Banning Sharia in America (poll, Massachusetts, state, claims)
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.
What, specifically, about these accounts and mortgages violates current american law?
If these accounts and mortgages don't violate current american law, and you feel these accounts and mortgages should be prohibited by american law, please give a specific reason why. Hint - "because I don't like it" is a legally weak reason.
My credit union offers many services and products that I'll never use. Doesn't hurt my feelings a bit.
I never said anything about not liking it. I have no problem with it as long as there are non-sharia compliant alternatives. My point was that CAIR and the MBH are involved in incorporating Sharia compliance (regardless of whether or not no one cares). I never stated that sharia compliant banking was breaking any laws, nor did I say that I "feel" these accounts are prohibited by American Law, that is clearly YOUR inference of what I stated.
I am a strong believer in America being a nation of laws and that those laws should be based solely on what is allowed under the US Constitution. Any Sharia laws that are incompatible with the US Constitution should never be allowed to be implemented here. My post was merely an example of how Sharia is infiltrating our country, regardless of how innocuous these initial implementations may be.
when was the last time a Jewish man was arrested in the US for honor killing his daughter or beheading his wife? it's as if you deliberately want to show everyone you know nothing about making analogies.
Exactly where in the US - or in any western european nation - is it legal to honor kill your daughter or behead your wife?
"EXTREMISM" Like extremism when someone thinks it ok to kill you for making a movie that shows your prophet? I can take out a crucifix or statue of Buddha, dunk it in a tub of excrement and put it on You Tube and walk out knowing a religious leader is not issuing a Fatwa to have me killed. Not so much with making a movie about Mohammad, even if it is done in good taste. Sounds EXTREME to me.
The VAST majority of Muslims in the world ignore the insults to their religion. They don't try to kill you for making a stupid and shoddy movie that insults the founder of their religion. Some Muslims protested the movie peacefully. And an even smaller number resorted to violence. That small number were extremists. The religion itself is not extremism.
I mentioned only 2 incidents where Muslim men in the US have practiced SHARIA LAW. One was in AZ, who "honor killed" his daughter for dating a non Islamic boy. The other, was a man from upstate NY who beheaded his wife for not cooking him dinner. Those stories, and others are available online for anyone curious enough to look. OF COURSE they were arrested, because this country, unlike most Islamic ones doesn't practice sharia law.
I really don't understand all your babbling about Jewish tenants and laws. All of which are completely irrelevant to any part of this discussion. you need to slow down before you respond, because you aren't making any sense.
In neither one of those instances does the murderer get off because he was "practicing Sharia law."
Murder is already a bit illegal regardless of anyone's religious reasonings.
You can no more ban Sharia law in a constitutional republic with its own secular laws, then you could ban jewish civil courts or Christian faith based arbitration. Civil matters can be decided outside of the state and federal courts by any number of religious based ways so long as they don't run afoul of written law and both parties agree by contract, which can be enforced by the state, to abide by the decision. Banning Sharia Law is a legally meaningless gesture that throws meat to people who don't know what it is to start with.
I'm talking about Jewish people writing contracts that abide by the tenets of their religion.
And I'm talking about Muslim people writing contracts that abide by the tenets of their religion.
We have no reason to outlaw Muslim people from observing Sharia laws. We have every reason to enforce our secular laws. If someone breaks a secular law, we arrest them and prosecute them for doing so. Christian faith, Jewish faith, Islamic faith, are not justification for breaking laws. But when we target just one faith, we weaken our Constitutional defense against religious-biased laws.
That is all well and good, but what happens when the contract, created under the auspices of Jewish or Islamic law, is breached? If the parties want to adjudicate their claims, what court of law do they go to for justice? What if those courts render a finding under religious doctrine, yet one person still feels that there was no justice from that result, should they then be allowed to resort to civil court and have the US judicial system adjudicate the contract? Should a US judge be required to adjudicate a legal dispute under the Jewish laws or under Sharia?
I see where you are coming from and I am always on the side of religious freedom protections, but there are instances where you have to draw the line, and for me, that line is when laws that are incompatible with US laws, then US law trumps everything.
I mentioned only 2 incidents where Muslim men in the US have practiced SHARIA LAW. One was in AZ, who "honor killed" his daughter for dating a non Islamic boy. The other, was a man from upstate NY who beheaded his wife for not cooking him dinner. Those stories, and others are available online for anyone curious enough to look. OF COURSE they were arrested, because this country, unlike most Islamic ones doesn't practice sharia law.
I really don't understand all your babbling about Jewish tenants and laws. All of which are completely irrelevant to any part of this discussion. you need to slow down before you respond, because you aren't making any sense.
Well, as long as these men were arrested and prosecuted under existing american law, what is the need to ban sharia law????
It is possible to find horrific crimes perpetrated by non-muslims who were convinced they were acting as "god" (whichever god they worship) would be pleased. Who cares what they believe? It's the acts we punish, not thought crimes.
when was the last time a Jewish man was arrested in the US for honor killing his daughter or beheading his wife? it's as if you deliberately want to show everyone you know nothing about making analogies.
No, he is asking a valid question and making a valid point. Sharia law is more than honor killings, etc., the law covers everything, just as US law does. And, he was speaking specifically with regard to contracts. I doubt Jews or Muslims enter into contracts with regard to beheadings and honor killings.
I never said anything about not liking it. I have no problem with it as long as there are non-sharia compliant alternatives. My point was that CAIR and the MBH are involved in incorporating Sharia compliance (regardless of whether or not no one cares). I never stated that sharia compliant banking was breaking any laws, nor did I say that I "feel" these accounts are prohibited by American Law, that is clearly YOUR inference of what I stated.
I am a strong believer in America being a nation of laws and that those laws should be based solely on what is allowed under the US Constitution. Any Sharia laws that are incompatible with the US Constitution should never be allowed to be implemented here. My post was merely an example of how Sharia is infiltrating our country, regardless of how innocuous these initial implementations may be.
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
So I don't get why the fear of sharia law. Since I find it extremely unlikely that any muslim using sharia law as a defense against a serious crime in a US court would get any traction at all.
I can't help but noticing Iraq is on that map. I thought the (revised) purpose of going there was to liberate them and usher in democracy?
It was, but Obama removed all security forces which led to instability, which lead to the overthrow of the democratically elected president and the chaos that is ISIS.
That is all well and good, but what happens when the contract, created under the auspices of Jewish or Islamic law, is breached? If the parties want to adjudicate their claims, what court of law do they go to for justice? What if those courts render a finding under religious doctrine, yet one person still feels that there was no justice from that result, should they then be allowed to resort to civil court and have the US judicial system adjudicate the contract? Should a US judge be required to adjudicate a legal dispute under the Jewish laws or under Sharia?
I see where you are coming from and I am always on the side of religious freedom protections, but there are instances where you have to draw the line, and for me, that line is when laws that are incompatible with US laws, then US law trumps everything.
Contracts have stipulations for how a breach is handled. If those stipulations aren't satisfactory, the parties may take the dispute to civil court. That's the way it's been handled for hundreds of years. Why is this not appropriate for Sharia-compliant contracts?
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.
