I've always liked those Aussies...

[Nightshade]

And they also "get it" about the incompatibility of sharia in a western democracy:

Australian Attorney-General, Robert McClelland has stated that: "Sharia law has no place in the Australian legal system." "As our citizenship pledge makes clear, coming to Australia means obeying Australian laws and upholding Australian values."

http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2011/05/a ... haria.html

[null0010]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of why sharia law is a threat to this nation.

[Will Robinson]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of why sharia law is a threat to this nation.

Sharia law is based on religion, contains numerous violations of civil rights, equal rights, etc. and that is a direct threat to our constitution and our secular system.

[Foil]

Sharia law is based on religion, contains numerous violations of civil rights, equal rights, etc.

Absolutely! It's a perfect example of the evil unholy union of religion and government.

...and that is a direct threat to our constitution and our secular system.

How so? Sharia law has zero legal authority here.

--------

As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing more than political fear-hype.

For example (as I posted in another thread) politicians my home state of Oklahoma recently passed a bull**** bill by advertising it as "anti-Sharia". It makes no sense whatsoever. There have been no arbitrations where Sharia law was involved, there are no areas of Oklahoma law subject to Sharia; it's not a threat in any legal arena, and the bill actually causes significant problems for people working on international cases (like adoptions).

[Heretic]

Maybe you all should watch this.

http://www.justice.gov/crs/training_vid ... /Intro.htm

[Foil]

Heretic, pointing out potential danger from Arab/Muslim violence is fine, but irrelevant here. A group does not obtain legal authority just because they can be violent.

The claim that Sharia law is a danger to the U.S. is a legal argument, and it has no real basis, IMO.

Before the cries of "look at France!", remember that they intentionally gave Sharia a level of legal authority, which was a dumb-ass move. And before the cries of "but it could happen here too!", remember that the opposite is happening here (states are starting to pass bills to cut Sharia authority which never even existed).

[Heretic]

So how about Judge Joseph Charles who refused a restraining order based on Islamic law to a woman who had been raped repeatedly by her husband in the eyes of the law of the United States? If he were Christian you think he would of gotten away with it?

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/ ... tates.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/ad ... es-ruling/

Take a look for Texas Islamic Court if you dare. It's also showing up In Minnesota.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7160224_shari ... urts_.html

Like the U.S. legal tradition, many American scholars argue that shari 'a ought to be understood as an evolving legal system, as opposed to a pure and unchanging representation of divinely revealed law.

Once the elite scholars start teaching their students this what do you think will happen?

[Foil]

So how about Judge Joseph Charles who refused a restraining order based on Islamic law..?

Check your sources again. He's a moron, and his decision was quickly overturned: hxxp://www.dvanarelli.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/S.D.-v.-M.J.R..pdf

That's a pretty good example that things work as they should, with Sharia/tradition holding zero legal status against our laws.

Take a look for Texas Islamic Court if you dare. It's also showing up In Minnesota.

Um, we already discussed that one, and it was quite clear that the "court" being described does not represent the justice department, and only handles arbitration agreements (which are still subject to U.S. law!).

Once the elite scholars start teaching their students [sharia as an evolving system] what do you think will happen?

Okay, now you're jumping into pure speculation and hype.

---------

Again: Sharia law is evil, it's an unholy union of religion and law... but the scare tactics out there telling people, "they'll be able to rape/murder/abuse, and legally get away with it!" is utter bull.

[Kilarin]

Foil is absolutely correct. Any attempt to combine government and religion destroys BOTH.

AND, currently Sharia law has no legal standing here. And no indication that it is likely to.

The scary thing about Sharia law is that it IS the stated intention of those who believe in Sharia law to combine it with the state. But, while this is a TERRIBLE threat in many parts of the world, it is not one here.

Right now we have many more challenges to religious freedom coming from our own local issues based around Christianity. Attacks that come from both sides: Those who are want to combine Christianity and the State, AND, those who want the state to control and limit Christianity. Both are equally dangerous.

