laws regarding contracts that involve custody disputes. I believe, but I may be wrong, that parents can agree to the terms of future custody disputes in the event of divorces As long as the child's welfare isn't in jeopardy, I believe (again, without thorough knowlede), that the agreement will dictate the custody issues.

You bring up an interesting situation, suppose a couple write up a legally-binding agreement before marriage, the agreement states that if the couple seperates, the father will retain custody. Years later, with children, the father says he is gay, and the couple needs to divorce. The father says according to their agreement, he is entitled to custody. However, the wife takes their contract to a fundamentalist christian arbiter, who says the father's homosexuality creates a bad environment for a child and rules that part of the contract as non-binding. Here we will have a conflict.

However, part of the issue would be stipulating within the contract that it would be a christian court acting as arbiter. I don't think the wife would be able to take that contract to a fundamentalist christian court without both parties agreeing to it, otherwise it would de facto go to a government civil court.

I wouldn't want a fundamentalist christian court to decide that, but if both parents agreed to it before hand, then that might be totally legal. Of course is the arbiter made a decision that a civil court decided was illegal, it could still be overruled.


Okay, no. I suggested two different scenarios.

1) Muslim couple divorces and the man is supposed to get custody of the kids through sharia law.

2) Christian couple divorces because one is gay and woman want to use imaginary fundamentalist Christian court to get child away from father.

I also presented the idea of

3) Orthodox Jewish family wanting an imaginary Jewish court to step in to stop an inter-faith marriage.

Notice I keep saying imaginary in the case of Judaism and Christianity.

It's actually some of the Muslims who want the courts to change for their cases. Just because somebody trusts sharia law at first doesn't mean they will when they have the possibility of being burned by it. It's better to stick to the secular system.

Lanie
11-28-2011, 12:53 AM
The difference is irrelevant to the point. Lanie seemed to think that Moslem women are captives of oppression, when in fact as we have seen in Iran and elsewhere: the women can be as oppressive as the men. The men don't cut off clitorises and sew vaginas shut, the women do. More than one woman has said that she would feel disgraced had she not had it done to her, and she cannot bear the thought of her daughter not being so honored.

These people is crazy.

I was using women as the oppressed as an example.

Okay, suppose a woman does a female circumcision on her daughter and the daughter is brave enough to turn her over to the police. You don't want a sharia court ruling in the matter.

That does bring up a good point. Wei talks about consent to a contract. Children don't get consent. They'd have sharia law forced upon them.

Elspeth
11-28-2011, 02:47 AM
Were the Mormon women at Warren Jeffs' compound standing my their men and religion or were they liberated in the bust of the compound some time ago?

Oppression is an insidious thing especially when those who are oppressed are kept in a dependent position. Remember that there were slaves that did not leave the plantation after the Emancipation Proclamation. Sometimes, oppression is just so damned ingrained that the mind cannot conceive of another opportunity. This does not mean that those oppressed should not be offered a meaningful opportunity and a chance to free their minds. It also does not mean that they should be denied the rights they have under civil law.

It reminds me of a gay male couple I know who are in their 70s. They are ardent Republicans and not comfortable at all with the current gay rights movement. It's not just the parades and the overt sexuality in public that bother them. It is the whole concept of being out to people and, I am assuming, vulnerable. These men have been together for many years and came of age when everything had to be under wraps. They carved out an existence for themselves and the way they act in society is still fairly covert. I do not know if they would turn down the rights that they now are getting, but I know they have never gone to a state where gay marriage was legal and tied the knot, even though they have been together for years.

It's a tough thing to get rid of the oppression in your own head. That doesn't mean that your rights should be denied.

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 03:24 AM
Mind explaining instead of just insulting?

Your Libtard interpretation of what Seperation of Church and state is all about is completely wrong.

I wasn't insulting...I was merely stating fact. And what I'm about to explain to you...I've told you in the past on numerous occasions.

Pay attention this time.

There is actually nothing in the Constitution that separates Church and State in the way it's used today. The wall of separation was found in a letter that Jefferson wrote to a church. He said it should exist...not that it does.

But here's the deal.

The part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"...was never intended to be used to stop a nativity scene from being displayed on a courthouse lawn or to prevent a prayer before a football game.

It was explicitly put into the Constitution to prevent what the Founding Fathers had just left in England which was a state sponsored and state run religion with the ruler of the country acting as the leads and high priest of the church as well as the government. Where no other religion was recognized other than the Church of England.

The Founding Fathers were trying to prevent George Washington...President of the United States from ALSO being George Washington...head of the Church of America.

If the President went on TV tomorrow night and announced that as of right now all Churches and recognized religions EXCEPT the Lutheran Church were outlawed in the U.S. and from that moment forward the only recognized Church in the U.S. was the Lutheran Church...THAT would be a violation of Church and State.

Instead of constantly being all upset about whether the words "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill in your wallet...you Liberals should be upset that your elected Democrat Brethren and their $$$$$$ backers have no problem allowing Sharia law and organizations like CAIR to shove Sharia down our throats int he name of "inclusiveness". Because groups like CAIR and the other Organizations that lobby this administration and Liberals to be more tolerant of Islam are doing EXACTLY what the Separation powers were designed to prevent. And that is force people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs to adhere to one religious view whether it goes against what they believe or not.

I've seen up close and personal what Sharia law and the mixture of Church and State REALLY looks like.

And when you've seen it up close and personal and how it works where it's employed...you begin to realize that a prayer before a football game...the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse or "In God We Trust" on our money is nowhere near crossing the line between religion and government.

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 03:26 AM
Okay, suppose a woman does a female circumcision on her daughter and the daughter is brave enough to turn her over to the police. You don't want a sharia court ruling in the matter.

It will never make it to court. Where female circumcision happens it's considered normal. Women are for procreation...they aren't supposed to feel pleasure. No case like that would ever be brought to a Sharia court. Women have no right to bring cases like that without the consent of their husband.


That does bring up a good point. Wei talks about consent to a contract. Children don't get consent. They'd have sharia law forced upon them.

Everyone would have Sharia law forced upon them. There is no opt out once it starts to spread.

It's a silly and dangerous notion by the left that it can be controlled and contained.

noonwitch
11-28-2011, 10:43 AM
Female circumcision has nothing to do with Sharia law. It is a tribal custom in some parts of the world that predates Islam. It's mostly practiced in eastern Africa, in nations like Somalia that are now mostly muslim nations. Islam hasn't done much to stop it, though, since women are not all that important in their theology. It's a brutal practice, performed usually with filthy instruments that lead to infections and other problems.



The courts should not allow Sharia law to ever supercede US law. That doesn't mean that it can't be considered in situations where all parties involved agree to it and it doesn't contradict US law in the matter , or that a judge or other official might consider it in understanding the backrounds of the parties in front of him on a given case.

The Ten Commandments are a code a lot of people use to develop their personal morality, and many claim that they are part of the foundation of US law. Only 3 of them are part of US or state criminal codes. (Although I'm sure committing adultry is illegal in some states, even if the law is only enforced in civil cases).

Novaheart
11-28-2011, 11:13 AM
Female circumcision has nothing to do with Sharia law. It is a tribal custom in some parts of the world that predates Islam.

That's rather a distinction without a difference. Polygamy predates Mormonism, but in this country the ones who keep polygamy alive are mostly Mormons. Not that polygamy is a bad thing. Again, the point wasn't specific to the practice of female genital mutilation, it was to the culture which supports it and the fact that women who are in our opinion oppressed are none the less also enforcers of the cultures we consider oppressive. IN case we have wandered too far afield, that went to the idea that Moslem women would not or could not choose a secular court rather than a voluntary system like Sharia courts. To that I would say that the same ghetto mentality which leads to Sharia courts, makes it socially and possibly economically impossible for ghetto Moslems, male or female, to choose to avoid the religious leaders; which of course goes to the entire tragedy of England allowing Moslems to establish Moslem ghettos in the first place.

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 11:22 AM
The courts should not allow Sharia law to ever supercede US law. That doesn't mean that it can't be considered in situations where all parties involved agree to it and it doesn't contradict US law in the matter , or that a judge or other official might consider it in understanding the backrounds of the parties in front of him on a given case.

And yet in countries that practice Sharia law they won't reciprocate.

You're asking us to do something that other countries won't do in kind.

It's the diplomatic equivalent of bending over and grabbing our ankles.

Bottom line U.S. laws and customs should never under any circumstance be circumvented by any other laws from any other country.

This is how the slow creep of radical Islam into secular/Western countries begins.




The Ten Commandments are a code a lot of people use to develop their personal morality, and many claim that they are part of the foundation of US law. Only 3 of them are part of US or state criminal codes. (Although I'm sure committing adultry is illegal in some states, even if the law is only enforced in civil cases).

Your point being?

Odysseus
11-28-2011, 01:21 PM
Okay so that rule cannot be part of a legally binding contract. Simple enough.
Except that Sharia isn't a simple legal code, it is Allah's law, and cannot be modified by men. To even suggest that one part of it cannot be applied is heresy and blasphemy. It's an all or nothing deal.


I don't know all the laws concerning these matters, but again, it's just a matter of which parts can be considered legally binding and which cannot. IF the couple decides that the husband can end the marriage with three declarations, then fine, they can be "separated", but they will still require proper divorce proceedings.

You don't know the basics of Sharia marriage law, but you presume to tell us that it can be applied under US law without conflict? Why don't you actually research Sharia before you make ignorant pronouncements? If you are going to embrace multiculturalism, you'd better know the specifics about the cultures that you are blindly embracing, or the suffering will be immense. And, once again, it's an all or nothing deal with Sharia. Who are you to invalidate any part of what Allah dictates?


All of the marital property accrues to the husband? That sounds like a prenuptial agreement, which is perfectly legal and practiced often.
The marriage contract isn't between the husband and wife, it's between the parents of the husband and wife. The wife's consent isn't an issue, as she is the property of her father until she is sold in marriage to her husband. It's a prenup that was locked in stone in the seventh century and cannot be amended or changed without damning the souls of everyone involved. Once again, your ignorance is on display.



it doesn't matter.

I can make up a set of 12 rules on my own, rules 1-10 can be totally arbitrary and stupid, but still legal. Rule 11 can be illegal in my country, and rule 12 can state that my rules are supreme above US law.

I can still create a contract based on some of these rules: rules 1-10 would be legally binding, rule 11 could not be legally binding, and rule 12 won't mean a damn thing if I went to court.

Just because some of the rules conflict with secular laws doesn't mean the entire set of rules cannot be used, it just means those specific rules cannot be used.

Just because I have a rule that says my rules are higher than US law desn't mean my rules can't be used in a contract either, it just means I'm going to be upset when a US court ignores that 12th rule.
You keep making the claim of severability, but Sharia law isn't severable in the sense that western law is. So, when the US court ignores the 12th rule, and you have already established an enclave of Islamic supremacy within an US city, as they have in Europe, how do we enforce US law? How do we prevent the kind of mass rioting that will follow the judge's ruling?


