Yes, I know that it occurred last weekend (April 29), however, my son graduated on Saturday and I was tied up with relatives during the weekend so I did not get to address the Jones Speech in Dearborn. What occurred is what I felt would happen. 700 angry protesters were on one side of Michigan Avenue and Reverend Jones was on the other side in front of the Dearborn City Hall with his 50 or so supporters. Only once during the speech did the protesters come across the street and police in riot gear had to intervene. According to reports, a couple people were arrested (not Jones this time). There were no riots and property destruction was very limited. So all in all, it was a success for both sides. Jones got his free speech rights supported and the protesters were able to express their disdain for his opinions.
So, what do I think? Well, first of all Reverend Jones has the right under the Constitution to speak his mind and that right should never be restricted by a City, State or Federal government edict. I think the "trial" he was forced to undergo during his first visit to Dearborn was wrong. And lastly, I fear that he might have a point when it comes to Sharia Law in this country.
Item one. We have seen and heard reports of the "honor killing" defense being employed by Muslim defendants in murder cases. To my knowledge (if you know different, please enlighten me) none of the killers have successfully employed this tactic. However, I sure sometime in the future, someone will.
Item two. In business, if two Muslims have a disagreement and wanted to settle their claim against each other using Sharia, would I oppose? Probably so. My rationale would be that this is the United States and we settle our claims in US courts, using US laws and not any other courts. Otherwise, it would be a slippery slope.
The natural extension of the above question is, what happens when a Muslim and Non-Muslim (aka Dimi) are in a business or other conflict and the Muslim wants Sharia Law to settle the case? Will the courts allow this? (If it happens in Dearborn, I am sure they would.) Under Sharia Law the Muslim has superior rights to the one not of that faith, so this would not be fair to the Non-Muslim, who would lose.
In the United States we presume to have the right to have our case heard in court by a judge or by a jury of our peers. We would not have the same right under Sharia Law. So in my, not so humble, opinion, ANY use of Sharia Law in our court system will erode it and will eventually result in the very destruction of our system of laws.
What occurred in Dearborn over the past three weeks is only the start. The city with its large Muslim community is the incubator for the Sharia movement. Demands by its Muslim citizens are agreed to without disagreement. This only encourages the Muslim leaders to demand more and more from the city fathers.
In the past two years, Christians handing out literature on a sidewalk outside the Arab Festival have been arrested. In both cases, Dearborn lost the case in trial, however, this should have occurred in the first place. How long will it be before the city wins a case. What will be the chilling effect of that win?
If America is to maintain its system of laws and the rights of its citizens, Sharia Law must be defeated. Jerry Jones may not be your favorite preacher but he pointed out the issue, are we alert enough to understand it?
We welcome your comments.
So, what do I think? Well, first of all Reverend Jones has the right under the Constitution to speak his mind and that right should never be restricted by a City, State or Federal government edict. I think the "trial" he was forced to undergo during his first visit to Dearborn was wrong. And lastly, I fear that he might have a point when it comes to Sharia Law in this country.
Item one. We have seen and heard reports of the "honor killing" defense being employed by Muslim defendants in murder cases. To my knowledge (if you know different, please enlighten me) none of the killers have successfully employed this tactic. However, I sure sometime in the future, someone will.
Item two. In business, if two Muslims have a disagreement and wanted to settle their claim against each other using Sharia, would I oppose? Probably so. My rationale would be that this is the United States and we settle our claims in US courts, using US laws and not any other courts. Otherwise, it would be a slippery slope.
The natural extension of the above question is, what happens when a Muslim and Non-Muslim (aka Dimi) are in a business or other conflict and the Muslim wants Sharia Law to settle the case? Will the courts allow this? (If it happens in Dearborn, I am sure they would.) Under Sharia Law the Muslim has superior rights to the one not of that faith, so this would not be fair to the Non-Muslim, who would lose.
In the United States we presume to have the right to have our case heard in court by a judge or by a jury of our peers. We would not have the same right under Sharia Law. So in my, not so humble, opinion, ANY use of Sharia Law in our court system will erode it and will eventually result in the very destruction of our system of laws.
What occurred in Dearborn over the past three weeks is only the start. The city with its large Muslim community is the incubator for the Sharia movement. Demands by its Muslim citizens are agreed to without disagreement. This only encourages the Muslim leaders to demand more and more from the city fathers.
In the past two years, Christians handing out literature on a sidewalk outside the Arab Festival have been arrested. In both cases, Dearborn lost the case in trial, however, this should have occurred in the first place. How long will it be before the city wins a case. What will be the chilling effect of that win?
If America is to maintain its system of laws and the rights of its citizens, Sharia Law must be defeated. Jerry Jones may not be your favorite preacher but he pointed out the issue, are we alert enough to understand it?
We welcome your comments.
The fact of the matter, to me, is that even considering Sharia law is pointless as it favors a religion; which is against Constitutional rights as it grants above the law (something that religions such as Catholicism is not allowed with the exception for the need to protect rights of religions, such as confessions). In the case of Sharia Law, allowing it is not protecting a religion. It's allowing the implementation of a new judicial-type system, which is against the concept of separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteIn sum, Sharia Law should be repelled as it is Unconstitutional and allows for unneeded judicial complications.