• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida mulls outlaw of Shariah, other foreign laws;

Florida mulls outlaw of Shariah, other foreign laws; critics say bill addresses made-up threat - The Washington Post



This has nothing to do with a fear of anyone. That is hyperbole. I admit it is directed mainly at Sharia Law, but it also would eliminate the Biblical Law arguments against SSM etc.

American should be governed by American laws and no others.

This is a complete and total waste of time and energy. There is no need to ban Sharia Law because- ZOMG!!!!!!11111- the US is not governed in any way whatsoever by Sharia Law. These legislators need to go and do some actual work. You know, like passing legislation that's actually useful and meaningful.
 
The only actual example the article gives is that of a divorce granted to a Muslim couple in another country, presumably one where there couple has dual citizenship, or at least where the marriage was first entered into. Seems to me that, so long as there is some legal tie to the old country, it is perfectly legitimate for a couple to seek divorce somewhere else. On the other hand, if they are American citizens, who were married in America, they need to conform to American law.

The only way I could see this being an issue is if one spouse seeks a divorce that American law would not grant, but another country would, and the other spouse does not want one. That is extraordinarily tricky, but I can't see the merit in forcing a couple to stay together when they don't want to. I do think this is overblown, as the application of Shariah or any other foreign considerations would only apply to domestic issues like these. No one who does not willingly have some connection to that culture already is ever going to be affected by it. I really don't see the need for this.
 
These legislators need to go and do some actual work. You know, like passing legislation that's actually useful and meaningful.

That's not going to happen, it's an election year.

Both parties seem to have this idea that the electorate are braindead, and will accept silly political stunts as actual substance. I used to think it was insulting that they sold us short. Then I started coming to DP and saw how some people buy into whatever the party says hook, line and sinker. Now I think they might be on to something.
 
Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise... (of religion) But states can?
 
The myth is that sharia aw is somehow in danger of replacing current laws.

Judges can and do use all sorts of things to help them render judgement. But that is entirely different than replacing American laws with foreign laws.

This is simple fear mongering.
 
As a Florida resident I am greatly relieved by this prescient legislation. I can only hope that the follow it up with legislation prohibiting the application of the laws of space traveling aliens from other galaxies and by rejecting the appearance in court of super intelligent apes. It is of the utmost importance that our legislature spend more time debating reductive, mind-numbing solutions to non-existent problems. Bravo.
 
That seems redundant as Sharia Law would be unconstitutional to begin with.
 
The myth is that sharia aw is somehow in danger of replacing current laws.

Judges can and do use all sorts of things to help them render judgement. But that is entirely different than replacing American laws with foreign laws.

This is simple fear mongering.
Indeed, but P.T. Barnum had a point (there is a sucker born every minute... just watch the right for 60 seconds ;) ).
 
That seems redundant as Sharia Law would be unconstitutional to begin with.


although this is just for domestic law, and i don't really know what judges are considering now re: sharia law.
 
I'm unfamiliar with Sharia law so I won't advocate it.

Sharia punishments are a whole different topic though. I like the idea of neutering rapists. I also think there are a lot of other crimes where removing your body parts would be a much better alternative than prisons.

Specklebang Akbar. It's just conversation folks....
 
you can't base a judicial decision on the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, or the Bahgavad Gita.

Yea and that is the idiotic thing since a bunch of the criminal laws are based on the... bible!
 
Sharia law is practised daily across the US.. get over it.
 
Tell that to the Muslim judge in PA who ruled that it was ok for a Muslim to attack someone mocking Muhammad.

Given from what I am familiar with concerning cultural precedent to excuse some immigrants from crimes, the perpetrator would've likely been excused by another court and if not appealed until it happened.

Members of cultural enclaves in the US have avoided murder charges because of cultural president. It's touchy, strange, and beyond me, frankly.C

Crime of passion type of thing.
 
Given from what I am familiar with concerning cultural precedent to excuse some immigrants from crimes, the perpetrator would've likely been excused by another court and if not appealed until it happened.

And there should NEVER be an excuse for immigrants to break the laws of the US. I have no idea what you mean in the second half of this sentence.

Members of cultural enclaves in the US have avoided murder charges because of cultural president. It's touchy, strange, and beyond me, frankly.C

Crime of passion type of thing.

Again, something that should never be allowed to happen. A man was exercising his first amendment freedom of speech rights and an assault was committed.
 
And there should NEVER be an excuse for immigrants to break the laws of the US. I have no idea what you mean in the second half of this sentence.
the law says otherwise...



Again, something that should never be allowed to happen. A man was exercising his first amendment freedom of speech rights and an assault was committed.

Firstly I'm not aware of any injury to the man... secondly there have been precedents (even in the supreme court) whereby culturally certain individuals seem unable to contain themselves when their cultural norms are infringed on to the point there seems to have been exceptions and the crime goes unpunished.

If an immigrant to the US has a prophet he has been raised on since childhood defaced in public, it has been established that they are beyond their own means of self control (or somesuch_) to commit said crime. Vastly interesting.
 
the law says otherwise...

And any such laws would be pathetic.

Firstly I'm not aware of any injury to the man... secondly there have been precedents (even in the supreme court) whereby culturally certain individuals seem unable to contain themselves when their cultural norms are infringed on to the point there seems to have been exceptions and the crime goes unpunished.

If an immigrant to the US has a prophet he has been raised on since childhood defaced in public, it has been established that they are beyond their own means of self control (or somesuch_) to commit said crime. Vastly interesting.

Vastly wrong. There should not be a cultural excuse to commit assault. Injury is irrelevant as to whether simple assault and battery occurred or not. If I am exercising my rights and someone violates my rights by attacking me, that is a criminal offense and I will not accept any cultural defenses. That is against the notion that everyone is subject to the same laws.
 
And any such laws would be pathetic.



Vastly wrong. There should not be a cultural excuse to commit assault. Injury is irrelevant as to whether simple assault and battery occurred or not. If I am exercising my rights and someone violates my rights by attacking me, that is a criminal offense and I will not accept any cultural defenses. That is against the notion that everyone is subject to the same laws.

Write to a judge on the supreme court...


I happen to be done.
 
For want of better descriptors, the atheist said he was hit, the Muslim said he wasn't and barring any reliable evidence either way, the Judge said "Grow up!"
 
Tell that to the Muslim judge in PA who ruled that it was ok for a Muslim to attack someone mocking Muhammad.

The judge was Lutheran....The video is inconclusive as to whether or not a crime was committed. I agree with the judge ruling that there was not enough evidence, and he dismissed the case. That is not the same as saying it is "OK".......
jus sayin....

Again, something that should never be allowed to happen. A man was exercising his first amendment freedom of speech rights and an assault was committed.

Agreed.... even tho the man was being an insulting ass... he has the right to do so. Same as WBC has the right to be jerks at funerals...

mkultraboy:
Firstly I'm not aware of any injury to the man... secondly there have been precedents (even in the supreme court) whereby culturally certain individuals seem unable to contain themselves when their cultural norms are infringed on to the point there seems to have been exceptions and the crime goes unpunished.

If an immigrant to the US has a prophet he has been raised on since childhood defaced in public, it has been established that they are beyond their own means of self control (or somesuch_) to commit said crime. Vastly interesting.

Totally false..... nothing has been established that I am aware of. Please cite a reference to a SCOTUS rulings that sets this precedence.
If there were, the law cited in the OP is even critical than I originally thought.
 
Tell that to the Muslim judge in PA who ruled that it was ok for a Muslim to attack someone mocking Muhammad.
cite, please.
Cause this issue has a lot of people mis-characterizing events to increase the outrage that can be manufactured. So if you could provide some material that let's s evaluate your claim ourselves, that would be nice.
.
.
.
e619b0303f07012f2fd000163e41dd5b
 
Back
Top Bottom