Sharia Law. An attempt to derail our judicial system

[Gabriel_of_12]

oldcatholicguy;12574620]Just put the shovel down. You’ve dug yourself a big enough hole already. In order to defend your position you have switched from trying to prove that Sharia has been outlawed by citing fictitious passages of laws by Congress your presented as fact and avoided actually citing when called on it, citation of bills being introduced into Congress trying to outlaw Sharia as fact laws have been passed, and using state passages of such laws as proof the federal government has to your current position of they don’t need to pass such laws because such laws already existed under current law.

Apparently; You neglect my post which indicate that I saw no need to produce any new federal laws let alone any state laws that passed to out law Shariah law many post’s ago. When you lacked the effort to read and expound on the Link mentioned in #35 which proved the laws passing rejecting Shariah law and the updated information does not require any more effort to prove to you twice that Congress members and state laws were moving to reject Shariah law, which you denied. I need not exchange no more on this ridiculous exchange of a subject that has been updated and informed from past legal efforts to ban Shariah law.

You also apparently have no real understanding of how governance in the US works. I refer to, and this is just one example, to your statement- “No, those that passed did not and do not supersede our Constitution, and did not become law after they were passed, when the higher courts did not see a need to pass new laws to duplicate existing laws in our Constitution.” The courts don’t actually pass laws. They have no Constitutional power to pass legislation

You displaced my post out of it’s whole context as you do most posts. The Higher courts, reviewed the passed laws that came under contest, and did not see in them to continue the passed laws to become activated in society, when they proved them to parallel Constitutional law or the Higher courts did not find them to be Constitutional, which has a legal definition that is different when read without a legal understanding of what is deemed unconstitutional from what the Constitution rejects and or objects to.

I am sorry, if my communicating efforts do not meet your intellect here. For the second time, Please do not make false or different implications to what I post. I prefer you ask me?, what you don’t understand or question about my post’s without placing a prejudice of words to my words in a distorted fashion, that falsifies my thought in my posts, which I never say. Ask for clarification. I will be happy to clarify them for them.

To date, we can only speculate from a hypothetical of one taking over or derailing ones judicial system. Yet we can use proven history as a tool to gage Shariah law, on how they come into existence, existing in different societies today. We cannot underestimate any JV team, who makes it clear by it’s Islamic religious highest authority who speaks to the Western word, “By your own Liberal Laws Islam will conquer you”.

Peace be with you oldcatholicguy and happy Advent to you

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You displaced my post out of it’s whole context as you do most posts.

Post 23- "Congress passed legislation to make any Islamic Shariah law illegal by Constitutional law. But I do not think it addresses the Local state law mandates? I wonder why Congress acted in this way post 911? Very interesting the U.S Congress outlaws Shariah law by Federal law, because “Shariah law” is considered a myth? I would really like a reasonable explanation for this act by the U.S Congress post 911. "

Post 26 in response to me asking for a link to Congress passing such a law- "If I provide the congressman’s name who introduced the bill and law, will this change the myth of Sharia law? "

Post 28 in response to me once again asking for a link- “Why don’t you google Newt Gingrich Sharia law and get back to us”

Post 30 in response to me pointing out that Gingrich never actually got any laws passed concerning Sharia- “I don’t pretend to be your instructor here, but Newt a Republican introduced the bill under a Democratic president, Newt can never pass a law. Congress’s passes law.”

Post 32 in response to me pointing out that Congress never actually passed any laws concerning Sharia- "Really? Oh, I forgot, Islams Shairah law is a myth also? "

Post 35- "Here is a quick look at some documented legislation, that reveals how much Islam’s sharia’s law is a great myth to our lawmakers; Legislators in at least 32 of the 50 U.S. states introduced bills from 2010 to 2012 to limit consideration of foreign or religious laws in state court decisions, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports. During those two years, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee enacted such bills. In Oklahoma, the law explicitly banned judicial consideration of Islamic law, or Sharia. The ban was approved by the voters. The ballot measure read: “This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.”

