Topic: Should Muslims be aloud to impose Sharia law anywhere in the United States? - page 2. (Read 1846 times)

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that "religion is bad" I said some religions are bad. I think Christianity, Buddhism Hinduism, and a lot of other religions never been "designed" to be oppressive and (originally) were not aimed for world domination. Of course nearly off of these religions were used as tools for oppression and domination by some ambitious people, but on their own these religions were targeting improvement of individuals and communities. On the other hand there are some other religions like Islam and mesoamerican religions what were especially "designed" for conquest, domination and enslaving others. These are what I consider bad for a multi-ethnic, multi-religion society. 

Way to ignore everything I just posted and fall to your previously held belief of "religion bad!"

Indeed, but some law and religions have developed a lot, some other religions and law systems are still there were they were fifteen hundred years ago. Perpetuality and sticking to old traditions are nice things in many areas but not that great in law.

Technically all law is based on religion. If you research the history of law it all goes back to religious texts, some of which are still in use word for word today in modern law. There is some debatable value to some of these laws as most people agree murder, theft, rape, and other forms of crime are in opposition to the foundation of a civil society even though the laws have a religious origin. Most people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. Many people assume that it means all concepts of faith and God should be removed from law and government. In reality it means that the government is not allowed to infringe on any individual's right to practice their religion as long as it does not bring direct harm to others. This was a direct reference to Britain's hybridization with the church, and meant to prohibit such an arrangement between any church and the US government.

The most important thing to remember about the relationship between God and law is not about cloudmen looking down and judging you, but the concept that there is something higher than government, higher than money, and higher than man itself that we should all pay respect too religious or not. To ignore this is to literally give the government all of the powers reserved for the commonwealth/God, and if you didn't believe before, you will pray God does exist after seeing the very real hell that results when men try to abuse all of the authority and rights formerly reserved by "God"/the commonwealth. Without this distinction we are literally nothing more than property. I don't think most people want this regardless of their beliefs.

Of course not. USA is multi ethnic society so if every ethnic/religion group would impose their law there would be anarchy. If anyone dont like USA law, he can always go back where he belong.

Very simply said, sharia law is civil law based on the religion of Islam. Civil law is essentially governmental dictatorship over people.

In America, Canada, the U.K., Australia, and to a lesser extent, India, we have common law of the people. Common law of the people is law where the people can overrule government except when people harm other people.

The wealthy of the world would like to do away with the common law of the people so that they can rule by making slaves of the people. They are succeeding through keeping the people ignorant. Few people nowadays know how to use the common law of the people to put government down.

No no no no no no no no, a thousand times no.  I agree, their laws should stay in their homeland.  My personal view is that any religious law is silly and superstition-based and has no part in a modern society.  So I would vigorously oppose Sharia law in the US. 

Judge Judy has a court of the basic kind that we have in the States. It is a man/woman against man/woman court direct. I don't know if Judge Judy is real, but the process is real, in real courts.

Take your friendly, neighborhood Muslim to court for every little thing he harms you with. And sue him for every false claim/complaint against you in every area that he tries to sue you when you haven't harmed him with real harm or damage. It's the law. You can do it.

But, if you harm him, he just might figure out how to use our laws against you. So, be careful.

The Shakira law is spreading like cancer. In some of the Muslim majority European cities such as Brussels, Oldham and Burnley, the local laws are no longer in force. On the other hand, the Shakira law is having the ultimate authority. That said, I don't think that it will be easy to impose it in the United States. The Muslim population is quite low there, unlike that in Europe.

United States is a secular country (lol, I can't believe I wrote this) so their need is nothing for government.
They have free speech, they can yell at sharia but they won't get sharia rules anywhere.

What is sharia law?

I like you. Migrants should adapt to the country they're going to, not the other way around.

NO
Same sort of question...Should i be aloud to go anywhere in the United States and kick anyone i want in the bollocks   MAYBE TEXAS

Absolutely not. Here's the thing: In the United States we enjoy many freedoms, as we all know, so there is no reason to go into detail. But if you truly do not know, just Google U.S. Constitution. Sharia "law" is contrary to those freedoms we enjoy. So, why is this even a question?

Maybe we should keep Islamic church and state separate by chopping all the Muslims in half.

 

Our constitution makes it clear that church and state are to be separate.

If you choose to keep laws based on your religion, that's fine by me as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others.

But you can not impose your religious laws on me.

The justification behind any law needs to be secular justification, not religious justification.

Exactly, I don't even understand why people are considering this, also, do you people even realise how fucked up Sharia law actually is? It's fucking ridiculous to even consider adopting the laws of a Theocratic Dictatorship which is pretty much what countries who follow Islam are.

No. There shouldn't even be a debate about this. That would be the most blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. If Christians can't have a cross in the public square, Sharia law most definitely can't be imposed anywhere on U.S. soil.

Only if they can show where it is found in the Quran! because Sharia Law was not written by the Prophet is written by Imam who says this is what the Prophet meant.

yup! they should respect and adopt the law where they live, it would be disrepectful if they continue to do this in a non muslim country.