Oklahoma and Sharia

[Kadarin]

Tonight I find myself in the really odd position of agreeing with Newt Gingrich on something:

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich touched on the issue during a speech to the fifth annual Values Voter Summit in Washington in September.

"I am totally opposed to any effort to impose Sharia on the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law," Gingrich said.

From here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html?hpt=C2

In my opinion, Islam (or any other religion) has NO PLACE defining any aspect of US law. Serious what the fuck from this article...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Wouldn't it have been cool if he had a more sweeping statement about all attempts to base laws on Religion?

 

[DominionSeraph]

We already do. It's called the First Amendment.

Christian Fundies may hate that "liberal activist judges" have ruled for the separation of chuch and state, but this is why we have it.

 

[Bateluer]

Wouldn't it have been cool if he had a more sweeping statement about all attempts to base laws on Religion?

Yes, it would, and he should.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can't say as I blame him for his views either. That walking piece of human excrement would have been stoned to death under Sharia Law.

We'll just have to accept the kinder shunning given by Christian society, oh wait.

 

[Moonbeam]

Personally, I am for no pedophiles teaching in schools and dogs pooping on lawns. I am a big fat nobody, please please look at me. I will make an issue of square manholes if it will get me elected. I am a worthless asshole, but my issues are pulled straight from your dreams. You fear bugs, I'm the Orkin man. Don't like black people, there'll be no entitlements. Anything that's remote and scary, stuff that will never happen, count on me to raise it as an issue. I'm the one who pours cocaine on your nightmares and diddles your prick. I will save you from all your childhood fears. Vote for me, look over here, see me. See your savior, and not the piece of shit I really am.

Wake up you idiots. You are being played by master psychologists and Satanists.

I am going to count backward from ten and when I get to one you will awake, fresh and fearless, no Sharia Law to be seen. The monster, you will realize clearly, is Newt Gingrich.

Ten nine eight, you are starting to feel safe, seven six five, you're starting to see through the jive, four three two, you're no longer a schmoo, and ..............

 

[HomerJS]

The issue isn't Sharia law its deciding cases using the laws from any religion.

Our laws are secular for a reason.

I'm against the ballot question if it applies to Islamic Law only.

 

[bfdd]

We already do. It's called the First Amendment.

Christian Fundies may hate that "liberal activist judges" have ruled for the separation of chuch and state, but this is why we have it.

lol yeah, ideologues don't always see it that way though

 

[DominionSeraph]

You are being played by master psychologists

Master? I'd say not, for the most part.

I'd say that most of the Republican leadership has unconsciously learned through observation that certain techniques work better than others, like speaking as though there is no doubt in their mind. So they passively drifted towards doing this. However, because this was just a natural reaction to their environment, they put no mental defenses up against their own actions. So they gradually became extremists because they fell for their own use of an effective technique. As the technique polarizes everyone more and more, everyones' egos get more and more involved, making it harder and harder to do anything but become more and more polarized.
As they process the world emotionally rather than intellectually, they don't have a framework on the higher intellectual plane from which to leverage a counter-action. Which also means they can't consciously leverage the devious use of the technique.

So I see them as victims of an unfortunate natural process, not criminal masterminds.

Now Fox News, on the other hand... I'd say there's someone operating behind the scenes there who knows exactly what they're doing. It's just too... staged... to be natural. I think the Republican politicians are dealing with someone who is much better than they are. I catch glimpses from some of them that lead me to believe that, even as they take on the propaganda techniques that Fox News launders for their use, they have an instinct that there is something is wrong with it.

 

[Kadarin]

Now Fox News, on the other hand... I'd say there's someone operating behind the scenes there who knows exactly what they're doing. It's just too... staged... to be natural. I think the Republican politicians are dealing with someone who is much better than they are. I catch glimpses from some of them that lead me to believe that, even as they take on the propaganda techniques that Fox News launders for their use, they have an instinct that there is something is wrong with it.

Interesting. Can you give examples?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The issue isn't Sharia law its deciding cases using the laws from any religion.

Our laws are secular for a reason.

I'm against the ballot question if it applies to Islamic Law only.

Baptist law? Buddhists maybe? Specifically and with examples? You are correct in that there shouldn't be alternative laws but seriously this is the only religion that gets pushed. I would accept broader language but I'll take this since Sharia is what's being pushed.

 

[ichy]

This is a retarded non-issue. Nobody is using Sharia law in the United States.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a retarded non-issue. Nobody is using Sharia law in the United States.

No one was using it in Europe either. It's two things. First to get the voter base motivated, and to prevent a serious attempt as establishing a religious parallel legal system. The first is immaterial to me, but the second isn't a problem.

