Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
State it clearly right now then, are you for outlawing sharia courts in the US? Yes or No?[/QUOTE]Please take a reading comprehension course!So basically, you defend the use of sharia courts. Are you one of sunni's socks or what?All that this proves is that there are hysterical bigots in the UK just like here:Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.
Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.
All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:
Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.
You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."
However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.
In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.
I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?
If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.
Sorry sport but Muslim women don't attend these Sharia tribunals by choice the evidence collected by member of the House of Lords and renowned human rights activist Baroness Cox for example shows that in the U.K. are being forced to use these parallel legal systems under the threats of violence, murder, and being ostracized from their families and communities.
Bow Group Report: "A Parallel World - confronting the abuse of Muslim women in Britain" | The Bow Group
The UK's Sharia 'courts'
UKIP says that: "the law of the land must apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law". Its leader has referred to "80 practising Sharia courts around the United Kingdom".
Are there 'Sharia courts' in Britain?
While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.
Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.
Sharia councils
Getting married for the purposes of your religion doesn't necessarily mean you are married in the eyes of the state.
Equally, the paperwork required for a civil divorce needn't be recognised by your religion.
For this reason, many Sharia councils exist to issue Islamic divorce certificates, and give advice on other aspects of religious law. They're often attached to mosques.
[QUOTE]In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.
Rather than open the door to "Sharia divorces", as some newspapers reported, the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately subject to English law.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is an example of this approach. It appoints one qualified lawyer and one expert in Islamic law to each case. In this way, it tries to ensure that the decision reached is in line with both secular and religious law.
So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying religious principles.
This doesn't make them courts as such. Their legal authority comes from being voluntarily chosen as a decision-maker, and they can't make any decisions that are contrary to national law.
Academics tend to be more relaxed, saying that "fears that councils are forming a parallel legal system appear to be unfounded". A new book by a Dutch researcher is reportedly more critical about how women in particular are treated.
Yes there are concerns, but it is not what the Bow group claims and the UK will address any issues just like we will here:
Researchers also stress that we need more information to work out how important Sharia councils are on the ground, and the experiences of people using them.
Similarly, the government now says that "there is evidence of a problem, but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved". It has commissioned a review into whether Sharia is being "misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law", to report in 2017.
So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law. The answer is no, but apparently you are either not bright enough to get that or you're just playing stupid. Which is it?The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, of which sharia is included. So the question becomes, which Amendments are more powerful than the others, and is that even possible to have one Amendment over rule another?Civil rights laws protect women and children have a whole set of laws that protect them.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?
State it clearly right now then, are you for outlawing sharia courts in the US? Yes or No?Please take a reading comprehension course!So basically, you defend the use of sharia courts. Are you one of sunni's socks or what?All that this proves is that there are hysterical bigots in the UK just like here:Sorry sport but Muslim women don't attend these Sharia tribunals by choice the evidence collected by member of the House of Lords and renowned human rights activist Baroness Cox for example shows that in the U.K. are being forced to use these parallel legal systems under the threats of violence, murder, and being ostracized from their families and communities.
Bow Group Report: "A Parallel World - confronting the abuse of Muslim women in Britain" | The Bow Group
The UK's Sharia 'courts'
UKIP says that: "the law of the land must apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law". Its leader has referred to "80 practising Sharia courts around the United Kingdom".
Are there 'Sharia courts' in Britain?
While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.
Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.
Sharia councils
Getting married for the purposes of your religion doesn't necessarily mean you are married in the eyes of the state.
Equally, the paperwork required for a civil divorce needn't be recognised by your religion.
For this reason, many Sharia councils exist to issue Islamic divorce certificates, and give advice on other aspects of religious law. They're often attached to mosques.
[QUOTE]In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.
Rather than open the door to "Sharia divorces", as some newspapers reported, the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately subject to English law.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is an example of this approach. It appoints one qualified lawyer and one expert in Islamic law to each case. In this way, it tries to ensure that the decision reached is in line with both secular and religious law.
So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying religious principles.
This doesn't make them courts as such. Their legal authority comes from being voluntarily chosen as a decision-maker, and they can't make any decisions that are contrary to national law.
Academics tend to be more relaxed, saying that "fears that councils are forming a parallel legal system appear to be unfounded". A new book by a Dutch researcher is reportedly more critical about how women in particular are treated.
Yes there are concerns, but it is not what the Bow group claims and the UK will address any issues just like we will here:
Researchers also stress that we need more information to work out how important Sharia councils are on the ground, and the experiences of people using them.
Similarly, the government now says that "there is evidence of a problem, but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved". It has commissioned a review into whether Sharia is being "misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law", to report in 2017.
So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law. The answer is no, but apparently you are either not bright enough to get that or you're just playing stupid. Which is it?The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, of which sharia is included. So the question becomes, which Amendments are more powerful than the others, and is that even possible to have one Amendment over rule another?Civil rights laws protect women and children have a whole set of laws that protect them.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?
The First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law. The answer is no, but apparently you are either not bright enough to get that or you're just playing stupid. Which is it?The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, of which sharia is included. So the question becomes, which Amendments are more powerful than the others, and is that even possible to have one Amendment over rule another?Civil rights laws protect women and children have a whole set of laws that protect them.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just playing a sick game. Nobody could really be that stupid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You pro-Sharia advocates deserve to be forced to wear a Burka.‘A wave of anti-Muslim rallies planned for almost 30 cities across America on Saturday by far-right activists has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and inspired counter-protests nationwide.
In cities including New York and Chicago, a few dozen “anti-sharia” demonstrators were outnumbered by counter-protesters.
[…]
The rallies have been organized by Act for America, which claims to be protesting about human rights violations but has been deemed an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The demonstrations prompted security fears at mosques across the country and come at a time when hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise.’
Anti-Muslim rallies across US denounced by civil rights groups
Such anti-Muslim organizations are as ignorant as they are bigoted, hateful, and wrong.
duh.
I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck upThe First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law. The answer is no, but apparently you are either not bright enough to get that or you're just playing stupid. Which is it?The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, of which sharia is included. So the question becomes, which Amendments are more powerful than the others, and is that even possible to have one Amendment over rule another?Civil rights laws protect women and children have a whole set of laws that protect them.
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just playing a sick game. Nobody could really be that stupid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Regressive Left is too invested in their ideology to change. They'll keep attacking Christianity while spinning for the pet constituent religion, no matter what.You know when we are going to see the complete erasure of PCness? When this shit with Sharia Law comes to a head........because the supporters of Sharia are going to increasingly become part of the news. Oh.....and not in a good way at all btw. You want to see a support group shut the fuck up real fast? LOL.....and it will have zero to do with congress!! Indeed.......as we have seen a billion times in the history of world events, when civil order starts breaking down, folks take shit into their own hands.
What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck upThe First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law. The answer is no, but apparently you are either not bright enough to get that or you're just playing stupid. Which is it?The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, of which sharia is included. So the question becomes, which Amendments are more powerful than the others, and is that even possible to have one Amendment over rule another?
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just playing a sick game. Nobody could really be that stupid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck upThe First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law. The answer is no, but apparently you are either not bright enough to get that or you're just playing stupid. Which is it?
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just playing a sick game. Nobody could really be that stupid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sharia Law is not a threat in this country. The US Constitution will not allow it.Sharia can not be allowed as an option or we're going to end up with the same shit as the UK, a parallel legal system being enforced through extrajudicial coercion at the community level. If you think women from these rabidly patriarchal societies where family honor is more important than life, actually have a say in these matters then there's no hope for you and makes you part of the problem.
No that is not the question Sparky. The question is does religious freedom take precedence over criminal law.The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, of which sharia is included. So the question becomes, which Amendments are more powerful than the others, and is that even possible to have one Amendment over rule another?Civil rights laws protect women and children have a whole set of laws that protect them.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?
