....................................................
This is a comment that should be saved lest an idiot mark it to be deleted.
....................................................
MrIncredible
The comments on this story are scary. Fear, hate, and bigotry are pervasive while rational discourse is flamed with scare tactics. As a trained lawyer, I examined the pleadings linked by Wild_Child in Florida and its patently absurd that anbody feels the need to be protected from Sharia law being imposed by our courts.
First, we are all free to contract. It's guaranteed under both the federal and state constitutions. Courts enforce contracts, so long as, for example, they were not induced by fraud or were not for an illegal act. Many of the contracts I've drafted include a "Governing Law" section where the parties to the contract can freely decide which law to apply in enforcing the contract. For instance, I can draft a sales contract and choose to use Delaware state law as the governing law even though the contract was drafted and executed in Washington.
The Florida case revolves around trustees to an islamic education center suing the islamic education center. It's a civil suit. In a civil suit, just like in contract, the parties can agree to apply whatever law they desire whether it be Florida Law, International Admiralty law, Sharia law, etc. What the court can't do is force the parties to apply Sharia law unless they both agree. So here, we have two parties to a lawsuit who both agree to apply Sharia law. What's the problem here? There is absolutely no risk, NONE that sharia law will be imposed on a party that does not wish it imposed.
Criminal courts do not allow the imposition of different set of laws, if you are in state court, Washington criminal law applies. If you are in federal court, both state law and federal law can apply, so long as the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the case. It's downright offensive as an American for anyone to rationally suggest that Sharia law could be applied in a criminal context. It can't. Aspects of sharia law could, I suppose, be passed as any other law is passed, but to suggest this is happening is absurd.
In summary, those suggesting that Sharia law may become a problem that we need to defend against as red blooded americans are using your prejudices to incite your emotions. There isn't the slightest possiblity of Sharia law affecting anybody but two parties in civil court who have both agreed that is the law they wish to apply. The same contract rights we all share to apply whatever set of laws we want to govern our own civil disputes.
These are the facts.
First, we are all free to contract. It's guaranteed under both the federal and state constitutions. Courts enforce contracts, so long as, for example, they were not induced by fraud or were not for an illegal act. Many of the contracts I've drafted include a "Governing Law" section where the parties to the contract can freely decide which law to apply in enforcing the contract. For instance, I can draft a sales contract and choose to use Delaware state law as the governing law even though the contract was drafted and executed in Washington.
The Florida case revolves around trustees to an islamic education center suing the islamic education center. It's a civil suit. In a civil suit, just like in contract, the parties can agree to apply whatever law they desire whether it be Florida Law, International Admiralty law, Sharia law, etc. What the court can't do is force the parties to apply Sharia law unless they both agree. So here, we have two parties to a lawsuit who both agree to apply Sharia law. What's the problem here? There is absolutely no risk, NONE that sharia law will be imposed on a party that does not wish it imposed.
Criminal courts do not allow the imposition of different set of laws, if you are in state court, Washington criminal law applies. If you are in federal court, both state law and federal law can apply, so long as the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the case. It's downright offensive as an American for anyone to rationally suggest that Sharia law could be applied in a criminal context. It can't. Aspects of sharia law could, I suppose, be passed as any other law is passed, but to suggest this is happening is absurd.
In summary, those suggesting that Sharia law may become a problem that we need to defend against as red blooded americans are using your prejudices to incite your emotions. There isn't the slightest possiblity of Sharia law affecting anybody but two parties in civil court who have both agreed that is the law they wish to apply. The same contract rights we all share to apply whatever set of laws we want to govern our own civil disputes.
These are the facts.
Wild_Child
And now for the real facts, Islam facts that is.
Feel free to let your fingers do the clicking.
http://www.muslimfact.com/
Feel free to let your fingers do the clicking.
http://www.muslimfact.com/
........................................................
UPDATE:
........................................................
kreggied
If I may interject, in the hope of pulling the discussion back to the article at hand, this is all a bit far from the point isn't it? What the author of the article writes seems simple enough.
The author simply indicates that Sharia law is not likely to come to America (I would take it one step further and say that it would be nearly impossible) and then procedes to explain a little about what Sharia law is, and isn't, in his experiene, he then goes on to acknowlege that excesses do happen and finally asks "Can we move on [to more important things] now?'
I'll admit that the subject of the imposition of Sharia law in America is a great bone to chew on as, like many political and religous subjects, there will always be disagreement on the matter. However, might it not be better to dig into what the article actually says?
If you think it is very likely that Sharia law will be imposed in America then help us understand why. If you disagree about the specific points the author makes about the religous purposes of Sharia law refute them specifically (sounds like a great conversation). And if you disagree that there are better things to talk about than how government needs to intervene now to prevent a Sharia take over (jobs perhaps?) then help us, help me, understand why.
But for gosh sakes at least try to address the content of the article.
The author simply indicates that Sharia law is not likely to come to America (I would take it one step further and say that it would be nearly impossible) and then procedes to explain a little about what Sharia law is, and isn't, in his experiene, he then goes on to acknowlege that excesses do happen and finally asks "Can we move on [to more important things] now?'
I'll admit that the subject of the imposition of Sharia law in America is a great bone to chew on as, like many political and religous subjects, there will always be disagreement on the matter. However, might it not be better to dig into what the article actually says?
If you think it is very likely that Sharia law will be imposed in America then help us understand why. If you disagree about the specific points the author makes about the religous purposes of Sharia law refute them specifically (sounds like a great conversation). And if you disagree that there are better things to talk about than how government needs to intervene now to prevent a Sharia take over (jobs perhaps?) then help us, help me, understand why.
But for gosh sakes at least try to address the content of the article.
....................................................
7 comments:
Anytime you have a website that says:
"Our mission at Muslim Fact is to expose Islam for what it really is, what its leaders teach, what its long-term goals are and to inform Christians to the very real threat that Islam is to their way of life."
You can pretty much guarantee that there is no truth to it.
Of course Wild_Child, the idiot, submitted it.....
Wild_Child is a fool in addition to being an idiot.
Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of those like wild_child, who believe anything on the internet that agrees with their preexisting dogma. Look at the number of them on the Olympian comment board.
...and there is no fool like an old fool, Anon.
MrIncredible patiently uses a rational approach to critical thinking on this issue and sails over the heads of the so-called wild child and the rest of the emotional knee-jerkers.
Unfortunately, to no avail. When one's mind is closed to reason and reality...
...and there is no fool like an old fool, Anon.
Or a young "old-fool-in-training"!
Right now, the Republican Party resembles a little car with clowns falling out of it.
Discussions of Sharia law and hippies protesting are deflections of the reality of what is happening in our country.
Post a Comment