So, it a man chops off his daughter's head, claiming the right to do so according to his religion, you'll be cool with him walking on the murder charges?
The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:Looking into this more there is some legitimacy to the demand for legislation:
Source: Fox News
Obviously some judges need to be explicitly told that religious law is not legitimate in secular court.
Of course it does, plus everything lifted from the Bible....
There is in fact a movement among members of the Muslim community to have recognition of Sharia law as an option in civil court. If all those concerned freely choose to have their civil disputes decided on by a court with different rules that is perfectly fine. As long as the secular option is the default I see no issue with it.
And what is asinine about requiing American judicial decisions to be based on state and national law?
Why, nothing. Nothing at all.
Only one of those three links could even be considered an answer to what I asked for, and that one was an internal dispute in a mosque involving who is named as trustee of the place. The second was a copyright/antitrust case that I can't fathom how would possibly fit here, and the third was just some other state trying to do the same thing as Texas here.
So. One. You've got one. Barely.
He called it significant that foreign authors, publishers, and nations say the agreement violates international law.
Supporters of SQ 755 have said the change was needed to stem a trend of activist judges turning to international law to make decisions.
The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA.
We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."The issue was a poor interpretation of the 1st amendment rather than use of Sharia law as precedent.
I think that the idea that is being railed against here is abhorrent. However, I do not think that the idea that we oppose is the same thing as what is actual in existence.
Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cultural laws | ...
Another idiotic right wing state. And they base this suggested law because of Newt Gingrinch it seems, who floated the lie about Dearborn, Michigan and a disorderly conduct arrest of some Christian wackos at an Arab International Fest.
Now the cracker was this article
Dearborn cited in effort to pass anti-Sharia law in Texas - News - Press and Guide
So here we have a law which is based in large part on fear, fear drummed up by a lie the moron and known liar Newt Gingrich, and one of the backers of the Texas bill, a Republican of course, "heard it on the radio" hence it must be true.
The IQ of some of the present crop of right wing politicians must be just above or around 70....
And you think that saying something is significant is the same as citing a non-American law as a basis for a judgment?From the second link:
From the third link:
I thought I'd give you some variety.
If you use the phrase "in effect" very, very liberally, I guess you could be correct. Though, since the first amendment specifically deals with religion, if we stick with this very liberal usage of "in effect" then many rulings based on 1st amendment that are relevant to religion are "in effect" bringing religion into legal decisions.In effect, bringing Islamic teachings into a legal decision is using Sharia law.
If you use the phrase "in effect" very, very liberally, I guess you could be correct. Though, since the first amendment specifically deals with religion, if we stick with this very liberal usage of "in effect" then many rulings based on 1st amendment that are relevant to religion are "in effect" bringing religion into legal decisions.
But if we stick with more regular ways of saying things, it seems that a judge made a bad ruling based on a flawed understanding of how to apply the 1st amendment and then that ruling was subsequently overturned.
The above description seems to more accurately describe events than saying that sharia law had come to America. Obviously, ymmv.
To me the issue seems to stem from the judge's poor understanding of how the first Amendment works and how it should be applied.Except in this case Islamic teachings were used specifically to inform how to rule on the issue. That is not using it "very, very liberally" because that judge's ruling was pretty much saying his actions should be judged in accordance with Islam in a court of law.
And this has happened in the US when?
It is likely to happen in the US when?
When has anything even remotely similar to the situation you've described ever happened in the US?
When have we allowed decapitators to walk because of religious grounds?
The above doesn't strike you as a far-fetched and hysterical worry?
Since when was murder a civil matter in the USA?
Since O.J. Simpson got away with murder in a criminal court and afterwards was convicted of murder in a civil court.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?