The Case for Banning Sharia Law in America

Jayferr said:
If I we're to become a president of a country, I think it'll be best to abolish any religion and just to make the people embrace nationalism. That way there will only be one ideal that would encourage unity. That's what I'm afraid of with religion, it creates a parallel power with the government where the people are forced to choose either one of them sooner or later.
Click to expand...

So you'd remove freedom of choice in a personal, completly unrelated to government, decision. Yeah that'd unite people. Against you.
 
Bfgrn said:
Sounds like the Pro-Life crowd to me...

If I were "Pro-Life," I wouldn't have to take the time to consider much of anything. Just keep repeating that the unborn is innocent. One size fits all. Adoption is the greatest thing ever. And most of all, women must be forced to be subjected to biology--natural occurrences, but only when I say so. If I were Pro-Life, I could be as inconsistent as I wanted. I could complain about Sharia Law, then turn around and force women to behave like I want them to. I could say "I care about women," then say "Oh but if you were raped, you must be forced to have the baby no matter what because you don't matter. Oh, and sluts too. Because they're sluts." I could claim to be "Pro-Child" and sit back as millions of children starve.

In the same breath I could point out that life is sacred, then suggest that women who get abortions and doctors that do it should be condemned to death. I could act as though all pregnancies are happy butterflies and rainbow unicorn fairies. I could live in a fantasy world in my head where no woman ever regrets having children ever. I could claim that birth control promotes sex. Does a seatbelt promote driving?

I could disregard history. I could compare abortion to the Holocaust and slavery, and completely undermine the two. I could bash women for wanting to make medical decisions. I could judge any woman that doesn't want to breed. Women would be nothing but a uterus to me, defined by how many children they have. I could judge everyone and make it clear that I'm judging them. I wouldn't have to be sympathetic to women. I could use emotional appeal after emotional appeal. I could use appeal to nature fallacies.

I wouldn't have to take any religious views other than my own into consideration. And anyone that claimed to belong to my religion that didn't agree 100% with what I have to say would be completely wrong and would need to read the religious text, even though I haven't. They could point out scripture and I could just claim that they are taking it out of context. And while I'm at it, I'll ignore the fact that 83% of women that get abortions identify themselves as religious.
Click to expand...

You summed that up beautifully. That's exactly what it is.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Mormons also have a very specific set of religious laws that cover marriage and divorce...you going to make the case that they shouldn't be allowed to set their own rules where they differ from our civil laws?
Click to expand...

Are those strict religious laws used in our civil courts?
 
christiefan915 said:
Do you ever research the cases or do you just spout the Pam Geller line?

Re: the Maryland custody case, all parties are Pakistani nationals. After the parents' bitter divorce, the father was awarded custody of the girl. Then, the mother essentially kidnapped the child and took her to the US, where she remarried. The father demanded that the child be returned to Pakistan with him. The courts decided they didn't have jurisdiction over this matter.

Precedent: In Etter v. Etter, 43 Md. App. 395, 398, 405 A.2d 760 (1979), this court recognized: "A court is allowed to decline jurisdiction of a child custody proceeding to deter abduction of children for the purpose of obtaining a custody award."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2264949915354454678&q=hosain+malik&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

I read a book called Not Without My Daughter. The circumstances were reversed. The American mother kidnapped her daughter from the Iranian father. People applauded her bravery in getting the daughter back to America. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Click to expand...

What about the other cases?
 
Alias said:
Interesting. Who is behind this movement?
Click to expand...

Conservative Christians...

Purity Ball - http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=111NNN8U



"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater
 
Bfgrn said:
Conservative Christians...

Purity Ball - http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=111NNN8U



"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Conservative Christians want to turn America into a nation with Sharia Law?
 
christiefan915 said:
Do you ever research the cases or do you just spout the Pam Geller line?

Re: the Maryland custody case, all parties are Pakistani nationals. After the parents' bitter divorce, the father was awarded custody of the girl. Then, the mother essentially kidnapped the child and took her to the US, where she remarried. The father demanded that the child be returned to Pakistan with him. The courts decided they didn't have jurisdiction over this matter.

Precedent: In Etter v. Etter, 43 Md. App. 395, 398, 405 A.2d 760 (1979), this court recognized: "A court is allowed to decline jurisdiction of a child custody proceeding to deter abduction of children for the purpose of obtaining a custody award."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2264949915354454678&q=hosain+malik&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

I read a book called Not Without My Daughter. The circumstances were reversed. The American mother kidnapped her daughter from the Iranian father. People applauded her bravery in getting the daughter back to America. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Click to expand...

You don't think a hack job like Failias is going to take the time do do his own research, do you?

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...it's much easier to just regurgitate Rightie talking points from Ms Geller.
 
Alias said:
I see. Do you honesty think conservatives want society to look like Islamic society? Perhaps you're not awake yet. What time is it there?
Click to expand...

So suddenly the guy who plays woefully ignorant and willfully obtuse when it suits him, is going to question the "honesty" of another?
 
christiefan915 said:
Only sparkling water. But I do know how to read a legal decision, which is apparently beyond Pam Geller's capabilities.
Click to expand...

What about the other cases? You haven't responded about those.

We have cases of Sharia Law being used in our court system. Deal with it.
 
Alias said:
What about the other cases?
Click to expand...

Next case: Chaudry v. Chaudry, 388 A. 2d 1000 - NJ: Appellate Div. 1978

A Pakistani couple received a valid Pakistani divorce. Now the wife and children live in Pakistan, while the husband lives in the US. The Pakistani court retains jurisdiction over the couple and their legal issues. The husband met all financial obligations specified in Pakistani divorce. The wife sues for more money in a US court. The trial court judge overturns the Pakistani divorce ruling re: spousal maintenance. The appeals court reversed the trial court ruling.

"In conclusion we hold that (1) the trial judge should have afforded recognition to the Pakistan divorce; (2) he should not have awarded separate maintenance or $6,880 arrears therefor to the wife; (3) the wife is not entitled to equitable distribution of assets or alimony; and (4) although the trial judge should not have denied support for the children for the reasons he gave, the judgment denying such support should be affirmed, without prejudice to the wife's filing a petition with respect to the Pakistan child support order, as heretofore discussed."

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Another case where the US courts have no jurisdiction in a matter involving foreign nationals.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...R+Sharia+OR+Muslim+OR+Islam&hl=en&as_sdt=4,31
 
In re the Custody Of R., minor child. Dato Paduka Noordin v. Datin Laila Abdulla, Appelllant No. 21565-9-II.
-- November 14, 1997

A child was born out of wedlock in 1987, in the Philippines, to a Brunei national and a Filipina. A Muslim marriage took place in Malaysia in 1988. The family lived in Brunei, British Columbia, and the Philippines. The mother filed for a marriage annulment in one Philippines court in 1995. Four days later father filed for a Muslim divorce in a Shari'ah court in another Philippines city. The Shari'ah court granted a divorce. The mother got temporary custody of the child and fled to Washington state without informing the father. After locating the two, the father filed a habeas corpus petition for return of the child, and the Washington trial court gave custody back to him based on the custody rulings made in the Philippines. The mother filed an emergency habeas corpus petition to prevent her former husband from moving with the child to Brunei. The Washington court ruled that the woman was entitled to another hearing because she didn't have enough time to produce her Philippines court orders as evidence. The court's decision: "For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings before a different trial court judge, consistent with this opinion."

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=228

Again, another case where one party is trying to use the US court system to overturn a ruling made in a foreign country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top