 

[Painman]

Sharia in the US? Feckin' Please.

Idea deserves no further comment.

 

[ichy]

No one was using it in Europe either. It's two things. First to get the voter base motivated, and to prevent a serious attempt as establishing a religious parallel legal system. The first is immaterial to me, but the second isn't a problem.

In the UK they've had a system for a number of years where Jewish families can have family law issues settled by binding arbitration that uses Jewish law, as long as those decisions don't conflict with English law. Think of it as a kosher version of Judge Judy. There was a proposal to establish a similar system using Sharia. It's a bad idea IMO, but not nearly as outrageous as the "OMG Sharia in the UK!" hysteria you hear from right-wingers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In the UK they've had a system for a number of years where Jewish families can have family law issues settled by binding arbitration that uses Jewish law, as long as those decisions don't conflict with English law. Think of it as a kosher version of Judge Judy. There was a proposal to establish a similar system using Sharia. It's a bad idea IMO, but not nearly as outrageous as the "OMG Sharia in the UK!" hysteria you hear from right-wingers.

We don't have the UK system and I think that's a good thing. Of course it's politically motivated but heading off something which may be an issue in coming years doesn't bother me. I'd be against Jewish courts too, but that's not something which is seriously being considered by the American Jewish community. Certainly not all Muslims here would be for it, but there are enough to try. I'm not having a lot of angst in any case.

 

[Mursilis]

All I got from that article is that there's a judge in NJ who really, really needs to be removed from the bench. The whole Sharia scare is just fearmongering.

 

[Siddhartha]

Wouldn't it have been cool if he had a more sweeping statement about all attempts to base laws on Religion?

Yes, but do not hold your breath for him or the other anti-Islam crew to do this.

 

[MovingTarget]

We don't have the UK system and I think that's a good thing. Of course it's politically motivated but heading off something which may be an issue in coming years doesn't bother me. I'd be against Jewish courts too, but that's not something which is seriously being considered by the American Jewish community. Certainly not all Muslims here would be for it, but there are enough to try. I'm not having a lot of angst in any case.

I agree with this, but how far does the first amendment go towards keeping Sharia out as a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) if mutually agreed upon by both parties? In courts proper, sure Sharia can and would rightfully be kept out, but ADR is a grey area.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, but do not hold your breath for him or the other anti-Islam crew to do this.

It's a two edged sword. There are people who certainly vilify all Muslims, then there are those who are metaphorically crucified for saying something that's not liked by "proper thinking people" even though that person spends most of his time defending Muslims from extremists.

Go figure.

 

[Mursilis]

I agree with this, but how far does the first amendment go towards keeping Sharia out as a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) if mutually agreed upon by both parties? In courts proper, sure Sharia can and would rightfully be kept out, but ADR is a grey area.

Part of personal freedom is allowing people to deny themselves rights; if two adults agree to accept a different governing standard, that agreement should be respected. What if two Jews, one Conservative, and one lapsed, decide to marry, and they both agree to raise the kids Kosher and in the Conservative tradition - should they then not be held to that same standard in ADR? Or even in a state court, for that matter? That's not to say such agreements are forever-binding; like any contract, either party is free to breach the terms, and be subject to the (reasonable) conditions of such breach. That's why the NJ case is clearly wrong - the wife should have been granted the restraining order in that case, the husband would have been free to divorce her.

Edit: As for the First Amendment, that's only binding on what actions the gov't may take or prohibit, or that we may take against each other in the public sphere. If two atheists marry, they're still free to promise each other, for example, to keep the Bible, Koran, or Torah out of the family home.

 

[shiner]

You can read the actual text of the State Question here

 

[bamacre]

"we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law,"

Totally unnecessary. Just more anti-Muslim rhetoric from another neoconservative.

 

[Lemon law]

I find this whole charade quite funny.

But still, its diificult to separate law from religion since both are somewhat based on humans getting along with humans.

But somehow, in the USA just the word Sharia sends many into a case of the screaming hebigebies, yet when equally primitive christian biblical principles are used to promote laws against teaching anything but the biblical version of human origin and the like, its as American as apple pie.

Its a giant holier than thee double standard we pretend not to have.

 

[Scotteq]

You can read the actual text of the State Question here

Thank You for this. It's nice (and useful!) to read the actual documents rather than depend on the rantings of people with agendas.

*****



OK - Now that I've read it: It's clearly a politically motivated strawman, since it specifically names Sharia and International law.... but leaves out Halakha (Jewish Law), for example.

It should be sent back to committee and either killed, or rewritten to state something to the effect that "...no law besides those duly Authorized by the Appropriate State and Federal Legislatures of the United States may be considered..."