ChristsSoldier115
Mabaho na Kuya
- Jul 30, 2013
- 6,765
- 1,601
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I want to first address this comment generally before specifically focusing upon the Alabama law.
If the purpose and intent of the law was to discriminate against Islam by forbidding Sharia law, while allowing other religious principles to be considered (Christianity is not forbidden by this law as it is not "foreign law"), then this is not an instance of "maintaining the ideal of separation of church and state." Treating religions differently isn't "maintaining the ideal of separation of church and state."
However, this Alabama amendment isn't as egregious as the title suggests, or as liberals perceive, or as some posters understand the amendment. Sharia law may be relied upon by the Alabama courts and this amendment does not preclude the use of Sharia law by Alabama courts.
Here is the relevant text of the law.
(7) The public policy of this state is to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution or of the United States Constitution, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or press, or any right of privacy or marriage.So the Alabama amendment does not preclude the use of Sharia law by the courts but rather, as stated above, the use of Sharia law, while permitted, is qualified by the law quoted above, but not forbidden.
As Professor Volokh so astutely noted, "The amendment would largely just restate that courts may not use foreign law in those cases when doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Amendment banning foreign law in Alabama courts passes? - The Washington Post
Now, it is rather common sense for our courts to at times apply foreign law to resolve an issue, including the application of religious law. As Professor Volokh states, "Normal American choice of law principles often call for the application of foreign law in cases that involve foreign transactions, for instance in some tort cases arising from injuries in foreign countries, determining the family status of people who were married or adopted children in foreign countries, and more. American courts wouldnt enforce foreign rules that violate Americans free speech rights, equal protection rights, and so on; but in the great bulk of cases in which foreign law would be applied, there would be no such constitutional problem. The Alabama amendment wouldnt bar use of foreign law in such cases.
And it wouldnt bar courts from using religious law, such as Sharia, in those rare situations where American courts may constitutionally use such law, chiefly when they have to apply the foreign law of a country that incorporates Sharia into its legal system."
90% of the time I never read the links in threads.
Upvote
0
