It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-sharia laws proliferate as Trump strikes hostile tone toward Muslims

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
Sharia law is about as progressive as a glacier...

-Chris


Sharia law is unconstitutional.

I mean, so is slavery and murder.

Yet we welcome a religion that endorses Sharia law.

*shrugs*

The world is crazy, but as long as no one is infringing upon the rights of anyone else, then enjoy!





posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Kharron




that our Constitution guarantees the separation of religion and politics

Where ??????
And why do I have to keep asking that question ?
And why do folks propagate ignorance out of ignorance ?


So you're not aware of the seperation of Church and State?


Separation of church and state has been established by lawsuits won.

But, it's not really in the Constitution.

The Constitution only guarantees no established religion.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Less Sharia is a good thing.

Funny the majority of the people who would argue against this would be the first ones off the roofs if Sharia ever took a hold.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Well, it wasn't written into the constitution but the men who started it all, like Thomas Jefferson, recognized that there needed to be a separation.

americanhistory.oxfordre.com...



Separation of church and state has been part of the nation’s legal and cultural nomenclature since the early 1800s. Judges, politicians, educators, and even religious leaders have embraced church-state separation as central to church-state relations and a cornerstone of American democracy. The Supreme Court first employed the term “separation of church and state” in 1879 as shorthand for the meaning of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, stating “it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.” To this day, most Americans support the principle of church-state separation as one of the hallmarks of American government. Although the phrase is not found in the Constitution, no organizing theory has had a greater impact on the way Americans conceptualize the intersection of religion, culture, and politics than the principle of church-state separation.4

Despite its inclusion in the pantheon of democratic virtues, separation of church and state did not become constitutional canon until the mid-twentieth century with incorporation of the Bill of Right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the modern Court’s first Establishment Clause holding, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another […] No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion […] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”5

For approximately fifty years, separation of church and state was the touchstone for church-state jurisprudence, endorsed by liberal and conservative justices alike. Particularly in the earlier years, justices opined that the separation must be “absolute,” “uncompromising,” “high and impregnable,” and “complete and permanent,” although the rhetoric was usually more absolute than the ultimate holdings. (In fact, in Everson, the Court upheld the state reimbursement of transportation expenses for children to attend parochial schools.) While some judges and lawyers may have disagreed with the Court’s rhetoric, few contested the underlying principle.6



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Extremism is extremism.

True, but there are degrees of extremism. For example, Jews and Christians don't stone woman after being raped. They don't chop off a thief's hand after someone is caught stealing. The don't kill a person for saying something bad about their prophet. Read up on Sharia law then compare it with other religions in the USA.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
Less Sharia is a good thing.

Funny the majority of the people who would argue against this would be the first ones off the roofs if Sharia ever took a hold.


Allowing Amish, Jews, & others to have their own religious laws --- but, deny Muslims their's would be violating religious freedom.

Sharia law only pertains to those who choose it.

It does not supersede US law.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Annee
Extremism is extremism.

True, but there are degrees of extremism. For example, Jews and Christians don't stone woman after being raped. They don't chop off a thief's hand after someone is caught stealing. The don't kill a person for saying something bad about their prophet. Read up on Sharia law then compare it with other religions in the USA.


Stoning violates US law.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Annee
Extremism is extremism.

True, but there are degrees of extremism. For example, Jews and Christians don't stone woman after being raped. They don't chop off a thief's hand after someone is caught stealing. The don't kill a person for saying something bad about their prophet. Read up on Sharia law then compare it with other religions in the USA.


Stoning violates US law.

There are too many parts of Sharia that violate US law so I'm happy to see legislation against it from the get-go. We know how slippery slopes work.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: antiantonym

While the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any other (state or local) law, and the First Amendment states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
(emphasis added), local anti-Sharia legislation seems to violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The issue is at what point "free exercise" conflicts with existing law, such as harming another person or violating another's rights.




edit on 30-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Amish, some Jewish sects and other religious groups in the US have their own laws --- and have had them for generations. Sharia law is the same thing. It only pertains to those who choose it.

None of them supersede US law.



I've yet to see any Jewish sect promote, claim or demand their laws to supersede U.S. law. A huge difference and 'if' the was no difference you get the same reaction for citizens as Sharia law is now.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Annee
Extremism is extremism.

True, but there are degrees of extremism. For example, Jews and Christians don't stone woman after being raped. They don't chop off a thief's hand after someone is caught stealing. The don't kill a person for saying something bad about their prophet. Read up on Sharia law then compare it with other religions in the USA.


Stoning violates US law.

There are too many parts of Sharia that violate US law so I'm happy to see legislation against it from the get-go. We know how slippery slopes work.


Legislation against Sharia law is violation of religious freedom.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Annee
Amish, some Jewish sects and other religious groups in the US have their own laws --- and have had them for generations. Sharia law is the same thing. It only pertains to those who choose it.

None of them supersede US law.



I've yet to see any Jewish sect promote, claim or demand their laws to supersede U.S. law. A huge difference and 'if' the was no difference you get the same reaction for citizens as Sharia law is now.


