I agree with the court. We are not talking about the "enactment" of Sharia laws in U.S. state legislatures, we are talking about banning the practice of Sharia law in our communities. Fors instance, a temple requiring its female members to be covered.

 

You can't enforce that any more than a law that prohibits Baptist churches from requiring its members to follow the Ten Commandments.

The fact that they are trying to have it recognized by the courts speaks to the beauty of our country. They'll fail but they get their chance.

 

I'll agree on the court part, but there are liberal judges out there who would like to use other codes than the our Constitution.

I do not recall which one, but one of our Supreme Court justices said we need to expand how we view the law on a world basis, not just our Constitution.

I'll agree on the court part, but there are liberal judges out there who would like to use other codes than the our Constitution.

I do not recall which one, but one of our Supreme Court justices said we need to expand how we view the law on a world basis, not just our Constitution.

 

The beauty of our setup is that it takes a lot more than one judge.

 

You are talking about Justice Kagen who said she was willing to look at international law to help form her opinions. She is 1 of 9.

I'm not well-versed on this topic and I'm certainly not an expert on Sharia law.

 

Can someone give me examples of what they fear with this ruling?

 

I have no idea why they fear it but a case in Florida recently forced Muslims to use a Islamic cleric as a mediator in a contract dispute. The contract was between two Muslim's and in their contract they agreed to allow the cleric to be the mediator if an agreement arose. The Florida courts found that to be a valid mediation clause.

I have no idea why they fear it but a case in Florida recently forced Muslims to use a Islamic cleric as a mediator in a contract dispute. The contract was between two Muslim's and in their contract they agreed to allow the cleric to be the mediator if an agreement arose. The Florida courts found that to be a valid mediation clause.

 

Forced Muslims, or the contracting parties who had chosen the Muslim cleric to mediate any future disputes involving the breach of the contract? If it was what they contracted for, why would the courts or government interfere? It's not a religious thing, it was a private agreement b/n the parties right?

You do realize that many people who practice Islam in this country are American, right?

Yes and here are some notable American Muslims and THEIR accomplishments to America.

 

 

Hasan Akbar - convicted of premeditated murder in grenade attack on fellow soldiers.

 

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet - Egyptian-American who killed 2 people at the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport

 

Muzzammil Hassan - Founder of Bridges TV, a Muslim television network, received sentence of 25 to life for beheading his wife.

 

Mir Aimal Kansi - Pakistani-American convicted and executed for the shootings at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters.

 

John Walker Lindh - American Taliban

 

John Allen Muhammad - executed beltway sniper.

 

José Padilla - convicted of aiding terrorists and litigant before the United States Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla

^Do you want me to list some notable American Christians and their "accomplishments to America?

Jeffrey Dahmer

Ted Bundy

John Wayne Gacy

Robert Yates

Timothy McVeigh

I agree with the court. We are not talking about the "enactment" of Sharia laws in U.S. state legislatures, we are talking about banning the practice of Sharia law in our communities. Fors instance, a temple requiring its female members to be covered.

 

You can't enforce that any more than a law that prohibits Baptist churches from requiring its members to follow the Ten Commandments.

Bingo.

I'm sure the list can go on, but we are talking about our sharia law and Muslims, not the white trash you mentioned, how did I know you would post something about white christians

^What did what you posted have to with anything but your hatred of Muslims?

Forced Muslims, or the contracting parties who had chosen the Muslim cleric to mediate any future disputes involving the breach of the contract? If it was what they contracted for, why would the courts or government interfere? It's not a religious thing, it was a private agreement b/n the parties right?

 

Right. There are all sorts of scenarios like this across many religious groups in the United States. In a case like this one, there's always the possibility for judicial review to ensure that there isn't a business practice being undertaken that violates the applicable laws in the jurisdiction, but two parties of equal standing can negotiate for anything not illegal in a valid contract. Despite my admittedly limited, gentile choirboy background, my understanding is that orthodox Jewish communities in this country certainly use halakha, the collected body of law derived from the Bible, the Talmud and rabbinical scholarship.

Hate Muslims, I never said anywhere that I hate Muslims.

 

I don't hate Muslims no more than you hate Christians

, wait a minute, looking at some of your post I think you do hate Christians

^Your posts say otherwise.

 

Yep, because I defend the Islamic faith from ignorant bigotry must mean I hate Christians. :lol:

Ignorant bigotry huh, wow that is big words. Because I want Muslims to go by the US constitution don't mean I am a bigot or hate Muslims. Maybe you should join CAIR, so you can help them against us big mean Americans