[Will Robinson]

...Before the cries of "look at France!", remember that they intentionally gave Sharia a level of legal authority, which was a dumb-ass move. And before the cries of "but it could happen here too!", remember that the opposite is happening here (states are starting to pass bills to cut Sharia authority which never even existed).

Fine, let me qualify my answer. It is a threat if introduced.
It has been attempted to put it into place already in the civil courts in Michigan, maybe other locations by now as well I don't know. I agree if it isn't introduced then it can't be a threat.
But if there is no chance of it happening why is the concept being considered by lawmakers at the civil level? Why are states having to pass bills to stop something that 'can't happen'?
So there is some cause for concern.

The U.S. Army was not a threat to Saddam until they crossed the border into Iraq but you can bet the Iraqi's were making noise about the gathering of men and machines just outside their border long before the border was crossed.

[null0010]

Will, that is circular logic.

"It must be a threat because we are doing something to stop it" is not a compelling arguement.

Comparing the non-threat of Sharia law to the United States legal system to the very real threat of the United States military to Saddam Hussein's Iraq is intellectually dishonest, a false equivalency, and silly.

[Kilarin]

I think Will has a valid point, in that Sharia wants to accomplish something terrible. If the US started giving in to it, that would be VERY bad. But it still seems very unlikely HERE at this point. There are much bigger threats to religious liberty in the US.

[Will Robinson]

Will, that is circular logic.

"It must be a threat because we are doing something to stop it" is not a compelling arguement.

By itself yes it is weak but I didn't offer up the states passing bills to stop it as the only sign that the threat to bring Sharia Law into the U.S. might be real did I? The first thing I mentioned was the actual attempt to incorporate Sharia law into our civil law. Why did you skip the first part?

Comparing the non-threat of Sharia law to the United States legal system to the very real threat of the United States military to Saddam Hussein's Iraq is intellectually dishonest, a false equivalency, and silly.

I wasn't trying to equate the level of the threats, I was trying come up with something that is totally benign until it crosses a certain line and then in hindsight you can't imagine how you thought it wasn't a real threat.
Even though we said we would invade Saddam never thought we would come across that line thanks to the Russians and Germans and French telling him not to worry.

We have radical Islam telling us they will rule us, we have radical Islam putting us on notice identifying our way of life, from banking to womens rights, as our offense to the one god and reason we must convert to their Sharia Law or else they will continue to attack us. We have lawyers here in america trying to incorporate Sharia Law into our system. And we have you telling us it will never happen.
I understand, based on what america is supposed to be all about, that you are right, it will never happen.
At the same time, based on so many of our politicians and social engineers turning everything that america is supposed to be about on its head, I find a little wariness toward Sharia Law healthy and the attitude of the Australian's comments to be right on target. I wish our leaders had the balls to say that. The reasons they won't keep me skeptical of your dismissal.

[null0010]

They don't say it because they don't have to. It's a non-issue. It is not a threat. Sharia law is already illegal in the sense that most of these fear-mongering groups want it to be. It is not, never was, and never will be on equal footing and of equal power as the laws and justice system of the United States.

[Will Robinson]

They don't say it because they don't have to. It's a non-issue. It is not a threat. Sharia law is already illegal in the sense that most of these fear-mongering groups want it to be. It is not, never was, and never will be on equal footing and of equal power as the laws and justice system of the United States.

Do you suppose these words were ever spoken: 'The governor of a colony in america is not, never was and never will be on equal footing and of equal power as a representative of the King of England!'

Taking a mans slave away from him was illegal here 150 years ago.
Drinking alcohol was illegal here 80 years ago.
Marrying a person of the same sex was...er...is...well in some parts...

Look, I know raising the specter of an Islamic bogeyman is a great tool to scare up the whacko's but the premise isn't without any substance.
I'm not saying let's crank up the Crusades 21st century style. I'm saying the guy in Australia said the right thing the right way most likely for a good reason.

[Nightshade]

It's a non-issue. It is not a threat.