IT sounds like you have absolutely no faith in your own country.
I have plenty of faith in my own country. I have no faith in the desires of pseudo-intellectuals to destroy it in the name of a multicultural totem that they profess to believe in, but which renders them incapable of making informed judgement about the cultures that they seek to embrace.


If people are able to use their own contracts to settle disputes (as everyone is already entitled to do), then the entire society will fall apart and all current US laws and courts will be nullified. It's ridiculous and paranoid.

Allowing people to enter into contracts governed within civil law and superceded by criminal law is not going to destroy the legal system. Contracts have always been allowed, and conflicts about what is legally binding have always arisen. It's nothing new. The only difference is that this concerns Islam and you seem to be believing the dogmatic ramblings of Islamophobics.

As always, you speak from authority without any knowledge. You don't understand what Sharia law is, have no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, are utterly ignorant of the scope of Sharia's intrusions into the lives of Muslims, lack any understanding of the underlying faith that animates it, but you claim that those who oppose it are rambling Islamophobics. In fact, it is the ramblings of multiculturist Islamophiles who, lacking any knowledge of the cultures that they kowtow to, which are the real danger.


Once again, you are trying way too hard and relying on hyperbole to avoid having a real sensible discussion.

It's not hyperbole. Given two positions, one virulently anti-liberty, anti-American and anti-western, and one pro-liberty, pro-American and pro-western, you invariably align yourself with the former. It's not hyperbole, but a simple statement of fact, based on years of observation of your posts. Not that this is out of the ordinary. Leftists always unite against democratic institutions, because they know that once those institutions are defeated, the only thing keeping them from power is the final destruction of their former allies. This is why the German Communists came out in favor of the Nazis in 1933's elections. It's why today's Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, International ANSWER and every other group whose model of government is totalitarianism under their banner united to support OWS. No hyperbole there, just the facts.

Lanie
11-28-2011, 02:51 PM
Your Libtard interpretation of what Seperation of Church and state is all about is completely wrong.

I wish you wouldn't use the term "libtard." It's a break off from "retard" which is not an insult to those with intellectual disabilities. I don't know why I'm telling you that, but okay. I said it.


I wasn't insulting...I was merely stating fact. And what I'm about to explain to you...I've told you in the past on numerous occasions.

Sometimes, I just still disagree after having it explained. As it turns out, I don't completely remember your perspective.


Pay attention this time.

Opens my ears, zips my lips.


There is actually nothing in the Constitution that separates Church and State in the way it's used today. The wall of separation was found in a letter that Jefferson wrote to a church. He said it should exist...not that it does.

You're more knowledgeable than I thought. I didn't expect you to know about Jefferson.

Jefferson was saying there was separation of church and state, not that it should exist.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qjeffson.htm


Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

I view this as beneficial to Christians, not just something that can be a pain in the neck.


But here's the deal.

The part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"...was never intended to be used to stop a nativity scene from being displayed on a courthouse lawn or to prevent a prayer before a football game.

And honestly, when I hear about people protesting that, I want to scream out "Oh, grow up!" That's mostly because I think there are far more importation issues. However, I think they do have a point. Their tax payer dollars go toward that court house and other functions of government. They should get a say so in regards to what gets displayed. You wouldn't want anything about sharia law being placed up.

Now, when a private business declares "Marry Christmas" or even noticing a Muslims holiday as Best Buy did last year, it's not illegal. We can boycott them, but it's not illegal.


It was explicitly put into the Constitution to prevent what the Founding Fathers had just left in England which was a state sponsored and state run religion with the ruler of the country acting as the leads and high priest of the church as well as the government. Where no other religion was recognized other than the Church of England.

I agree. It doesn't mean people didn't have a point later on though.


The Founding Fathers were trying to prevent George Washington...President of the United States from ALSO being George Washington...head of the Church of America.

If the President went on TV tomorrow night and announced that as of right now all Churches and recognized religions EXCEPT the Lutheran Church were outlawed in the U.S. and from that moment forward the only recognized Church in the U.S. was the Lutheran Church...THAT would be a violation of Church and State.

Agreed.


Instead of constantly being all upset about whether the words "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill in your wallet...you Liberals should be upset that your elected Democrat Brethren and their $$$$$$ backers have no problem allowing Sharia law and organizations like CAIR to shove Sharia down our throats int he name of "inclusiveness". Because groups like CAIR and the other Organizations that lobby this administration and Liberals to be more tolerant of Islam are doing EXACTLY what the Separation powers were designed to prevent. And that is force people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs to adhere to one religious view whether it goes against what they believe or not.

I agree that allowing Sharia law into the court system is more important than the money. I don't know of any Democrat politicians supporting this. It sounds like lawyers wanting more on their case's side. They could be democrat or republican. However, I agree that this is more important. I do think this could be defeated by pointing out the separation of church and state. I do think we should also have legislation, but it shouldn't be necessary.


I've seen up close and personal what Sharia law and the mixture of Church and State REALLY looks like.

I guess you have.


And when you've seen it up close and personal and how it works where it's employed...you begin to realize that a prayer before a football game...the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse or "In God We Trust" on our money is nowhere near crossing the line between religion and government.

I've also seen the laws just flat out broken in adaptive education settings. Something about working at a school where you lose at least one or two (maybe more kids) a year to health issues makes one not care about separation of church and state. But when I was in a general education setting where the kids were healthy and about to go at each others throats over religion and stuff related to it, I had a different attitude. My focus was on students feeling safe and not feeling alienated. What would you think about a student who declared that Jesus was black and all the other kids were going to hell for not believing a certain way? Then, he wonders why the kids got mean with him. Nothing like trying to stop a religion related argument at work that's disrupting the class. I even broke the rules then by speaking with that one student about religion. I said it didn't matter what color Jesus was, the important thing was that he came for all of us. I don't think there was a lot of fighting after that, but the whole thing could have been avoided if he wasn't being that way. So my attitude about this is usually that I don't care much unless I see harm.

Obviously, sharia law in court cases would cause an enormous amount of harm, so I'm very much against that.

Lanie
11-28-2011, 03:08 PM
And yet in countries that practice Sharia law they won't reciprocate.

You're asking us to do something that other countries won't do in kind.

It's the diplomatic equivalent of bending over and grabbing our ankles.

Bottom line U.S. laws and customs should never under any circumstance be circumvented by any other laws from any other country.

This is how the slow creep of radical Islam into secular/Western countries begins.

I *think* what noonwitch might be suggesting is that if the parties involved are agreeing to it, then it should be considered. It's kind of like when I discussed with somebody years ago the idea of allowing suicide for the sake of personal freedom and they were saying yes. I don't agree with this concept.

First, the women, children, or whatever other minority (minority meaning those who have less power, not those who have less in population in this case) might feel like if they didn't agree to sharia court, then they might end up paying for it later on through the Muslim community. They should be saved from that threat by being told "This is how it's going to be. Secular." Women in certain situations have enough to deal with without dealing with that as well.

Next, I have to question the competence of certain individuals. Going back to my "voluntary suicide for personal freedom" discussion, who on earth chooses that other than somebody who isn't stable? I have to ask the same question of those regarding sharia courts. Men can gain. Women who choose that are brainwashed IMO.

Next, that's just insane. We need to keep some morals. It's weird for me to say that, but we really should draw the line somewhere.

noonwitch
11-28-2011, 03:43 PM
Your point being?



My point is that Judeao-Christian law from the Torah is considered in US courts on a daily basis, but the US does not enforce the Torah in it's totality. If the US decided to do so, we would be just as brutal of a society as any Sharia-enforcing muslim nation. Think about how many offenses are capital offenses under that code:

Adultry
Fornication (although if the female's father agrees to the two getting married and makes the appropriate adjustment to the dowry, all is well)
Being a virgin female rape victim who didn't scream loud enough to get help (although, if the father agrees to the rapist marrying his daughter and downgrades her dowry appropriately, she can live)
Male homosexuality (although the Torah is silent on lesbians)
Eating of non-kosher food (maybe this is where lesbians violate the Torah?)
Disobeying one's parents
Any situation in which a female has her hymen broken prior to marriage can result in the woman's execution if her parents can't display the bloody sheets after the wedding night.
Among hundreds of other laws that seem obscure and outdated by today's standards.

Yet, US courts consider the Judeao-Christian laws in cases. We had one in Michigan a few years ago, a custody case involving a father who was an orthodox jew. The mother agreed to raise the child according to the father's religion, but got a job later that required her to work on Saturdays, thus violating the code both by working and by driving to her job. The father was given custody as a result.

I'm not saying I disagree with the court on that case-I've been in front of the judge on the case, and she's pretty fair. The mom should have taken the legal steps necessary to address the change in her circumstances.
But the custody agreement was hashed out by the parties with orthodox jewish law as a primary consideration.

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 05:35 PM
My point is that Judeao-Christian law from the Torah is considered in US courts on a daily basis, but the US does not enforce the Torah in it's totality. If the US decided to do so, we would be just as brutal of a society as any Sharia-enforcing muslim nation. Think about how many offenses are capital offenses under that code:

Adultry
Fornication (although if the female's father agrees to the two getting married and makes the appropriate adjustment to the dowry, all is well)
Being a virgin female rape victim who didn't scream loud enough to get help (although, if the father agrees to the rapist marrying his daughter and downgrades her dowry appropriately, she can live)
Male homosexuality (although the Torah is silent on lesbians)
Eating of non-kosher food (maybe this is where lesbians violate the Torah?)
Disobeying one's parents
Any situation in which a female has her hymen broken prior to marriage can result in the woman's execution if her parents can't display the bloody sheets after the wedding night.
Among hundreds of other laws that seem obscure and outdated by today's standards.

Yet, US courts consider the Judeao-Christian laws in cases. We had one in Michigan a few years ago, a custody case involving a father who was an orthodox jew. The mother agreed to raise the child according to the father's religion, but got a job later that required her to work on Saturdays, thus violating the code both by working and by driving to her job. The father was given custody as a result.

I'm not saying I disagree with the court on that case-I've been in front of the judge on the case, and she's pretty fair. The mom should have taken the legal steps necessary to address the change in her circumstances.
But the custody agreement was hashed out by the parties with orthodox jewish law as a primary consideration.


You're wrong.

Wei Wu Wei
11-28-2011, 06:49 PM
You're wrong.

Elaborate?

Wei Wu Wei
11-28-2011, 06:53 PM
Okay, no. I suggested two different scenarios.

1) Muslim couple divorces and the man is supposed to get custody of the kids through sharia law.

2) Christian couple divorces because one is gay and woman want to use imaginary fundamentalist Christian court to get child away from father.

In both cases, it should be allowed if and only if:

A. Both adult parties agreed to the terms of the agreement and to have the conflict resolved by an arbiter using those rules.
B. The specific rules do not conflict with existing criminal law.

If either of those do not apply, then it should not be allowed.




I also presented the idea of

3) Orthodox Jewish family wanting an imaginary Jewish court to step in to stop an inter-faith marriage.

