Your take on Sharia law in America

[Confederate]

True that, but it is, in fact, wine.

Your senses deceive you.

Or if you grew up Baptist like I did, grape juice.

Ah, the nonsensical "Jesus drank wine, but we ban it" approach

 

[Confederate]

First paragraph: "ban self-established Muslim courts"

Self-established does not mean voluntary. I can establish a court with my friends and subject our families to it without their consent. That's not what these Sharia courts are. Everyone going to one has either signed a contract beforehand agreeing to use them as a conflict resolution organization or agrees to go to one later.

 

[FrankRep]

SOURCE:
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/17...itain-as-uk-seeks-to-shut-down-muslim-courts/

“If people are afraid of having their hands cut, don’t steal,” UK Islamic leader Anjem Choduary told reporters. “If you don’t want to be stoned to death, don’t commit adultery.”​

LOL. wow.

I find it funny that Libertarians try to defend this kind of harsh treatment.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If it's a voluntary community, sure.

No different than the Amish or Hasidic Jews, the way I look at it.

I am not so OK with it, remember that Sharia allows rape and murder depending ont he circumstance. States do have a positive responsibility to deal with rape and murder, particularly when the victims neither want to be raped or murdered.

If you are going to make such a law, however, this bill would be a better model than calling out "Sharia Law" by name.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H640

HB640 basically says that Judges in the State of NC cannot use foreign law to reject Mens Rea in cases where the victim is thereby denied their Constitutional or natural rights.

 

[Confederate]

SOURCE:
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/17...itain-as-uk-seeks-to-shut-down-muslim-courts/

“If people are afraid of having their hands cut, don’t steal,” UK Islamic leader Anjem Choduary told reporters. “If you don’t want to be stoned to death, don’t commit adultery.”​

LOL. wow.

I find it funny that Libertarians try to defend this kind of harsh treatment.

I'm not a libertarian, but I believe that the government has no right to be involved in religious matters as long as there is no coercion or violation of rights involved. For example in divorce proceedings and inheritance cases or disputes between businessmen. If a Sharia court, for example, mandates that someone be stoned to death, it has obviously overstepped its bounds. However, to my knowledge, no such sentence has ever been decreed by a Sharia court in the UK or the US.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This.

Anyone who actually thinks that Islamic law is being codified into law and that Americans will be subject to it is either ignorant or willfully spreading misinformation.

SHARIA LAW POSES NO THREAT TO ANYONE IN THE US.

It's not being codified, it's being used in the courts to deny mens rea. In other words, a man who commits an 'honor killing' because his daughter slept with another man and lost her virginity, or his wife slept with another man committing adultery, he goes and kills her brutally, the judge rules the man not guilty because in his own law (Sharia) it's not a crime, therefore mens rea is not established, the guy doesn't think he did anything wrong, and therefore gets away with murder.

It's already happening, and no, it's not being codified into statute, it's being used to set obvious criminals free.

I sincerely doubt these women volunteered to be murdered.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not a libertarian, but I believe that the government has no right to be involved in religious matters as long as there is no coercion or violation of rights involved. For example in divorce proceedings and inheritance cases or disputes between businessmen. If a Sharia court, for example, mandates that someone be stoned to death, it has obviously overstepped its bounds. However, to my knowledge, no such sentence has ever been decreed by a Sharia court in the UK or the US.

In consider murder to be a violation of the natural right to life.

 

[Confederate]

In consider murder to be a violation of the natural right to life.

So do I. One cannot consent to being murdered, so therefore any sentence issued by a Sharia court (or any other religious court, for that matter) which calls for a death penalty is invalid.

 

[FrankRep]

I'm not a libertarian, but I believe that the government has no right to be involved in religious matters as long as there is no coercion or violation of rights involved. For example in divorce proceedings and inheritance cases or disputes between businessmen. If a Sharia court, for example, mandates that someone be stoned to death, it has obviously overstepped its bounds. However, to my knowledge, no such sentence has ever been decreed by a Sharia court in the UK or the US.

Murder, stoning someone to death, violates state law in all 50 states.

 

[Confederate]

It's not being codified, it's being used in the courts to deny mens rea. In other words, a man who commits an 'honor killing' because his daughter slept with another man and lost her virginity, or his wife slept with another man committing adultery, he goes and kills her brutally, the judge rules the man not guilty because in his own law (Sharia) it's not a crime, therefore mens rea is not established, the guy doesn't think he did anything wrong, and therefore gets away with murder.

It's already happening, and no, it's not being codified into statute, it's being used to set obvious criminals free.

I sincerely doubt these women volunteered to be murdered.

You can use any defense you want, it's up to the jury to determine whether you are guilty or not. A judge and the state, however, cannot rely on any law other than US law.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So do I. One cannot consent to being murdered, so therefore any sentence issued by a Sharia court (or any other religious court, for that matter) which calls for a death penalty is invalid.

The Sharia cases that have already happened have nothing to do with Sharia Courts. They have to do with prosecuting existing crimes in American courts that are dismissed due to a lack of mens rea, because the defendant allegedly didn't believe what he did was a crime.

 

[Confederate]

Murder, stoning someone to death, violates state law in all 50 states.

I know...

 

[Danke]

If you drink enough Jesus, you'll get drunk. Well played Jesus, well played.

That's funny Frank.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You can use any defense you want, it's up to the jury to determine whether you are guilty or not. A judge and the state, however, cannot rely on any law other than US law.

"Yes, I raped and brutally murdered her, but in my law that is not a crime, it is a requirement of God"

"Not Guilty"

Sorry, I can't abide such horror.

 

[Confederate]

The Sharia cases that have already happened have nothing to do with Sharia Courts. They have to do with prosecuting existing crimes in American courts that are dismissed due to a lack of mens rea, because the defendant allegedly didn't believe what he did was a crime.

If a jury determined that he is not criminally responsible for his crime that is following US law. A juror can vote however he wants.

If a prosecutor or judge is relying on anything other than US law then he is in the wrong.

 

[Confederate]

"Yes, I raped and brutally murdered her, but in my law that is not a crime, it is a requirement of God"

"Not Guilty"

Sorry, I can't abide such horror.

"Not Guilty" would be a verdict delivered by a jury of his peers.

 

[Confederate]

Banning voluntary religious courts is not the answer.

The answer is rigorously enforcing US law to guarantee that Constitutionally-protected and natural rights are not violated, by anyone.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Banning voluntary religious courts is not the answer.

The answer is rigorously enforcing US law to guarantee that Constitutionally-protected and natural rights are not violated, by anyone.

Simple as that.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If a jury determined that he is not criminally responsible for his crime that is following US law. A juror can vote however he wants.

A juror can also be wrong. Our system allows a 'not guilty' verdict even for the obviously guilty, so he would indeed be set free, doesn't make that juror any less an idiot for dismissing the kinds of cases we are describing here.

Also, these cases are almost NEVER a jury trial, they find a 'friendly' judge and waive their rights to jury trial.

If a prosecutor or judge is relying on anything other than US law then he is in the wrong.

Exactly, and therefore HB640 linked above

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H640

Which is exactly what HB640 says.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Simple as that.

Correct. Which is currently in violation by judges who use Sharia to mitigate mens rea for those who commit what would otherwise be crimes in our Constitutional Republic.