It will always be an issue AND A THREAT as long as

a) Islam exists in its unreformed and supremacist state.

and

b) Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate into the western societies in which they live and refuse to view the laws of the US (or other western countries) as the supreme laws of the land(s) in which they live.

Women's rights are particularly under threat in their segregated communities and in extreme cases become "No-Go" zones for 'outsiders.'

Islam is here to colonize and conquer, not live in harmony.

[Bet51987]

.

[Heretic]

Take a look for Texas Islamic Court if you dare. It's also showing up In Minnesota.

Um, we already discussed that one, and it was quite clear that the "court" being described does not represent the justice department, and only handles arbitration agreements (which are still subject to U.S. law!).

Arbitration is part of US law and they are being upheld by US Courts

[Top Gun]

b) Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate into the western societies in which they live and refuse to view the laws of the US (or other western countries) as the supreme laws of the land(s) in which they live.

Do you have a shred of evidence that this is happening on anything resembling a large scale?

[null0010]

They don't say it because they don't have to. It's a non-issue. It is not a threat. Sharia law is already illegal in the sense that most of these fear-mongering groups want it to be. It is not, never was, and never will be on equal footing and of equal power as the laws and justice system of the United States.

I love what you wrote Null. Bold and to the point, but I want to be shown some document to back that up because the constitution doesn't do it. So until I see one, I'm with Will and everyone else who hates sharia law. I want something added that specifically states that there can be no religious "laws" of any kind in any state of the United States, period. I've never been a fan of individual states rights and this is one reason why.

Bee

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Spidey]

I want something added that specifically states that there can be no religious "laws" of any kind in any state of the United States, period. I've never been a fan of individual states rights and this is one reason why.

Wow, you are a very very scary girl.

Yea, get rid of all the laws that have their basis in religious beliefs…

Where should we start…Murder…Stealing? (murder is a state crime)

Or maybe we could just go the heart of the matter…"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unfortunately for you many laws that are of the moral* type, have their basis in religious beliefs, and even though they can function perfectly well outside that context, that doesn’t change the fact.

* Murder and Stealing can be traced directly back to the Bible.

......................

Null, that part of the constitution does not prohibit the enactment of law based in religion, only the establishment of a religion.

States can establish laws based on whatever they want.

[Will Robinson]

The act of States passing a bill like this is symbolic as much as it is practical.
They are saying what the Australian guy said by doing it. It seems they are having to fill the vacuum more and more lately by passing laws that should be unnecessary but the lack of leadership at the top has left them to set the example whether it is budgetary or immigration or what ever.

[null0010]

Null, that part of the constitution does not prohibit the enactment of law based in religion, only the establishment of a religion.

...respecting an establishment of religion...

Read it again.

[Bet51987]

.

[Spidey]

Null..

Yes, I made a small semantic mistake, but it still amounts to the same thing, and only affects the federal government…as I said states can establish laws based on anything they want, as can cities, towns, or individual entities.

.........

Bee…how can God and Morality not apply to a discussion about religious law? Sorry that’s just a little too easy.

[Jeff250]

Unfortunately for you many laws that are of the moral* type, have their basis in religious beliefs, and even though they can function perfectly well outside that context, that doesn’t change the fact.

* Murder and Stealing can be traced directly back to the Bible.

They can be traced even further back than that to the Code of Hammurabi. In fact, this is the first known instance of other Old Testament goodies like the "eye for an eye" law. Outlawing murder can be directly traced back to common sense. If our laws about murder and stealing were so heavily influenced by e.g. the Ten Commandments, then why didn't they outlaw any of the other eight*?

* Arguably seven if you equivocate bearing false witness and perjury.

[null0010]

Null.... I already know what congress can't do. What about the individual states.
Show me the document.

As you wish. Everson v. Board of Education established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

[Kilarin]

Yea, get rid of all the laws that have their basis in religious beliefs…
Where should we start…Murder…Stealing? (murder is a state crime)

There is a big difference between laws that have a foundation in religious beliefs, and religious laws.
The basis of society is built around the idea "don't hurt each other except to stop someone from hurting anyone".
We can mostly all agree upon that.