I don't see how this could be worked into a legal binding contract because it has to be the parties involved who enter into the contract, not their families.

That may be different in orthodox Jewish law, but that is the case in US civil law.




Notice I keep saying imaginary in the case of Judaism and Christianity.

It's actually some of the Muslims who want the courts to change for their cases. Just because somebody trusts sharia law at first doesn't mean they will when they have the possibility of being burned by it. It's better to stick to the secular system.

It may be better for you or me, but if someone enters into a legally binding contract then they are obligated by civil law to abide by that contract.

Wei Wu Wei
11-28-2011, 07:13 PM
Except that Sharia isn't a simple legal code, it is Allah's law, and cannot be modified by men. To even suggest that one part of it cannot be applied is heresy and blasphemy. It's an all or nothing deal.

Tough shit. They will have to deal with it. Religious law can be, and (as Noonwitch pointed out) is considered in certain cases, and used as a basis for civil contracts. However, it cannot and will not supercede existing criminal law.

They can call it blasphemy, they can be butthurt about it, but they'll have to deal with it.



You don't know the basics of Sharia marriage law, but you presume to tell us that it can be applied under US law without conflict? Why don't you actually research Sharia before you make ignorant pronouncements? If you are going to embrace multiculturalism, you'd better know the specifics about the cultures that you are blindly embracing, or the suffering will be immense. And, once again, it's an all or nothing deal with Sharia. Who are you to invalidate any part of what Allah dictates?

I don't know specifically which parts can and cannot be applied to US law, but I do know that if it conflicts with US law then it cannot be part of a civil contract. Simple as that.

It's not my job to invalidate what Allah dictates, and I don't presume to be above anyone's God, but it is the job of our courts to uphold secular law above religious law. The courts cannot dictate what is right or wrong, and in that sense, they are still below Allah's law, but they can dictate what is legal.



The marriage contract isn't between the husband and wife, it's between the parents of the husband and wife. The wife's consent isn't an issue, as she is the property of her father until she is sold in marriage to her husband. It's a prenup that was locked in stone in the seventh century and cannot be amended or changed without damning the souls of everyone involved. Once again, your ignorance is on display.

If the wife doesn't consent, then it isn't valid under US law. They can call it whatever they like within their mosque, but the US government will not recognize it.




You keep making the claim of severability, but Sharia law isn't severable in the sense that western law is. So, when the US court ignores the 12th rule, and you have already established an enclave of Islamic supremacy within an US city, as they have in Europe, how do we enforce US law? How do we prevent the kind of mass rioting that will follow the judge's ruling?

The US doesn't have a problem suppressing civil unrest.

The law is the law. The people may be upset, that's fine. They may engage in civil disobedience, and they will be arrested for it, that's fine. If they are violent, they will be met with even greater degrees of violence by the police.



I have plenty of faith in my own country. I have no faith in the desires of pseudo-intellectuals to destroy it in the name of a multicultural totem that they profess to believe in, but which renders them incapable of making informed judgement about the cultures that they seek to embrace.


That's not what we are talking about, but okay.

Some people are total multiculturalists, and they are overlooking very real flaws and problems with that position. I'm not anti-multiculturalism, but I also recognize that multiculturalism brings problems of it's own and is far from rainbows and sunshine.

That's irrelevant to this discussion though, let's not get distracted pointing fingers at people rather than talking about the issue at hand.




As always, you speak from authority without any knowledge. You don't understand what Sharia law is, have no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, are utterly ignorant of the scope of Sharia's intrusions into the lives of Muslims, lack any understanding of the underlying faith that animates it, but you claim that those who oppose it are rambling Islamophobics. In fact, it is the ramblings of multiculturist Islamophiles who, lacking any knowledge of the cultures that they kowtow to, which are the real danger.

I know Muslims and know a little bit, but no I'm not pretending to be an expert. However, my expertise isn't relevant to the soundness of my arguments.


FYI: the website Jihadwatch was referenced/quoted several dozens of times in the manifesto of Anders Breivek, the Islamophobic terrorist who detonated a bomb then shot and killed a camp full of teenagers in Norway.


It's not hyperbole. Given two positions, one virulently anti-liberty, anti-American and anti-western, and one pro-liberty, pro-American and pro-western, you invariably align yourself with the former. It's not hyperbole, but a simple statement of fact, based on years of observation of your posts. Not that this is out of the ordinary. Leftists always unite against democratic institutions, because they know that once those institutions are defeated, the only thing keeping them from power is the final destruction of their former allies. This is why the German Communists came out in favor of the Nazis in 1933's elections. It's why today's Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, International ANSWER and every other group whose model of government is totalitarianism under their banner united to support OWS. No hyperbole there, just the facts.

You forgot Satan, the boogyman, and Adolf Stalin the babyeater himself.
oogyboogyboo
:rolleyes:


Stick to the rational arguments using logic, and avoid hyperbole, ad hominem, and the constant stream of strawman arguments.

Odysseus
11-28-2011, 08:41 PM
Tough shit. They will have to deal with it. Religious law can be, and (as Noonwitch pointed out) is considered in certain cases, and used as a basis for civil contracts. However, it cannot and will not supercede existing criminal law.

They can call it blasphemy, they can be butthurt about it, but they'll have to deal with it.

And the way that they will deal with it will be to incrementally increase the scope of Sharia jurisdiction, while violently attacking anyone who objects as Islamophobic, at least until they feel secure enough to physically attack us. Don't believe me? A cartoonist in Seattle has given up her profession and identity because she is under a death sentence for suggesting that everyone draw Mohammed. Not in Cairo, Islamabad or Ankara, but Seattle, WA, USA. If someone in one of the most cosmopolitan cities in America isn't safe drawing cartoons, where would she be safe? And if she isn't safe, who is?

