Only in America

[OccupyThis]

Quote from stu:

Perhaps you're baffled because there is no problem.
No Oklahoma vote nor any other has attempted to apply Sharia law nor has anyone used any legal principles, tenets or precepts of it , nor has anyone tried or attempted to establish any ruling whatsoever from any foreign islamic nation or its culture.

There is no case.
You're talking emotional rubbish about muslims getting the whip hand when it's no such thing.

Oklahoma has been found to have voted against this Sharia nonsense for no reason in law, but apparently even that's enough to get you into an overreaction.
Isn’t that what they want ?

Under Sharia Law gay dolts like you can 'constitutional' be stoned in public. It's a punishable crime against God, a God you call everyone else an idiot for believing in.

Would you like to see gays stoned?

 

[OccupyThis]

Quote from stu:

In this country ideas are not banned, whether religiously motivated or not.

No, they're just over regulated till they die off whether religiously motivated or not.

 

[OccupyThis]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Some of you obviously don't get it.

What has happened elsewhere, eg europe, is these muslim communities want to apply "sharia law" among themselves. In most situations, unless a fundamental policy would be violated, courts here will allow parties to a contract or a dispute to stipulate the governing law. For example, you may live in Nebraska but your bank makes you sign a document that NY law aplies to your account.

Muslims want to be able to insist that their legal disputes with other muslims be decided not by the laws of the country they chose to live in, but under sharia. As part of that, the actual decision in most cases would be made by some religious figure, not by a US judge. If one party insisted on involving the courts, they would argue that the judge was required to apply sharia to decide the case.

Some of you no doubt would say, so what. If that's what they want to do, why should we object. The answer is that we have a legitimate policy interest in having our communities living under the same laws. If a majority of the residents of Watts wanted to let the heads of the Bloods and Crips decide all commercial disputes in their neighborhood, the authorites would never go along. That would mean they were setting up their own little city within a city, subject to different rules. Somehow however, when muslims are involved, liberals cannot surrender quickly enough. Maybe it's because they see it as a backhanded way of venting their anti-Christian bigotry, kind of like rooting against Tim Tebow.

This kind of dispute only arises because islam is not really a religion, as our laws and traditions understand religion. It is a dictatorial system of government with religious overtones. Courts are making a huge mistake in applying the Free Exercise clause to it in the same way they might with Methodists.

^ This

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Some of you obviously don't get it.

What has happened elsewhere, eg europe, is these muslim communities want to apply "sharia law" among themselves. In most situations, unless a fundamental policy would be violated, courts here will allow parties to a contract or a dispute to stipulate the governing law. For example, you may live in Nebraska but your bank makes you sign a document that NY law aplies to your account.

Muslims want to be able to insist that their legal disputes with other muslims be decided not by the laws of the country they chose to live in, but under sharia. As part of that, the actual decision in most cases would be made by some religious figure, not by a US judge. If one party insisted on involving the courts, they would argue that the judge was required to apply sharia to decide the case.

Some of you no doubt would say, so what. If that's what they want to do, why should we object. The answer is that we have a legitimate policy interest in having our communities living under the same laws. If a majority of the residents of Watts wanted to let the heads of the Bloods and Crips decide all commercial disputes in their neighborhood, the authorites would never go along. That would mean they were setting up their own little city within a city, subject to different rules. Somehow however, when muslims are involved, liberals cannot surrender quickly enough. Maybe it's because they see it as a backhanded way of venting their anti-Christian bigotry, kind of like rooting against Tim Tebow.

This kind of dispute only arises because islam is not really a religion, as our laws and traditions understand religion. It is a dictatorial system of government with religious overtones. Courts are making a huge mistake in applying the Free Exercise clause to it in the same way they might with Methodists.

In general if people make an agreement or contract between themselves in this country it is binding in law so long as the contract itself or the terms do not violate the law.
How ridiculous to suggest you isolate one group away from that and say they can't make contracts between themselves although they are subject to the same law of contract everyone else is subject to.
If muslims make arrangements or contracts that do not accord with US law, then the contracts simply don't stand.

Muslims may want to insist they do all kinds of stuff, but whether they like it or not the law is administered by a US judge and will decide. Not a religious figure of whatever persuasion.
Communities live under the same laws, that's why Oklahoma was thrown out. They too must live under US law just as any group in the community must.

This country's laws and traditions do indeed understand religion. It's one reason why the law is there, to at least neutralize the worst excesses of it. That goes for Christian or Islam or whatever other theocratic ideas or tendancies religion might try to impose upon others.

There is no free exercise being applied here. The Court is simply refusing to allow one group's intolerant boogey man fear as the only reason to discriminate against another group's insane religious ideas.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from stu:

The vast VAST majority of people in Oklahoma may or may not want to do lots of things that discriminate against certain sections of their community. It doesn't mean they should be able to make discrimination lawful or violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Because some muslims have a few weird and wacky religious ideas and call them Sharia law does not by itself prove , show, indicate or mean there is any threat, danger or anything concrete against any law of the land.

In this country ideas are not banned, whether religiously motivated or not.

If you don't like it, move to North Korea.

What discrimination? No one has said they cannot practice their religion, can't' meet and worship according to their beliefs, all the law does is ban decisions/arguments of Sharia Law from being used in Oklahoma Courts.

If the law was non-specific, banning all non-US laws from the courts, would that fly in your twisted ideology?

Generally Law is specific, hence the continuous search for loop-holes. Oklahoma, as many other States are also doing, is being proactive and getting ahead of an already growing problem.

