I can understand the sentiment by many who feel that this is an 'insult' to the prior events that occurred in the territory. But if we're to try and actually look at this diplomatically, this causes no real hindrance of the relevant freedoms of the lives of Americans, such as it is to carry out their normal, every-day duties. The criticism of the mosque is based entirely upon an emotional response, and also does not satisfy the inclination that we are subversively being taken over by another culture.
The example posited before about sharia courts, for instance -- while CDNBear has an admirable concern to worry over 'creeping' -- does not actually satisfy any exertion of political influence stemming from the muslim culture. I was too lazy to properly read the article the first time around, but one important consideration:
"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”"
So, the moniker 'courts' seems a lot scarier than it actually is. In addition to what CDNBear said earlier about them being voluntary, their main purpose is alternative dispute resolution. While that article mentions that ADR can be binding in law, it does not mean that any resolution cannot be tried under the current court system. If ADR fails or is in question, it can always be brought to litigation which will undoubtedly employ the nations own methodology for resolving legal conflict.
So, as it appears for now, there is no real threat to the national security of developed nations from islamic terrorism, militant forces or social infusion tactics.
But why is there the inclusion of a section of the criminal code?
Like I've stated before, civil arbitration, I have no issues with. But the Sharia courts were also granted the right to address a section of the criminal code, where Beth Din courts are not.
I understand the "alarmist" nature of my commentary, but I see that as Islam having a slightly greater political influence, then other religions.
It's slow, slight and under the radar. It wasn't even well known, for almost a year before the shyte hit the fan. If it were benign and oh so fair and equal, why the quiet nature of slipping it into policy?
This is where I see the slippery slope. Just as insidious as the erosion of civil liberties in the US after 9/11.
It never was going anywhere. Your position is so out in left field and you are far to stubborn to accept that you are mistaken so as usual, you fall back into the "you missed the point" schtick and all you other predictable cliches.
The point you missed was about the personal attacks. The fact that I just had to explain it to you, proves I was right, you missed the point.
I'm merely posting for the benefit of others by providing balance. I try to counter ignorance whenever and wherever I can.
Funny, I do the same thing. Go figure.
But seriously, you should go and visit one of these Muslim countries you seem to be so afraid of. It might actually open your eyes.
Thanx, I already have the t shirts from a few. But you can keep on being a dick, while making assumptions about me, using every left wing cliche, after willfully taking things out of context, ignore the use of specific wording and facts, while I attempted to be polite.
Have a nice day Cannuck.