No religious law supersedes US laws.

You watch/listen to right wing propaganda.

Fear mongering at its best.


edit on 30-12-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Annee
Extremism is extremism.

True, but there are degrees of extremism. For example, Jews and Christians don't stone woman after being raped. They don't chop off a thief's hand after someone is caught stealing. The don't kill a person for saying something bad about their prophet. Read up on Sharia law then compare it with other religions in the USA.


Stoning violates US law.

There are too many parts of Sharia that violate US law so I'm happy to see legislation against it from the get-go.


If parts already violate US law how do you make it more against the law?

If parts don't violate US law, it's protected religious exercise.
edit on 30-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Annee,

Please, by all means, move to a sharia nation-state...

Let me know how it works out(if your husband/son/uncle/dad allow you to use the internet)...

Spoiler alert:
Sharia is a garbage form of governance with more in common with inquisition era Spain than anything your liberal mind could envision...

-Chris



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I still say we need force muslims to have a mandatory background check.

And IF they've been a good muslim all their lives they MIGHT get to practice it.

Then we need $200 tax stamps on prayer rugs.

We need legislation where they can pray with only one word at a time.

And then more legislation for devices that make their prayers a little more quieter.

Then we need more laws to create muslim free zones.

If ALL things were being treated EQUAL that is.
edit on 30-12-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Annee
Amish, some Jewish sects and other religious groups in the US have their own laws --- and have had them for generations. Sharia law is the same thing. It only pertains to those who choose it.

None of them supersede US law.



I've yet to see any Jewish sect promote, claim or demand their laws to supersede U.S. law. A huge difference and 'if' the was no difference you get the same reaction for citizens as Sharia law is now.


No religious law supersedes US laws.

You watch/listen to right wing propaganda.

Fear mongering at its best.



You are in denial.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
Annee,

Please, by all means, move to a sharia nation-state...

Let me know how it works out(if your husband/son/uncle/dad allow you to use the internet)...

Spoiler alert:
Sharia is a garbage form of governance with more in common with inquisition era Spain than anything your liberal mind could envision...

-Chris


Why should I do that?

I am atheist. I have freedom from religion in the US.

No different then freedom of religion.

Sharia is only for those who choose it. Same as Amish laws only affect them. Same as Jewish laws only affect those who choose to live by those laws.

They have nothing to do with me.

Nor do they supersede US law.

I'm far more concerned with Dominionism.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Sharia law is the set of laws described in the Quran. It is unchanging, unevolving, eternal, the words of God. America is a republic with a congress that makes man made laws. So Sharia law is incompatible with a republic like America.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: afatos
Sharia law is the set of laws described in the Quran. It is unchanging, unevolving, eternal, the words of God. America is a republic with a congress that makes man made laws. So Sharia law is incompatible with a republic like America.


You do understand they have to live with the laws of America, right?

This fear mongering is crazy.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Having read the article and looked at US laws and other things, the following can be stated:

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. These kinds of laws are dangerous, when they seek to restrict or ban others beliefs. They serve no real purpose other than to show a form of discrimination that is against the very highest law of the country.

Islam is a valid religion, no matter what we may think of such, and those followers are entitled to the same rights and freedoms as all others. To restrict their own belief or religion when it harms no one really does no one any good. And said laws that would restrict one often restrict far more than just the one and often lead to far worse down the road.

Now while it is not mentioned about a wall separating government and religion, as that was addressed by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut. In that he believed that there should be a wall between religion and politics, as often in the past that various church’s would be involved in writing laws, and this led to abuse of power and mischief on the part of the state, or was sanctioned by the church’s in an attempt to gather far more control and power than what should have been. However it is stated that there shall be no laws that restrict religion or the exercise there of. And the courts have upheld that time and time again, and only restrict such, when there is a federal law or criminal law that would ban the practices of such. This was seen in the court cases on the Mormon faith, and later on with the court cases dealing with the snake handling group and another where people were going into and doing peyote. In those instances the courts ruled and restricted such, as it was found that they were violating some aspects of federal and state law, or that a practice of said religion was not supported or protected under the constitution of the USA.

Now there has been debate before over the use of Sharia in the USA. And all of the legal minds comes to the same conclusion, that at best, when it is used in a legal kind of setting, it is to be considered as if it was done as arbitration. The example that was used is this: 2 people have a disagreement, over something. The decide to go to say a local imam to decide the agreement. As long as both persons sign stating that this is what they agree on, then it is considered to be an act of arbitration and the decision would be upheld in a court of law. The same could be done if both parties were Catholic and decide to let a local priest decide in an ecclesiastical court, if both disputing persons agree and sign to that effect, it would be considered to be an act of arbitration. But this has to be agreed on by both disputing persons, and all they are doing is deciding on who the arbitrator is in their dispute.

But the bottom line is that this would be very bad if it passes and then survives the court cases, as it would be considered to constrain a personal religion and set a conflict with many of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that were enacted into law in the past few years. After all how does one ban one religious practice, if there is a law that guarantees it in the first place, which takes precedence?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join