I like it here, that's why I and 70% of my fellow Okies voted for the law.

Furthermore, the it's not a State Law but a State Constitutional Amendment, which may or may not be subject to Federal Authority.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This whole dispute seems to me to have been wrongly labelled a religious issue. It is about what sources of law can be applied in Oklahoma courts. Law, not religion. No one's "ideas" or religion is being nullified, except insofar as they believe that they have a right to set up a parallel community or government, separate and apart from everyon else, which of course is eactly what these radical muslims want to do.

CAIR and other extremist groups want to label anything they object to as being anti-muslim discrimination and wrap themselves in the First Amendment. They want to live here, but they want to set up an alternative government, run by imams and other clerics. then gradually, all muslims, who would otherwise assimilate, begin to find themselves under intense pressure to be part of it. We know where it ends. We only have to look to france, where the police are basically not allowed to enter muslim neighborhoods. Welfare checks can enter, just not the government or other frenchmen. Muslims only.

It's not like we don't already have a balkanization problem with the la raza crowd, who want to live here and collect welfare, but pretend they are still in mexico. I'm all for tolerance, etc, but history teaches that unassimilated immigrants, particularly from neighboring countries, are a predictable source of trouble.

 

[stu]

If this is wrongly labeled as a religious dispute, then I suggest - talking about muslims wanting decisions by religious figures , imams and clerics, not a US judge , or conjuring up accusations around some possible anti-Christian bigotry being vented just because people generally want to see the law and Constitution duly upheld - is disingenuous.

It is about religion and freedom from religion and religious laws. When the constitutional law is upheld in the way it has been in this instance, there is rightly so, no overriding inherent bias or pressure to adhere to any particular religion, Islamic, sharia law, or any other.

If the fear is people want to live here and try set up an alternative government with its own laws, I suggest try listening to and include a few home grown true blooded american self ruling God and flag nutcases in that mix. Then perhaps ask yourself what you'd expect if they should try to turn their particular style of psychosis into anything else - but some way off the chart extremist idea.
If people are being coerced threatened or discriminated against under intense pressure against their will to join some sharia law job or a Christian sect for that matter, how should they feel? In a law based democracy, exactly the same .

There are all kinds of unnasimmilated people across the whole spectrum of society. That requires a political remedy. The one underlying cohesive factor above all that is law and constitution. Refuse it to any group by discriminating one against another and history certainly teaches nothing but catastrophe.

 

[Trader666]

Appeasement of radical Islam under the euphemism of "multiculturalism" failed spectacularly across the pond:

In the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994
In France:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/February/Frances-Sarkozy-Multiculturalism-Has-Failed/
In Germany:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed
In the Netherlands:
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2219/netherlands-abandons-multiculturalism

And it will fail here too.

Sharia law is already a huge problem in the United States, as this 633 page report detailing 50 significant cases in 23 states shows. Unfortunately those cases are only the tip of the iceberg.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This whole dispute seems to me to have been wrongly labelled a religious issue. It is about what sources of law can be applied in Oklahoma courts. Law, not religion. No one's "ideas" or religion is being nullified, except insofar as they believe that they have a right to set up a parallel community or government, separate and apart from everyon else, which of course is eactly what these radical muslims want to do.

CAIR and other extremist groups want to label anything they object to as being anti-muslim discrimination and wrap themselves in the First Amendment. They want to live here, but they want to set up an alternative government, run by imams and other clerics. then gradually, all muslims, who would otherwise assimilate, begin to find themselves under intense pressure to be part of it. We know where it ends. We only have to look to france, where the police are basically not allowed to enter muslim neighborhoods. Welfare checks can enter, just not the government or other frenchmen. Muslims only.

It's not like we don't already have a balkanization problem with the la raza crowd, who want to live here and collect welfare, but pretend they are still in mexico. I'm all for tolerance, etc, but history teaches that unassimilated immigrants, particularly from neighboring countries, are a predictable source of trouble.

 

[Trader666]

You could be executed for blasphemy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which has a Federal Shariat Court to ensure that the laws of Pakistan comply with Sharia law. So maybe it's a good thing after all

Quote from stu:

If this is wrongly labeled as a religious dispute, then I suggest - talking about muslims wanting decisions by religious figures , imams and clerics, not a US judge , or conjuring up accusations around some possible anti-Christian bigotry being vented just because people generally want to see the law and Constitution duly upheld - is disingenuous.

It is about religion and freedom from religion and religious laws. When the constitutional law is upheld in the way it has been in this instance, there is rightly so, no overriding inherent bias or pressure to adhere to any particular religion, Islamic, sharia law, or any other.

If the fear is people want to live here and try set up an alternative government with its own laws, I suggest try listening to and include a few home grown true blooded american self ruling God and flag nutcases in that mix. Then perhaps ask yourself what you'd expect if they should try to turn their particular style of psychosis into anything else - but some way off the chart extremist idea.
If people are being coerced threatened or discriminated against under intense pressure against their will to join some sharia law job or a Christian sect for that matter, how should they feel? In a law based democracy, exactly the same .

There are all kinds of unnasimmilated people across the whole spectrum of society. That requires a political remedy. The one underlying cohesive factor above all that is law and constitution. Refuse it to any group by discriminating one against another and history certainly teaches nothing but catastrophe.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from Trader666:

You could be executed for blasphemy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which has a Federal Shariat Court to ensure that the laws of Pakistan comply with Sharia law. So maybe it's a good thing after all

We should take up a collection for his airfare.