USA appeals court uphold Sharia law.

[Total Head]

I don't see the difference. If it violates state and federal law then it is not allowed. No religious law or faith trumps the constitution. You're making a mountain out of a shit pile.

that's the point. there is no difference.

the fact that this was even put to a vote in the first place reflects the concern that people have of people using religious justifications for their actions in a court of law. things like women wanting to wear burkas in driver's licence photos, or as winterwoman said, discriminating against people as a business practice because their religion forbids such-and-such. if you relied on certain business relationships to make your company run, and people refused to deal with you because you are gay, then sited religious reasons, i'd think you'd be pretty pissed. the question then becomes whether or not they can use it as a defense in court. you may say it's not going to stand up, but i wouldn't be so sure about that nowadays. depending on who's sitting on the bench that day some goofy decisions can get handed down.

15 years ago if a male muslim clerk refused to serve a woman she could fuss it up with the courts. fast forward to present day with all this hyper-pc nonsense and that same woman is labelled a bigot for calling the man's faith into question. i can certainly understand a collective fear that this pc nonsense would logically extend to an eventual erosion of basic freedoms. people are wanting to nip this in the bud before it becomes more of an issue.

i can understand how an outright ban on shariah law can come across as bigoted. but be honest. how else can you tell people they can't wear head coverings in government issued IDs and they can't have honor killings WITHOUT addressing muslims? even if the word "muslim" was never mentioned in the wording it would be clear who it was directed toward and then we would be hearing all about how "sneaky" it is. politics is sickening.

 

[Jack Harer]

Carne, I didn't see anyone say that they can't practice whatever religion they want to, unless the practice violates US law. They are wanting (as I see it) to be prosecuted for crimes in our courts under Islamic law. If that's OK, then we all need to become Rastafarians and then we could smoke weed legally, because our religion condones it, and we'd have to be prosecuted under the tenets of Rasta Law.

 

[WeedKillsBrainCells]

Carne, I didn't see anyone say that they can't practice whatever religion they want to, unless the practice violates US law. They are wanting (as I see it) to be prosecuted for crimes in our courts under Islamic law. If that's OK, then we all need to become Rastafarians and then we could smoke weed legally, because our religion condones it, and we'd have to be prosecuted under the tenets of Rasta Law.

I think I remember a case in the uk where a rasta got away with that excuse

 

[UncleBuck]

It is not a religion of peace, anymore. Ok, maybe it's been hi-jacked (no pun intended) there needs to be complete condemnation from large numbers of Muslims. But, I don't see any.

yeah, and i don't see many christians condemning the hate spewed by people like santorum or bachmann.

 

[guy incognito]

The issue is that they want Muslims to be tried in our courts under Sharia law, not under US law. There are a lot of problems with that, mostly in the realm of womens rights, polygamy, and genital mutilation. In an Islamic country, women are property, much like pets here. A husband has the right to put a woman to death for any number of infractions, and a father has that right over his children as well.




There is a huge difference between practicing a religion and violating the laws of your guest country, and expecting to be judged by the customs of your homeland. I can promise you that if a Catholic church were to open up in Afghanistan, and if they tried to use wine as a sacrament, the Taliban would be all over them for alcohol. (A HUGE no-no in Islam) They couldn't claim religious freedom over there because it doesn't exist.
Most places in the Muslim world are starting to become grudgingly more tolerant to western influence, but there are a lot of places where genital mutilation is still practised and strict Islamic law holds sway. And strict Islamic law isn't radical Islam. Islamic law really is benevolent and merciful, under Islamic customs!! It's all in what you get used to.

No they don't. "They" didn't want anything other than to practice their religion. It was the rest of Oklahoma that preemptively put it on the ballot. Go back and read post #31 for a clear summation of what this thread (and the article) was really about.

