Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by exits funnel, May 26, 2012.
It's good to see that Kansas has won the fight against Sharia Law!
Whew. That was close.
"Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that American laws prevailed on American soil."
Don't have a problem with this one bit. I would not trust some of our more radical judges and courts which in the past have entertained the possibility that sahria law could be considered in some legal cases.
LOL. I'm going to guess that you are probably a Fox news guy.
you guys are nuts!
This is troubling, but so is the stuff going on in Europe where Muslim neighborhoods refuse to submit to the laws and jurisdiction of the country in which they reside.
Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2
Oh my god. Some here are actually serious.
Why are people upset by this ruling? Just curious. I mean, religion shouldn't have a place in the court room, right? People shouldn't have religious beliefs forced upon them by the courts, right? Sharia Law is essentially a system of religious beliefs. You don't see issues with Orthodox Judaism or Christianity in the court room, do you?
I have to agree with the atheists on this one. Would a Muslim mayor of a predominantly muslim city govern with Sharia Law? I don't think so. He has to follow Federal and State law. People can practice whatever they want in their private lives, but if a muslim decides they don't want to be subjected to Sharia in their personal life, and some are literally forced to be, a US court should be able to protect them from what is essentially a form of religious persecution.
Remember, we don't want to be France.
It's this ridiculous fear mongering that bothers me. Like some mysterious "dark skinned" muslin is somehow going to immigrate into the US, settle into Prarie Village Kansas and slowly hypnotize the town into voting him as mayor. Then, once installed as Mayor change the laws of the town to Sharia law whereby he can force the population to renounce their god and pray to Allah.
If people are so worried about religoins setting up the own courts in the US where's the outrage over the Beth Din of America?
Hey it could happen. If someone had the foresight to plant Obama's birth announcement in the Honolulu paper 50 years ago, there certainly could be some would be Muslim alderman in Praire Village KS just biding his time and then BOOM - Sharia Law bitches!
Yes because the French and Danes have never had their muslim populations demand special treatment. People need to realize that the Islam at its core and Western culture are not compatible.
I'll go ahead and assume that you've done some extensive research on the core tenants of Islamic culture but what exactly does that have to do with Muslims invading Kansas and taking over society?
Don't all religions get special treatment? How about Kiryas Joel or Provo, Utah or Gold Base?
My response wasn't meant to be fear mongering. I don't think that is going to happen. I was merely throwing out a scenario where, regardless of the religious make up of a city, town, village, etc, the laws of the US are the only basis that a municipality can operate under. A town trying to invoke Sharia would be like those radical Mormon sects that buy up tracts of land, build walls and then call themselves a "town" when in reality they are nothing more than a cult.
Another example is the Amish. They choose to live their lives without the conveniences of modern society and by their religious beliefs. That's fine. They have the freedom to do that. But if a murder or some other crime happens on their land, the state police get involved, I believe.
The thing with Sharia is that it condones killing, torture, etc, in the name of religious beliefs, which is something that cannot be tolerated. It might be OK in mud brick huts and lawless lands halfway around the world, but that isn't part of the Freedom of Religion our BOR protects.
It's one thing to freely practice your faith (go to church, temple, mosque, the woods) but it's another to think that you got away with in the old country will be allowed in this country.
You always hear about how intolerant Mormons can be to their own in cases where someone refuses to obey the dogma of the church. They can excommunicate and ostracize people from their churches and functions, and even from their own family in certain severe cases. But they cannot deny them the civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution. No religious group is above the law in this country.
This is a strange response. First you ask this:
And then you answer it here:
This law addresses an issue that doesn't exist and does so for the absolutely sole purpose of sticking its finger in the eyes of the states (few) muslims. This bill is simply a proxy by which Kansas christians are able to express their dislike for muslims. (aside: one of the many reason that I am critical of the degree to which the GOP has married itself to Christianity is that the religious political right, even as they whine about their own made up persecution (why can't I send my kid to public school with a giant four foot cross plastered on top of his head?!) are almost invariably the first to trample on the religious freedom of others.
Yes, let's not forget that crucial data point. Ugh.
I am not a particular fan of Sam Brownback but this is a real chance for him to do the right thing and bring honor to his office. I hope that he takes advantage of it.
edit: added a few words because the first version was just a tad too short.
Exits, look I'm not here to start a war of words about this ruling. The only thing I know about Sharia Law is what I see on TV, and what I have seen of it is pretty brutal and intolerant. Also, I don't even care what they do in Kansas. But I don't think that people who come here to live in this country should expect that things are going to be like they were in The Old Country. You move into my house, you follow my rules.
