• 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!

Bachmann to stand up against Sharia Islam

The Baron said:
I'm not trying to defend anyone here and I haven't read the article but there has been some concern about Sharia law being imposed to some degree here in the States. Bachmann did not just pull this out-of-the-blue as it has been discussed in various circles for--I think--more than a year now (or it seems like I started hearing about it a year or so ago).

Some links I pulled up real quick for your consderation.



SHARIA LAW CREEPS INTO FLORIDA TRIAL! Are We Losing the Battle to Keep Our Country Ours?

SHARIA BAN GOES TO COURT…JUDGE WILL CONSIDER ARGUMENTS: ANDREW ENTZMINGER | RUTHFULLY YOURS

US judges free to rule based on Sharia law « News that matters

New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law « Creeping Sharia
Click to expand...

None of these articles really discuss why the judge is looking to outside sources, or whether there are any conflicts with standing US statute or precedent. In fact, all we really know is that some judges, somewhere, are thinking about informing some decisions based on some information contained in some outside sources. That's not really that unusual. Did you know that we cite British law all the time, and that a whole slew of American law was almost directly lifted from England up until the mid 19th century? We use outside sources in determining legal decisions all the time.

What these articles do not address is whether or not such decisions are appropriate. Judges don't usually mess around, so I would presume that these cases actually call for it. There's no need to freak out over nothing. Besides, any judicial decision that actually violates US law would be quickly overturned on appeal.

This Sharia law scare is only frightening to those who do not know how the US judicial system actually works.
 
the fear of Sharia Law taking over the USA, is as rational as the fear of Kosher food laws stealing from the American people to enrich the Jews.
 
Thunder said:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Family-Leader-Presidential-Pledge.pdf

go to page 8.

I'm sorry, is Sharia Islam a real threat in this country?

Are the evil tenticles of Waahabism and Islamic extremism threatening our good ol' Euro-Christian values?

Wow, this hot thang really is appealing to the lowest of the low in our society.
Click to expand...

tilting-at-windmills.jpg
 
Paschendale said:
None of these articles really discuss why the judge is looking to outside sources, or whether there are any conflicts with standing US statute or precedent. In fact, all we really know is that some judges, somewhere, are thinking about informing some decisions based on some information contained in some outside sources. That's not really that unusual. Did you know that we cite British law all the time, and that a whole slew of American law was almost directly lifted from England up until the mid 19th century? We use outside sources in determining legal decisions all the time.

What these articles do not address is whether or not such decisions are appropriate. Judges don't usually mess around, so I would presume that these cases actually call for it. There's no need to freak out over nothing. Besides, any judicial decision that actually violates US law would be quickly overturned on appeal.

This Sharia law scare is only frightening to those who do not know how the US judicial system actually works.
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm a criminal lawyer, and I can tell you, in general, that when Sharia law (or Judaism, or Central Asian Animist theology for that matter) come into the courtroom, it's typically to inform the judge or the jury about the mental state of an alleged criminal. In our legal system almost all crimes require a nexus between thought (called "mens rea") and action ("actus reus") in order for a person to be found guilty. I haven't looked at all the articles brought up for Muslim=scary purposes, but the last link refers specifically to sharia being used to interpret whether or not the wife-beating husband had the necessary criminal mental state (under standard US common law) to be found guilty of the charges against him. This emphatically does NOT mean that Sharia law is taking over, it means that this individual's mental state is informed by his religious beliefs. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the law, or is too cynical to care that they're irresponsibly spouting nonsense.
 
Aderleth said:
This emphatically does NOT mean that Sharia law is taking over, it means that this individual's mental state is informed by his religious beliefs. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the law, or is too cynical to care that they're irresponsibly spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...

thank you. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom