Posted on 09/03/2011 7:41:56 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Wow. Now this is crazy. Just when you thought the anti-American New York Times could not get any nuttier they start promoting Sharia Law. The New York Times reported:
MORE than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”
Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”
This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.
The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)
In case you were wondering what exactly they are promoting here.
Under Sharia law, the clothes you wear, music you listen to, and television you watch would all be censored. Behavior in public is legally restricted and controlled. And Sharia is the ideal social system for those that preach Radical Islam. Sharia is an Arabic term referring to a legal framework to regulate public and private aspects of life based upon specific Islamic teachings. Sharia is an intolerant system that threatens the western ideals of “liberty and justice for all”. Sharia views non-Muslims as second class citizens, sanctions inequality between men and women, prescribes cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and promotes a restrictive business environment that strangles the freedoms of capitalism.
Then again these nuts at the NY Times did support Barack Obama so really anything is possible with these kooks.
I wonder if they Mexican owner, Carlos Slim Helu gives a hill of beans.
Gee, what a swell lead-in to the 10th anniversary of 9/11!
Thanks, New York Times!
My opinion is that any law that abridges the rights of United States citizens should be—and may actually be—illegal here. That would include much of Sharia law.
The New York Times would promote child pornography, Communism, genocide.... snything evil, the NYT is on board.
For anyone doubting who the enemy are....
The NYT is reactive, and not reflective.
Liberals are too stupid to realize that Judeo-Christian values gave them the freedom be be idiots and that Islam would destroy all freedom.
You think that’s something, the US military spent trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives to set up not one but three Sharia-ruled nations. That’s the plain fact, and you can read the constitutions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the draft for the new Libyan government if you want to see the truth with your own eyes.
Well, a nation in civil war is the trash heap for drawing trade products, primarily oil and precious metals from the middle east. Most politicians care less about whether or not these nations are Sharia-ruled so much as they care that insurrection is at a low enough level to allow for a reasonable draw of products. The irony of our recent incursions, however, is that Libya and Iraq, are more the oil suppliers for Europe than for the U.S.
Freedom & Shariah are 100% incompatible.
If they want Shariah law, then move to a country that already has Shariah law and live happily ever after
The first thing that comes to my mind is the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
There are a multitude of ways to destroy this country and the NYT advocates for each and every one of them... =.=
“Liberals are too stupid to realize that Judeo-Christian values gave them the freedom be be idiots and that Islam would destroy all freedom.”
The quote of the day.
What’s even more rediculous about the left, is the kind of culture that Judeo-Christian values worked to develop over time: a non-monarchy, separate authorities between the priests and government officials (Saul and Samuel), and the family unit. (A husband and a wife who are to be obliged to one another and to their children) All these things were part of the great Judeo-Christian project. However, some people have so easily forgotten that this great project was also the way by which their beliefs could be most tolerated as well. I guess sometimes the wrong can be self-destructive.
The liberals are too thick to realize that under Sharia law they would be the first targets. Homosexuals, New Age practices, pagans, woman rights activists would all be on the short list.
If they are prohibited from practicing shari’a law they might be inclined to go somewhere where it IS allowed — LIKE BACK from whence they came.
And that’s a bad thing because...?
That is all anyone needs to understand.
Actually, I see nothing wrong with courts considering other systems of law in the narrow circumstance where a statutory right to enter into binding arbitration exists and the parties to a dispute have chosen arbiters precisely for the purpose of having a dispute settled under another system of laws, provided the court gives precedence to the Constitutional, statutory and Common Law rights of the parties ahead of the dictates of the legal system used by the arbiters; or in the similarly narrow circumstances in which a contract involves properties or parties both in the U.S. and outside the U.S., in which case the law of the other country might be considered.
(Courts should always be able to consider Common Law -- though American precedents should trump those from other countries which inherited the Common Law -- the Founders plainly regarded Common Law notions like habeas corpus as normative, and a foundation of liberty. Any statute seeking to forbid consideration of "other systems of law" that is so broadly drawn in what it forbids or so narrow in what it permits that Common Law cannot be considered is throwing the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water.)
Crusade? Did they really use that word? NYT is a pathetic rag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.