Kansas District Court First to Apply “American Laws for American Courts”

A lot of those things do seem to be happening in America, just substitute 'Sharia Law' with 'spreading democracy' or 'Corporate mandate'. Some may not happen directly in America, but plenty of those things happen in other countries in the name of America.

Let's fix our own country first, stop the abuse of power and spread of tyranny in the name of democracy and corporate wealth, then we can worry about what others are doing on the other side of the globe.

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
A lot of those things do seem to be happening in America, just substitute 'Sharia Law' with 'spreading democracy' or 'Corporate mandate'. Some may not happen directly in America, but plenty of those things happen in other countries in the name of America.

Let's fix our own country first, stop the abuse of power and spread of tyranny in the name of democracy and corporate wealth, then we can worry about what others are doing on the other side of the globe.

edit on 22-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

I agree 100%. Notice Dnepropetrovsk didn't answer my 3 questions. He seems to be either a Muslin extremist himself of is a Muslim Extremist sympathizer. I'm not advocating hate and of course we have free speech - Dnepropetrovsk has freedom of speech to be a Muslim Extremist sympathizer - if that's what he is but I'd really like to know his answers to those 3 questions so we can better understand his view point. This ties in with us understanding how to clean up America. I think the big problem is they are not talking and we don't know what the extremists tricks are well enough to recognize them and stop them if they pose a danger to us.

I thank the people who have posted examples of people using Sharia Law in this country to commit crimes. Dnepropetrovsk seems to think those things could never happen here and that the premise of the Original Post doesn't work the way it's suggested in reality. He claims we don't understand how Sharia Law is used in the USA and that it's somehow different than it's use in Muslim countries.

I'd like to explore this more. Does anyone know other examples of Sharia Law being used to justify crimes in the USA - and can anyone else give examples for or against the opinions of Dnepropetrovsk? ( is he right, and we all just don't understand the situation or is he wrong?)

we must never admit the thin edge of the wedge

or we will fall

Originally posted by uwascallywabbit
we must never admit the thin edge of the wedge

or we will fall

Far toooooo late, already.

That there is such an issue as the topic of this thread is plenty demonstration of how far gone we already are.

It is this kind of stuff that wastes all of our time. Beth din (Jewish law) has been used in the US forever and in the exact same way as Sharia law is. In certain legal cases you are allowed to chose arbitration instead of using the courts themselves. What type of arbitartion is up to you and the other party. In these cases Religous laws are allowed to be followed if agreed upon by the parties involved. Their are limits to it, for example if the judgement breaks US law or is considered excesive they will not be enforced. This has been praticed in the US since the begining. Banning such agreements has been judged unconsititutioal over and over again. So what we have here is simply fear mongering and straight out foolishness. Our very own system of law has its origens in Sharia law based on its influece on english common law.

Originally posted by MrSpad
It is this kind of stuff that wastes all of our time. Beth din (Jewish law) has been used in the US forever and in the exact same way as Sharia law is. In certain legal cases you are allowed to chose arbitration instead of using the courts themselves. What type of arbitartion is up to you and the other party. In these cases Religous laws are allowed to be followed if agreed upon by the parties involved. Their are limits to it, for example if the judgement breaks US law or is considered excesive they will not be enforced. This has been praticed in the US since the begining. Banning such agreements has been judged unconsititutioal over and over again. So what we have here is simply fear mongering and straight out foolishness. Our very own system of law has its origens in Sharia law based on its influece on english common law.

Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people. On May 16th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”

That injunction was set aside, and once again Obama has the right to indefinitely detain American citizens. We have evidence as to how little the Constitution actually means to our government!