Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think Castle Doctrine is equivalent to Sharia Law. In my opinion, the Castle Doctrine is a law that gives the right of self-defense to an individual in his/her own home. Sharia law on the other is used by Islamic governments and societies to treat those who have accused of crimes inhumanely (especially women and children). Things like throwing acid on a girl for not covering her face or cutting of her nose for not agreeing to an arranged marriage. That is cruel and there is no equivalence here. I asked the original question because I wanted to see how the Sharia defenders would respond.
Last edited by Bostonian123; 09-14-2010 at 11:38 AM..
This is a comment from my point of view as a liberal responsible for more than just me.
Sharia law is barbaric to the innocent and helpless. The Castle Doctrine allows a householder to protect his family from the guilty by using lethal force if necessary. I support the Castle Doctrine because I have a duty to protect anyone in my household from violent assault.
BTW - killing people that needed killing has never been a crime. Police and soldiers do it all the time. Killing is not a crime; murder is a crime.
Many people on CD criticize Sharia law as being barbaric and un-humane.
To those who have this view, how do you feel about the Castle Doctrine in certain US states?
The Castle Doctrine basically gives a homeowner the legal right to use force to kill or stop an intruder in his/her home that poses an imminent threat to the homeowner or any innocent person in the home.
Do you feel the Castle Doctrine is cruel because it gives one the right to kill another human being?
I cannot believe you are trying to equate the two with a straight face.
Many people on CD criticize Sharia law as being barbaric and un-humane.
To those who have this view, how do you feel about the Castle Doctrine in certain US states?
The Castle Doctrine basically gives a homeowner the legal right to use force to kill or stop an intruder in his/her home that poses an imminent threat to the homeowner or any innocent person in the home.
Do you feel the Castle Doctrine is cruel because it gives one the right to kill another human being?
I don't think it is even possible to compare one particular set statutes to an entire legal system.
I don't think Castle Doctrine is equivalent to Sharia Law. In my opinion, the Castle Doctrine is a law that gives the right of self-defense to an individual in his/her own home. Sharia law on the other is used by Islamic governments and societies to treat those who have accused of crimes inhumanely (especially women and children). Things like throwing acid on a girl for not covering her face or cutting of her nose for not agreeing to an arranged marriage. That is cruel and there is no equivalence here. I asked the original question because I wanted to see how the Sharia defenders would respond.
The op responded earlier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