But when the government steps outside of that rule and starts making religious rules, the end result is very bad for both the government AND the church.

[Spidey]

“There is a big difference between laws that have a foundation in religious beliefs, and religious laws.”

Mmmmm..I do believe that was my point.

[Spidey]

Jeff…

The only reason I believe you have the right to exist, is because I believe you have a soul. (or whatever you wish to call it) I believe you are more than the sum of your parts, It’s the “more” that has all of the rights…the rest of you is just chemicals.

I don’t really want to get off topic here, but I always feel the need to explain this to people, when they say morality can apply to animated chemicals…errr…people, without some religious/spiritual basis.

It’s just the way I feel, but I’m also open to try to understand how some animated molecules can have any rights.

.........

Just understand what I’m trying to say is…if you believe in any kind of morality, you are dealing in a kind of spiritualism…even if you don’t understand the fact that you are. (or are willing to admit)

[Lothar]

the Code of Hammurabi.

It's actually fairly common for the Bible to reference, either directly or indirectly, other religious and political writings of the time. Often it is in agreement -- "don't steal" and "don't murder" seem like pretty reasonable things to agree upon. Other times it's an intentional reversal -- not even naming the sun and moon in the creation story, for example. "An eye for an eye" is somewhere in between; there is agreement in both that "equal punishment" is generally appropriate (as a maximum limit; one can always choose not to pursue it) but the CoH increases punishment when someone of lower social status causes injury.

[Ferno]

b) Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate into the western societies in which they live and refuse to view the laws of the US (or other western countries) as the supreme laws of the land(s) in which they live.

really? tell that to the muslims I know who speak perfect english and respect the society they're in.

[Jeff250]

It's actually fairly common for the Bible to reference, either directly or indirectly, other religious and political writings of the time. Often it is in agreement -- "don't steal" and "don't murder" seem like pretty reasonable things to agree upon. Other times it's an intentional reversal -- not even naming the sun and moon in the creation story, for example.

Fair enough, but it does still threaten the idea that religion "invented" the idea that murder should be outlawed, not that you've been endorsing that idea.

The only reason I believe you have the right to exist, is because I believe you have a soul. (or whatever you wish to call it)

Is it the only reason? Hmmm... Do you believe that harming animals is ever wrong, or do you believe that they can have souls too?

I believe you are more than the sum of your parts, It’s the “more” that has all of the rights…the rest of you is just chemicals.

I have the same type of skeptical argument toward souls--how could some invisible, undetectable substance possibly be the most relevant factor to moral behavior?

I agree that the chemical level is too low level to find moral value. I also agree that people are more than the sum of their parts. I just don't think it's because of a soul. In fact, introducing a soul would seem to contradict this. By introducing a soul, you're not so much saying that we're more than the sum of our parts. You're saying, we're more morally valuable because, "hey, we have this really valuable part that maybe you didn't notice."

[Spidey]

Is it the only reason?

Hmmm... Do you believe that harming animals is ever wrong, or do you believe that they can have souls too?

I have the same type of skeptical argument toward souls--how could some invisible, undetectable substance possibly be the most relevant factor to moral behavior?

You're saying, we're more morally valuable because, "hey, we have this really valuable part that maybe you didn't notice."

In order…

Yes.

Don’t understand the first part of the question, but yes I do believe animals have souls.

Do you believe in dark matter/energy? The same exact kind of “un-detect ability” you place on the soul, applies to dark matter/energy.

Not exactly. I’m saying “morality” is the province of the spiritual world by default.

[Jeff250]

Do you believe in dark matter/energy? The same exact kind of “un-detect ability” you place on the soul, applies to dark matter/energy.

I'm not arguing that souls or that dark energy doesn't exist--I'm saying that I find them to be poor bases for moral judgment. Wouldn't it be awful if we had to base how we treated other life on how much mysterious "dark energy" it had without being able to detect it? How would we ever know how to treat whom? And could this undetectable "dark energy" actually explain our present moral compulsions?