I don't know specifically which parts can and cannot be applied to US law, but I do know that if it conflicts with US law then it cannot be part of a civil contract. Simple as that.
So, you don't know what parts of Sharia cannot be reconciled with US law, because you don't know anything about Sharia, but you are sure that it can be reconciled, "simple as that." You don't know what you are saying, and you don't know enough to realize it, but you are sure that you can dictate the integration of a completely alien legal system into the US system without any hiccoughs. Is there no limit to your arrogance?


It's not my job to invalidate what Allah dictates, and I don't presume to be above anyone's God, but it is the job of our courts to uphold secular law above religious law. The courts cannot dictate what is right or wrong, and in that sense, they are still below Allah's law, but they can dictate what is legal.
But the whole point of Sharia is that it is the obligation of every Muslim to impose religious law above secular law.


If the wife doesn't consent, then it isn't valid under US law. They can call it whatever they like within their mosque, but the US government will not recognize it.
Okay, so every marriage performed under Islamic laws outside of the US is invalidated under US law, because there is no way to determine whether or not the original contract complied with US law. Got it.


The US doesn't have a problem suppressing civil unrest.
France, Sweden, Germany and Britain didn't have a problem suppressing civil unrest until recently. Now, whole sections of those countries are no-go areas to the civil authorities because they have become de facto enclaves of Sharia law. Not Sharia-lite, where the national laws hold precedence and Sharia fills in the gaps, but full on, no compromise, honor-killing, infidel-houri-raping, gay-killing, Jew-baiting bastions of the caliphate. It took a couple of generations, and what happened there can happen here, unless we take some basic steps to prevent it.


The law is the law. The people may be upset, that's fine. They may engage in civil disobedience, and they will be arrested for it, that's fine. If they are violent, they will be met with even greater degrees of violence by the police.

And yet, when these same Islamist thugs were part of the OWS movement, you vehemently objected to the use of force to get them out of public and private property. Now, we're supposed to believe that you're going to be on board with the protection of a civil order that you were ready to trash yourself? Pull the other one, Wei.


That's not what we are talking about, but okay.

Some people are total multiculturalists, and they are overlooking very real flaws and problems with that position. I'm not anti-multiculturalism, but I also recognize that multiculturalism brings problems of it's own and is far from rainbows and sunshine.

That's irrelevant to this discussion though, let's not get distracted pointing fingers at people rather than talking about the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is the deliberate subversion of the United States Constitution by persons who seek to establish Sharia law as the sole legal system in America, and the world. Their intent is to do this through the gradual adoption of Sharia law in an incremental strategy which has been clearly articulated in internal documents of the Muslim Brotherhood. This strategy is aided and abetted by persons who make a fetish of pretending to be respectful of other cultures, but who are, in fact, simply rebelling against their own culture and grabbing on to anything that they can find that seems to offer an alternative, no matter how little they know or understand it. Consequently, it is relevant to the discussion.


I know Muslims and know a little bit, but no I'm not pretending to be an expert. However, my expertise isn't relevant to the soundness of my arguments.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Seriously? You believe that even though you don't know anything about Sharia, your ignorance isn't relevant to an argument about whether Sharia can be reconciled with US law? That's your rebuttal? That's like saying that you don't know anything about physics, but you are positive that we can replace fossil fuels with solar power in a year. Oh, wait, you clowns say stuff like that all of the time. Nevermind.


FYI: the website Jihadwatch was referenced/quoted several dozens of times in the manifesto of Anders Breivek, the Islamophobic terrorist who detonated a bomb then shot and killed a camp full of teenagers in Norway.
The Communist Manifesto was referenced/quoted millions of times by totalitarian states that murdered close to a hundred million people in the last century. Your point?


You forgot Satan, the boogyman, and Adolf Stalin the babyeater himself.
oogyboogyboo
:rolleyes:
Ridicule doesn't change the facts. If the Boogyman suddenly showed up under your bed with a copy of Mao's Little Red Book, I have no doubt that you'd embrace him as a fellow traveler. Hitler was no less a socialist than you are, and the only reason that we don't refer to him as such is because Stalin ordered the Comintern to refer to the National Socialist Workers Party as fascists, after Mussolini's socialist/syndicalist party. As for Satan, I'm not a believer, but those who are would say that you'd embraced him long ago.


Stick to the rational arguments using logic, and avoid hyperbole, ad hominem, and the constant stream of strawman arguments.

Coming from you, that's rich. How many times have you falsely accused anyone defending a democratic state of atrocities?

We know you, Wei. You can't pretend to be someone that you aren't.

Lanie
11-29-2011, 12:29 AM
In both cases, it should be allowed if and only if:

A. Both adult parties agreed to the terms of the agreement and to have the conflict resolved by an arbiter using those rules.
B. The specific rules do not conflict with existing criminal law.

If either of those do not apply, then it should not be allowed.





I don't see how this could be worked into a legal binding contract because it has to be the parties involved who enter into the contract, not their families.

That may be different in orthodox Jewish law, but that is the case in US civil law.





It may be better for you or me, but if someone enters into a legally binding contract then they are obligated by civil law to abide by that contract.

People get divorces all the time. Contracts are definatly broken on a regular basis. Doesn't make it okay, but we don't need to be changing our court system.

Parts of sharia law can probably interfere with criminal law.

Elspeth
11-29-2011, 12:32 AM
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Seriously? You believe that even though you don't know anything about Sharia, your ignorance isn't relevant to an argument about whether Sharia can be reconciled with US law? That's your rebuttal? That's like saying that you don't know anything about physics, but you are positive that we can replace fossil fuels with solar power in a year. Oh, wait, you clowns say stuff like that all of the time. Nevermind.


You got him, Odysseus.

Nice. :thumbsup:

Odysseus
11-29-2011, 01:32 AM
You got him, Odysseus.

Nice. :thumbsup:

Thanks, but he got himself. I just pointed it out. Not that it matters. Wei will continue to bloviate on this subject, without realizing that his lack of knowledge renders him incapable of intelligent discussion.

txradioguy
11-29-2011, 04:50 AM
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
I don't know specifically which parts can and cannot be applied to US law, but I do know that if it conflicts with US law then it cannot be part of a civil contract. Simple as that.

Aaaaaaaaaaand you're wrong.


Florida Appeals Court Rejects Call to Block Judge From Citing Islamic Law in Ruling

A Florida appeals court has rejected a request to block a Hillsborough judge from upholding Islamic law in a case involving the former trustees of a local Tampa mosque that has garnered the national spotlight.

The state's 2nd District Court of Appeal on Friday denied without comment a petition filed by the mosque, known as the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, which is challenging Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen’s ruling in March that he intended to cite “ecclesiastical Islamic law” in the case, the St. Petersburg Times reported.

The former trustees have been suing the mosque because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees. Nielsen said in March that based on testimony, “under ecclesiastical law” and pursuant to the Koran, “Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/florida-appeals-court-rejects-petition-to-block-judge-from-imposing-islamic-law/

noonwitch
11-29-2011, 09:55 AM
You're wrong.



Where am I wrong? Do the books of the Torah prescribe death to people who violate the specific laws I cited? Do you want me to list all the scriptures by verse? If you've ever read the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, you know that what I am saying is the truth-if a nation decided to institute the Torah in it's entirety as the law of the land, that nation would be as brutal as any muslim nation enforcing Sharia law. Not even modern Israel practices the law to that extreme-they don't have the death penalty. Of course, you can't get a cheeseburger at the Jerusalem McDonalds.


The case I mentioned was in Oakland County, MI, within the past decade. I know we discussed it here. The judge was the Honorable Linda Hallmark of Oakland County Circuit Court/Family Division. I had a case cross over once to her court room. She's a good judge.

txradioguy
11-29-2011, 11:13 AM
Where am I wrong?

Where do you want me to start? Not that it really matters to an old 60's hard core Lib like yourself.




Do the books of the Torah prescribe death to people who violate the specific laws I cited? Do you want me to list all the scriptures by verse? If you've ever read the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, you know that what I am saying is the truth-if a nation decided to institute the Torah in it's entirety as the law of the land, that nation would be as brutal as any muslim nation enforcing Sharia law. Not even modern Israel practices the law to that extreme-they don't have the death penalty. Of course, you can't get a cheeseburger at the Jerusalem McDonalds.

Yeah and so does the Koran and just about every Bible of every religion on the planet.

Your point? Oh yeah that's right you don't have one.

You'd rather duck dodge and weave around the fact you don't know what the hell you're talking about in relation to the OP...instead you want to use the typical Liberal ploy of what if's supposition and straw men from the time of Moses to try and appear relevant on the topic.

The fact of the matter is the Torah isn't used as the supreme strict law of the land in any land...therefore any relevance your hypothesis about brutality had flew out the window roughly 2045 years ago.

You want to try and draw a comoparison to what you're talking about in THIS century?

The other fact of the matter is...is that Sharia law IS being practiced in countris in it's full brutal "glory" and there are naked attempts to impose it a piece at a time on THIS country. To use it to set up enclaves withion our borders...hell it's already happening in your beloved Michigan as far as concentrations of Muslims is concerned...where it's Muslims only and the U.S. rule of law and the Constitution can but out.



The case I mentioned was in Oakland County, MI, within the past decade. I know we discussed it here. The judge was the Honorable Linda Hallmark of Oakland County Circuit Court/Family Division. I had a case cross over once to her court room. She's a good judge.

So you say.:rolleyes:

noonwitch
11-29-2011, 11:37 AM
Where do you want me to start? Not that it really matters to an old 60's hard core Lib like yourself.





Yeah and so does the Koran and just about every Bible of every religion on the planet.

Your point? Oh yeah that's right you don't have one.

You'd rather duck dodge and weave around the fact you don't know what the hell you're talking about in relation to the OP...instead you want to use the typical Liberal ploy of what if's supposition and straw men from the time of Moses to try and appear relevant on the topic.

The fact of the matter is the Torah isn't used as the supreme strict law of the land in any land...therefore any relevance your hypothesis about brutality had flew out the window roughly 2045 years ago.

You want to try and draw a comoparison to what you're talking about in THIS century?

The other fact of the matter is...is that Sharia law IS being practiced in countris in it's full brutal "glory" and there are naked attempts to impose it a piece at a time on THIS country. To use it to set up enclaves withion our borders...hell it's already happening in your beloved Michigan as far as concentrations of Muslims is concerned...where it's Muslims only and the U.S. rule of law and the Constitution can but out.




So you say.:rolleyes:



My point is that there is good and bad in everything. I originally stated that I don't believe that Sharia law should ever supercede US law, but that there are probably circumstances in which it can be considered, like the case I mentioned regarding the consideration of orthodox jewish law pertaining to the sabbath in a custody case.

