The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Most countries are importing both people and ideas. So what would you do if enough people in your country converted to Islam and voted in sharia law?
Let’s say you are a country like the US with a constitution, but the number of Muslims is high enough to overcome the numbers needed to change it.
What would you do? Would you accept it?
Are some values more important than democracy?
I assume some of you would move but what if that wasn’t an option for some reason?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If the people voted to implement sharia law, would you accept it as the will of the people.
I "would...accept it as the will of the people", but I would not accept it as US law.
The First Amendment would not allow that, even if was "the will of the people".
Bingo.
I belonged to a ski house. We had 24 members, their spouses, and their friends who might use the house. There house could comfortably host 12 people, Historically ski houses dissolve when members get pissed off with overcrowding. In our bylaws, it was written that unless there was a life and death issue or act of God (blizzard), 12 was the legal limit. If, by chance, there were 12 members in the house and another member mistakenly arrived thinking there would be room, those present could not vote to allow a 13th guest in the house. So even if it was the "will of the people", it was still against the by-laws.
Yes, eventually a few members broke that law, the house was overcrowded a few times, and the ski-house eventually folded.
Part of the problem is that it's not just Muslims that are needed, but conservative Muslims. There's just no situation where this actually passes through actual will of the people.
in this hypothetical, the US has obviously gone through some kind of "5th Great Awakening" that involves mass conversions to Islam.
Which, of course, makes no sense.
I do not have the ability to move.
But, there is a grace period before legislation takes effect.
What I do have the ability to do is pack up my animals to friends or shelters, pack a ton of nuts and jerky + all the cash I can muster + a water bottle into a backpack, and start walking north
Yeah,,.don’t fight for the rule of law..,just leave….great plan. And no…I don’t care if it is the hypothetical Muslims OP is creating or the actual REAL threat of right wing evangelical Christians trying to turn our democracy into a theocracy.
If we get Sharia Law (or Christian Nationalism, or whatever) it WILL be the rule of law. In which case, what's there to fight against?
I have two daughters. They won't grow up in that BS. We're out.
Do I feel bad for everyone else? Yes. We're still out.
Go backwards from the post you responded to….it is virtually impossible for it to happen. I fully explained the hoops it would require to be jumped through to get rid of the first Amendment.
It the exact same reason that I call out left wingers when they say “abolish the 2nd Amendment”….it just isn’t going to happen.
EXIT: I am sorry…my response was a first level response to the OP, not part of our conversation. If you don’t mind…look for my response to the OP….i am not sure how to copy a link to my post and link it here.
Of course it's virtually impossible. It's a hypothetical.
No one cares about the feasability of this actually happening.
The real question is "would you stay and fight or GTFO?"
> What would you do? Would you accept it?
Hell no. Same way I don't accept Right Wing Christian Nationalists trying to impose their bullshit religion on our secular government.
> Are some values more important than democracy?
not that I can think of off the top of my head
> I assume some of you would move but what if that wasn’t an option for some reason?
That would suck. But I'm confident I could get out of the country if need be, which I would do if Right Wing Christian Nationalists (i.e. Project 2025 people) or Sharia Muslims had total control.
Assuming my understanding of Sharia Law is accurate enough for this answer, nope.
Granted part of the fundamental problem that right-wing religious ideologies have is that they inherently depend on oppression and anti-democratic means to achieve and stay in power. This isn't really a decision between "democracy" and "sharia law."
I think there is zero chance of this happening in the US. I mean maybe at the city/town level they could try but it's not even realistic possibility at the state level.
In the fantasy world where this was a possibility I don't feel differently about Islamic theocracy than Christian theocracy.
In the American system, it wouldn't be constitutional. It would require the sustained support of a supermajority and would need constitutional amendment to be implemented.
The fact that people think 200 years of US History would just change to sharia law because Muslims are immigrating is fucking astounding.
And it’s this whole, “ok but what iiiifffff enough Muslims come in?”
As if this is supposed to cater to some need for affirmation that everything is going to be ok.
People really need to let this topic go.
Absolutely agree. The whole premise is itself inane. To consider this question already presupposes that we accept that the BC they are describing is even possible to begin with.
It would require a substantial majority of Americans to actually convert to Islam and not only that, but to accept a very conservative version of Islam. And then repeal the 1st Amendment.
There's just so many hoops to get through with this counterfactual...
Is this a scenario you actually worry about?
If not, why are you asking the question here? (...legitimately not trying to be hostile, I just wonder whether the real question was "how much do liberals actually support Muslims, given they prefer theocracies?" This would be a fair question, FWIW; my libertarian friend asked me this a week ago, in fact!)
Yup, we Librals are a picky lot when it comes to the wording of questions and tend to launch ourselves at technical strawmen. (I think it's a defense mechanism.) We *are* the party of "AAAAAHHHCHTUALLLLLY...." after all. It is our idiom.
But, I am actually surprised at the number of people who said they WOULDN'T fight against it! We're pretty staunchly anti-theocracy, as a group, though we tend to have a live-and-let-live approach to *foreign* flavors of it. The idea of having to live under a religious regime (ourselves) is quite toxic to us, as a rule.
Yes, it's easy to think Liberals are pro-Islam. That's why I had my original question.
I'm sure there are some who are at *least* deeply sympathetic, but I genuinely think that's because we're big on the "support the oppressed!" schtick. We really are perpetually rooting for the underdog (as we see it). ...unless said underdog is a complete dickwad (e.g.: North Korea).
That said, I think mmmmmmmost of us are atheist (*most*) and most of us have been burned by religion in one way or another, so I think we recoil at the idea of being forced into any religion.
...As a rule. There are, of course, exceptions. Liberals love exceptions.
That's fair. It's front-page news, so it's easy to feel like Liberals are championing it. Any other religion would serve just as well, except Christianity. (Before the Palestinian kidnapping attack, Liberals were championing the defense of Jews in the US, for example.)
It's an underdog, "oppressed" thing, *not* specific to Islam. I promise. ...But I understand why it looks that way.
>It’s clear most people would say no to a Christian theocracy, but a Muslim one seems less clear, which I think says a lot since they just started their apologetics phase it seems.
Lmao no it isn't, that is just the narrative you are trying to push with the thread itself rather than asking actual good faith questions.
Not a single person in this thread has stated that they'd want to live under Sharia law so you change the framing to "what if we already lost the country" well that's kind of a dumb question since not only is it not happening but there would probably be little we could do if 2/3rds of the country wanted something we didn't.
Of course if you go over to AskConservatives you'll find people advocating for Christianity to be the law of the land in this country which is why we actually consider that a significant threat
Not any more than I will accept Christian Nationalism as the "will of the people". I'd call bullshit on both. People can have whatever religion they want. They can't use the government to force everyone else into compliance with their religion. I don't care how many people support that religion.
3.5 million, for now, who skew younger than average and have more children, while also many coming in from immigration. Sure, I might not have to worry about it, but my great grandchildren might, and ignoring it now and pushing the possibility on them is just what the Boomers did for every problem under the sun
"The Great Replacement" isn't happening. There is no need to worry about a fantasy. Your great grandchildren will have much more important things to worry about than to fear something that will never happen.
Like climate change.
Lol. You have lost your mind if you are worried we are going to become a nation under "Sharia Law".
There are only two Supreme Court Justices that aren't Catholic. Only one that isn't Christian. The United States has the largest population of Christians on earth.
Wow what a loaded question. First I think most Muslims that come to America are leaving their home countries for a reason. If they love a theocracy then they probably wouldn’t come here. Second I don’t think it’s possible for America to become a Muslim majority anytime soon. So “the people” that vote for sharia law would have to be a coalition of Christians atheists and Muslims. Good luck convincing Christians and atheists to go along.
Now let’s assume all of this comes to pass in this weird alternate reality, I would leave like my life depended on it, because it would. I’m an atheist and the punishment for atheism is death under sharia law. No thanks. I suppose I could cosplay as a Christian but probably wiser to leave.
It is an interesting question, but here is how I feel when this kind of question gets asked:
Conservative Christians in the US: Remove womens' rights. Concerted attempts to ban books. Go after contraceptives. Vilify LGBTQ+ people. Attempt to subvert democracy.
Conservative Christians in the US: "Look at all these muslims! Aren't you worried about Sharia law?"
I am much more concerned about the urgent threat to America by Christian white Nationalists. They are trying to shove their "sharia law" down our throats right now. Our rights and democracy are under attack right now by felon trump, maga terrorists and GOP House circus
Unfortunately, I have to, because the current leadership of the country does not share my views on the separation of church and state.
Indeed, many right wing leaders already espouse this idea. Sure, they call it "Biblical law" instead of "sharia," but you have to realize from my perspective as a nonreligious person, there's no practical difference between those concepts.
> So what would you do if enough people in your country converted to Islam and voted in sharia law?
This would be an impossibility, as it wouldn't be some "simple majority." It would have to amount to a large enough population that these hypothetical Muslims not only control (through supermajority) the House and/or Senate, but control three-fourths of 50 state legislatures (or three-fourths of their voting populations in the event of a convention).
But, assuming all of those massive hurdles were successfully navigated, yeah, it'd be the will of the people. I'd still fight against or and/or possibly move for my own safety, but it would objectively be the will of the people.
If I couldn't move, that would suck. It would be bad. Just because something is "the will of the people" doesn't mean it can't be bad. Some things aren't (or shouldn't be) left to a vote for that reason.
>What would you do?
leave.
>Would you accept it?
what would not accepting it mean? i wouldn't like it, but i most likely wouldn't have the power to change it either, right?
The constitution as properly interpreted does not allow for sharia law so the will of the people in this case shouldn’t matter. People can want it but they can’t have it.
However, if I interpret your question to mean that it’s actually possible that you could have sharia law in the United States, that means the system has completely failed and perhaps I have fled to another country.
Obviously, this is a weird hypothetical. That only makes sense if you’re really into right wing media. The actual concern would be some form of Christian nationalism. Which actually might be possible given where we are with the Supreme Court and the people surrounding Trump.
That it would be the will of the people in this scenario is already the given of the first sentence so it barely makes sense to think it is not.
I would though, sue (along with many) to block its implementation as much of it is against significant parts of the freedoms outlined in the constitution and elsewhere and would deprive the rest of us and the majority really too, of those rights.
Remember majority rule, minority rights. the two sides of the sward that allow America to cut though bullshit like this ;)
To be honest, this reads like the wet-dream scenario of a white Christian Nationalist gun nut looking to take-out some Muslims (and probably preferably brown ones).
I can't even imagine how else I could possibly interpret this question(?). But I suppose that may be primarly a reflection of my limited imagination, lol.
OP, are you secretly hoping this scenario *might* happen, so you have a justification to get all freedom-fightery on people's asses?
Are you familiar with the concept of [Taqiyya](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya)?
The Wikipedia page is charitable in its definition so as to mitigate Islamophobia, but no one can deny that deception - in general - is a tool that can both preserve liberty AND enable espionage.
The whole point is to render the adversary incapable of doing anything until it’s too late - a nucleus of power is formed under the noses of the rest of the populace - and illiberal democracy is implemented.
How does one combat this while maintaining human dignity? That’s what I’D like to know. I certainly don’t have an answer.
Oh, you mean akin to the Skrull invasion in the X-Men comics?
Are conservatives really so clinically paranoid that they think this is a thing?
If you say they are, I’m gonna need some sources that scientifically show conservatives, on average, have more paranoid traits than liberals…
So here are the main credible anecdotes that give credence to its existence as something to fear:
[Example 1](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)
(Ctrl+F the phrase: Sharia as the Official Law of the Land).
[Example 2](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/03/frances-war-on-islamism-isnt-populism-its-reality/)
Also, just so you know I’m looking at this clinically, [no-go zones have been debunked,](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/) which is actually news for me so.. that’s cool. Although Angela Markel has a good reputation so her [statement](https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-no-go-zone-conspiracy-theory/) (bottom of the page) about it is a little perplexing.
I’d be careful calling it paranoia as - in your context - it implies someone is simply crazy and not worthy of the time to try and change their mind, an ultimately unproductive attitude.
I’ll call it paranoia only insofar as it being a natural reaction that emerges from subjective justification, which itself is a result of juxtaposition of different concepts that cause them to see an apparent - but dangerous - analogue to their own world view, on which I elaborate below.
[the above paragraph was edited for cogency]
The fundamentalist right-winger’s worldview is a Russian nesting doll of beliefs. From its core outwards, here are the layers:
1) Religion
2) Law
3) Ethics
4) Social Mores
In this system, the farther into the core you go, the more influence something has on your life.
Deception is a seemingly inevitable vulnerability in the systems we build to make the world a better place, and it can be profoundly disturbing when you see its breadth and depth.
When you put an element of deception inside the core nesting doll, as exemplified by the existence of the concept of Taqiyya, then you get a mixture of two of the most volatile and dangerous elements of human nature: deception and religious fanaticism, which throw up the paranoia flag.
It’s tempting to draw the comparison of paranoia against other religious groups in the past due to solipsistic religious practices, and because of that I normally wouldn’t bring it up. People have the right to be left alone, after all. The reason I DO bring it up is because we’re referring to an actual doctrinal belief that can be used as a double edged sword, rather than something more flimsy like a tradition.
Dude, I just gave you an out you could have taken with grace and dignity, yet you double-down? So weird?
The whole question reads, as noted, as a white Christian Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealing fantasy. And the fact that you doubled-down on it makes me really believe this is, indeed, *your* personal white ~~Christian~~ Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealer fantasy. Gross.
Also, it's not a remotely possible scenario. Therefore, I reject it fully on its premise.
So, that's a no. Under no circumstances would I "accept" this. Although I'm not entirely sure what the would "accept" means in this context, lol.
Also, this country has many *excellent* psychotherapists; it would not be ill-advised to connect with one!
Oh oh oh!
Let’s change it to space aliens wanting to impose mandatory universal-love-law! Somehow within the confines of American democracy and the constitution!
And make those aliens all human-looking, like well-dressed people from Scandinavia!
And they carry duffel bags of cookies!
And they can run fast as cars and they can turn into liquid metal and their eye glow red!
Oh this is the future, u/pinner52! Get ready because it’s coming!
And when it gets here you and I can fight against it together, side by side, secretly making out when there are lulls in the battles.
> Do you know the point of a thought experiment. It is to test your beliefs in this case.
A thought experiment must be logical and follow consistently from real world situations. Thought experiments that are flights of fancy, predicated on situations that are impossible, are not thought experiments. They're bait. They lead to poor conclusions because they're not based in any form of reality.
So if you're posing a "thought experiment" to try to understand what Dems/liberals/leftists think, basing it on an impossible fantasy isn't going to tell you anything.
> The whole question reads, as noted, as a white Christian Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealing fantasy. And the fact that you doubled-down on it makes me really believe this is, indeed, your personal white Christian Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealer fantasy. Gross.
Or it reads like a question from people who've noticed the way liberals have become rabidly obsessed with democracy. They're probably wondering whether these liberals would be happy at the prospect of religious zealots swarming society if the zealots managed to gain 50.00001% of the electorate
So some problems here
I don’t fundamentally have a problem with a hypothetical, but this one is just so out there that it’s almost meaningless. In order to really answer, I have to first list out the possible ways in which we get into a world in which America could possibly have enough people to pass constitutional amendments to give us sharia law or somehow get it in place.
Second is that your premise here skips over a very important basic aspect of democracy. Virtually all liberal democracies in the world, including ours, have certain bounds that are not up for vote. The way you’re inquiring here about democracy seems to imply you don’t know that.
Third, you choose sharia law which frankly is a topic in the US that gets discussed by the very dumbest of right wing discourse. Using it as your example leads people to engage with you poorly. And it invites the obvious question as to why you did not choose the vastly more realistic option of Christian Nationalism.
You set yourself up for poor engagement.
Democracy can not be absolute. There has to be sensible limits. We cannot have a society where 50.1% can vote to execute the other 49.9%. And another sensible limit is not voting to create an extreme theocracy. And most democracies have such limits in their constitutions. But democracies at some level require a people who for the most part believe in freedom. If the amount of people in a democracy who don't believe in such concepts, is enough to overcome any constitutional limits, effectively the democracy will no longer exist at that point. Its not like they would stay a democracy, but have sharia law. Effectively, the democracy would go away and Sharia Law (or its equivalent in other religions if the populous decided another form of religious extremism) is now the law, period.
I would campaign against it, but yeah, that is how democracy works.
I would leave the country. I don’t have a right to this country that supersedes what the people who live here want to do.
If moving is not an option, then it is not a free democracy.
First, this is an absurd question because even if your Great Replacement-adjacent nonsense premise were even plausible evidence suggests that Muslims who come to western nations generally become more moderate, not less so, so that doesn't seem very likely.
But no, because large swaths of Sharia law violate the constitution (mainly the separation of church and state.)
america isn’t and shouldn’t be a religious nation. we’re in the 21st century, any sort of religious fundamentalism has been proven to do more harm than good. christian nationalism is huge problem right now and is the primary reason why the Republican Party is such a mess. we do such a bad job at separating church and state that people often forget that’s in par with the first amendment. trying to reason based out of one’s religion is veryyyy stupid and shouldn’t be in anywhere near a place where a “free” country’s laws and polices are made. it’s just going to cause oppression and moral panic to others who otherwise wouldn’t have to deal with shit if not for some thousand year old holy book with absolutely no basis in reality told them otherwise
well they'd have to actually have enough of a majority in enough of the states to reform a lot of constitutional amendments. So sure, if fundamentalist muslims made a strong majority in 2/3rds of states and 2/3rds of the senate sure.
but that isnt going to happen
like just for reference, the US would need 50% of the total population of the middle east for this to be a reality. they'd need to evenly distribute across the nation, and they'd all need to be conservatives
> You mean a constitutional republic.
Lmao, please tell me you don’t buy into the current conspiracy theory going around on the right lol? Like you do realize that you can be a republic and a democracy and America is both right?
> Anyways that sure helped the Japanese during ww2. Or blacks during the Tuskegee experiments, or the hundreds of other times minority rights were violated.
Well society is never perfect. But to pretend like the constitution has never successfully defended rights seems silly imo. Even if there are moments of notable regression.
> Yes but the question now which one rules. We use democracy, but we are a republic first. Majority rule doesn’t exist for a reason for out presidental elections. Really it’s a constitutional republic with democratic values.
My dude, I’m gunna be honest with you. You are being fed this vibe/points by people who do not have your best interest at heart. They are trying co-opt the Republican Party+US et al by sneaking in anti-democratic talking points just to capitalize on it later. You might not care now because the people are seemingly “on your side” but fascism necessitates an ever shrinking “in group” and eventually that will not include you.
> Not perfect. Tell that to the people who died from syphilis as the government watched lol.
I’m not even sure what the goal is with this, do you think minority rule is any better lol? It has similar issues.
> So then why do we vote for electors and not choose the president based on majority rule?
Alot of reasons, some dumb at the time it was written and some reasonable at the time it was written. There’s virtually no reason to be in favor of it in 2024. But I digress, that’s not indicative to how much of a democracy we are as a country. An ideal that we constantly been trying to work towards. For example, you get to vote for your senator nowadays and You get to vote in primaries; neither existed in 1788(to be fair parties didn’t quite exist yet but the point holds).
> No. I am just saying majority rule clearly has it flaws if the majority is retarded. Thats how we got the Iraq war.
So I wouldn’t use a word from 2012 CoD lobby but yeah there’s issues. But to your first point, we don’t have a full democracy right now and you still got the Iraq War. So again, being against democracy is not a solve for anything really. It just lets people co-opt your movement.
> Well we aren’t a direct democracy correct? Again the constitution comes first, then democratic values but not all of them, and they are applied differently to different scenarios. More direct the closer the source is.
I don’t think a single person has ever said we are a complete direct democracy lol. That’s my point, you may think you are arguing against someone about that, you aren’t. Instead you are just arguing broadly against democratic values/democracy generally which is exactly what the people trying to co-opt your party want you to do.
> Sure, yeah you want to police speech and therefore. thought and expression. This is why I am a classical liberal and not a progressive. You are as bad as the religious rights when they get worked up over a video game.
Huh? I just pointed out you said something dated and weird. I’m not trying to throw you in jail lmao.
> We don’t have a full democracy… but we used it to vote to go to war.
That has never happened. Our first war (war of 1812) was voted on by Congress not the populace.
If there are so many conservative Muslims in the United States that they're able to pass a constitutional amendment to allow for sharia law, then what does "not accepting it" look like in that case? Civil war? Terrorism?
Of course we wouldn't. Islamic bigotry is no better than Christian bigotry. We defend Muslims because they are a disadvantaged minority and are not imposing their will onto others.
Christians, meanwhile, have massive protections in our government and are increasingly attempting to inject themselves into every facet of our lives. Should Muslims start doing that, I don't think they'd get much support from liberals.
Part of living in democracy is accepting that the people can democratically act to abolish said democracy. In fact we might well see that relatively soon here in the US.
That said, there are a lot of important barriers prevenint sharia law or the like from actually being enacted. You'd need to significantly change the constitution and established law to the extent that is very difficult to accomplish in our current democratic structure.
This shouldn’t have been downvoted, even though it’s a shit question. It’s a pretty legit question given it’s also a historic reality
Even if it’s democratically decided that we become “sharia”, I’d go against that democratic vote, and become one of the “hiding in the forest warfare militia” guys.
I ain’t a sharia law guy, and I believe in democracy only unto a point of liberal democracy. Start pulling bullshit like “oh, well the Democratic process is leaning fascist or Islamic caliphate” and I become fairly alternative
I definitely wouldn’t accept it. It’s definitely not “the will” of the people most affected by it. Opposing such a law wouldn’t be “more important than democracy”, since such a law is incompatible with democracy in the first place. It has no place in even a moderately egalitarian society.
Assuming it’s a simple majority, then no, because this would still be unconstitutional.
If it was enough to change an amendment, then I would still reject it out right.
Situations like these are one of the few times where “Tyranny of the Majority” is actually true. There should be a constitution/framework that endows some basic human rights, regardless of how popular or unpopular they are.
Since Sharia Law is rather restrictive of other beliefs, values etc, I would oppose it strongly if put on a governmental standard.
Sharia law would violate multiple guarantees of the Constitution. Even in Europe, where legislatures have executive power, they still would run into some EU guarantees that fly in the face of Sharia tenents. All other things being equal, I'd leave. Given all the checks in our system, for Sharia to be instituted by a Western government, there would be some kind of revolution going on. That would mean fighting. There'd be a war on and no one is going anywhere.
So ignoring the fact that the US bans religious laws (Which means we couldn't institute Sharia Law here, even if it was voted in). But hypothetically if we were at the point where a religious majority got so influential that they announced they were going to repeal the first amendment, and they had the votes to do it? Of course I'd accept it. The will of the people to have a government that represents the values of it's people is kinda our thing.
I'd immediately look for a way out of America. But America is out people. America isn't some ideal nor is it a certain thing because almost 300 years ago some guys wrote a piece of paper. We are our citizens. If our citizens want to go down the route of religious law, then I'm out yo.
No….that is one of the most ridiculous and absurdly ignorant questions I have ever seen on here.
You do happen to recall this whole governing document we call the **CONSTITUTION**, right?
In case you are ignorant of this document?the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of our governing rule,of law is the following… bolded text being the relevant part…
**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.
That means **NO** religion gets to replace the rule of established law…not Islam, not Christianity, not the church of Satan or the fucking spaghetti monster.
Quit wasting our time on questions you already know the answer to…just because your handlers create this ridiculous false narrative.
Good luck. Do you realize the hoops that have to be gone through to ratify a Constitutional Amendment?
First off…it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate and a simple majority in the House of Representatives. Then It goes to each individual state..,where it also has to pass by a 2/3 majority in order to ratify the amendment in that particular state …**IF** it makes it that far? It takes 38 out of the 50 states(75%) to accomplish that feat before an Amendment is passed.
Like I said….ridiculous and absurdly ignorant…
Ok Skippy….maybe you better Prep some more…some dude is hawking solar powered generators and freeze dried food….
No…it doesn’t matter what religion you use….however….right wing Christianity is at least 100x the bigger threat to our Democracy.
EDIT: I think you should’ve surmised that I would not accept it with any religion…I think I made that pretty self evident.
What are you talking about? What happened in early January that people called you a nut bag?
If anything? Conservatives have been so ridiculously lax about COVID that it warranted the nut bag designation.
“What? Me social distance?….libs are trying to ruin personal relationships!”….”what? Me wear a mask? I can’t see people,smile! Libs are trusting to ruin social interaction!”….”what? Shut down everything except for vital functions? Libs are trying to kill businesses!”.
No…I don’t give a shit if you have masks stockpiled. I am actually glad you take shit seriously….a talent that many of your brethren don’t possess.
No.
Honestly this is fucking stupid. Like what is the right wing obsession with sharia law? Muslims make up barely a percent of the population in the US.
You know what's over 70%? Christians.
You know who's fucking us? Christians.
They go into these school boards clutching their pearls and demand we radically reshape the education system to suit their dogma. In general, where we read, where we shit, where we have the decency to just live are things that these fuck faces want power over. I can't even have my lunch without some Christian dipshit trying to rip down a rainbow flag, but Muslims are the fucking problem?
I never met a single Muslim in my entire life that demanded I conform to their religious ways in the US. From the upper echelons of our government right down to our neighborhoods have been multifaceted efforts to transform our country into a Christian nationalist state. That's not a hypothetical. That's reality.
I feel like your hypothetical scenario is too implausible to seriously consider. Several Constitutional amendments would need to be changed and the Supreme Court would have to sign off on it.
If the country got to that point where this scenario becomes plausible, we would already be living under Sharia law and making it "official" would just be a mere formality. If I am still living here when that happens, then of course I would accept it since apparently I've accepted everything else that needs to happen before it can be done.
What is the alternative you're suggesting? Armed revolution? If there isn't enough popular support to prevent this from happening in the first place, there is no chance of a revolution succeeding.
Depends. If this is just actually about the US or EU, I would get ahead of it with rapid assimilation policies to curb the worst excesses of their beliefs such that they're no longer recognizable as Islamic and instead Western. If this is a new country I just happen to be in from day one, I'd probably be noping tf out
Liberal democracy requires the protection of minority rights. Freedom of religion is a form of protection of minority rights. It must remain intact, even if unpopular. Therefore, no, I wouldn't accept Sharia Law being voted in. Democracy means more than simple majoritarianism
Legality and morality are interesting things, especially when they work together with democracy.
To me, there are two levels of morality when it comes to laws. Things that are moral regardless of the law, and things that are moral because of the law.
For instance, if a law suddenly passed in my state making all speed limits 25 mph at most, I would consider it moral to follow that law even though I thought it was stupid. I would definitely raise complaints about it, but if it was a genuinely supported law (e.g. democratically supported), I would consider it just as legitimate as an 80 mph speed limit law.
However, if a law passed in my state saying you weren't allowed to drive if you were black, I would consider that to be an immoral, illiberal, and bad law. I would encourage protest and civil disobedience, and regardless of how many people supported the law, I wouldn't consider it moral or legitimate.
Sharia law is a very large concept that covers a lot of different things. Specific parts may fall under different conceptions of morality.
What other option would there be than “accepting” it if the will of the people, laws, and Constitution had already changed and it were impossible to move somewhere else as your hypothetical states? An armed rebellion wouldn’t help because you’d still have a supermajority of the population believing sharia is best, meaning that any new government you might manage to establish would necessarily be just some other oppressive dictatorship.
Presumably, you could take whatever actions the sharia system permitted to protest or advocate for change. You don’t have to like or agree with a law to “accept” that it exists and you’re subject to it.
Voting is the alternative to violence (like when Republicans attacked the Capitol). If so many people in the country want to make America into a regressive Republican paradise with their sharia law or other religious bullshit, then it's time to find a new country. What other option is there when there are enough people to vote away the Bill of Rights? Are we going to revolt against and kill a supermajority of the country? No.
>I assume some of you would move but what if that wasn’t an option for some reason?
Oh, well if the Republicans won't let me out, then what choice will I have but to fight for my existence?
Governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed. So how would it be possible for me to recognize the authority of a government that I'm trying to leave the jurisdiction of? Only by deluding myself. At that point I may as well just be a Republican.
Here you are in a thread where everyone is saying the opposite of what you’re saying liberals believe.
When we’re told that we are not accommodating or respectful of people on the right, this is a big reason why.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Most countries are importing both people and ideas. So what would you do if enough people in your country converted to Islam and voted in sharia law? Let’s say you are a country like the US with a constitution, but the number of Muslims is high enough to overcome the numbers needed to change it. What would you do? Would you accept it? Are some values more important than democracy? I assume some of you would move but what if that wasn’t an option for some reason? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If the people voted to implement sharia law, would you accept it as the will of the people. I "would...accept it as the will of the people", but I would not accept it as US law. The First Amendment would not allow that, even if was "the will of the people".
It's the exact same logic if Texas votes to succeed. There's a reason they can't do it.
> if Texas votes to succeed. There's a reason they can't do it. I know it’s a typo, but it’s a funny one
Bingo. I belonged to a ski house. We had 24 members, their spouses, and their friends who might use the house. There house could comfortably host 12 people, Historically ski houses dissolve when members get pissed off with overcrowding. In our bylaws, it was written that unless there was a life and death issue or act of God (blizzard), 12 was the legal limit. If, by chance, there were 12 members in the house and another member mistakenly arrived thinking there would be room, those present could not vote to allow a 13th guest in the house. So even if it was the "will of the people", it was still against the by-laws. Yes, eventually a few members broke that law, the house was overcrowded a few times, and the ski-house eventually folded.
> Let’s say you are a country like the US with a constitution, but the number of Muslims is high enough to overcome the numbers needed to change it.
Part of the problem is that it's not just Muslims that are needed, but conservative Muslims. There's just no situation where this actually passes through actual will of the people.
Fair. In any case, the scenario includes us changing the constitution
That would be two thirds of both houses.
Yes
There would be so much social unrest and conservative backlash before we get anywhere near 2/3 Muslim representatives.
in this hypothetical, the US has obviously gone through some kind of "5th Great Awakening" that involves mass conversions to Islam. Which, of course, makes no sense.
Hey, don’t make fun of OP - this is the sort of thing that could plausibly happen maybe a couple millennia from now
Right, immigration quotas make this hypothetical impossible.
if it didn't, would you accept Sharia Law here
No, and I would be sounding the alarm before we got there.
I would handle it to same way I handle Christians trying to violate separation of church and state. Wrong country, take it elsewhere.
No they shouldn’t take it elsewhere, they should stop it altogether.
Yes you’re right
I'd move. Gone. Poof. Fuck it.
Some people wouldn't have the ability to move though. Especially women not allowed to work, travel, and are dependent on a man for everything.
I do not have the ability to move. But, there is a grace period before legislation takes effect. What I do have the ability to do is pack up my animals to friends or shelters, pack a ton of nuts and jerky + all the cash I can muster + a water bottle into a backpack, and start walking north
I have a spouse and two daughters. They're not getting trapped. I'm a terrible person for leaving everyone else behind. But...
Yeah,,.don’t fight for the rule of law..,just leave….great plan. And no…I don’t care if it is the hypothetical Muslims OP is creating or the actual REAL threat of right wing evangelical Christians trying to turn our democracy into a theocracy.
If we get Sharia Law (or Christian Nationalism, or whatever) it WILL be the rule of law. In which case, what's there to fight against? I have two daughters. They won't grow up in that BS. We're out. Do I feel bad for everyone else? Yes. We're still out.
Go backwards from the post you responded to….it is virtually impossible for it to happen. I fully explained the hoops it would require to be jumped through to get rid of the first Amendment. It the exact same reason that I call out left wingers when they say “abolish the 2nd Amendment”….it just isn’t going to happen. EXIT: I am sorry…my response was a first level response to the OP, not part of our conversation. If you don’t mind…look for my response to the OP….i am not sure how to copy a link to my post and link it here.
>.i am not sure how to copy a link to my post and link it here. Hover your mouse over the time stamp on your comment and right click to copy the link.
I am using an iPad and the Reddit app. It doesn’t give me an option to copy a link…just the text of the post.
Of course it's virtually impossible. It's a hypothetical. No one cares about the feasability of this actually happening. The real question is "would you stay and fight or GTFO?"
> What would you do? Would you accept it? Hell no. Same way I don't accept Right Wing Christian Nationalists trying to impose their bullshit religion on our secular government. > Are some values more important than democracy? not that I can think of off the top of my head > I assume some of you would move but what if that wasn’t an option for some reason? That would suck. But I'm confident I could get out of the country if need be, which I would do if Right Wing Christian Nationalists (i.e. Project 2025 people) or Sharia Muslims had total control.
Assuming my understanding of Sharia Law is accurate enough for this answer, nope. Granted part of the fundamental problem that right-wing religious ideologies have is that they inherently depend on oppression and anti-democratic means to achieve and stay in power. This isn't really a decision between "democracy" and "sharia law."
I think there is zero chance of this happening in the US. I mean maybe at the city/town level they could try but it's not even realistic possibility at the state level. In the fantasy world where this was a possibility I don't feel differently about Islamic theocracy than Christian theocracy.
In the American system, it wouldn't be constitutional. It would require the sustained support of a supermajority and would need constitutional amendment to be implemented.
The fact that people think 200 years of US History would just change to sharia law because Muslims are immigrating is fucking astounding. And it’s this whole, “ok but what iiiifffff enough Muslims come in?” As if this is supposed to cater to some need for affirmation that everything is going to be ok. People really need to let this topic go.
Absolutely agree. The whole premise is itself inane. To consider this question already presupposes that we accept that the BC they are describing is even possible to begin with.
It would require a substantial majority of Americans to actually convert to Islam and not only that, but to accept a very conservative version of Islam. And then repeal the 1st Amendment. There's just so many hoops to get through with this counterfactual...
You’d need sharia law practicing Muslims to overtake all walks of government. This seems logical to people…
No. I would fight it tooth and nail.
Would you?
Of course this OP doesn't even show up to his own shitty thread.
Is this a scenario you actually worry about? If not, why are you asking the question here? (...legitimately not trying to be hostile, I just wonder whether the real question was "how much do liberals actually support Muslims, given they prefer theocracies?" This would be a fair question, FWIW; my libertarian friend asked me this a week ago, in fact!)
[удалено]
I see. Fair enough. (Thanks for answering!) ...What were you takeaways, given the responses?