Post 42- “The fact of state laws passed in a majority of states by state senators, congressman have all attributed to outlawing the creeping of Islamic Shariah law in their respective states. Update; Congress has passed a law that outlaws Shariah law. The current presidency and attorney General has blocked it legally, whether or not it has reached the Supreme Court, because the Muslim leadership contested the out law of Shariah law remains to be seen, in the new and upcoming presidency. Your gonna have to look to the present retiring attorney General and the present president’s action regarding this lame duck law under the present administration. The fact remains, our congressman and states representatives have rejected and passed laws in their respective states banning shariah law which negates your false theory of Shariah law to be a myth. I have not retracted that Congress passed the outlawing of Shariah law. Maybe the next president administration will bring this law to the forefront or do something with this law. For anyone to deny that the Muslim leadership did not contest this congressional law of outlawing shariah law is not living in reality. One can’t fight the present administration of Barrack Hussein Obama for placing this law out of the public eyes. The fact is U.S State laws in different states have outlawed Shariah law is the reality that prevents the creeping of shariah law entering. The Federal law has been contested. What Barrack Hussein Obama did with it remains to be seen in the political sector. In retrospect the challenge of the passed state laws may have placed the Federal law in limbo waiting for the state law outcome. I have to say I do not know what happened to any passed state or Federal laws outlawing Shariah law, because all are contested by Muslims under this present administration.”

Post 46- “I respect your opinion that appears to reject the reality. I think I have proven that Congress in their respective states outlawed Sharia law. Only you state that Congress has used Constitutional law to make Shariah law illegal.”

From reading your posts in this thread from start to finish one almost has to conclude you have very little knowledge of US governance, Sharia, or what your actual position really is. Perhaps if you presented a concrete position that did not change so radically over such a short time it would be easier to hold a civil conversation that actually leads somewhere more than you accusing me of somehow misrepresenting your clearly constantly changing and poorly supported position?

 

[HolyCrusader007]

I never called you ignorant, forgive me if you misread my post. If any one who is ignorant of Sharia law, is what my post relates too.

Do you know Sharia law? in order to justify it’s existence within our society, which lawmakers have proven by law Shariah law violates human rights and our constitution of an individuals rights as a free human being?

I haven’t rejected anyone’s religion here; I have proven that laws have been passed to reject Shariah law. These laws were passed by our lawmakers from Congress. Did you read All the link I provided in post #35? and then follow the respective States and there Congressman acting in congress to out law Shariah law? It proves that Shariah law is not a myth that creeps into societies. But a reality that our law makers have acted years ago to prevent the creeping of Shariah law into our judicial systems. If that is not proof enough for anyone, then it leaves the doubters with the burden of proof.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12,

The amount of Muslims in the USA wanting to impose Sharia law over the regular laws is no greater of a threat when compared to the # of Jews in the USA who want to have Torah Law override the current legal system here in the USA.

In other words, IMO there is basically no threat of Sharia or Torah law overriding the current system of law here in the USA for at least the next few hundred years. . Muslims and Jews play a role in making the USA a strong country, one can note Muslim and Jewish teachers, politicians, Muslims and Jews in the US military as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

HolyCrusader007;12603498]Hi Gabriel of 12,

The amount of Muslims in the USA wanting to impose Sharia law over the regular laws is no greater of a threat when compared to the # of Jews in the USA who want to have Torah Law override the current legal system here in the USA.

I don’t believe that has been the content of my post’s. “The amount of Muslims in the USA wanting to impose Sharia Law” is your opinion. I have introduced US politicians passing laws, introducing laws to prevent any future movement of Shariah law being practiced or passed by civil laws.

In other words, IMO there is basically no threat of Sharia or Torah law overriding the current system of law here in the USA for at least the next few hundred years. . Muslims and Jews play a role in making the USA a strong country, one can note Muslim and Jewish teachers, politicians, Muslims and Jews in the US military as well.

Your opinion is well taken. Although one cannot deny that Shariah law does not exist and is practiced by Muslims of Islam in the world today. Currently our Constitution Laws protect citizens and prevents Shariah law from being practiced within the borders of the U.S.

The question is? can these current Constitutional laws ever be changed into Shariah law? According to our Constitution, by majority vote, can challenge to change any constitutional law. What protects the Constitution from ever being changed into Shariah law? The answer to this question reveals a true reality or a view of a false reality? Our state and federal politicians (law makers) have responded with new laws to prevent such an action to no avail today.

Muslims and Jews play a role in making the USA a strong country, one can note Muslim and Jewish teachers, politicians, Muslims and Jews in the US military as well.

That is very debatable; Presently Muslims in the US Military do not have a productive record in the Military, who have murdered Military personnel in the name of Islam.