What do you know about Sharia Law? Why do you support it? Do you see it as something that should be tolerated and legitimized in the US? I'm just trying to figure out why some people are outraged by this ruling. I can see you aren't a fan of the religious right, but do you really see this as a Christian vs Muslim ruling?
Again, my example of a town mayor was not to suggest a takeover. All I was saying is that if a town is predominantly Muslim, let's take Dearborn, MI, for example, and the mayor of the town/city is also a Muslim, he's not elected into office to uphold Sharia Law. He is elected to follow the laws of the United States. Judges are elected/appointed to uphold the Constitution and the laws of their State, not the Koran or the Bible. Lawyers go to school to learn how to practice the laws of the United States. Someone expecting a judge to follow or rule based on "Sharia Law" is like someone expecting them to rule based on "The Ten Commandments".
If some guy wants to force Sharia Law on his family inside his own home, so be it. But his beliefs have no place in a court of law.
Any lawyers want to weigh in on this? Am I just missing the boat on this? If I am, so be it. I can accept that. But I don't see any problem with Kansas voting the way they did. Just like I don't fault Arizona for voting like they did on border protection and illegal immigration.
I don't think this is necessarily a laughing matter. There was an Iraqi in Buffalo who beheaded his wife a couple years ago in an "honor killing" under Islamic law. Once the population has topped 5% in various European countries, grassroots support grows among Muslims that Sharia Law should control religious matters. Hey, it's all in the name of religious freedom, just like these people trying to prevent medical coverage for birth control.
Yes, honor killings are no laughing matter for sure. But this thread isn't about that. Was the guy who chopped off his wife's (wasn't it actually his ex-wife?) head tried under sharia? Was he almost tried under sharia? Was there talk of his being tried under sharia?
That's the point! The guy in Buffalo MURDERED his wife in cold blood. She was trying to divorce him, and he was insulted. So, by Sharia Law, he feels he was in his rights to kill her. Guess what? Sharia Law don't go 'round here, Mr. Clanton. It's murder under NYS law. It's murder under Federal Law. There should be no talk of Sharia in the case. Period. If someone's feelings are hurt in Kansas now, there won't be any 'Sharia Law Defense'. The people have spoken. That's what democracy is all about.
You're right. He wasn't tried by Sharia Law. That's the point. Sharia isn't law. It's a system of religious beliefs based on an interpretation of the Koran. If he had done that in Iran, he would have been free to marry again and kill some other woman for embarrassing him.
So, because a Pakistani man had psychological problems and beheaded his wife we should all be afraid of Islam infiltrating our society?
I don't think this guy is a Muslim. Are his people going to take over our society?
Ohio corrections officer claims he beheaded wife
I believe our justice system handled the case well. According to to the NYT "A jury deliberated for one hour before rejecting his claim that the killing was justified because he was long abused by and afraid of his wife."
Ooh Sharia Law - its almost taken us over don't you know. Pass a law. Joke.
Does anyone have any proof that this law in Kansas was motivated by a fear that Muslims are taking over? I think that's a bit of a stretch. Do I think a law like that is necessary? No. But, if that's what the people of Kansas want for Kansas, who am I to tell them otherwise. I don't live there. I think the people who are scared of this law are just as bad as people who think Radical Islamists are taking over the US.
Exits, you never answered my questions about why you are so against this law in Kansas and why you feel the need to defend Sharia Law. This is not about the people of Kansas discriminating against all Muslims, you do know that right? This isn't some vast right wing Christian conspiracy either. Frankly, I think there are a few European countries that wish they had done what Kansas just did about 20 years ago.
Kansas banned Sharia Law and some posters think its an attack on Islam? I have a few Muslim friends who would like to tell you that they too, dont believe in Sharia Law.
Oh wait, I get it. The posters mocking this are way more cultured and open minded than those dumb redneck Kansas folk. In between watching Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher they scour the internet for articles to express some kind of fake outrage over.
Ugh. Did you even read anything I posted in this thread? It's not as though there was anything subtle about the argument. In any event, I didn't defend Sharia, even implicitly. The point isn't that sharia isn't horrible (it is); the point is that there is no danger of Kansas adopting sharia law. The whole idea is absurd. This bill doesn't exist to solve any problem, because no problem exists. It simply exists as an expression of bigotry against Muslims.
No, of course not, but he invoked it in his defense. That was my point. Slippery slope.
Sorry for the wrong nationality. I was going to post "IIRC", but you saved me the trouble.
For the record, it's about any religion's laws being the basis of governing in our country. There are lots of people in this country who feel that we are a Christian country, and should abide by God's laws. You see them on TV all the time.
Actually, if you read the news story about the bill, it doesn't mention Sharia law or any religious law; it bans foreign laws being applied in US courts unless they ensure the same protections as are contained in the constitution. Wasn't bigoted at all, the way it was drafted.
C'mon now. Did this bill, just all of the sudden after 150 years of statehood, appear out of thin air with no context at all? Or maybe it's that they are worried about the Quakers or the Hutterites (gloriously pronounced Hooterites and my personal favorite religious minority)?
It's not bigotry towards all Muslims. It is a law specifically aimed at a radicalized religious doctrine used to govern in other parts of the world.
I saw a sentence in an article last night that summed it up pretty clearly: American laws in American courts. This bill is about keeping judges from considering or referencing foreign laws or legal codes in their decisions. I can see now why some people are so upset. It cuts the nuts off of some of the extremely liberal judges who have been pushing the boundaries in the courts.
American laws in American courts. This isn't about bigotry. I didn't see anything in there that stated Muslims could not practice their religion in Kansas.
Those extremely liberal judges were just chomping at the bit for an opportunity to apply non-American law. Come on Pete you're smarter than that.
Of course they aren't, I know that. But apparently there are some cases out there where judges did reference foreign laws. At any rate, I don't live in Kansas, I don't care about Kansas, and I won't defend Kansas. I will simply state that Sharia Law is despicable and a throwback to the stone ages. Most Muslims in this country do not subscribe to that line of thinking. There are radicals here, for sure (why, I don't know). But there are radicals here representing all religions. I worry as much about Sharia as I do about the potential for a polygamist compound popping up next door to me. If the people of Kansas want this bill, then let them have it.
All of this got me thinking, though. If Kansas were to pass a bill banning visits to the state by Hakim Warrick, would that be discriminatory? Also, what does Zach Tomaselli think of this bill? After all, it does impact his favorite college team.
I have my own version of the Bill. Here it goes.
-new laws that are not laws will not be followed as laws unless they happen to agree with the already established laws in which case they are not new laws rather simply old laws masquerading as new laws.
the entire thing is stupid. this is like making a law that says 2 + 2 = 4. JUST IN CASE SOME FOREIGNERS WERE GONNA COMER HERE AND TRY TO APPLY THE NEW MATH.
wasn't Kansas also the state that tried to pass a law mandating schools teach intelligent design as a legitimate "competing" theory to evolution?
sort of ironic that they would pass a law banning some backward foreign concepts from ever touching ground in their state yet they tried to do the exact same thing themselves.
I haven't read the bill, but how would this affect an otherwise lawful contract that parties implemented under Sharia and stipulated that any dispute should be adjudicated under Sharia? As long as beheading wasn't a penalty under the contract, this law would be insanely easy to prove unconstitutional, since the right to contract is pretty secure.
When you said 'contract' I immediately thought of marriage. Marriage is a contract governed by both church and state. If you want to get married, you have to get a license. If it's a religious ceremony, ie conducted by a priest, rabbi, etc, you sometimes have to sign a religious contract. I know my friend, who is Jewish, had to sign a contract at the ceremony. To get a divorce, you have to go to family court. You also have to seek an annulment by the church before they recognize it and allow you to remarry. That may or may not mean something to someone depending on just how religious they are.
I don't know anything about marriage in Islam, but is assume it is very close to Judaism where contracts are signed, etc. That being the case, if a Muslim man and woman were to get married here in the US, they have to do everything that a Christian has to do when it comes to the laws of the state. Let's say they are devout and sign a religious pact that happens to follow Sharia. That contract only means something in the structure of their religion and is not a concern of the state. Therefore, anything they might bring forward in a court room relating to the 'contract' is immaterial. That is something they have to take up with the Imam, I would guess.
Now, I think it would be obvious that the Sharia contract would not have anything in there in terms of killing, torture, etc. However, if the guy is a radical nut job who follows Sharia Law from the old country and decides to kill or maim her because she embarrassed him in the community, then he's gotta face the music. He'll go before the state court and Sharia won't mean squat (at least it shouldn't). Any judge who would listen to such a defense should be disbarred anyway.
So, I guess Kansas is a bit over the edge.
How about this as a reason to be upset: once again our lawmakers are wasting our phucking money on stupid legislation. There is not a judge in this country applying sharia law to any matter. they wouldnt even think of it. As Exits clearly stated, it attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. Dumb.
Separate names with a comma.