If Sharia Law is a non threat, what's the "big deal" if all American States ban it or not?
The following excerpt is taken from a 1939 speech by Winston Churchill. And is applicable for America, as well as for Great Britain today.
"Indeed, it is possible that the dangers into which we are steadily advancing would never have arisen.
But the world and the Parliaments and public opinion would have none of that in those days. When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.
There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong - these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.
All this leads me to the principal matter namely, the state of our national defenses and their reactions upon foreign policy."
US courts judge according to Federal and State laws. Why would we allow exceptions for foreign laws in our courts?
Introducing foreign standards of justice can create loopholes that contradict and even oppose our own judicial standards? What ramifications could arise? Or, would we see very little impact in our courts?
In legal matters Muslim to Muslim, both parties may agree to conduct trials and litigations according to Sharia Law standards. Who then or by what measure determines the method in Muslim to non-Muslim legal cases?
They both have a right to a "fair trial."
These differing methods can burn out of control, infused by political correct societal pressures and inflamed by racial minority or majority views. This would present a host of cataclysmic outcomes.
Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." An excerpt taken from the Bible.
"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house."
In this context, Jesus used an everyday concept to explain something in the supernatural. I noted this excerpt here as a reasonable physical concept.
Allowing foreign laws into our judicial system could redefine our Constitutional Right to a fair trial.
If loopholes are identified to benefit one party over another as to a more favorable outcome, could deliberation methods be chosen in order to unfairly manipulate court cases?
Could admitting foreign law potentially alter justice and create outcomes that contradict US court law, and chip quickly away at all of our Constructional Rights, legally?
Below is a posters defense for allowing Sharia Law into non-Muslim judicial court systems.
"Oh people come on! I imagine this has been thought up because there are a significant number of Muslims who rely on unofficial Sharia courts with no actual jurisdiction rather than turn to the UK justice system.
By having this in place it gives the British judicial system more oversight of legal matters within the Muslim community and can allow for some consistency of approach. There will not be stoning, there will not be discrimination against women or disabled people or homosexuals because that doesn't fit in with the British judicial system and the Equality Act 2010. I imagine the introduction of some aspects of Sharia Law will be the small-fry stuff - disputes over land, inheritance, divorce etc - but with the British equality principles having an overriding factor. Don't let the Daily Mail scare you into a frenzy that we're all being Islam-ified because its utter nonsense. Surely it's better for Muslims to have some kind of judicial process that the UK government has some oversight of rather than being unregulated and without a fair process?"
The part that concerns me most, is on what her views are derived from. "I imagine it been all thought out" and also says "I imagine it will be small fry stuff."
Is it wise for citizens to base important decisions on what they can or can't "imagine?"
Decisions of this nature need to be based on facts, NOT gut feelings.
We need to look at issues like this from every angle. Imagining the worst possible scenarios based on clear educated principals. Evaluating possible loopholes, and other difficulties. Not on what can or can't be imagined within our limited personal experiences.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/231-1930-1938-the-wilderness/90-air-parity-lost
