Sharia Law, should we in the states worry about it?

[qui_est_ce]

Can you cite an example of this.

**We have a separation of church and state. **We also have the equal protection clause.

I would love to see an example of a court that said a rape charge was dismissed because of religious grounds.

This is nothing but xenophobic propaganda and nonsense.

Here is a good example of misinterpretation of the Constitution. There is no such clause.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here is a good example of misinterpretation of the Constitution. There is no such clause.

Where did I say there was that explicit clause in the constitution.

The fact that you believe that without constitutional amendment someone can claim solely by legal precedent that murder is his god given right. Is bonkers !!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” and Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase “separation of church and state” in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world”—Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”[1]

Jefferson’s metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”[2]

 

[Jon_S_1]

How is Sharia law compatible with this;

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Where did I say there was that explicit clause in the constitution.

The fact that you believe that without constitutional amendment someone can claim solely by legal precedent that murder is his god given right. Is bonkers !!!

Not really. Look at abortion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where did I say there was that explicit clause in the constitution.

The fact that you believe that without constitutional amendment someone can claim solely by legal precedent that murder is his god given right. Is bonkers !!!

First of all, I agree with you. But, just to ponder on the ridiculous

What if Sharia Law is categorized in the same manner as a State. Like Texas, for example. Would they not then have the State right to implement death penalty under their laws?

This is the dangerous arena I am speaking of.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not really. Look at abortion.

The problem with abortion is the court/law did not deem a fetus as a human. They could not determine it. This of course is also changing rapidly.

Unless you think the same mistake can occur with an 18 year old girl, this is a silly example.

 

[Jon_S_1]

First of all, I agree with you. But, just to ponder on the ridiculous

What if Sharia Law is categorized in the same manner as a State. Like Texas, for example. Would they not then have the State right to implement death penalty under their laws?

This is the dangerous arena I am speaking of.

To have a sharia law state in the US you would have to throw out all the laws we have and start over. The states aren’t autonomous vacuums.

The Supreme Court would never allow for someone’s hand to be chopped off because they stole an apple.

It breaks precedent and also the 8th Amendment and the immeasurable case law regarding the 8th Amendment.

 

[Usagi]

As I understand it, the use of sharia law in the West is in civil, not criminal, cases. In other words, lawsuits, not state accusations of murder or rape.

People involved in a civil dispute can already select from a variety of different methods (arbitration, mediation, going on one of those court-case TV shows) as long as both parties agree, so the availability of a culturally specific option is not a huge change.

The idea that we would introduce a parallel legal system for criminal law, with different standards for what is a criminal act, that only applies to some people, is just ludicrous. (I mean, it’s theoretically possible in the same way we could start electing Nazis or something, but that’s not what’s happened in the UK, for example.)

Usagi

 

[GratefulFred]

1. Islam is a religion.
2. Sharia Law is the law of Islam.
3. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states our most important freedom: Freedom of Religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, **or prohibiting the free exercise thereof **…”

Sharia Law is THE law in Saudi Arabia. This ISIS effort wants to impose Sharia Law in Iraq and Syria. Most countries do not recognize sharia; however, some countries in Asia, Africa and Europe recognize sharia and use it as the basis for divorce, inheritance and other personal affairs of their Islamic population.

We trust in the written words in our Constitution, but in the end, those words must be interpreted by those with legal authority. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals routinely gets its decisions overturned by the US Supreme Court. What will happen if judges who think like the many on the 9th Circuit get appointed to the US Supreme Court? 5-4 decisions settle most matters.

As Catholics, did any of us ever foresee that gay marriage, so contrary to the Bible, would be imposed by Courts over the objection for most citizens?

In a blunt simple way: We have our time honored values. But we also defend FREEDOM to the point of tolerating bad results because the alternative is to jail transgressors and we really don’t want to jail that many people. So we allow them to behave as they wish as much as we can.

Given the First Amendment, can you say with certainty that the free exercise of Islam under Sharia Law will be prohibited in America?

 

[Jon_S_1]

1. Islam is a religion.
2. Sharia Law is the law of Islam.
3. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states our most important freedom: Freedom of Religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, **or prohibiting the free exercise thereof **…”

Sharia Law is THE law in Saudi Arabia. This ISIS effort wants to impose Sharia Law in Iraq and Syria. Most countries do not recognize sharia; however, some countries in Asia, Africa and Europe recognize sharia and use it as the basis for divorce, inheritance and other personal affairs of their Islamic population.

We trust in the written words in our Constitution, but in the end, those words must be interpreted by those with legal authority. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals routinely gets its decisions overturned by the US Supreme Court. What will happen if judges who think like the many on the 9th Circuit get appointed to the US Supreme Court? 5-4 decisions settle most matters.

As Catholics, did any of us ever foresee that gay marriage, so contrary to the Bible, would be imposed by Courts over the objection for most citizens?

In a blunt simple way: We have our time honored values. But we also defend FREEDOM to the point of tolerating bad results because the alternative is to jail transgressors and we really don’t want to jail that many people. So we allow them to behave as they wish as much as we can.

Given the First Amendment, can you say with certainty that the free exercise of Islam under Sharia Law will be prohibited in America?

Abdolutely! With a resounding Yes!

