You're asking me questions I've answered, clarified, and further elaborated on multiple times.
Same here.
Last I checked, private mediation wasn't publicly funded. That considered as well as the fact that sharia court is based off religion, no... I would not want tax dollars going towards it.
Then we agree on that, the sticking point is that they keep bringing up such arguments in our courts, hence the reason for anti-sharia laws in various states.
Why is it that the Obama administration whose justice department is headed up by Eric Holder file suits to prevent the anti-sharia laws being on the books?
Why is it that moslems groups such as CAIR keep filing suits to prevent these laws if they don't want to form a parallel legal system that will greatly influence our own established law?
Is not their end game to have the whole legal system be under islamic sharia law as is the case in most moslem majority countries and even in those where they have enough influence to get their way as in Kenya which is only about 10% moslem? (with the illegal aid of of our own state department headed up by Clinton who answers to Obama.)
I think I've made that more than clear with my frequent use of the word "optional" throughout this discussion, so I'll let you figure that out.
Then how about minor children of moslem families.
What if a 15 year old girl living in America refuses to accept an arranged marriage with a 50 year old man living in Pakistan?
Prevention of sharia law within our court system is as easy as following the current system set in place. So yes, anti-sharia laws are discriminatory.
I don't think you understand the anti-sharia state laws at all.
They universally read; 'islamic sharia law cannot be introduced into state courts.'
One reason is that this has happened already, hundreds if not thousands of times and some liberal judges have allowed the case to be decided on interpretation of sharia law.
Obama's most recent supreme court appointee has said, along with other top obama appointees, that foreign law should be heard in American courts.
Add to that the experience of several European countries that have made concessions to islamic demands and now wish they had not.
Given the basis of my argument, this means nothing. If you made it an optional, privatized system, it wouldn't take anyone's rights away.
It's really not that hard to comprehend.
It would take away the rights of those who go to sharia courts to access (probably through their own ignorance) the benefits of a superior justice system.
As I have said, anyone who doesn't want to go to a civil court to have a decision rendered already has that right.
They can settle out of court at any time in any way they want.
However, having the sharia courts enfranchised in America could and most certainly would deny many of the rights of women and children (second class citizens under sharia) who would rather have their case decided under American jurisprudence but would feel too imtimidated (or perhaps ignorant) to be able to bring the case into a U.S. court.