We entered two world wars protecting Jews and Muslims, which has placed the world and US in our current war condition.
Can Jews and Muslim attribute positively to any given society? Yes, depends on the view one takes.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Presently Muslims in the US Military do not have a productive record in the Military, who have murdered Military personnel in the name of Islam.

So, do you dislike military personnel and Muslims, or is that you just dislike one and have no real respect for the other? I’m asking because you’re pretty much slapping every Muslim soldier and vet in the face by basing their record of military service (something the vast majority of citizens don’t ever bother to do) on the actions of one Muslim.

 

[PaulDupre1]

This entire debate is silly. The legal system in the U.S. allows for voluntary binding arbitration in civil suits (not criminal prosecutions).

That means that if someone sues someone and both parties agree, their dispute can be settled by a licensed arbitrator who shares their faith instead of a jury in court.

Parties who are not both of a particular religion can also allow the presiding judge to assign a neutral arbitrator.

Litigants choose arbitration for a number of reasons, but chief among them are these two:

1. Arbitration is far less expensive than litigating in court because, in arbitration, it is not necessary to retain an attorney.
2. In arbitration, the case is adjudicated by a licensed arbitrator (usually a retired judge or law school professor) who is well-schooled in the law and experienced in the area of law being contested.

Many litigants appreciate the idea of saving thousands- or tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. They also take comfort in the fact that their case will be decided by a competent licensed arbitrator rather than a jury of their “peers” who are usually people who are completely ignorant and driven by feelings rather than logic and facts. This is especially important in cases where the facts of the case are complex and involve highly technical facts and situations that most jurors could not be expected to understand.

The U.S. legal system allows litigants who are both of the same faith to choose an arbitrator who shares their faith (Jewish, Muslim, etc.) to litigate their case, taking into account the tenants of their faith.

The licensed arbitrator cannot circumvent state or federal law in his/her adjudication. To do so would be grounds for appeal. And arbitration is NOT an option in appeals court.

So religiously-based arbitration has been around for a very long time. It is even an option for Catholics to have a Catholic canon lawyer as arbitrator. This is very rare, though it probably should not be. I think most Catholics are unaware of this option.

Paul Dupre, J.D.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This entire debate is silly. The legal system in the U.S. allows for voluntary binding arbitration in civil suits (not criminal prosecutions).

That means that if someone sues someone and both parties agree, their dispute can be settled by a licensed arbitrator who shares their faith instead of a jury in court.

Parties who are not both of a particular religion can also allow the presiding judge to assign a neutral arbitrator.

Litigants choose arbitration for a number of reasons, but chief among them are these two:

1. Arbitration is far less expensive than litigating in court because, in arbitration, it is not necessary to retain an attorney.
2. In arbitration, the case is adjudicated by a licensed arbitrator (usually a retired judge or law school professor) who is well-schooled in the law and experienced in the area of law being contested.

Many litigants appreciate the idea of saving thousands- or tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. They also take comfort in the fact that their case will be decided by a competent licensed arbitrator rather than a jury of their “peers” who are usually people who are completely ignorant and driven by feelings rather than logic and facts. This is especially important in cases where the facts of the case are complex and involve highly technical facts and situations that most jurors could not be expected to understand.

The U.S. legal system allows litigants who are both of the same faith to choose an arbitrator who shares their faith (Jewish, Muslim, etc.) to litigate their case, taking into account the tenants of their faith.

The licensed arbitrator cannot circumvent state or federal law in his/her adjudication. To do so would be grounds for appeal. And arbitration is NOT an option in appeals court.

So religiously-based arbitration has been around for a very long time. It is even an option for Catholics to have a Catholic canon lawyer as arbitrator. This is very rare, though it probably should not be. I think most Catholics are unaware of this option.

Paul Dupre, J.D.

Yes, but you are forgetting the “fear factor” which is really what this whole thing is about.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

PaulDupre1;12606844]This entire debate is silly. The legal system in the U.S. allows for voluntary binding arbitration in civil suits (not criminal prosecutions).

That means that if someone sues someone and both parties agree, their dispute can be settled by a licensed arbitrator who shares their faith instead of a jury in court.

Parties who are not both of a particular religion can also allow the presiding judge to assign a neutral arbitrator.

Litigants choose arbitration for a number of reasons, but chief among them are these two:

Interesting; An Islamic cleric can order the shariah law to chop off a Muslims hand for theft in the U.S? And the Muslim Can sue the cleric through an arbitration and not a criminal prosecution? And you find this silly?

Are you saying a religious law in Shariah takes precedence and supersedes the legal criminal system in the U.S?

 

[WilT]

Thanks to ShawnF1989

More than 17,000 Germans gather to sing Christmas carols during rally against ‘Islamisation’ of their country in largest protest yet by anti-immigration group

dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…ant-rally.html

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Interesting; An Islamic cleric can order the shariah law to chop off a Muslims hand for theft in the U.S? And the Muslim Can sue the cleric through an arbitration and not a criminal prosecution? And you find this silly?

Are you saying a religious law in Shariah takes precedence and supersedes the legal criminal system in the U.S?

Well no an Islamic cleric can’t because theft is a criminal manner. Perhaps in addition to doing some research on how American governance actually works, you should also do some research on how the American legal system actually works. Like learning the difference between criminal and civil law. This of course in between the times you decide to pin the actions of one Muslim soldier in the US military onto all the other Muslim soldiers in the US military in order to discredit their honorable service.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

oldcatholicguy;12608067]Well no an Islamic cleric can’t because theft is a criminal manner.

You forget, that Islamic Shariah law mixes civil law with it’s religious law.

Perhaps in addition to doing some research on how American governance actually works, you should also do some research on how the American legal system actually works. Like learning the difference between criminal and civil law.

Should not Muslims take your own advice here? The American legal system will not allow Muslims to practice their Shariah law without violating criminal laws and civil laws and should be informed. Unless the existing laws change to adapt or accept Shariah forms of law?

This of course in between the times you decide to pin the actions of one Muslim soldier in the US military

Wait a minute; You mean to tell me, you don’t deny this action by Muslims in the Military and those Muslims in civilian life have acted by killing their own military members and civilians in the name of Islam? Your opinion speaks volumes to me.

onto all the other Muslim soldiers in the US military in order to discredit their honorable service

.

I don’t know where you got “all” from? Please speak honestly here; Do you pay honor to those Muslims for their honorable service who murdered their own military members in cold blood in the name of Islam? I await your answer?

 

[agnes_therese]

Do you pay honor to those Muslims for their honorable service who murdered their own military members in cold blood in the name of Islam? I await your answer?

You are being completely ridiculous here, and I can’t believe it’s not deliberate.

Oldcatholicguy, I admire your stamina, but you’ve got to feel like you’re beating your head on a brick wall. Gabriel of 12 obviously has no interest in actual conversation.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You forget, that Islamic Shariah law mixes civil law with it’s religious law.

Should not Muslims take your own advice here? The American legal system will not allow Muslims to practice their Shariah law without violating criminal laws and civil laws and should be informed. Unless the existing laws change to adapt or accept Shariah forms of law?

Wait a minute; You mean to tell me, you don’t deny this action by Muslims in the Military and those Muslims in civilian life have acted by killing their own military members and civilians in the name of Islam? Your opinion speaks volumes to me.

.

I don’t know where you got “all” from? Please speak honestly here; Do you pay honor to those Muslims for their honorable service who murdered their own military members in cold blood in the name of Islam? I await your answer?

I pay honor to those Muslims who honorably serve in the military. What I don’t do is assume that every Muslim in the military is somehow guilty of a crime or shares blame for the crimes of other Muslims in the military. This guilt by association would be your position as indicated with your own words here- “Presently Muslims in the US Military do not have a productive record in the Military, who have murdered Military personnel in the name of Islam.”

As for Sharia, I haven’t forgotten that it can be a combination of criminal and civil law, I’m just not confused like you appear to be on how the US legal system can separate and allow the usage of the civil law aspect of Sharia while not allowing usage of the criminal aspect of it. It’s not like the US legal system had any issue separating the similar aspects of Jewish religious laws in regards to its civil and criminal aspects. But, given your previous confusion concerning how American governance works, your confusion on how the American legal system works is understandable. Hence me encouraging you to do some basic research prior to continuing to post ill-informed comments.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You are being completely ridiculous here, and I can’t believe it’s not deliberate.

Oldcatholicguy, I admire your stamina, but you’ve got to feel like you’re beating your head on a brick wall. Gabriel of 12 obviously has no interest in actual conversation.

I view it as a test of my patience.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

oldcatholicguy;12608168]I pay honor to those Muslims who honorably serve in the military.

I would ask you to prove it? but it is not part of the discussion.

