New York Times: America Should Embrace Sharia Law

Sharia-lawWhat?! Below is an excerpt from the New York Times. No wonder they are losing readers. With thinking like this, we might as well hand the United States of America over to the Middle East. Letting Muslims and people of other cults practice voluntary ecclesiastical law within their communities is one thing. Muslims wants Shariah law to be the law of the land. State governments are getting smart and shoring up their laws to prevent the courts from forcing Sharia law on American citizens. The New York Times should implement Sharia law upon its employees before letting them write articles like this.

More than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”

This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.

Read the rest on www.nytimes.com

email
Print Friendly

  • Betty-Jane

    We have the hispanics and the muslims doing more harm to this country than any other nations that have landed on out soil. If we do not curtail these these two now I'm afraid we will see blood run in our streets from
    Shine Sea to Shine Sea. Personally I do all that I can from signing petitions to buying made in the USA.

  • Fredo

    This is 2012 A.D., not 2012 B.C., why is anyone even considering this neanderthalic garbage. Civilization has come a long way, why go backwards to the sickness of something like sharia? It makes zero sense, it is murderous, it is cave-man mentality at the very best and it is insanity. Again I ask, why is this insanity even being discussed today….in 2012 A.D.?
    Also, it cannot ever be implemented here in the United States because we are a civilized country and sane. This horrible and evil ideology is for Uncivilized and Insane places and I thought all of those were gone with the dark ages.

  • Recon Ron

    If Barry gets his way….and another 4 years, Sharia law, spanish is the official language, no guns for law biding citizens, gay marriage in all states, welfare for all, and taxes so high to pay for all the social programs. We better concentrate on voting out this loser in cheif.

  • Nancy

    I wonder where the feminists and the NOW are on this. apparently they don't know what Sharia law will do for women? Just think all their hard work to liberate women from suppressive males is going come right back and bite them in the butt. I suppose those feminist wanna be males don't even know what is in store for them under Sharia. My My

  • SpaceWeasel

    How about relocating The New York Times to Mecca? Then it will be with its people.

  • newsel

    A Problem well explained…might be beyond the NYT's scope given their apparent bias… :-(
    http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e

  • newsel

    From the NRO..The Sharia Court of Pennsylvania
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291881/shari

  • Twitch

    The people at the New York Times never had to live under Sharia and probably don't even understand what that entails. If they did, their tune would be VERY different.

  • davdun

    Adopting sharia law as US law is unconstitutional per the 1st Amendment as it favors/establishes a single religion over others and denies current US citizens their inalienable rights as stated in the US Constitution. If a community/area wanted to adopt sharia law (e.g., allowing honor killings and treating females as property) as its law, the community/area would first have to establish itself as a self-contained, self-sufficient society. With the exception of religious sects that established themselves as self-contained, self-sufficient societies (e.g., Mennonites) from their start in America, it is to see how religious sects that have their existence within the US at large can achieve self-containment without either seceding from the US or leaving it. Secession didn't work for the South and leaving didn't exactly do it for Reverend Jimmy Jones.
    However, if self-containment and self-sufficiency could be achieved, the community/area would need to establish its infrastructure and would no longer be eligible for Federal and State funding and other assistance,