Sharia law: A threat to our Constitution, yes or no?

[Dilloduck]

As far as I know we still have due process in the United States. Are you proposing that a law be passed that forbids the implementation of Sharia Law ? A constitutional amendment ?

[jimnyc]

As far as I know we still have due process in the United States. Are you proposing that a law be passed that forbids the implementation of Sharia Law ? A constitutional amendment ?

If a local community full of Muslims would rather hold their own court, and implement their own punishments, then yes, I would be in favor of something preventing it from taking root. I'm no politician so I don't know the best way to ensure this doesn't happen. All Americans should be treated under the laws of the United States and the individual states within. In no way should Shariah law be implemented or recognized in our judicial system. People should not receive relief based on Shariah law nor should they be punished based on Shariah.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If a local community full of Muslims would rather hold their own court, and implement their own punishments, then yes, I would be in favor of something preventing it from taking root. I'm no politician so I don't know the best way to ensure this doesn't happen. All Americans should be treated under the laws of the United States and the individual states within. In no way should Shariah law be implemented or recognized in our judicial system. People should not receive relief based on Shariah law nor should they be punished based on Shariah.

Here is a good example of how it starts and gains a foothold.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2819217/posts

Sharia Law Already Devouring UK
| 12 December 2011 | Paul Diamond

Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 7:16:37 AM by IbJensen

In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK . He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.” It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women. The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.” A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.......

Any doubting that Sharia can and does advance into Western culture should simply look to what is happening in Britain now! The squeaky wheel gets the grease and Islam squeaks longer and louder than any , threatening to blow out(blow up) if not appeased. One little appeasement at a time friends, that's how it is done. They have Sharia courts in Britain NOW..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

And let me add, so as not to be accused of having a "phobia" against Islam.

I don't think ANY other countries laws should be taken into account or implemented here. I don't think ANY faith should be used to make law or implement punishment.

[Drummond]

To say the least, I'm no form of 'expert' on your Consitution, and I've no idea whether it bulletproofs you against Sharia incursions. One thing I am sure of, though, is that it doesn't pay to be complacent.

In the UK, we have a guiding legal principle which has it that no practising of Sharia Law can be legally recognised, IF in doing so, existing English law is defied in its favour.

Sounds good, eh ?

BUT .. our laws are, to some extent, 'fluid' .. this says nothing about overturning laws, framing wordings of new ones, ones which may allow more leeway. And, we're slowly but surely seeing more Muslims gain positions of authority in Britain. More Muslims in Society .. the greater the likelihood of Muslim MP's .. and the greater the likelihood, particularly courtesy of Leftie collusion, that on 'PC' grounds, laws will be amended or introduced to facilitate Muslim sensibilities, allowing for freer interpretations in our British courts.

Lefties aside, though, the first Muslim to be a Cabinet Minister, rose through the CONSERVATIVE ranks ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12237958

Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to be a Cabinet minister, has apologised to Prime Minister David Cameron over a ministerial trip to Pakistan with her business partner.

As chairman of the Conservative Party, Baroness Warsi has faced criticism over the official trip with Abid Hussein after it was alleged that she had failed to declare a stake in a company.

Labour has called for an inquiry.

The Conservative peer, who before being made chairman was shadow minister for community cohesion, has a reputation for speaking her mind.

She came to public prominence in 2009 after a well-reviewed performance on BBC One's Question Time when BNP leader Nick Griffin was on the panel.

There had been nervousness in Tory circles beforehand, as she was seen as somewhat gaffe-prone.

But David Cameron had long valued her plain-speaking approach - and the fact that she represented the sort of multicultural, classless party he wanted to build.

A comprehensive-school-educated Asian woman, who speaks with a Yorkshire accent, she has risen rapidly to the top of a party opponents often depict as being dominated by white, privately educated men. She arrived at her first cabinet meeting in May dressed in a traditional South Asian shalwar kameez.

Cameron wants his Party to be politically correct. Labour, the other mainstream political Party here, has been championing their brand of political correctness for decades. So there's precious little to get in the way of Muslim inroads .. and, why ?

Because societal pressures have been such that people dare not counter the trend.

So you see, complacency is not the approach to adopt, because the Left feeds on it, shaping minds and attitudes on the back of it. Without strong opposition to cultural incursions being evident, the Left WILL seize the opportunity to fill that void with their own pap.

The only question is whether you have such Constitutionally-protected due processes in place to ensure that you avoid losing your identity as a nation.

[Kathianne]

To say the least, I'm no form of 'expert' on your Consitution, and I've no idea whether it bulletproofs you against Sharia incursions. One thing I am sure of, though, is that it doesn't pay to be complacent.

In the UK, we have a guiding legal principle which has it that no practising of Sharia Law can be legally recognised, IF in doing so, existing English law is defied in its favour.

Sounds good, eh ?

BUT .. our laws are, to some extent, 'fluid' .. this says nothing about overturning laws, framing wordings of new ones, ones which may allow more leeway. And, we're slowly but surely seeing more Muslims gain positions of authority in Britain. More Muslims in Society .. the greater the likelihood of Muslim MP's .. and the greater the likelihood, particularly courtesy of Leftie collusion, that on 'PC' grounds, laws will be amended or introduced to facilitate Muslim sensibilities, allowing for freer interpretations in our British courts.

Lefties aside, though, the first Muslim to be a Cabinet Minister, rose through the CONSERVATIVE ranks ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12237958



Cameron wants his Party to be politically correct. Labour, the other mainstream political Party here, has been championing their brand of political correctness for decades. So there's precious little to get in the way of Muslim inroads .. and, why ?

Because societal pressures have been such that people dare not counter the trend.

So you see, complacency is not the approach to adopt, because the Left feeds on it, shaping minds and attitudes on the back of it. Without strong opposition to cultural incursions being evident, the Left WILL seize the opportunity to fill that void with their own pap.

The only question is whether you have such Constitutionally-protected due processes in place to ensure that you avoid losing your identity as a nation.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, appeasement?

[Drummond]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, appeasement?

It amounts to that, in my opinion.

But it's not quite that simple. Sensibilities, attitudes, can be worn down over time. There are plenty here who take pride in their 'PC' attitudes, thinking they are being enlightened through their own choice .. not realising the extent of social pressures, over DECADES, that have shaped today's realities.

This is why complacency is such a great enemy. It allows the Left to subvert free will.

[Kathianne]

It amounts to that, in my opinion.

But it's not quite that simple. Sensibilities, attitudes, can be worn down over time. There are plenty here who take pride in their 'PC' attitudes, thinking they are being enlightened through their own choice .. not realising the extent of social pressures, over DECADES, that have shaped today's realities.

This is why complacency is such a great enemy. It allows the Left to subvert free will.

I'm a simple person, regardless of how they got there, it's appeasement. If allowed, Obama would do the same.

[logroller]

And let me add, so as not to be accused of having a "phobia" against Islam.

I don't think ANY other countries laws should be taken into account or implemented here. I don't think ANY faith should be used to make law or implement punishment.

So laws banning gay marriage, based in faith, are a no-go in your perspective?

[jimnyc]

So laws banning gay marriage, based in faith, are a no-go in your perspective?

That's affirmative. None of my reasons to ban or be against homosexuality or gay marriage was ever a result of my faith either. I'm sure it was used in many arguments, but I believe if you look at the text of the amendments and laws, they are not faith based. And no penalty that I am aware of other than non-recognition. Faith and our churches and such should be 100% separate from our judicial system, which is why I agreed myself a long time back that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.