Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by El_Guero, Dec 6, 2006.
God, US law, and muslim law . . .
Should Americans put up with muslim law here in the USA?
This land of the free stuff is really beginning to bite us in the backside. Freedom means we have to tolerate a person no matter their belief as long as it doesn't infrindge on us or our rights. This means no matter how patriotic you are another person has the right to burn the flag. I don't know about Muslim law specifically but they have the same rights as any other american.
Do any of the states currently accept Shari'ia laws as binding?
Not yet. But there is a city in Michigan that burps out the calls to prayer 5 x a day.
Then focus on this first step -- and reduce the noise level that would be offending citizens five times a day.
If neighbors complain about loud music in that area, surely loud speakers five times a day from dawn to dusk would be just as impactive.
Of course, any church that chimes the hour or plays the organ over loudspeakers would fall into that same category of public nuisance.
What does that even mean? Should we "put up with" Christian law?
It certainly should not be imposed on anyone with the force of local, state or federal law, but if a group voluntarily agrees to abide by it, can you prohibit it?
The neighbors are mostly muslim and want it that way in the US of A. When satan gets a foothold, it eventually becomes a stronghold.
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as "Christian Law" and yes, it should be prohibited. Criminal and civil law are administered in this country by duly appointed or elected officials according to the dictates of the Constitution.
Technically speaking, our judicial system and laws are based on Judeo-Christian laws and even include some of the 10 Commandments so if you choose not to "put up with" Christian laws, you just might find yourself in the pokey if you broke the law.
The first 3 commandments govern the relationship between God and man.
Commandments 4-8 govern public relationships between people.
Commandments 9 & 10 govern our attitudes/thoughts.
English does seem to trouble you. What part was difficult to understand? . . .
There are lots of groups that like your manner of thinking . . . narco terrorists, mafia, unorganized criminals, and of course, some muslims.
But, back to the OP. Should sharia law be allowed in the USA? Everywhere that islam goes, it begins to take over. Would sharia law be a step on the road to islamic domination of the USA?
OK, I'll give you this premise. Then the real question is, what do you propose to do about it? I mean, what should the U.S. do with Americans who convert to Islam?
That is a good question. Since it seems that their conversion undermines the freedoms of this country it is probably a question that should be addressed and soon.
No, English doesn't bother me, vagueness does.
What you mean by "putting up with Shariia law"? For instance, Shariia can mean a few related things, but it isn't law in the US, so what would we be putting up with if we so chose?
Or are you suggesting that private individuals not be allowed to follow Shariia among themselves? If they don't cross legal boundaries, I don't see how you would prevent it or what business it is of ours.
I don't believe you understand what my manner of thinking is.
Do you mean should Shariia become law here? If you're asking if we should chuck the US Constitution, the
criminal & civil code in favor of becoming an Islamic state, then no, that should not be allowed.
Yeah, it's the boogy-man.
Once more, it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean, would allowing private groups to settle private disputes according to the dictates of their religions, then no, of course not. If you mean, would mandating Shariia as the law of this land, then yes, it would.
In civil law, at least, two people can contract to settle their differences in a prescribed way. That's how arbitration works.
Well at least you began to answer questions - even if your answers were vague.
"[Under this circumstance] no, of course not" and "[under that circumstance] yes, it would" are vague? Do you know what "vague" means?
Sí, entiendo la palabra 'vague'. ¿Y tú? ¿Qué comprendes?
I understand that arbitration and muslim cultural laws have similarities. However, my concern is the undermining effect that this would have upon American Court Law - especially civil law. The pressure would be placed upon injured parties to accept islamic 'justice' if they wanted fair treatment . . . versus the pressured counter claim lawsuits if the injured party attempted to use the American (aka Christian) justice system.
Admitedly, this took several centuries in Bangledesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia for the progress and enforced islamic laws to gain precedence (there was quite a bit of blood shed as well).
I do not see that globalization of our court system would gain the USA anything good.
So under sharia law, could an American parent sue a muslim for mutilating children (Somalis do this regularly)?
There are other instances as well.
They are two different things that may on occasion overlap.
Coersion can be a problem in any justice system. American is not synonymous with Christian.
Bangladesh is not under shariia (yet). I don't know about Malaysia or Indonesia.
Which shariia law are you talking about and in what country?
Instances or examples?