I think that basing all moral judgment on undetectable souls is equally shaky. Which animals have souls and which don't, and how do you know? Can artificial life ever have souls, and how will you know when it starts receiving them? When does the soul leave the human body, and when does it enter? Be careful--if you guess any of these wrong, the results could be morally disastrous!

I also don't think that souls adequately explain our moral compulsion. I don't refrain from being mean to people because I think that this might alter the state of some metaphysical object in some other dimension. I refrain from it because of how it affects them in this dimension.

I think we can base our moral obligations on something much cooler than invisible objects--we're beings who can think, feel, talk, and will (we're more than the sum of our parts). Now whether you want to call that a soul, I don't know, it could fit. But everything we need for moral obligation is here, not in some object in some other dimension!

[Spidey]

I don’t believe the soul is in some other dimension. (JFTR) And yes, people also use the term Consciousness to define what I’m calling the soul…but I like to use the word soul, because it irks the science types.

An observation…

It seems to me, you don’t want to even try to understand what I’m thinking or trying to say, you just want to build a wall of rejection, to this kind of thought. And that’s ok, because I’m very proud of thinking outside of the box, in this case outside of your wall.

[Bet51987]

.

[Foil]

A few responses on the original topic:

[Sharia] will always be an issue AND A THREAT as long as

a) Islam exists in its unreformed and supremacist state.

and

b) Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate into the western societies in which they live and refuse to view the laws of the US (or other western countries) as the supreme laws of the land(s) in which they live.

Ah, so you're talking about a moral/criminal threat! I absolutely agree. It's EVIL, particularly to women. It's some scary, screwed-up stuff, and it makes me angry that it's overlooked in so many parts of the world.

I'm with Will and everyone else who hates sharia law.

Bet, I hope you're not inferring that anyone in here supports sharia!!

There are two issues here, please don't confuse my taking exception to one as supporting the other:

1. The threat of criminal actions by followers of sharia law (rape/murder/abuse) is very real, very evil, and it must be stopped.

2. The legal threat of sharia law "it will override domestic law, so people will get away with murder/rape!" is real in some places (some Muslim countries, France, etc.), but it is nothing more than hype here in the U.S.

Take a look for Texas Islamic Court if you dare. It's also showing up In Minnesota.

Um, we already discussed that one, and it was quite clear that the "court" being described does not represent the justice department, and only handles arbitration agreements (which are still subject to U.S. law!).

Arbitration is part of US law and they are being upheld by US Courts

Again, arb agreements are are subject to U.S. law.

If an arbitration agreement is otherwise legal, then it can be upheld.

If an arbitration agreement is not legal (e.g. sharia law crimes like rape/abuse), then no, they are NOT upheld. Such arbitration agreements are not even binding!

Again, Heretic, you are making the claim that sharia law has been given some kind of legal authority to allow its followers to get away with crimes. But you have not provided even a single example of this. (And the one example you provided was actually a good example of how our legal system did not allow a religious man to get away with rape.)

[Will Robinson]

Why give Sharia law within our jurisdiction anything resembling respect from our system of laws and government?!?
Just because you can find a way, for example, to let arbitrators use Sharia law as the rule as long as the outcome doesn't trample on U.S. law doesn't mean it is a good idea to establish the precedence of Sharia law having a place here.

Sharia law is an abomination compared to our laws and rights. There is no need to try and pacify anyone who would prefer to live under Sharia law inside our borders. They can live under our law or move to the jurisdiction of Sharia law. It should not be a goal of our system to perpetuate or accommodate in any way the fundamentalist wacko rule book. We go so far as to remove 'one nation under god' from the pledge of allegiance because of the religious connection but we will pander to a horrible religious system by introducing Sharia law into our civil courts?!? That makes no sense at all.
Who does it serve to make that exception to the standard? Why is it important to serve them?

[Bet51987]

.