Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

You have conveniently manufactured the belief that I have something against all Muslims.

I have something against Islamic extremists, as I have something against extremists of any religion.

The scope of the problem presented by Islamic extremists is much greater than that presented by any other religion's extremists.

Every time there is a new Islamist atrocity or attempted atrocity, folks such as yourself insist on reminding us of Oklahoma City (which was not even the result of Christian extremism), the Atlanta Olympic bombing (which was), the murder of two doctors who ran abortion clinics, and gay bashing.

None of these were or are excusable, and all are to be condemned, but there is simply not an equivalency between the scope of the threats.

Aside from the fact that it is simply ignorant to refer to Christian Sharia, efforts to impose religious law on civil society are much more widespread and powerful in "Islamic" nations than in "Christian" ones.

Whatever your motivation may be, you consistently exaggerate the threat of Christian extremism.

No Finn, I have not manufactured anything. My motivation is clear, in fact, I have stated it directly several times on this thread. Let me state it again.

Muslims and Christians (and Jewish and Sikhs) in the United States should be treated as equals. It is that simple. If you are willing to agree with this simple principle, then we are most of the way there.

The real issues is how innocent Muslims are treated.

You have mosques being protested (when no churches are being protested), in fact you have prominent Republican politicians saying there are two many mosques (no one is saying there are two many churches). People are being pulled off of airplanes based on the word of one hysterical passenger.

Then you have the protests, like the one in California attended by Republican politicians, where people yell epithets at children simply because they are Muslim. Come on.

The "anti-Sharia" laws are just an example of this.

What Muslim American citizens have to put up with is ridiculous.

We shoud stop letting Moslems in here,
as we did with Atta; its too risky.





David

You have taken a circuitous route to your "real issue," and one that passed through criticizing Christians.

When a group of nuns established a convent near the site of a Nazi concentration camp, some Jewish leaders expressed concern. In response, the Pope asked the nuns to find a new site for their convent.

When a group of Muslims announced they were building a Mosque at Ground Zero in NY, some New Yorkers expressed concern. In response, the Imam accused them of islamaphobia, and vowed to erect the mosque.

Who exactly are the "prominent" Republicans who you assert are guilty of your charges?

How many Muslims have been pulled off planes because of hysterical passengers. Presumably you have details of this event which you can provide.

Muslim-Americans should not suffer one whit from prejudice, but neither should Jews, Sikhs, Mormons, or Gays...but they do.

There is a very large difference between the bigoted actions and words of ignorant individuals and governmental policy that actually codifies such bigotry.

Sharia codifies such bigotry.

Anti-Sharia laws are intended to prevent the adoption of Sharia. One would think you would be in favor of them since you insist you are repulsed by all religious extremists.

Anti-Sharia laws are not Jim Crow for Muslims.

Of all the many problems we have in this country, persecution of Muslim-Americans is low on the list of the biggest. This is not to say that such persecution should be accepted, but you, once more, exaggerate it's scope.

You give me a lot to respond to. But I think the most important point you are making in this.



Please explain what you mean by this?

I fail to see how there is any realistic possibility that Sharia law as practiced by Muslims will do any more harm then religious law followed by Christians or Jews. Could you give me a concrete example of how an Anti-Sharia provision in US law will have any positive effect.

Please clarify what you even mean by Sharia law? Are you talking about laws that would be passed by US legislators, or family arrangements that judges might take into account. I fail to see how either of these things would be an example of bigotry.

Singling out one religion (Islam) for something that is also part of other religions (Christianity and Judaism) is an example of bigotry. Again the issue is equality (i.e. all religions should be treated the same).

Careful Finn, you might make Maxdancona Yawn if you talk him down!

There's an interesting case in Florida involving some Muslim men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in a mosque. (The mosque received more than $2M from the state in compensation for some land, so the ruling in this case could affect who controls all that money).

So, the Florida circuit judge has said he'll use Islamic law to rule on a portion of the case, but one of the attorneys has appealed that finding, saying religion has no place in a secular court. He represents the mosque and says his client (the mosque) believes that Florida law should apply in Florida courts. He also says using Islamic law to decide the issue violates the Constitution and in this case, of course, his client (the mosque) agrees with him.

The judge disagreed, however, and has said he'll proceed using Islamic law to decide the legitimacy of arbitration (overseen by an a'lim, which is a Muslim scholar trained in Islamic law), but that Florida civil law would be applied at trial.

So, the dispute is really over just that one issue (the Islamic arbitration and whether or not it was conducted properly) that the judge wants to settle through Islamic law, but it's interesting that the Muslims are arguing against it.

I'm not sure who the victim is here...or whether or not the judge is right or wrong. It is unusual, though, no?

I know that there are cases where Jewish law is taken into consideration involving contracts.

I wonder how a dispute about governance of a Bible based church would be handled. It seems to me that if they agreed to follow the Bible, then that should be taken into consideration as a contractual matter even in court.

There's some dispute over that. One non-Muslim attorney (commenting on this Tampa Bay case, but not involved in it) said that judges may use foreign law in American courts as long as all parties agree. So, conceivably, if the parties had agreed to be governed by German law, then the Florida court would interpret German law, he said.

Interestingly, a Muslim immigration attorney disagreed saying that the mosque is incorporated under the laws of Florida so it should be ruled by State law. She said the judge's ruling is flawed because if you live in a country, you're subject to that country's laws. (The Conservatives must love her).

But putting the question of the Constitution aside, there is no 'agreement between both parties' to use anything other than State law in this particular case, so I'm not sure why this judge is so determined, other than he thinks it's the right thing to do.

Irish,

I am asking you to try to take the word Muslim out of the story to see if it changes anything. In this case it is pretty easy to imagine the same thing happening at a church or synagogue.

I am only insisting that Muslim Americans be treated the same way as Christian and Jewish Americans would be.

I did. I provided the example of the attorney who opined on agreeing to using German law if all parties were in agreement. Not everyone agrees, however, and we shouldn't be surprised.


Knock yourself out. I haven't seen an example where that's not happening. As a matter of fact, in the case of the Florida Muslims, it looks like the judge is bending over backwards to help whether they want it or not lol.

And, it's a Muslim who is insisting that religion has no place in the courts and that one should abide by the laws of the country in which one has chosen to live. Doesn't sound like she's feeling mistreated at all

First of all, German is a nationality like American is a nationality. Muslim is a religion, like Christian or Jewish. There are lots of 100% Americans who are Muslims. Please don't confuse nationalities with religions; being Muslim is no more foreign than being Christian or Jewish.

This is the problem with these attempts to ban "Sharia" law... it implies that there is some difference between Muslim religious rules and Christian or Jewish religious rules.

The irony is that the people who think that anti-Sharia laws are necessary to keep the Muslim religion out of our courts are the very people who think that the Christian religion should be part of issues like gay marriage or abortion rights. When Muslims start telling me who I can or can't marry, the way Christians do now, I will be just as upset.

Your premise is wrong and here's why.

There is no such thing as "Christian Sharia Law". Let me ask you....Are you a supporter of Islamic Sharia Law?

There are no Christians telling you who you can or can't marry. Are you a homoseuxal?

Of course there is.

Why can't I marry a man if I want to?

Why are Christian pharmacists allowed to refuse to do their job when their religion tells them not to?

Why is "In God we Trust" written on our money and why are students expected to chant "one nation under God" every morning?

Why do people want the 10 commandments put in courtrooms?

Why do Christians want special laws to enforce a "covenant" marriage that can only be dissolved by a minister?

Why can't we have stricter laws to protect homosexuals and minorities from hate crimes?

No, Islam is a religion to which Muslims are adherents.

My point in using the German example was that there are some who believe that as long as two parties agree, any law (Islam, Jewish, German, Italian, etc.) can be interpreted by the court. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is correct, but others in the profession have disagreed. That's actually the only part of this that I find interesting. That and the fact that these Muslims don't want any part of Sharia Law influencing the decision made by this judge

You're a male and you want to marry another male? No problem. There are states that allow that. Sounds like you have a problem with Christians, yet you want to support more of the same. That is confusing. What's your point?

Let's try this again. The whole point is equality.

What they are trying to do is get rid of Muslim inspired laws and policies (which they are labeling using the term "sharia") while hanging on to Christian "biblically" inspired laws and policies (which apparently they don't want to be labeled "sharia").

Really religiously inspired laws and policies are the same whether they are Christian or Muslim.

All I am saying is that Americans, and American religions and communities, should be treated equally.

Hold on a second. I need to understand something.

Who is "they"? You said "They are trying to do"......"They are labeling"....

Who is "THEY"?

Republicans as pushed by their right wing, predominantly Christian fundamentalist, tea-party wing.