Sharia as New Red Menace?- OK, but would this include Judge Judy? by: Eugene Robinson

[kpete]

Sharia as New Red Menace?

Tuesday 21 September 2010

by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed

Washington - Boy, one thing I really hate is when American judges try to impose harsh Islamic sharia law. You know, with all those grisly lashings, stonings and beheadings. What's that you say? No such thing is happening, and you wonder where I got such a crazy idea? Why, Newt Gingrich told me.

On Saturday, speaking at the conservative Values Voter Summit, Gingrich issued a thunderous call for action against an imminent threat that exists only in his fevered imagination -- or, perhaps, in his political machinations.

"We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich declared, to a standing ovation.

OK, but would this include Judge Judy? Because I've always suspected that when she gets really mad, and she snaps the heads off both the plaintiff and the defendant, she might be slipping a little sharia into the American subconscious -- you know, preparing an unsuspecting nation for the real deal. Maybe we need another law that covers fake judges on daytime television, with punishments for violations that begin with flogging.

more:
http://www.truth-out.org/eugene-robinson-sharia-new-red-menace63433

[Deep13]

1. Isn't the law already pretty clear on that?

Federal law consists of the Constitution, Federal statutes and treaties, regulations made under authority of those statutes and that's pretty much it. Part of the Constitution is the seperation of church and state. State laws likewise consist or state constitutions, statutes and regulations and cannot contradict Federal law. Again, no Sharia is authorized.

Will Gingrich agree that no Christian canon law can be recognized in American courts too?

[zbdent]

2. Isn't one of the usual attacks on Islam that it's much newer than "Christianity"?

(established, anyway).

But Mormonism, essentially still an infant when it comes to religious sects, is supposed to be "credible"?

[el_bryanto]

4. What is the oldest religion still practiced today?

Hinduism? Shintoism?

Do you agree that the younger the religion is the sillier it is (i.e. Mormonism and Islam are less credible because they are younger religions)? Or do you think that age has no bearing on the silliness of a religion?

Bryant

[zbdent]

10. Don't know the oldest practiced today ...

however, doesn't the Norse mythology predate Mormonism?

[JCMach1]

3. Newt wouldn't know sharia if it bit him in the a$$, but then again neither would

Iran, KSA, or frankly any other country that 'professes' sharia.

It is so convoluted as to cultural interpretation as to practically be a useless term.

For example sharia compliant banking. I know because I have an account. In 'real' sharia you can't charge interest. So, what's a bank to do cease to exist? NO WAY!

The just adapt and stretch the rules. They might not charge interest, but hello USER FEES!!!

An example for adaptation is my 0% sharia compliant credit card. It great, no interest. However, there are yearly and monthly user fees and the limit is lower than traditional credit cards.

Beware politicians telling you that they know anything about sharia! That caveat also includes muslim politicians!

I have to say though on the whole Islamic banking rocks!!!

[zbdent]

11. Newt probably wouldn't know Sharia if it bit him on the ass, yes ...

at least, that will be what the next set of divorce papers will claim.

"I thought her name was Shari ..."

[JCMach1]

12. ROFLMAO

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Religious law can't be meted out in civil courts and is partitioned.

Sharia Law is not different from Jewish Law, say getting a civil divorce and then applying to the orthodox rabbi for a religious divorce that would allow you to remarry according the Orthodox Jewish Law.
http://www.thejewishdivorce.com/

[NoNothing]

7. Yes it can, actually

Via this mechanism:

1. Parties agree to binding arbitration in a Sharia arbitration court
2. Dispute arises and is arbitrated according to Sharia law
3. Arbitration result challenged in civil court
4. Civil court upholds Sharia-based arbitration because parties voluntarily agreed to it beforehand

On the other hand, I have no real objections to this, so long as the voluntariness of both parties in step #1 is satisfactorily proven.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. The decision is wholly civil law with the application for civil arbitration.

The civil court does not rule on the religious merits of the case.

[ensho]

6. Judge Judy is not a fake

nt

[pipi_k]

9. Judge Judy? Sharia law?

WTF?


Are people pissed off or offended that she expects people to take responsibility for their actions?

There are only a few things she really really hates...

deadbeat parents (note I didn't say "fathers")

drunks

liars

I've seen her be very kind and compassionate to lots of people...plaintiffs and defendants alike.