not-so-furry discussion > debate forum

Sharia Laws

(1/2) > >>

In the last few weeks, I've been curiously reading a few online articles about Sharia Laws. In a roundabout way, these would best be described as Islamic laws.
What I want to debate on is this: Should Islamic Sharia laws be included, or take precedent, over any other country's state and federal laws/courts?

At least here in the United States, 16 states have struck down shariah laws. If you come to the United States, you follow OUR rules and laws. We should not have to follow yours.  >:(

Old Rabbit:
No we shouldn't accept Sharia Laws. We already have our own laws.  Many people live under
Sharia Laws, and we might find some beneficial, but not to be imposed on us without due process.

Though we should respect other peoples religious beliefs. If a people immigrates to a new country
they must obey the laws of that country, no matter what the laws were in their country of origin.

If some culture or laws required people to wear a pointed hat that wouldn't hurt anything, but if it told
them to break the law of the new country they would have to be stopped.

People have to accept the law of the land they live in. If the laws conflict with their religion or cultural
beliefs they will have to find a new country or adapt. That doesn't mean they have to change how they
live as long as it doesn't break the laws of their adopted country.

However it would be to their benifit to conform to the adopted countries culture where possible.

Of course if enough people move to another country, they may be able to change laws to fit their
beliefs. After all in the past many powerful governments imposed laws and beliefs on indigenous
peoples who had lived for thousands of years in the lands they colonized.

i am completely against sharia law but if it doesnt effect me, or people who dont like the law i dont really care. (though i still view basing laws off religion as a bad idea)

Old Rabbit:
I agree laws based on religion go against general freedoms. They may suit those of
the given religion, but usually are very restrictive to the rights of others.

Countries with religiously  controlled governments are rarely good for the public at
large. Many religious leaders of such countries end up being greedy potentates and
treat their followers like children or slaves. History is littered with such leaders
who had opponents killed or tortured in the name of religion.

I don't believe any religious laws should be imposed upon people. Laws should be subject to questioning and debate.

Fortunately, I don't see Sharia Law as something that would be enforced by the U.S. government. And even though some Americans claim we are a "Christian nation," I'm not forced to follow Biblical laws here, either.

I once read an editorial in a local Christian magazine that claimed the separation of Church and State is impossible because (the Christian) God is in control of everything. I don't understand this line of thinking, regardless of what religion it comes from. If an all-powerful deity wanted to impose their law on us, why wouldn't they simply do so? What would be the point of having human lawmakers act as middlemen?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version