To place Sharia Law as law of the land a new constitution must be drafted. This is not an interpretation issue, it is a fundamental change in structure.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To have a sharia law state in the US you would have to throw out all the laws we have and start over. The states aren’t autonomous vacuums.

You don’t need to throw out all the laws… Is this annoying to you? Or are you willing to have an actual conversation?

Federal Law is the law of the land and it only trumps the State Law [when] there is a conflict between them. [If] there is no such conflict, the State is [indeed] an autonomous vacuum.

The Supreme Court would never allow for someone’s hand to be chopped off because they stole an apple.

Noble thought, but the Supreme Court is the last resort, not the first. And it is extremely hard to get a hearing in the Supreme Court.

It breaks precedent and also the 8th Amendment and the immeasurable case law regarding the 8th Amendment.

Irrelevant to the scenario I presented. Otherwise, no State would be able to have a death penalty.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The problem with abortion is the court/law did not deem a fetus as a human. They could not determine it. This of course is also changing rapidly.

Unless you think the same mistake can occur with an 18 year old girl, this is a silly example.

Just playing the Devil’s advocate.

I don’t see it as silly though.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You don’t need to throw out all the laws… Is this annoying to you? Or are you willing to have an actual conversation?

Federal Law is the law of the land and it only trumps the State Law [when] there is a conflict between them. [If] there is no such conflict, the State is [indeed] an autonomous vacuum.

Noble thought, but the Supreme Court is the last resort, not the first. And it is extremely hard to get a hearing in the Supreme Court.

Irrelevant to the scenario I presented. Otherwise, no State would be able to have a death penalty.

So you are asserting that the 8th amendment can allow for stoning an adulteress, cutting off people’s hands, caning someone for theft, and the death penalty for not converting to Islam or converting from Islam.

You see where these can be supported by our constitution? Please give examples. I am happy to engage in dialogue, but I don’t have much time for NONSense.

 

[dronald]

So you are asserting that the 8th amendment can allow for stoning an adulteress, cutting off people’s hands, caning someone for theft, and the death penalty for not converting to Islam or converting from Islam.

You see where these can be supported by our constitution? Please give examples. I am happy to engage in dialogue, but I don’t have much time for NONSense.

I keep expecting the people arguing with you to eventually say, “well when you put it that way” but this debate goes on for some reason.

 

[GratefulFred]

Abdolutely! With a resounding Yes!

To place Sharia Law as law of the land a new constitution must be drafted. This is not an interpretation issue, it is a fundamental change in structure.

Jon, your argument seems to be 100% "American Law **OR **100% Sharia Law.

Hard to see that COMPLETE change any time soon. But it is quite easy to see some Judges using some strained argument ALLOWING decisions based on Sharia Law, especially when all parties are Muslim.

Once that happens, it will happen more and more. And then what if the aggrieved party is Muslim and the guilty is not Muslim or even Christian? To satisfy the victim and punish the offender, could not a Judge, given prior deference to Sharia Law, then apply Sharia Law to the offender?

Perhaps. And perhaps not. But a lot of court time will be used and it gets quite expensive to defend against it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon, your argument seems to be 100% "American Law **OR **100% Sharia Law.

Hard to see that COMPLETE change any time soon. But it is quite easy to see some Judges using some strained argument ALLOWING decisions based on Sharia Law, especially when all parties are Muslim.

Once that happens, it will happen more and more. And then what if the aggrieved party is Muslim and the guilty is not Muslim or even Christian? To satisfy the victim and punish the offender, could not a Judge, given prior deference to Sharia Law, then apply Sharia Law to the offender?

Perhaps. And perhaps not. But a lot of court time will be used and it gets quite expensive to defend against it.

I’d love for you to give an actual legal example if you believe this to be true.

And no, there will be no court time spent trying to impose Sharia law on anyone in anyway.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I keep expecting the people arguing with you to eventually say, “well when you put it that way” but this debate goes on for some reason.

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you and your knowledge of Islam.

So far I just see a lot of “these horrible liberal courts allow gays to marry they could do anything. Pretty soon they will help terrorist rape my daughter and impose Sharia law on us”

Not one example of how a legal argument or precedent would be made and moved through the system.

 

[dronald]

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you and your knowledge of Islam.

So far I just see a lot of “these horrible liberal courts allow gays to marry they could do anything. Pretty soon they will help terrorist rape my daughter and impose Sharia law on us”

Not one example of how a legal argument or precedent would be made and moved through the system.

Aw, thanks. But I wouldn’t attribute it to knowing about Islam, in that I know Muslims would want whatever form of Sharia they interpret as the proper version for all of the world. But it just ain’t gonna happen in the States.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you and your knowledge of Islam.

So far I just see a lot of “these horrible liberal courts allow gays to marry they could do anything. Pretty soon they will help terrorist rape my daughter and impose Sharia law on us”

Not one example of how a legal argument or precedent would be made and moved through the system.

If this is as ridiculous as you say. Then this would have never made out court system in Oklahoma and later the Appellate Court in Denver, CO. In favor of blocking any impediments to Sharia law.

aclu.org/religion-belief/court-upholds-ruling-blocking-oklahoma-sharia-and-international-law-ban

In summary, the state of Oklahoma made an state constitutional amendment to prohibit the court system in their state to even consider the consultation of Sharia Law.
The appellate court ruled that the State of Oklahoma could not do that.

How ridiculous is this sounding now?