Dr. Gene Davenport, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Lambuth University thinks that a weak version of Sharia law should be incorporated to help relieve the strain on the judicial system by allowing certain judgments to be given by Sharia courts.
The acceptance of Sharia courts in this country's legal system would not be without precedent. In some parts of the country Jewish courts (Beth Din) arbitrate in matters of small claims and millions of dollars, employee-employer disputes, breach of contract, inheritance, and matrimonial disputes. Such courts serve, in other words, as arbitration courts, the decisions of which are recognized by the secular courts as long as those decisions are in keeping with the Constitution and with the laws of the state in which the religious court resides. And decisions in religious courts always can be challenged in state courts.First of all, I know about the Jewish courts and I think that they have made it possible for any religious group to have their own courts. I think it is disgusting. I do not care how overburdened the judicial system is. One way to free up a lot of the case load of the courts would be to legalize drugs, but that is a different story. The idea of allowing even a watered-down version of Sharia law, like England has, is wretched, disgusting, and stupid.
Arguments over mosques and their location in reference to a hole in the ground are diverting our attention away from real problems, like incorporating Sharia courts into the judicial system. I do not care what your religion says you should do or what laws you should live by. This is a country of laws, SECULAR LAWS.
Even various Christian denominations have arbitration systems that are recognized by the secular courts. In some denominations, if a group decides to break away from the denomination, the ownership of the church property is determined by church law and is recognized by the secular courts. (And one hesitates to mention the numerous courts on television such as that of Judge Judy.)How does Judge Judy, and actual judge, compare in any way to religious courts? I admit that I am not a fan of parading the judicial system on TV like some sort of sideshow at the circus, but that doesn’t mean it should be compared to any kind of religious court. The last time I checked, as vile a person as Judge Judy may be, she still upholds the secular laws of this country. Also, respecting property rights is not a religious idea. I am fairly sure that property rights are part of the secular laws of this country.
In light of the attitudes of the majority of Muslims in this country today, it might be expected that the interpretation of Sharia in their courts would be enlightened, just and reflective of Western attitudes and values. Such courts certainly would relieve the current case overload in the secular courts.You know what else would be enlightening? Having everyone that lives in this country abide by the laws of this country. It doesn’t matter if you worship the Sun, Jesus, or a pile of dirt, you are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, not the Theocratic Kingdom of America. Saying that there are certain interpretations of Sharia law that would be reflective of western values is the same as saying that there are certain interpretations of the anarchist cookbook that are reflective of a dictatorship.
If you water down Sharia to any point, it is still a religious code that will apply to only a certain group of people. That is not what this country is about. That is why we don’t have Ten Commandment Courts. So remember this, all of you slack-jawed morons out there who think that we need no separation of church and state. Without the separation, there are going to be idiotic things like “liberal” Sharia, Jewish Law, Christian Law, etc. that are going to be absorbed little-by-little into the justice system. At that point, we can just change the name to the Injustice Department and give in to whatever theocratic dictator comes to prominence.
Sharia =/= Secular Values.