Protesters rally against Islamic law in dozens of U.S. cities

[tonray]

If we indeed call ourselves a democracy, and in a democracy if the majority of voters want a particular thing, how can it be legally stopped ?

 

Do some research on the case in Ramapo, NJ on how a Hasidic Jewish community voter block took control over  the school board and funneled the resources to the private yeshivas that their kids attended because they had the votes. They closed schools even when enrollment was increasing and then sold those same school buildings to the yeshivas for what was later determined to be below market rates. Is that any less their right as taxpayers and  voters ? 

 

Their argument was that they paid taxes for public schools and yet their kids went to private yeshivas so they took over the board and changed the entire dynamic. This was legal (except for the selling of the school below market) but if a Muslim community did the same, all hell would break loose. What is the difference ?

 

And let it be noted that in this community this is not a trouble free situation and protests and violence have occurred. 

 

We cannot have what I call a democracy of convenience....if voters will it, it should be so,

[Scott]

40 minutes ago, tonray said:

If we indeed call ourselves a democracy, and in a democracy if the majority of voters want a particular thing, how can it be legally stopped ?

 

<snipped>

It has been said many times on the forum, the US is a representative gov't; it's not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.   If it were, then Clinton would be president.

 

The US has a Constitution and that document calls for separation of Church and State, so Sharia Law would not be permitted under the Constitution.   It's going to take a really, really lot of people in favor of Sharia law to get a Constitutional amendment to change that.  

[tonray]

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

It has been said many times on the forum, the US is a representative gov't; it's not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.   If it were, then Clinton would be president.

 

The US has a Constitution and that document calls for separation of Church and State, so Sharia Law would not be permitted under the Constitution.   It's going to take a really, really lot of people in favor of Sharia law to get a Constitutional amendment to change that.  

What we will find over the long term is that birth rates of immigrants residing in the US are significantly higher than those of what we consider "Americans". They will succeed in time but their solutions (Sharia law) will likely evolve during that time also.

[Si Thea01]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

It has been said many times on the forum, the US is a representative gov't; it's not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word.   If it were, then Clinton would be president.

 

The US has a Constitution and that document calls for separation of Church and State, so Sharia Law would not be permitted under the Constitution.   It's going to take a really, really lot of people in favor of Sharia law to get a Constitutional amendment to change that.  

Sharia law is being practised in many western countries on the quiet, therefore it flies under the radar, and the so called democratically elected governments, even though it is illegal, do nothing, why, let's count the votes?

 

Do you really think it is not getting a foothold in the USA, in the same manner and flies under the radar.  It may well need the US constitution to be changed to be official and may never happen, however, like many things, who really knows the future.

[Scott]

10 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Sharia law is being practised in many western countries on the quiet, therefore it flies under the radar, and the so called democratically elected governments, even though it is illegal, do nothing, why, let's count the votes?

 

Do you really think it is not getting a foothold in the USA, in the same manner and flies under the radar.  It may well need the US constitution to be changed to be official and may never happen, however, like many things, who really knows the future.

As long as two people agree to how they are going to settle their differences, they can do so.   If you want, you can flip a coin, high card wins in a draw from the deck or you can have you local fortune teller settle a dispute.   All is well, unless someone disagrees, and then it goes to a bona fide court. 

 

[simple1]

6 hours ago, tonray said:

What we will find over the long term is that birth rates of immigrants residing in the US are significantly higher than those of what we consider "Americans". They will succeed in time but their solutions (Sharia law) will likely evolve during that time also.

Pew Research stats indicate the Muslim population of the US will be 2.1% by 2050. In addition research shows Muslim family birth rates decrease in a higher education, better access to women's healthcare & a wealthier society and over time the majority have a similar birthrate to the Western country of residence. Many Muslims do not support the implementation of harsh Sharia Law and as stated by Scott, in contravention to US Constitutional law. All in all your speculation does not add up for the US or indeed other Western countries.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/

Edited June 28, 2017 by simple1

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

Sharia law is being practised in many western countries on the quiet, therefore it flies under the radar, and the so called democratically elected governments, even though it is illegal, do nothing, why, let's count the votes?

 

Do you really think it is not getting a foothold in the USA, in the same manner and flies under the radar.  It may well need the US constitution to be changed to be official and may never happen, however, like many things, who really knows the future.

Or, in regards to people who share your views on this issue, who really knows the present?

[Si Thea01]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or, in regards to people who share your views on this issue, who really knows the present?

The present is known, as it is happening, not just my view, as it is fact in England, (Sharia Councils) in Australia, and no one is taking action to stop it. It is allowed to fly under the radar, as are many things in order to retain the votes of certain groups.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

The present is known, as it is happening, not just my view, as it is fact in England, (Sharia Councils) in Australia, and no one is taking action to stop it. It is allowed to fly under the radar, as are many things in order to retain the votes of certain groups.

Nonsense. Both UK & Oz have confirmed there will not be a plurality of law. Sharia Civil Law, as is Beth Din, are a form of civil agreements between parties which cannot overule enacted parliamentary law. As an example recently in MLB a Muslim guy tried to enforce a Sharia divorce, denied by the Courts, same applied to a Sharia marriage

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Nonsense. Both UK & Oz have confirmed there will not be a plurality of law. Sharia Civil Law, as is Beth Din, are a form of civil agreements between parties which cannot overule enacted parliamentary law. As an example recently in MLB a Muslim guy tried to enforce a Sharia divorce, denied by the Courts, same applied to a Sharia marriage

Not nonsense I'm sorry.  As I said, it is being allowed to fly under the radar. And sure, they are not courts, as we know them, that are applying these rules, however, it is being practised which was my point.   There are many more if you care to look for yourself.  Here is what is happening in Oz and the UK.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/news-story/86de249a248a456ab0b2ac1493ae7573

 

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/uk-sharia-law.html 

[simple1]

23 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Not nonsense I'm sorry.  As I said, it is being allowed to fly under the radar. And sure, they are not courts, as we know them, that are applying these rules, however, it is being practised which was my point.   There are many more if you care to look for yourself.  Here is what is happening in Oz and the UK.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/news-story/86de249a248a456ab0b2ac1493ae7573

<snip>

My point is activity contrary to enacted law is not legally permitted, nor is the concept of a pluralist religious based law.  As The Australian article link you provided clearly articulates..

 

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said if there was ever any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law "then Australian law wins out".

"There is only one law that's applicable in Australia - that's Australian law based on our common law tradition," he said. "Our constitutional founders included a provision against the state endorsing or prescribing any religion or religious practice."

 

I do find the total focus on Sharia Civil Law irritating, when there are also other  religious cultural practises ongoing in our societies not complying to enacted law, but never raised by the usual clique who manifest their extreme bigotry every day on this forum, underlined with links to TV banned sites. e.g. one of your links I removed from my reply.

[Thakkar]

Were the protesters protesting the quiet, under-the-radar illegal practicing of sharia?

 

Or were the protesters protesting the high Muslim birth rate that *could*, in the far, far distant future lead to a Muslim majority United States that would practice Sharia?

 

Could be. But to me it looks more like some people on this thread moving the goalposts in a last-ditch attempt to defend what was in effect gratuitous anti-Muslim ranting.

 

T

 

[Morch]

On 6/28/2017 at 4:52 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Why not protest against the Chinese legal system? Or the Russian legal system? If they were instituted in the USA, that would be really bad, too. But there's no more likelihood of that happening than there is of Sharia law being instituted in the USA.

 

Generally speaking, there is no discernible drive, nowadays, by Chinese and Russian minorities worldwide to make these legal systems applicable in host countries. If and when this becomes an issue, your deflection might be relevant. To the extent that Communist ideas are not really the hallmark of either legal system mentioned, they do not represent enforcing a comprehensive world view on the public. 

[ilostmypassword]

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Generally speaking, there is no discernible drive, nowadays, by Chinese and Russian minorities worldwide to make these legal systems applicable in host countries. If and when this becomes an issue, your deflection might be relevant. To the extent that Communist ideas are not really the hallmark of either legal system mentioned, they do not represent enforcing a comprehensive world view on the public. 

Good point. There's a negligible chance Sharia law will be established and a less than negligible chance Chinese or Russian law will be. I will do my best to be less fearful of the last two than of the first one.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Good point. There's a negligible chance Sharia law will be established and a less than negligible chance Chinese or Russian law will be. I will do my best to be less fearful of the last two than of the first one.

 

For the most part (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) those immigrants haling from Communist era (not the nowadays version) of this two countries, manifested little interest, if any, at promoting their respective legal systems and ideologies at their host countries. In comparison, I think that the support among Muslim immigrants (or refugees, whatever) for promoting Islamic law in their host countries is higher. To be clear, it does not imply all are for it, or that even all those in favor share the same notions. Just pointing out that there is a difference.

 

Not, I would say, much of a threat when it comes to the US. With regard to Europe, somewhat different, but still not the existential issue promoted by some on this forum.

[Thakkar]

In response to the last few posts, I'd like to conclude as follows:

 

Let's be vigilant against any threat to a secular, precedent-based legal system and oppose attacks against it, whether those attacks come from religious extremists or wannabe fascist interlopers.

 

Let's also be vigilant against bigots trying to hijack a just cause to bolster their bigotry.

 

T