 

[Jack Harer]

No they don't. "They" didn't want anything other than to practice their religion. It was the rest of Oklahoma that preemptively put it on the ballot. Go back and read post #31 for a clear summation of what this thread (and the article) was really about.

What I read in #31 was that the proposed bill would prohibit the consideration by the courts of either international law or Sharia law when interpreting US law, and that the bill was defeated. How is that NOT wanting the courts to consider Sharia law for Muslim defendants? They may not have actually put that there, but if someone hadn't, some lawyer would read the vague points and get it in there as de facto law.
As bad as I hate the system now, we just cant have a court and legal system for every nationality out there. It has to be made clear and kept clear that anyone who violates US law will be tried and punished by US law, not the laws of their native land. And if that pisses some people off, sorry 'bout that. Can you IMAGINE how fucked up this could get?

 

[neosapien]

I've only ever met 1 Muslim in my entire life. Her name was Hana, she was from Albania and helped set up quickbooks for me at work. She was one of the most beautiful people, inside and out, that I have ever met. I tend to believe the majority of Muslims are just like her.

 

[guy incognito]

What I read in #31 was that the proposed bill would prohibit the consideration by the courts of either international law or Sharia law when interpreting US law, and that the bill was defeated. How is that NOT wanting the courts to consider Sharia law for Muslim defendants? They may not have actually put that there, but if someone hadn't, some lawyer would read the vague points and get it in there as de facto law.
As bad as I hate the system now, we just cant have a court and legal system for every nationality out there. It has to be made clear and kept clear that anyone who violates US law will be tried and punished by US law, not the laws of their native land. And if that pisses some people off, sorry 'bout that. Can you IMAGINE how fucked up this could get?

No. It would be like people being prejudice and afraid of graham crackers, so much so that the people would initiate a bill that says courts are prohibited from eating graham crackers when considering a case. Then the makers of graham crackers are like "uh, hey that's not fair. Why are you specifically targeting us for no reason?", and the courts going "yeah, pretty much. This bill doesn't make sense and was directly aimed at graham crackers for no valid reason. This amendment is bullshit, and is invalid". And then you come along and are outraged saying "OMG the courts say you MUST eat graham crackers when deciding a case!!!! ridiculous!!!"

They aren't saying sharia law is ok, or that any part of us laws don't need to be followed. They are strictly saying that there was no valid reason to have that amendment in the first place, so it's invalid.

 

[Jack Harer]

And they are!! I have friends in Saudi, Morocco, and Lebanon. They are salt of the earth. But ask them if they condone the treatment of women as laid out by Mohammed and the Koran. They will in all probability agree.

 

[Carne Seca]

There is a huge difference between practicing a religion and violating the laws of your guest country, and expecting to be judged by the customs of your homeland.

What the hell are you talking about? These are American citizens.

 

[Carne Seca]

No they don't. "They" didn't want anything other than to practice their religion. It was the rest of Oklahoma that preemptively put it on the ballot. Go back and read post #31 for a clear summation of what this thread (and the article) was really about.

You're wasting your time. They have the bit in their mouth and are running with it. Facts be damned.

 

[Mindmelted]

What the hell are you talking about? These are American citizens.

Who should have to follow american laws...Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And no fucking exceptions......

 

[Carne Seca]

Who should have to follow american laws...Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And no fucking exceptions......

Who the hell said they weren't? This was strictly a political ploy. Nothing else.

 

[Mindmelted]

Who the hell said they weren't? This was strictly a political ploy. Nothing else.

So says you!!!!!!!!!!!
So you think the woman should be able to wear there veils for photos huh!!!!!
That is not following the LAW of the land,Trying to use their religion as a reason.

 

[Winter Woman]

Sorry, I don't follow any R's, or D's for that matter. But, I do agree to a point.

yeah, and i don't see many christians condemning the hate spewed by people like santorum or bachmann.

 

[Jack Harer]

What the hell are you talking about? These are American citizens.

My bad, For some reason I was thinking immigrant Muslims.