I'll state it clearly. NO! And I explained why in #229 above which you could not even respond to. You are obviously to dense to get it,
Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?Well, I'll tell you something. It's interesting that I was able to find this story in about a half dozen publications and you chose the one from Fox news that is actually just a discussion about Sharia law in general and provides no actual facts of the case. Here is the real story: Articles: Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human RightsFOXNEWS. You might as well have linked to MAD magazine, at least we're funnier.Shows how in the dark you leftist freaks really are..
View attachment 132410
Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law
You will see that the case had to do with a dispute between two Muslim groups, a Mosque and a group of their trustees who were dismissed by the Mosque
The Mosque was opposed to the use of Sharia law in the arbitration
The use of religious law is not unusual to settle disputes with a religious group
In any case no one outside of a religious group is subject to religious law
So what the hell are you bleating about?
Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.
Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.
All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.
You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."
However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.
In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.
I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?
If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.
Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World Your own statement. Freedom was not invented by Mankind it has been with us since day one. Government, Kingdoms when they get oppressive become the enemy therefor man searches for freedom and if given a chance he will fight to keep it. This is the reason the, "so called Progressives" try to limit it. They limit it in small steps so that the Younger generation does not remember what freedom is or was about. Keeps the general trash group in line. The use of dope numbed the minds and also keeps the dirt bags in line. Sort of like the rulers of Rome had many events, Football baseball and e,t,c, kept the mind off the real events the lost of freedoms. I should add for the Progressive that Lions eating Christians, animal killings, were the events for the Romans.The regressives are incredibly tolerant of religion.
Well, one religion.
Well, their one pet constituent religion.
The most oppressive, anti-woman, anti-gay religion on the planet.
.
But wait, what about Christians in the 10th century ?!!!
Don't you think they're just as bad, and what's your thoughts on Joan of Arc ?
Thank you, but I think you mean that Sharia law is nul and void when the Person steps foot on American soil.Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?Well, I'll tell you something. It's interesting that I was able to find this story in about a half dozen publications and you chose the one from Fox news that is actually just a discussion about Sharia law in general and provides no actual facts of the case. Here is the real story: Articles: Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human RightsFOXNEWS. You might as well have linked to MAD magazine, at least we're funnier.
You will see that the case had to do with a dispute between two Muslim groups, a Mosque and a group of their trustees who were dismissed by the Mosque
The Mosque was opposed to the use of Sharia law in the arbitration
The use of religious law is not unusual to settle disputes with a religious group
In any case no one outside of a religious group is subject to religious law
So what the hell are you bleating about?
Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.
Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.
All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.
You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."
However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.
In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.
I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?
If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.
Pretty much how I think, just a much shorter version. The Progressive love the little Sheetheads and the Justice Code.Thank you, but I think you mean that Sharia law is nul and void when the Person steps foot on American soil.Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?Well, I'll tell you something. It's interesting that I was able to find this story in about a half dozen publications and you chose the one from Fox news that is actually just a discussion about Sharia law in general and provides no actual facts of the case. Here is the real story: Articles: Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights
You will see that the case had to do with a dispute between two Muslim groups, a Mosque and a group of their trustees who were dismissed by the Mosque
The Mosque was opposed to the use of Sharia law in the arbitration
The use of religious law is not unusual to settle disputes with a religious group
In any case no one outside of a religious group is subject to religious law
So what the hell are you bleating about?
Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.
Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.
All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.
You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."
However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.
In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.
I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?
If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.
The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck upThe First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just playing a sick game. Nobody could really be that stupid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?Well, I'll tell you something. It's interesting that I was able to find this story in about a half dozen publications and you chose the one from Fox news that is actually just a discussion about Sharia law in general and provides no actual facts of the case. Here is the real story: Articles: Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human RightsFOXNEWS. You might as well have linked to MAD magazine, at least we're funnier.
You will see that the case had to do with a dispute between two Muslim groups, a Mosque and a group of their trustees who were dismissed by the Mosque
The Mosque was opposed to the use of Sharia law in the arbitration
The use of religious law is not unusual to settle disputes with a religious group
In any case no one outside of a religious group is subject to religious law
So what the hell are you bleating about?
Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.
Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:
No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.
All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost
Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.
You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."
However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.
In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.
I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?
If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.
