re: Sharia law established in Dallas, Texas ...

Let's say the Texas legislature bans these Sharia non-binding arbitrations. Is there any scenario it doesn't see the law struck down for being unconstitutional at the Federal level (or State if you're somehow familiar with Texas Con Law)?

quote:

---

So none of this occured in the United States?

---

Sure it has, but the women agree to it under a cloak of fear and intimidation.

Last year an Austrailian woman was raped in Dubai by three men, so then she had to spend 8 months in jail since they wern't her husband. See where the Sharia law came in there? That was straight from the doctrine, and is perfectly acceptable to ALL muslims. Not just radicals or wahadis. The whole religion. It isn't set up and will never be able to operate under a demcracy. It's here internally in some households unfoutunately, but only because the methodical rules are never reported to local law enforcement.

The only part that should be considered IMO is when two Muslims legally separate, the men jump Sharia ship and disregard their Muslim marrage license (if drawn up outside the US before immigrating) to avoid certian payments allotted to the women under Shiria law. This furthers the idea that the whole implementation of Sharia was done to allow Muslim men to have their cake and eat it too.

Does not work under a democracy.

quote:

---

You have obviously conceded defeat.

---

Not conceding. I'm just accepting that you aren't going to agree.

There are two ways to look at this:

Multi-culturalism is fine when persued within the letter of the law, specifically the constitution. It enriches our nation and leads to more understanding and co-operation, and as long as its not on my property (etc etc) it doesn't bother me. The ol' 'pick my pocket or break my leg' mantra that certain circles of libertarian thinkers adhere to.

This is putting historical and political blinders on. Multiculturalism has not worked, ever, in the history of mankind. It is a cancer that eats at the core of a nation and leads to balkanization of nation-states. Sitting back and saying "well the constitution allows it, so its ok by me" is intellectually simple and naive.

I loved my Politics of Eastern Europe 1850-present class, since we're dropping class names.

The other method is to see this for what it is: a first step in allowing equal rights for minority religious courts that operate outside the normal confines of the law. No one seriously believes that this is the 'last step' in establishing independent Sharia law in the United States. That's because it is not the last.

Muslims won't 'take over America'. They are too much a minority. But what they can do is disrupt and destabilize enough to ruin our systems and way of life. Either a minority group is assimilated or they destroy/damage the nation from within. It happens in history so often as to be impossible to miss.

How is this different then agreeing to arbitration instead of juris?

quote:

---

Let's say the Texas legislature bans these Sharia non-binding arbitrations. Is there any scenario it doesn't see the law struck down for being unconstitutional at the Federal level (or State if you're somehow familiar with Texas Con Law)?

---

Neither States nor the federal government can breach an implied or enumerated fundamental right without meeting strict scrutiny.

quote:

---

Any time you have groups of people who reside in the same nation, but have significantly different cultures, you have civil unrest and instability due to friction between the majority culture and the minority culture.

---

Yeah, well, this is America. We have civil unrest. It's a part of our DNA as a people. Unlike the other places around the world, our government, for the most part, stays away. Also unlike the other places around the world, and also for the most part, our citizenry will shoot you, which is awesome.

There.Will.Always.Be.Civil.Unrest.

It's a foregone conclusion. It's the way the world is.

I'm a 2L, for what it's worth.

You're advocating we separate our nation entirely based on culture? Tell me, what is American culture, then? Does it not change? Is American culture what it was in 1776? What about again in 1876, or 1976?

What about the millions of immigrants currently in our country? Should they be removed from our land because they have a different culture than you, and not necessarily the rest of us?

All I'm seeing is a bit of bigotry. New Orleans is a cultural melting pot, as is New York and San Francisco. Are those cities perfect? Of course not. Is everyone running around killing one another in the name of multiculturalism and civil unrest? frick no. Are those within a subset of a certain culture killing one another? Yes, but that's their business, I suppose.

What's your proposal, Adolf?

quote:

---

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict

---

quote:

---

Apartheid

---

The Palestinians and black South Africans wanted equal treatment, brah. I guess equity isn't multicultural

Simple. We kill the Muhammad.

I can't NOT read that in the Joker's voice.