Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

5. I think it's unnecessary.

Reply to cbayer (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 4, 2013, 12:46 PM

Aug 2013

There are plenty of laws on the books to defend constitutional rights against religious claims.

The unique thing here is its focus on foreign religious law (read sharia). I bet apoplexy over the hijab is behind this.

Case in point:

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/muslim_woman_asked_to_remove_h.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

More states move to ban foreign law in courts [View all] rug Aug 2013 OP

This will make it easy to repeal the sharia laws enacted on the war on women. I have been saying Thinkingabout Aug 2013 #1

Why do you think Nixon vetoed the bill? rug Aug 2013 #2

I have no idea why Nixon vetoed the bill. Thinkingabout Aug 2013 #3

Grandstanding? Islamophobia? cbayer Aug 2013 #4

I think it's unnecessary. rug Aug 2013 #5

I can understand restricting headwear during a test. Jim__ Aug 2013 #6

That's the way to handle it, cas-by-case. rug Aug 2013 #7

They mention a case where I man raped his wife because under cbayer Aug 2013 #8

He can take his chances with a jury. rug Aug 2013 #9

Do you agree with others that this is addressing a problem that doesn't exist? cbayer Aug 2013 #10

Pretty much. rug Aug 2013 #11

AFAIK there are two threads to this. Igel Aug 2013 #12

Thanks for your thoughts. rug Aug 2013 #13

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»More states move to ban f...»Reply #5