I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United
States
courts cannot take place.
----
sharia, rabbinical or any other religious legal system should be
ignored by American courts.
you either live by American law or you leave our country
On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the total concept of banning Sharia from the United States
> courts cannot take place. A good example is that Plain Ol just cited. If
> there has been a contract or agreement that was entered into which was
> governed under Sharia law, then any court within the United States should
> interpret that agreement under the strictures of when and where the
> agreement was entered into.
>
> Where I do believe that there should be law enacted, is where Sharia is
> creeping up as :"The Law Of The Land" because one is Muslim. Horse
> Hockey. If you are a Muslim, (and again, I think the whole concept of
> Sharia and Islam should be outlawed in the United States until such time as
> it reforms and can be adaptable and tolerant of Western culture) then
> United States law, or State law, municipal code, etc. should be applicable,
> and not Sharia. This is not the case in certain municipalities, who have
> allowed for Sharia to over-ride American, State or local law. We have even
> seen courts set up in Great Britain which are Sharia courts. This is also
> being advocated by CAIR and other far left, Anti-American hate groups.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
> > ----
> > tit for tat
>
> > American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
> > they
> > are to argue persuasively for their own.
> > ---
> > watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun
>
> > the anti-sharia movement's
> > implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
> > fuels
> > hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
> > and
> > distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
> > and
> > our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
> > ---
> > the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy
>
> > Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
> > opposed
> > by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
> > public
> > square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
> > the
> > law, whether they are religious or irreligious
> > ---
> > the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related
>
> > On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> > > CIRCULATE!
> > > To:
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Look at the disturbing articles below. Two conservative publications - *
> > > Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America from
> > > Shariah!****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to shariah
> > to
> > > *religious intolerance*. He states that no one has been able to find a
> > > case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court. However, we know
> > > from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> > > performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50 examples
> > in
> > > 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional law.
> > > Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that *the
> > > anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating loyal
> > > Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty. He refers to
> > > those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American courts
> > > as "anti-Muslim bigots." ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > *An important note*: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4
> > million
> > > to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform. ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> > > persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country
> > Reports
> > > on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> > > Cooperation).****
>
> > > - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> > > presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> > > Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> > > - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> > > diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in Qatar for
> > > the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle East
> > > Policy of the Brookings Institution). ****
>
> > > - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of closed-door
> > > meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR. ****
>
> > > - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech
> > passed
> > > by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to
> > criticize
> > > Islam. (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > Janet Levy,****
>
> > > Los Angeles****
>
> > > ** **
> > > The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago Tribune
> > > and Reason)****
>
> > > **· ***[image: Steve
> > > Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> > > ****
>
> > > ****
>
> > > **· **Steve Chapman <
> >http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> > > ***
>
> > > **· **June 10, 2012****
>
> > > In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> > > country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> > > hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority
> > of
> > > the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be
> > as
> > > American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> > > We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief
> > that
> > > Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear
> > > that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> > > That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts
> > from
> > > applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana
> > and
> > > Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> > > unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> > > In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> > > prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other
> > > legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the
> > > bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> > > because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah
> > law."****
>
> > > Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned
> > to
> > > death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It
> > > seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no
> > > matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> > > The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to make
> > > sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other laws
> > and
> > > the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law
> > > of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true
> > > regardless.****
>
> > > The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor
> > > co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case
> > where
> > > a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a
> > verdict.*
> > > ***
>
> > > If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to
> > > divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> > > Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> > > govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with
> > the
> > > dictates of Islam.****
>
> > > The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> > > interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
> > merchants
> > > have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> > > court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.****
>
> > > If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance
> > with
> > > the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If
> > a
> > > Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what's it
> > > to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally
> > discriminate
> > > against one religion.****
>
> > > That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma
> > > ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the
> > state
> > > constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at
> > > Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.****
>
> > > In Kansas, by contrast, the lawmakers were so careful to avoid that
> > pitfall
> > > that they largely defanged the measure. A decision resting on the
> > > application of foreign or other legal codes would be invalid only if the
> > > verdict violates "the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges
> > granted
> > > under the United States and Kansas constitutions" -- something courts
> > > generally are not allowed to do anyway.****
>
> > > University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, who generally
> > > disapproves of anti-Shariah measures, says the Kansas law "is so narrowed
> > > and watered-down it doesn't look to me like a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment