Wednesday, March 2, 2011

the camel's nose*

If you believe that a Muslim woman who suffers weekly beatings from her husband, has endured martial rape on demand, and who desperately wants a divorce and the custody of her children does not deserve the exact equal protection under the law as your sister or your best friend then, by all means - please keep insisting that permitting Sharia into any one of these United States is about freedom of religion.**

However, you'd do well to keep in mind that Sharia doesn't allow freedom of religion.

*the camel's nose

**go ahead, ask Britain how well Sharia has worked.


Mike W. said...

Sharia law is completely inconsistent with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Need I say more?

Bubblehead Les. said...

How come the Commies always fight the "Free Exercise thereof" of the Jews and Christians, yet seem to have no problem with Sharia Law in the U.S.? Wonder how Michelle would feel if her Husband Barack Hussein put her into a Burkha?

RobertSlaughter said...

As a republic, the key issue is that we are founded as a nation of law, where said law applies equally to all, and no "alternate" legal system exists[1].

As such, Shaira is completely and totally incompatible with this country.

[1]Can you imagine the outcry if there had been a "separate but equal" legal system during segregation? It was bad enough with 'targeted' laws (still is in some areas, mostly disarmament).

RobertSlaughter said...

Oh, and regarding the First Lady and a burkha -- it might not even be Barry, but the mutaween (religious police) enforcing she wear it, even over his protestations.

Baker M. Romeo said...

I thought that the pushes for Sharia law are about letting people agree to use certain Islamic courts as binding arbitration to deal with contracts.

And any contract involving illegal activity is void. So a woman could never sign a contract that would allow her to be raped, nor to be beaten, since that contract would be automatically void, and she could always take her case to a normal court of law, rather than a sharia court.

I find islamic culture as detestable as any other flavor of savagery, but I think it's wrong to deny people their choice of arbitration because you fear it'll somehow make patently illegal things legal.

Old NFO said...

Mike beat me to it... It's not about freedom for women or ANY ONE other than a Muslim...

SpeakerTweaker said...

Sharia law is completely inconsistent with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Need I say more?

That's pretty much it, with one exception. We don't need laws making anything more illegaller. Beating women and subjecting them to martial rape, I'm pretty sure, is already against the law.

Thing is, we're all entitled to equal protection under law here (already), whether one's religious beliefs agree or not. I'd like to see some moron go to court for beating his wife and tell them (insert diety here) allows and/or requires it.


Breda said...

tweaker -

That EXACT defense is already being tried here in the U.S.

SpeakerTweaker said...

Oh. My. God.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did the NJ judge that refused the restraining order literally say, in so many words, that he didn't rape her because he was following his religious beliefs?!?

Someone, anyone, please tell me I read that wrong. Because what I want to do is say that we don't need laws outlawing Sharia law because the we've already got laws against the parts of Sharia that we have a problem with, like raping and beating women and stuff. Making something more illegaller doesn't help.

What it looks like I'm going to end up with is having to eat my words because the law is going to be necessary to keep dipfuck judges from considering religious law - or any law, for that matter - ahead of the laws of our land.

I'm quickly starting to feel very idealistic and, subsequently, unrealistic in my views. I'd ask what the world is coming to, but I'm becoming more and more afraid of the answer.


SpeakerTweaker said...

Pronoun Fail:

that he didn't rape her because he was following his religious beliefs?!?

He = bad guy, her = victim. My bad.


Breda said...

You read it correctly, yes.

Mike W. said...

Can someone please explain to me why in the HELL that judge was not immediately impeached?

Rape is Rape, the religious views of the perpetrator don't change the legal definitions. Disgusting!

Ian Argent said...

Look into WHY the judge that railroaded Brian Aitken was not re-appointed and you might find enlightenment as to why this judge is still in office...