I am not disputing what happens in nations that practice all-out Sharia law as the nations' official criminal code. I am just pointing out that Mosaic law pretty much prescribes the same punishments for the same offenses, and is equally intolerant of any dissent, yet we don't eliminate discussion of it's implications from our legal system. Therefore, the same should apply to muslim americans who make legally binding agreements based on Sharia law.

txradioguy
11-29-2011, 11:56 AM
My point is that there is good and bad in everything. I originally stated that I don't believe that Sharia law should ever supercede US law, but that there are probably circumstances in which it can be considered, like the case I mentioned regarding the consideration of orthodox jewish law pertaining to the sabbath in a custody case.

And you're STILL wrong. Thinking like that is the camel's nose under the tent flap that the disease that is Sharia law needs to spread until it's taken over and replaced U.S> law and the U.S. Constitution.

And it happens when bleeding heart leftists like you make exceptions for it to be used.

You make the mistake of thinking that it can be controlled and containied. And it will end up being a fatal mistake on your part if it's allowed tohappen.


I am not disputing what happens in nations that practice all-out Sharia law as the nations' official criminal code. I am just pointing out that Mosaic law pretty much prescribes the same punishments for the same offenses, and is equally intolerant of any dissent, yet we don't eliminate discussion of it's implications from our legal system. Therefore, the same should apply to muslim americans who make legally binding agreements based on Sharia law.

You're using 2,000 year old examples...ancient red herrings to try and make a point.

You failed. You're wrong.

noonwitch
11-29-2011, 12:58 PM
And you're STILL wrong. Thinking like that is the camel's nose under the tent flap that the disease that is Sharia law needs to spread until it's taken over and replaced U.S> law and the U.S. Constitution.

And it happens when bleeding heart leftists like you make exceptions for it to be used.

You make the mistake of thinking that it can be controlled and containied. And it will end up being a fatal mistake on your part if it's allowed tohappen.



You're using 2,000 year old examples...ancient red herrings to try and make a point.

You failed. You're wrong.



You assume that every element of Sharia law is in conflict with US law. My use of the example of Mosaic law is legitimate because it is an example of religious laws that conflict with US laws. There are no laws in most cities and states against working on the Sabbath, for example. Yet, in a family court custody proceeding , it can be considered in custody negotiations if all parties are in agreement. The concerns I have about Sharia law, specifically the abuse and mistreatment of women and girls, are addressed by US law. It is illegal to beat one's wife, to force one's daughter into marriage, and to ritually mutilate a girl's genitalia, among other practices that are associated with Sharia law. The US law should always supercede Sharia law.

It may have been over 2000 years since a nation last used the Torah in it's entirety as it's legal code, isn't it your side that is always claiming that this is a Christian nation founded on God's laws, and complaining that liberals are always denying the judeao-christian heritage of the USA? Conservatives seem not to have a problem with using the Bible as justification to enact legislation that supports their social conservative agenda.

Odysseus
11-29-2011, 03:45 PM
You assume that every element of Sharia law is in conflict with US law. My use of the example of Mosaic law is legitimate because it is an example of religious laws that conflict with US laws. There are no laws in most cities and states against working on the Sabbath, for example. Yet, in a family court custody proceeding , it can be considered in custody negotiations if all parties are in agreement. The concerns I have about Sharia law, specifically the abuse and mistreatment of women and girls, are addressed by US law. It is illegal to beat one's wife, to force one's daughter into marriage, and to ritually mutilate a girl's genitalia, among other practices that are associated with Sharia law. The US law should always supercede Sharia law.

It may have been over 2000 years since a nation last used the Torah in it's entirety as it's legal code, isn't it your side that is always claiming that this is a Christian nation founded on God's laws, and complaining that liberals are always denying the judeao-christian heritage of the USA? Conservatives seem not to have a problem with using the Bible as justification to enact legislation that supports their social conservative agenda.

Both Jewish and Christian law recognize the existence of secular authorities, which makes it possible to observe those religious laws without violating the laws of the state. Islam, in contrast, does not recognize any secular authority. This is because Mohammed combined secular and religious authority in his own person. In fact, the whole point of the religious aspects of Islam was to provide spiritual justification for Mohammed's depredations. Most of the Qur'an consists of Allah declaring that Mohammed is allowed to do whatever (or, as often as not, whomever) he wanted, or excoriating anyone who wasn't with the program. When he died, his successors (Kalifa, in Arabic, from which the term Caliph is derived) exercised his temporal and spiritual authority, until the end of the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire. Now, a new generation of Salafist Muslims is seeking to restore the Caliphate and expand its scope until, as the Qur'an states, there is only one religion in the world. One of the ways that they do this is by forcing Muslims who might be inclined to resist this to knuckle under the rule of imams. They do this by demanding the imposition of Sharia, which is applied, interpreted and enforced by the same people who just happen to favor a global Islamic Caliphate. Those Muslims who refuse to comply, who seek to take cases outside of the community, to appeal to the laws of the host nation, rather than the imams, are damned as blasphemers and apostates who, by trying to get a fair hearing, are denying the supremacy of Allah's law. Thus, Sharia imposes clerical rule on Muslim communities. It also serves to isolate them. A non-Muslim who has a dispute with a Muslim cannot expect a fair hearing in a Sharia court, where the testimony of a non-Muslim is worth only half of that of a Muslim (and in practice, far less than that), but a non-Muslim who refuses Sharia adjudication of a dispute will be accused of all manner of Islamophobia and bigotry. The end result is that non-Muslims will stear clear of Muslims as much as possible, causing further isolation and alienation of the Muslim community. Sharia is a tool of conquest masquerading as a legal code.