OK, I'll buy into some of that. The old argument against 'majority rules' is that, hypothetically, if, hopefully long long ago, there was a vote to say that all people of color, should not be allowed to vote. Or if the majority ruled that anyone over 40 should be put away, or was it 30? An old movie about that, they put LSD in the water in Hawaii or Florida or somewhere like that. Or, to go really back, the Star Trek episode had animosities stemming from people with striped colored faces, only to find that on side was white on the left, and other side was white on the right, so they fought and hated each other for generations. Most like to think, IMO, that we would never go for a simple majority when it came voting for something immoral or hateful. Not saying that is where you're coming from at all, just making the point that a majority maybe shouldn't always be allowed to make the rules. Thus a 'Republic' vs. a true Democracy, if I remember my civics classe correctly. c
6. True tax overhaul. 7. Elimination of the House Of Representatives. 8. Death penalty for those convicted of government corruption.
Surely if Oklahoma implemented Sharia law but the Federal government continued to be able to overrule regional law it would be void anyway? And I presume the US has already rules against female discrimmation etc, so how would Sharia law in one state even make a difference?
Some of you obviously don't get it. What has happened elsewhere, eg europe, is these muslim communities want to apply "sharia law" among themselves. In most situations, unless a fundamental policy would be violated, courts here will allow parties to a contract or a dispute to stipulate the governing law. For example, you may live in Nebraska but your bank makes you sign a document that NY law aplies to your account. Muslims want to be able to insist that their legal disputes with other muslims be decided not by the laws of the country they chose to live in, but under sharia. As part of that, the actual decision in most cases would be made by some religious figure, not by a US judge. If one party insisted on involving the courts, they would argue that the judge was required to apply sharia to decide the case. Some of you no doubt would say, so what. If that's what they want to do, why should we object. The answer is that we have a legitimate policy interest in having our communities living under the same laws. If a majority of the residents of Watts wanted to let the heads of the Bloods and Crips decide all commercial disputes in their neighborhood, the authorites would never go along. That would mean they were setting up their own little city within a city, subject to different rules. Somehow however, when muslims are involved, liberals cannot surrender quickly enough. Maybe it's because they see it as a backhanded way of venting their anti-Christian bigotry, kind of like rooting against Tim Tebow. This kind of dispute only arises because islam is not really a religion, as our laws and traditions understand religion. It is a dictatorial system of government with religious overtones. Courts are making a huge mistake in applying the Free Exercise clause to it in the same way they might with Methodists.
Sharia law is already a HUGE problem in the United States: "...this [633 page] report [of 50 significant cases in 23 states] is a only a sample of possible casesâa 'tip of the iceberg'âof legal cases involving Shariah in local, state and federal courts." http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf
To further AAA's point. http://legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.msp
Perhaps YOU'RE baffled because you're STUpid? http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf P.S. How many times do I have to tell you to get your nasty teeth fixed?!?
The vast VAST majority of people in Oklahoma may or may not want to do lots of things that discriminate against certain sections of their community. It doesn't mean they should be able to make discrimination lawful or violate the First Amendmentâs Establishment Clause. Because some muslims have a few weird and wacky religious ideas and call them Sharia law does not by itself prove , show, indicate or mean there is any threat, danger or anything concrete against any law of the land. In this country ideas are not banned, whether religiously motivated or not. If you don't like it, move to North Korea.