Shari’a Law American Style

[only_human]

I am tired of both the hysterical fear of Sharia Law and the simultaneous blithely hypocritical imposition of religious beliefs over secular law.

I have spawned this thread to address these issues

Kentucky Fried Constitution
Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they don’t mention God in their vows

“I will be unable to perform your wedding ceremony,” said Alexander, who also refuses to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. “I include God in my ceremonies and I won’t do one without.”

However, Alexander’s objections have already been met with criticism from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has already contacted him.

“You have no right to impose your personal religious beliefs on people seeking to be married. Governments in this nation, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, are secular,” the group’s letter read. “They do not have the power to impose religion on citizens. The bottom line is that by law, there must be a secular option for people seeking to get married. In Trigg County, you are that secular option.”

[bgbeuning]

Like this one

voters in Alabama were given the chance to insure that state courts never rule according to sharia law.

US courts make decisions bases on laws passed by their legislatures and no others.

I saw an interview of some voters who said the point of the law was to ensure the
state only had one religion. But that is silly too given separation of church and state.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by bgbeuning

But that is silly too given separation of church and state.

Keep in mind that separation of church and state isn't law -- it's a quote from one of Jefferson's leters:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The relevant law is the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment to the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "incorporation doctrine" broadens this from the federal government to the state and local governments.

[chappy]

I have to take issue with your take on "Separation of Church and State" which is firmly established in law. Yes the phrase we use to describe it today comes from Jefferson's letter, but since Jefferson knew the writers of the Constitution intimately and was instrumental in many of the earlier discussions of the goals of the fledgling country it seems pretty sound that he would be expressing the intent of the various doctrines involved.

Your phrase "isn't law" when applied to the precept is akin to saying that Obamacare isn't law, since it's the ACA which is that law's title.

It is also a firmly established doctrine of Constitutional Jurisprudence when the issue comes up with several Supreme Court decisions mirroring the language.

Separation of Church and State is an accurate description of the law in practice and theory.

[only_human]

Anyway, Separation of Church and State is less clear than I would like.
wiki: Separation of church and state in the United States

An obvious point that is still worth blandly stating is that many concerns over the potential or undue influence of Sharia Law are allayed by strengthening and maintaining the separation of church and state.

However it seems to me that a case can be made that the separation is possibly weakening.

The following article from 2014 overstates the effect of a particular Supreme Court case but the justices' opinions are still quite concerning:
The Supreme Court Just Blew A Gaping Hole In The Wall Of Separation Between Church And State

To Scalia and Thomas, the only kind of religious coercion banned by the Constitution is “coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty” (emphasis in original). So unless the government threatens to jail or fine you for failing to pray, lawmakers can more or less do whatever they want. (Indeed, Thomas would go even further than that. In a section of his opinion that Scalia declines to join, Thomas writes that the “Establishment Clause is ‘best understood as a federalism provision.'” This means that Thomas believes that the separation of church and state applies to the federal government only.)

Looking at another wiki page that surveys all the countries, Separation of church and state, the US section is more concise than the US specific wiki article.

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state".[87] In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government payments to faith-based community projects. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[88]

The protection also feels especially weak when an article appeals to the authority of other protected things that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution:
Yes There Is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State

Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women's constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.

[jasong]

Complaining that one particular chaplain(or whatever you call him) won't marry you is stupid, just find another chaplain.

Plus, it's an atheistic couple, why do they need a chaplain in the first place? Just come up with your own damn vows.

I remember when I used to work at KFC I commented how a woman should be obedient to her husband and if she's not willing to be obedient she shouldn't marry him. One of the women immediately said loudly,"I would never marry you." I responded,"Problem self-solved, you don't want to be obedient to me, therefore you don't marry me." It wasn't like I was randomly going around telling women what to do.

Too many times people create problems where there aren't any. People should be able to believe anything they want as long as it doesn't impose on other people. If I owned my dad's house and a gay couple moved in next door, I'd simply keep an eye on them. If a kid asked me about them holding hands or kissing, I'd simply say,"Cultural differences," and advise the kid to be careful about any advice or comments he or she got from them.

Live and let live.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by only_human

Kentucky Fried Constitution
Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they don’t mention God in their vows

Originally Posted by jasong

Complaining that one particular chaplain(or whatever you call him) won't marry you is stupid, just find another chaplain.

Plus, it's an atheistic couple, why do they need a chaplain in the first place? Just come up with your own damn vows.

Read the article TITLE.