I've authored a thread on this before
, where I've made my opinion on this whole mess
known, so the following post is mostly a retread of what I've said in that thread.
Considering that the US constitution ALREADY has protection from "foreign law" superseding US law, what the judge said is true, the bill was totally
unnecessary, and the judge was a coward for not vetoing it, because its SOLE purpose was bigotry based off ignorance.
What other posters have said here is absolutely true. There has never been a serious case where Shariah was used successfully in a non-civil dispute
in the US, where the result would've gone the other way otherwise. The case mentioned was in not at all as described (the judge was not a muslim in
any sense, having a Quran at hand isn't a sign of muslimness, it is a sign of a prepared courtroom), and the judge made no claim at all that the
assault was justified, he dismissed the case because there was not enough evidence.
Another poster mentioned Beth Din courts, which I think is very important to bring as a comparison.
For those who may not know, Beth Din of America has been operating in the US since 1960. They are used by jews in matters such as divorce, inheritance
and financial dealings (where at least one of the parties is jewish). NOBODY is calling for the removal of the Beth Din courts, because that is
obviously idiotic. However, due to bigotry, muslims would not be afforded the same rights- In fact, this law would cause problems for the Jews as
Lets look at some examples of how such a law (banning the use of Sharia) would be DETRIMENTAL:
If a couple was married in another country, following sharia law, and moved to the US, where the husband perhaps started misbehaving. The woman would
have a hell of a time getting a divorce, because the original marriage contract was written up following Shariah law. Anyone who tried to help her
would be punished for using Shariah law. If the husband then left the country, provided her no support, and tried taking their children with him, the
woman would have no recourse available to her, because the US courts do not allow the use of Sharia law. Anyone who'd try helping her would be
A less emotional example, say two groups (I dunno, lets say a muslim businessman in the US and a muslim businessman outside the US) made a financial
deal, and the contract was again written up following shariah law. If one party pocketed the money and didn't hold up their part of the deal (for
example, the businessman outside the US was meant to set up a scholarship program to educate children about the US), the other party would have no
recourse, and the guy would get away with it. If anyone tried helping the US businessman, they would be punished.
In fact, most business dealings (money, of course, being the number two weapon in the WoT after drones) with foreign countries would totally be
impossible. Want to set up a school for girls ("Three Cups of Tea"'s falseness notwithstanding
) in Pakistan? Impossible. Want to set up a
scholarship program in Syria? Impossible. Want to set up an agricultural assistance program to wean Afghanistan off heroin production? Impossible.
Want to set up a medical assistance program in Sudan? Impossible. Want to bomb them all with drones? Yeah, that we can do.
I find it incredibly hilarious (and revealing) that the same side that wanted to declare Christianity the state religion in North Carolina is the same
side that pushed (and was successful) in implementing this bill. Interesting how they attempted to shove in anti-abortion laws with the rest of this
bill (I do not know exactly if they succeeded in that, or if the bill was revised).
edit on 1-9-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason