Courts and Islamic law

Should defendants in the U.S. courts be able to use Islamic law in their arguments? Federal judges are dealing with that.
Oklahoma voters approved an amendment banning the Muslim law in state courts but the council on American-Islamic relations has sued--arguing the amendment violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:Should defendants in the U.S. courts be able to use Islamic law in their arguments? Federal judges are dealing with that.

No.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:Oklahoma voters approved an amendment banning the Muslim law in state courts but the council on American-Islamic relations has sued--arguing the amendment violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

With issues like this popping up, it's no wonder people are still distrustful of this religion.

That's religion through and through. They want special rights and if they don't get them, they'll scream about how much they are being victimised. To the "great" religions, oppression means that they have to abide by the same laws as everyone else.

Religious laws are not laws compatible in court. End of story.

It's no different to me than how some religions want the right to have 50 wives.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Religious laws are not laws compatible in court. End of story.

I could pull out an EE_EE answer now and say that most laws in the Western World are based on some of the 10 Commandments... but I really don't want to.

Go ahead. Then we can watch Matt dismantle you.

I'd rather not toy with Matt. He's scary when he talks about religion.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Religious laws are not laws compatible in court. End of story.

F*ck me, you two agreed on something!

TexasBlue wrote:Go ahead. Then we can watch Matt dismantle you.

lol, I think. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him but I would argue that most of those laws are just putting into words ideas that humanity has always adhered to as part of our psychological evolution. But I don't really want to go there right now

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Religious laws are not laws compatible in court. End of story.

F*ck me, you two agreed on something!

Take a picture.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Go ahead. Then we can watch Matt dismantle you.

lol, I think. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him but I would argue that most of those laws are just putting into words ideas that humanity has always adhered to as part of our psychological evolution. But I don't really want to go there right now

If you want my honest opinion on all of this, here it is;

I don't care what religious people do as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Much of Sharia law does do that as far as things go. On the other hand, you have the polygamists in this country (mostly LDS). I personally don't think it's right of a gov't to tell you that you can't have 25 wives in as much as I don't think the gov't can tell you that you can't pray. If the LDS and Islamic folks want more than one wife, go for it. If it isn't hurting anyone, leave it be. That's my stance.

Tax-laws would be out of control if you were allowed to have 25 wives!

BubbleBliss wrote:Tax-laws would be out of control if you were allowed to have 25 wives!

Yeah, they'd have 25 deductions.

That plus many other things that would have to be re-written.... or written 24 more times.