Comments on: U.S. judge bars Oklahoma from implementing anti-Sharia law http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/08/17/u-s-judge-bars-oklahoma-from-implementing-anti-sharia-law/ Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: dogo http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/08/17/u-s-judge-bars-oklahoma-from-implementing-anti-sharia-law/comment-page-1/#comment-77963 Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:22:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=29046#comment-77963 where on the planet do Christians and muslims live in harmony..where on the planet do muslims move to and not try and change the laws and basic traditions…where on the planet are the countries where muslims have moved to and are happy living there the way it is….where on the planet is the country where muslims have moved to where the host country was glad they came….is there any where in the world where non muslims want to live with muslims in any numbers…

]]>
By: Lawrence007 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/08/17/u-s-judge-bars-oklahoma-from-implementing-anti-sharia-law/comment-page-1/#comment-77406 Fri, 23 Aug 2013 02:21:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=29046#comment-77406 We need to quit worrying about being politically correct and hurting someones feelings. Sharia law is dangerous and so is islam. Case in point the million man muslim march slated for 09/11/2013 with theme being to denounce the treatment of muslims in America. Excuse me!!! How about marching to denounce the atrocities done to Americans by muslims in the name of islam. Boston…911…etc!! At least have the common sense and empathy for the thousands who lost their lives that day to pick another date.

]]>
By: ReaderAtSunrise http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/08/17/u-s-judge-bars-oklahoma-from-implementing-anti-sharia-law/comment-page-1/#comment-77389 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:01:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=29046#comment-77389 @senior40
I agree with your stance on separation of church and state.
But I wonder what you mean by there”should not be a religious inflection”. I think its obvious that the reason for the judgement was to stop governmental persecution of specific groups for ideological reasons, whatever they may be, because it’s in line with the Constitution.
The republic will enact laws or change laws that are voted in by the majority. So, if future Americans vote into law anything nonsensical, within Constitutional limits, or even changes to the Constitution, it would fortunately/unfortunately be legitimate because they voted for it.Therefore,frontlines are in the realm of opinions and ideas, not the legal system.

]]>
By: alhambrapeace http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/08/17/u-s-judge-bars-oklahoma-from-implementing-anti-sharia-law/comment-page-1/#comment-77383 Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:54:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=29046#comment-77383 Usage of religious tolerance as an argument for the allowance of Sharia law to be implemented as a freedom, is taqiyya. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange fell prey to it Thursday. No amount of “political correctness” excuses Sharia law. In point of fact, the majority of Sharia law is U.S.-unconstitutional. It presents a set of extremist, violent, misogynistic, antiquated codes that run counter to the best jurisprudential practices in America. Before someone adjudicates on the religious tolerance or freedom of something, they should first examine the thing for what it is. Sharia law is chock full of intolerance to anything non-Islam. We cannot let the fear of seeming to be politically incorrect drive the acceptance of intolerance.

]]>
By: senior40 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/08/17/u-s-judge-bars-oklahoma-from-implementing-anti-sharia-law/comment-page-1/#comment-77375 Sun, 18 Aug 2013 03:01:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=29046#comment-77375 One could analyse the legal tenet of the anti-Sharia Law decision in a reverse argument.
History has shown that, when religion also controlled politics, extreme decisions were (are being) made, because they were (are) based on “unchallengeable religious doctrine”. National/State Law, on the other hand, has evolved over centuries, through intepretations & landmark decisions, recognising modernity,changes in customs etc.
There should not be a religious inflection in decisions based on National or State Law. Justice should be common to all, notwithstanding their religious beliefs.

]]>