What I don’t do is assume that every Muslim in the military is somehow guilty of a crime or shares blame for the crimes of other Muslims in the military.

It would be stupidity to assume of any sane person to think such a thing?

This guilt by association would be your position as indicated with your own words here- “Presently Muslims in the US Military do not have a productive record in the Military, who have murdered Military personnel in the name of Islam.”

For the third time, you take my words to mean something of your own opinion, when my words were addressed to another poster’s thoughts not yours.

As for Sharia, I haven’t forgotten that it can be a combination of criminal and civil law,

Thanks for clarifying that, because you posted this. Quote by oldcatholicguy; “Well no an Islamic cleric can’t because theft is a criminal manner”. Mislead me to believe you did not understand the subject of discussion here.

I’m just not confused like you appear to be on how the US legal system can separate and allow the usage of the civil law aspect of Sharia while not allowing usage of the criminal aspect of it.

The confusion lies in the myth that Shariah law does not address criminal law and civil laws.

It’s not like the US legal system had any issue separating the similar aspects of Jewish religious laws in regards to its civil and criminal aspects. But, given your previous confusion concerning how American governance works, your confusion on how the American legal system works is understandable. Hence me encouraging you to do some basic research prior to continuing to post ill-informed comments

.

Speaking in generalities of multiple state laws and Federal laws never specifically addresses your comment to draw any confusion. How you are able to draw such false conclusions to a poster’s liberty, only reveals your characterization of posts.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are being completely ridiculous here, and I can’t believe it’s not deliberate.

Oldcatholicguy, I admire your stamina, but you’ve got to feel like you’re beating your head on a brick wall. Gabriel of 12 obviously has no interest in actual conversation.

I believe you misinterpret my post. It is posted with a slight sarcasm.

If you admire oldcatholicguy for the mistreatment of post’s as something to be admired, then forgive me for living.

Oldcatholicguy believes Shariah law to the op is a myth and need not be a concern in the U.S

I only introduced U.S law makers made it a concern when they began making laws to out law Shariah law in the U.S.

Which has placed oldcatholicguy view as a fallacy. Thus oldcatholicguy has not ceased to address any of my post in the negative communication style, to which you admire.

Peace be with you

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I believe you misinterpret my post. It is posted with a slight sarcasm.

If you admire oldcatholicguy for the mistreatment of post’s as something to be admired, then forgive me for living.

Oldcatholicguy believes Shariah law to the op is a myth and need not be a concern in the U.S

I only introduced U.S law makers made it a concern when they began making laws to out law Shariah law in the U.S.

Which has placed oldcatholicguy view as a fallacy. Thus oldcatholicguy has not ceased to address any of my post in the negative communication style, to which you admire.

Peace be with you

I believe that Sharia is a myth? Funny, I don’t remember ever claiming as such. In fact, the only one who seems to think it is a myth would be you. I base this on the number of times you’ve claimed someone else thinks its a myth.

But hey, if you want to go back to your poorly constructed statements concerning US law makers and Sharia I can cut and paste from post #82 in which I compile such comments you’ve made. My personal favorite is- “Really? Oh, I forgot, Islams Shairah law is a myth also?” which was in response to me pointing out that Congress never actually passed any laws on Sharia.

Why don’t you take my advice in post #82 and figure out what your position actually is and then present it. You should probably also do some basic research on Sharia itself, American governance, and the American legal system.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I would ask you to prove it? but it is not part of the discussion.

The proof that I pay honor to those Muslims who honorably serve in the military would be me not letting you get away with claiming that they do not have a productive record in the military based on the crimes of other Muslims in uniform.

As for a discussion, I’ll be more than willing to engage in one once you figure out what your position is and actually present it to me. So far it seems to be just “you must think Sharia is a myth since you don’t agree with what I’m saying;” which really isn’t a good basis for starting a discussion. “Um, no not agreeing with you doesn’t actually mean I think Sharia is a myth” would pretty much end the discussion. Frankly I good game of “yes/no” (one of us says “yes,” the other says “no”) with my two year old lasts longer than that and is more productive.

 

[TEPO]

You have a two year old? I always imagined you as a senior. Huh. Well, that’s great. So why do you call yourself “old” catholic guy? You’re not “old”.

 

[TEPO]

Oldcatholicguy, I admire your stamina, but you’ve got to feel like you’re beating your head on a brick wall. Gabriel of 12 obviously has no interest in actual conversation.

What’s the conversation about exactly…?