• 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!

Muslim Activist Group Suing Oklahoma for banning Sharia/Islamic LAW

Wake said:
As "human rights activists," progressives defend the religion of Islam, which still lives in the 7th century, AEB their women forced to be garbed and other very little unbarbarious things.
Click to expand...

This is the typical bullsh*t that creates divisiveness and keeps people from coming together and solving contemporary American issues. Progressives defend the right for Muslim-Americans to practice their religion within the guidelines of American laws. Please show me a post on this forum in which a "progressive" has suggested implementing Sharia law into the American legal system.
 
Sharia Law needs to be killed outright, all the time every time. There is no basis for having any religious law in this Country.

The Liberals claim there is a separation in Church and State when it's not there at all, and then you get the the same kind of lame brains saying Sharia Law needs to be recognized.

Kill it make it go away or Murder will be Okay, ans women will have fewer or no rights.

Islam is not a religion. It is a CULT.

Religion Versus Cult

Religions respect the individual's autonomy. Cults enforce compliance.

Religions try to help individuals meet their spiritual needs. Cults exploit spiritual needs.

Religions tolerate and even encourage questions and independent, critical thinking. Cults discourage questions and independent critical thinking.

Religions encourage psycho-spiritual integrations. Cults "split" members into the "good cult self" and the "bad old self.”

Conversion to religions involves an unfolding of internal processes central to a person's identity. Cultic conversion involves an unaware surrender to external forces that care little for the person's identity.

Religions view money as a means, subject to ethical restraints, toward achieving noble ends. Cults view money as an end or as a means toward achieving power or the selfish goals of the leader.

Religions view sex between clergy and the faithful as unethical. Cults frequently subject members to the sexual appetites of the leaders.

Religions respond to critics respectfully. Cults frequently intimidate critics with physical or legal threats.

Religions cherish the family. Cults view the family as an enemy.

Religions encourage a person to think carefully before making a commitment to join. Cults encourage quick decisions with little information.

These are my thoughts and comparisons. And I approved this message.
 
Councilman said:
Sharia Law needs to be killed outright, all the time every time. There is no basis for having any religious law in this Country.

The Liberals claim there is a separation in Church and State when it's not there at all, and then you get the the same kind of lame brains saying Sharia Law needs to be recognized.

Kill it make it go away or Murder will be Okay, ans women will have fewer or no rights.

Islam is not a religion. It is a CULT.

Religion Versus Cult

Religions respect the individual's autonomy. Cults enforce compliance.

Religions try to help individuals meet their spiritual needs. Cults exploit spiritual needs.

Religions tolerate and even encourage questions and independent, critical thinking. Cults discourage questions and independent critical thinking.

Religions encourage psycho-spiritual integrations. Cults "split" members into the "good cult self" and the "bad old self.”

Conversion to religions involves an unfolding of internal processes central to a person's identity. Cultic conversion involves an unaware surrender to external forces that care little for the person's identity.

Religions view money as a means, subject to ethical restraints, toward achieving noble ends. Cults view money as an end or as a means toward achieving power or the selfish goals of the leader.

Religions view sex between clergy and the faithful as unethical. Cults frequently subject members to the sexual appetites of the leaders.

Religions respond to critics respectfully. Cults frequently intimidate critics with physical or legal threats.

Religions cherish the family. Cults view the family as an enemy.

Religions encourage a person to think carefully before making a commitment to join. Cults encourage quick decisions with little information.

These are my thoughts and comparisons. And I approved this message.
Click to expand...


Yeah... :\ ......
:diverts eyes:.
 
Councilman said:
Sharia Law needs to be killed outright, all the time every time. There is no basis for having any religious law in this Country.
Click to expand...

Too bad that, legally speaking, this is about contract law and not religious law. The only way "Sharia law" can be applied in the United States is via contracts to which all parties are voluntary participants and the contract itself does not violate the law of the land. You know, like any other contract.

I guess hate and fear are valid grounds upon which to ban otherwise legal contractual arrangements.

Aside from that, I wish the proponents of this luck with the Article VI dispute which is surely coming.
 
Are there traditional Jewish courts (what comes to mind) or those of other religions?
 
They have a case because the ballot measure singles out Islamic law, rather than religious law in general.

It's also a problem that doesn't exist. Find me one court case anywhere that has been decided based on Sharia Law.
 
SE102 said:
Are there traditional Jewish courts (what comes to mind) or those of other religions?
Click to expand...
Some churches, like the Mormons, have church courts for transgression. Outcome can be disfellowshipment or excommunication, if guilty.
Those are for rules developed by the church, like adultery, AND can be used to kick out criminals. But the criminals still get to face the regular law of the land, in regular courts, and serve time in regular prisons.
 
MaggieD said:
Nobody is implementing Sharia law. The UK courts have said that CIVIL DISPUTES can be resolved with Sharia arbitration. Rest assured that no UK laws will be violated in that process. If one is going to foster freedom of religion, I see nothing wrong with Muslims electing to resolve civil disputes using Sharia law.

If I want to enter into a binding arbitration with Mickey Mouse and Friends, it's my right to do so.
Click to expand...

I know you are saying CIVIL DISPUTES but how can we be sure that's all it would be? We have already had judges trying to inject a Muslims religion into rulings in our own courts. Can we trust Muslims not to ignore a mans beating/raping of his wife if it comes up in a civil case?
All this tells me is that some Muslims have no desire to assimilate into our society. If they did, they would gladly give up any thought of Sharia Law. Instead, they are filing law suits against those who just want to make sure it can never be implemented in their state.
 
Barbbtx said:
I know you are saying CIVIL DISPUTES but how can we be sure that's all it would be? We have already had judges trying to inject a Muslims religion into rulings in our own courts. Can we trust Muslims not to ignore a mans beating/raping of his wife if it comes up in a civil case?
All this tells me is that some Muslims have no desire to assimilate into our society. If they did, they would gladly give up any thought of Sharia Law. Instead, they are filing law suits against those who just want to make sure it can never be implemented in their state.
Click to expand...

Will you give up any sought of interjecting your Christian faith into debates about secular marriage? It was a rhetorical question. We know you won't.
 
Barbbtx said:
I know you are saying CIVIL DISPUTES but how can we be sure that's all it would be? We have already had judges trying to inject a Muslims religion into rulings in our own courts. Can we trust Muslims not to ignore a mans beating/raping of his wife if it comes up in a civil case?
Click to expand...

What, you mean like mainstream America used to do not so long ago? :lol:

Barbbtx said:
All this tells me is that some Muslims have no desire to assimilate into our society. If they did, they would gladly give up any thought of Sharia Law. Instead, they are filing law suits against those who just want to make sure it can never be implemented in their state.
Click to expand...

You know what I find myself wondering?

How many people who think Sharia law has no place in our country (not even as contract law in a civil dispute, where it'd be legal if it wasn't called Sharia law) think that it's okay to prohibit gays from marrying, or that it's okay to think that homosexuality is immoral, based on the precepts of a religion originating in the middle east.

How many unabashed hipocrites do you think I'd find on this very board if I went search-diving?



TED,
Bets he'd find a whole bunch.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Too bad that, legally speaking, this is about contract law and not religious law. The only way "Sharia law" can be applied in the United States is via contracts to which all parties are voluntary participants and the contract itself does not violate the law of the land. You know, like any other contract.

I guess hate and fear are valid grounds upon which to ban otherwise legal contractual arrangements.

Aside from that, I wish the proponents of this luck with the Article VI dispute which is surely coming.
Click to expand...

Where does this have anything to do with "contract law"?
 
Liberals defend shariah law?
Honestly i think people are so dogged by their own partisan ignorance it becomes impossible to have an honest and down to earth debate with them.
 
Harshaw said:
Where does this have anything to do with "contract law"?
Click to expand...

It's essentially the only way "Sharia law" is going to manifest in the United States -- two or more parties who have a conflict and agree to have it arbitrated according to "Sharia law," or advanced planning documents.

In other words, via contracts, planning documents and other similarly civil methods.
 
kaya'08 said:
Liberals defend shariah law?
Honestly i think people are so dogged by their own partisan ignorance it becomes impossible to have an honest and down to earth debate with them.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm a little sick and tired of hearing certain people use religious tradition to justify certain brands of BS here in the United States, only to turn around and breathe fire about someone else's religious tradition.

Even when that tradition isn't being invoked in a way that violates someone else's rights.
 
Hatuey said:
Will you give up any sought of interjecting your Christian faith into debates about secular marriage? It was a rhetorical question. We know you won't.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly a Christian. Yea, I pray and believe there is some kind of Higher Power. That has nothing to do with my idea of the definition of marriage.
It also has nothing to do with Sharia Law, those who want to keep the door open to it, and the ones who want to close that door permanently.
Either they want to assimilate or they don't. I welcome those who want to assimilate.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Personally I'm a little sick and tired of hearing certain people use religious tradition to justify certain brands of BS here in the United States, only to turn around and breathe fire about someone else's religious tradition.

Even when that tradition isn't being invoked in a way that violates someone else's rights.
Click to expand...

Religious folk for you. Its why we are best off making laws based around rational thought, as long as it falls in line with the rights of the people.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It's essentially the only way "Sharia law" is going to manifest in the United States -- two or more parties who have a conflict and agree to have it arbitrated according to "Sharia law," or advanced planning documents.

In other words, via contracts, planning documents and other similarly civil methods.
Click to expand...

This measure doesn't prevent any of that. All of that stuff has its own set of governing rules, and as long as you satisfy those, you can arrange things on any basis you want. It doesn't require consideration or adjudication of religious law at all.

And this measure was, apparently, specifically in response to a case in NJ where a judge ruled that a Muslim man didn't have "criminal intent" to rape his wife, even though she refused him, because of the precepts of Muslim law and tradition. It was the court saying "oh, well, you're a Muslim, and according to your religious law, she can't refuse you, so you didn't really rape her." (The appeals court immediately and curtly reversed that.) That didn't have anything to do with "contract law" or "advanced planning documents."
 
Barbbtx said:
Either they want to assimilate or they don't. I welcome those who want to assimilate.
Click to expand...

Great, so we'll force them to assimilate by telling them that their religious tradition isn't suitable for the courtroom, all while pseudo-religious bigots coast to coast never fail to miss an opportunity to remind us of our Judeo-Christian roots when it comes to gay marriage.
 
Harshaw said:
This measure doesn't prevent any of that. All of that stuff has its own set of governing rules, and as long as you satisfy those, you can arrange things on any basis you want. It doesn't require consideration or adjudication of religious law at all.
Click to expand...

The measure explicitly forbids judges from considering "Sharia law."
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The measure explicitly forbids judges from considering "Sharia law."
Click to expand...

So what? A court has no reason to consider Sharia law in any probate or contract matter. That set of laws already exists. The document satisfies them or it doesn't.

Perhaps you should explain exactly how it is you think a court will end up considering "Sharia law" in these matters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom