Islamic Flag To Fly Over White House
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Okay

Bedford, TX

#21 Apr 26, 2013
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks, but the question was directed to the original poster for the source of the copy and paste. Your link ain't it.
Want to guess again?
Here ya go!

Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law | Shownotes

www.foxnews.com/.../judge-rules-american-cour...

Oct 26, 2011 · Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law. Published October 26, 2011 | The Five | The Five. With: Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino,…

Sharia Law | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ
Okay

Bedford, TX

#22 Apr 26, 2013
If it doesn't come up, google it. It's there.
truman

Boise, ID

#23 Apr 27, 2013
Okay wrote:
<quoted text>Here ya go!
Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law | Shownotes
www.foxnews.com/.../judge-rules-american-cour...
Oct 26, 2011 · Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law. Published October 26, 2011 | The Five | The Five. With: Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino,…
Sharia Law | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ
Fox News.
Now there is an impartial source on such matters....
FYI

Hockley, TX

#24 Apr 27, 2013
Okay wrote:
<quoted text>Here ya go! Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law
Be concerned. You, like that guy at post 20, won't have to be forced either. You're gullible enough to go along. The case Fox reported was about arbitration (I know big word but try looking it up) which means the parties agree to resolve their dispute in any manner they wish. It's perfectly proper under both Federal and state arbitration statutes. In that case, it was a dispute between a mosque and its trustees. In other words an internal religious dispute that they agreed to resolve according to their religion. Here is a real news story about it. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/app... Here is the court's opinion. http://www.fljud13.org/Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/g...

Here is a more in-depth legal analysis of the matter. http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/26/%E2%80%9Cthe... That one may really confuse you because the author thinks the judge got it wrong. Careful and don't jump to conclusions, it wasn't wrong because of sharia law.
But in any case, I mention Schneider and Goldman chiefly to highlight what I’ve often said before — many of the disputes about accommodations of Islamic religious practice, about enforcing of Islamic arbitrations, and so on are just special cases of much broader disputes that the American legal system has dealt with for over two centuries. There’s nothing specially shocking or even highly novel about them. They’re not some special new monkey wrench that Muslims are throwing into our legal system; Christians, Jews, and others have routinely raised such issues before, and continue to do so today.

Sometimes the Muslim claimants should prevail (again, whether it comes to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws or employer practices, or to enforcement of religious arbitrations). Sometimes they should lose. Sometimes they should prevail, but do lose, and sometimes they should lose, but nonetheless prevail. But that is no different from what we’ve been seeing with regard to other religious claimants for many years.
Be very concerned.
Okay

Bedford, TX

#25 Apr 27, 2013
truman wrote:
<quoted text>Fox News.
Now there is an impartial source on such matters....
And American Center For Law and Justice. I gave you 2 links. Do your own research and you will find more. And Fox News IS IMPARTIAL. You are dumb!
Okay

Bedford, TX

#26 Apr 27, 2013
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>Be concerned. You, like that guy at post 20, won't have to be forced either. You're gullible enough to go along. The case Fox reported was about arbitration (I know big word but try looking it up) which means the parties agree to resolve their dispute in any manner they wish. It's perfectly proper under both Federal and state arbitration statutes. In that case, it was a dispute between a mosque and its trustees. In other words an internal religious dispute that they agreed to resolve according to their religion. Here is a real news story about it. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/app... Here is the court's opinion. http://www.fljud13.org/Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/g...
Here is a more in-depth legal analysis of the matter. http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/26/%E2%80%9Cthe... That one may really confuse you because the author thinks the judge got it wrong. Careful and don't jump to conclusions, it wasn't wrong because of sharia law.<quoted text>Be very concerned.
lol. You consider arbitration to be a big word???
Wow. You really are limited in your vocabulary. lol
Okay

Bedford, TX

#27 Apr 27, 2013
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>Be concerned. You, like that guy at post 20, won't have to be forced either. You're gullible enough to go along. The case Fox reported was about arbitration (I know big word but try looking it up) which means the parties agree to resolve their dispute in any manner they wish. It's perfectly proper under both Federal and state arbitration statutes. In that case, it was a dispute between a mosque and its trustees. In other words an internal religious dispute that they agreed to resolve according to their religion. Here is a real news story about it. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/app... Here is the court's opinion. http://www.fljud13.org/Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/g...
Here is a more in-depth legal analysis of the matter. http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/26/%E2%80%9Cthe... That one may really confuse you because the author thinks the judge got it wrong. Careful and don't jump to conclusions, it wasn't wrong because of sharia law.<quoted text>Be very concerned.
..
..
..
..

ANALYSIS
From the outset of learning of the purported arbitration award, the court’s concern has been whether there were ecclesiastical principles for dispute resolution involved that would compel the court to adopt the arbitration decision without considering state law. Decisional case law both in Florida and the United States Supreme Court tells us that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque.

For example, in Franzen v. Poulos, 604 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1992), the court found that the trial court could not intervene in an internal church governance dispute. The Franzen court said that the U.S. Constitution (the First and Fourteenth Amendments)“permit(s) hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and governance, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

Once such matters are decided by an ecclesiastical tribunal, the civil courts are to accept the decision as binding on them.

Understand now?
FYI

Hockley, TX

#28 Apr 27, 2013
Okay wrote:
<quoted text>Understand now?
Of course I understand. I'm equally certain you don't. You cut off the Volokh quote at exactly the part that disagrees with your paranoia. You quote the FL case but obviously fail to comprehend. Arbitration, including choice of religious decisional doctrine, is perfectly legal according to federal and state statutes. A FL trial court opinion does not "establish sharia law in America" nor does it "force you to be a muslim." Churches (all or any) get to decide their internal disputes according to their religious doctrine. The USSC said well in 1872 in the case of Watson v. Jones (13 Wall. 679):
"In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.... All who unite themselves to such a body [the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for." 13 Wall., at 728-729.
Be concerned. You will not be forced to be a muslim. Your gullibility and ignorance will lead you voluntarily. Be very concerned.
Okay

Bedford, TX

#29 Apr 27, 2013
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I understand. I'm equally certain you don't. You cut off the Volokh quote at exactly the part that disagrees with your paranoia. You quote the FL case but obviously fail to comprehend. Arbitration, including choice of religious decisional doctrine, is perfectly legal according to federal and state statutes. A FL trial court opinion does not "establish sharia law in America" nor does it "force you to be a muslim." Churches (all or any) get to decide their internal disputes according to their religious doctrine. The USSC said well in 1872 in the case of Watson v. Jones (13 Wall. 679):<quoted text>Be concerned. You will not be forced to be a muslim. Your gullibility and ignorance will lead you voluntarily. Be very concerned.
I have never said I will be forced to be a Muslim. Hopefully, you will be forced to learn how to comprehend what you read with an understanding of the meaning therein.

Fact is - our courts are now beginning to consider Sharia Law in the implementation of justice.
Until you can understand what this thread is about, you are wasting not only your time but mine in trying to get through that thick skull of yours.

Do your homework and then if you feel you can contribute sound comments, you are welcome back. But, you receive an f so far.
FYI

Hockley, TX

#30 Apr 27, 2013
Okay wrote:
<quoted text>Fact is - our courts are now beginning to consider Sharia Law in the implementation of justice.
There lies your ignorance and delusion. The example you offered belies your premise. It was an arbitration. The parties chose that religious doctrine to resolve their dispute. Hardly new or unusual, as shown by the Volokh article; "...[internal religious] disputes that the American legal system has dealt with for over two centuries. There’s nothing specially shocking or even highly novel about them." Also shown by the quote from the USSC in 1872; "It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for."
Until you can understand what this thread is about...
For me (#7) it was about a still unsourced quote. It seems to have morphed into "sharia law taking over America" which is beyond stupid given what has been presented as evidence thereof. Sharia law will never be imposed in this country to determine when you stopped beating your wife and should go to jail, why she wants a divorce or whether you should pay damages for wrecking someones car.
Do your homework and then if you feel you can contribute sound comments, you are welcome back.
Done done it and even showed my work. It's above, several posts, in black and white in quotes with links. Now, if only you could contribute a critique other than; "Nuh-uh."
Believer

United States

#31 Apr 27, 2013
Nobody Gets It wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, the Religious Freedom Coalition, a radical christian group dedicated to making sure the influence of Christianity extends as far into the personal lives of all Americans as possible. They're no better than Muslim extremists in my opinion.
Your opinions/comments always touch my heart.
They silently cry out for help.
Hmmmmm

Bedford, TX

#32 Apr 27, 2013
Shariah_Civil Legal Cases_Representative_11 States
Hmmmmm

Bedford, TX

#33 Apr 27, 2013
Shariah Cases By State | Shariah in American Courts

shariahinamericancourts.com/...

These links may not come up. But, they are easily found when doing a web search.
Hmmmmm

Bedford, TX

#34 Apr 27, 2013
Sharia Law cited, used and awarded in 23 court case across …

yourdaddy.net/2011/06/01/sharia-law-cited-use...

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#35 Apr 27, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinions/comments always touch my heart.
They silently cry out for help.
You religious nutjobs are always hearing imaginary voices in your heads.
FYI

Hockley, TX

#36 Apr 27, 2013
Hmmmmm wrote:
Shariah Cases By State | Shariah in American Courts
shariahinamericancourts.com/...
I suppose you implication is sharia law controlled those cases. The article describes "50 cases from 23 different states involving "conflict of law" between Shariah and American state law." That is a generality that that describes nothing. In common parlance it is a talking point that uses "choice of law" in an extremely misleading manner. Only the specifics of each case can provide the answer. My guess is most, if not all, merely discuss some aspect of Muslim law or involve some form of agreement regarding that law.

I looked at the three Texas cases. Of those, two involved major multi-national corporations. The issues were choice of law and arbitration. The parties had agreed to apply US and the provision was upheld, although some specific claims were governed by Saudi law where the injury occurred. The other was an arbitration where the parties agreed to a choice of law. The last was a division of Tx property post divorce. The only mention of Iranian law was that an Iranian divorce decree was valid. All legal issues were decided by Tx. law.

So, 3 of the 23 Muslim law did not control the case. Agreements did. All were very normal and routine applications of US law according to long standing principles. Your turn, find one where Muslim law controlled the case.
truman

Boise, ID

#37 Apr 28, 2013
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose you implication is sharia law controlled those cases. The article describes "50 cases from 23 different states involving "conflict of law" between Shariah and American state law." That is a generality that that describes nothing. In common parlance it is a talking point that uses "choice of law" in an extremely misleading manner. Only the specifics of each case can provide the answer. My guess is most, if not all, merely discuss some aspect of Muslim law or involve some form of agreement regarding that law.
I looked at the three Texas cases. Of those, two involved major multi-national corporations. The issues were choice of law and arbitration. The parties had agreed to apply US and the provision was upheld, although some specific claims were governed by Saudi law where the injury occurred. The other was an arbitration where the parties agreed to a choice of law. The last was a division of Tx property post divorce. The only mention of Iranian law was that an Iranian divorce decree was valid. All legal issues were decided by Tx. law.
So, 3 of the 23 Muslim law did not control the case. Agreements did. All were very normal and routine applications of US law according to long standing principles. Your turn, find one where Muslim law controlled the case.
*sigh* Now see what you did?
The Poor sap who started this thread was just trying to further his wack job Right Wing Agenda by leaving the uninformed and stupid with the impression that Obama was trying to replace U.S. Law with Sharia Law playing into the 'Obama is a Closet Muslim 'idiocy the Right has made so much hay off of.
(and knowing those who want to beleive such bullsh*t so desperatly surely arent going to do any fact checking)
And here you piss all over his parade with the Truth and pesky verifiable facts.
He's probably back in front of his TV with his thumb in his mouth scanning FOX non stop for the next Liberal outrage to warn everyone about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paris Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Campbells soup STD's 9 hr Just saying 29
Metro PCS vs. Straight Talk (Apr '12) 13 hr Paul 33
Results Companies full of Losers & Scum 13 hr Paul 10
When is Tony Mullens getting out of Jail 14 hr Karma 10
Hashmi Hospital Biggest Rip-Off? (Sep '15) 16 hr Dirk 27
Betrayed already by Trump! 19 hr Political Atheist 26
Entire Family Arrested Thread Censored Fri Up all Night 1

Paris Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Paris Mortgages