Message #12187

[Kilika]

I disagree with this in that US law is sufficient to handle a given case. If the parties involved are all arguing over some religious aspect, and are demanding relief of some kind, the courts reserve the right to dismiss the case and refuse to hear it.

The judge I suspect could also recommend arbitration, which is private and outside the courts. Done. So we need to pay attention to just what the courts are saying or ruling on. If the court agrees to hear a case, using Sharia, instead of US law to make a ruling, that's wrong. Parties who insist on Sharia, Judaism, Christianity, etc. should be encouraged to take their case outside the US court system, being a religious matter, and not a secular one.

If your seeking relief in the US court system, then all parties involved must agree to the rules of that system, and not decided to bring in your own set of laws. That just makes no sense. Regardless of religion, Caesar demands allegience above any religious beliefs, so it's strange that Sharia is being allowed in. Surely this won't go anywhere outside of very basic lower court cases, but even then, it shouldn't happen.

The US courts and America itself is secular, which is why we have freedom of religion, but the government itself is secular, and supposedly by law is not allowed to discriminate against religion, so by design it has traditionally not recognized religious defenses in courts, such as medical treatment cases of children. It's a double-standard to allow Sharia, and opens a huge legal can of worms, which in the end may be their goal.

In order for there to be no discrimination against any particular religion, including Sharia, then the courts must accept ALL religions. Let people think about the implications of that for awhile.