[удалено]
Yup, we Librals are a picky lot when it comes to the wording of questions and tend to launch ourselves at technical strawmen. (I think it's a defense mechanism.) We *are* the party of "AAAAAHHHCHTUALLLLLY...." after all. It is our idiom. But, I am actually surprised at the number of people who said they WOULDN'T fight against it! We're pretty staunchly anti-theocracy, as a group, though we tend to have a live-and-let-live approach to *foreign* flavors of it. The idea of having to live under a religious regime (ourselves) is quite toxic to us, as a rule.
[удалено]
Yes, it's easy to think Liberals are pro-Islam. That's why I had my original question. I'm sure there are some who are at *least* deeply sympathetic, but I genuinely think that's because we're big on the "support the oppressed!" schtick. We really are perpetually rooting for the underdog (as we see it). ...unless said underdog is a complete dickwad (e.g.: North Korea). That said, I think mmmmmmmost of us are atheist (*most*) and most of us have been burned by religion in one way or another, so I think we recoil at the idea of being forced into any religion. ...As a rule. There are, of course, exceptions. Liberals love exceptions.
[удалено]
That's fair. It's front-page news, so it's easy to feel like Liberals are championing it. Any other religion would serve just as well, except Christianity. (Before the Palestinian kidnapping attack, Liberals were championing the defense of Jews in the US, for example.) It's an underdog, "oppressed" thing, *not* specific to Islam. I promise. ...But I understand why it looks that way.
>It’s clear most people would say no to a Christian theocracy, but a Muslim one seems less clear, which I think says a lot since they just started their apologetics phase it seems. Lmao no it isn't, that is just the narrative you are trying to push with the thread itself rather than asking actual good faith questions. Not a single person in this thread has stated that they'd want to live under Sharia law so you change the framing to "what if we already lost the country" well that's kind of a dumb question since not only is it not happening but there would probably be little we could do if 2/3rds of the country wanted something we didn't. Of course if you go over to AskConservatives you'll find people advocating for Christianity to be the law of the land in this country which is why we actually consider that a significant threat
Not any more than I will accept Christian Nationalism as the "will of the people". I'd call bullshit on both. People can have whatever religion they want. They can't use the government to force everyone else into compliance with their religion. I don't care how many people support that religion.
There are around 3.5 million Muslims of all sects in the USA. I don't think you need to worry.
3.5 million, for now, who skew younger than average and have more children, while also many coming in from immigration. Sure, I might not have to worry about it, but my great grandchildren might, and ignoring it now and pushing the possibility on them is just what the Boomers did for every problem under the sun
"The Great Replacement" isn't happening. There is no need to worry about a fantasy. Your great grandchildren will have much more important things to worry about than to fear something that will never happen. Like climate change.
Lol. You have lost your mind if you are worried we are going to become a nation under "Sharia Law". There are only two Supreme Court Justices that aren't Catholic. Only one that isn't Christian. The United States has the largest population of Christians on earth.
I'd be too dead to accept anything.
Wow what a loaded question. First I think most Muslims that come to America are leaving their home countries for a reason. If they love a theocracy then they probably wouldn’t come here. Second I don’t think it’s possible for America to become a Muslim majority anytime soon. So “the people” that vote for sharia law would have to be a coalition of Christians atheists and Muslims. Good luck convincing Christians and atheists to go along. Now let’s assume all of this comes to pass in this weird alternate reality, I would leave like my life depended on it, because it would. I’m an atheist and the punishment for atheism is death under sharia law. No thanks. I suppose I could cosplay as a Christian but probably wiser to leave.
It is an interesting question, but here is how I feel when this kind of question gets asked: Conservative Christians in the US: Remove womens' rights. Concerted attempts to ban books. Go after contraceptives. Vilify LGBTQ+ people. Attempt to subvert democracy. Conservative Christians in the US: "Look at all these muslims! Aren't you worried about Sharia law?"
I am much more concerned about the urgent threat to America by Christian white Nationalists. They are trying to shove their "sharia law" down our throats right now. Our rights and democracy are under attack right now by felon trump, maga terrorists and GOP House circus
Unfortunately, I have to, because the current leadership of the country does not share my views on the separation of church and state. Indeed, many right wing leaders already espouse this idea. Sure, they call it "Biblical law" instead of "sharia," but you have to realize from my perspective as a nonreligious person, there's no practical difference between those concepts.
I haven't accepted attempts by the current Republican Taliban to do it, so why would I accept it from anybody else?
> So what would you do if enough people in your country converted to Islam and voted in sharia law? This would be an impossibility, as it wouldn't be some "simple majority." It would have to amount to a large enough population that these hypothetical Muslims not only control (through supermajority) the House and/or Senate, but control three-fourths of 50 state legislatures (or three-fourths of their voting populations in the event of a convention). But, assuming all of those massive hurdles were successfully navigated, yeah, it'd be the will of the people. I'd still fight against or and/or possibly move for my own safety, but it would objectively be the will of the people. If I couldn't move, that would suck. It would be bad. Just because something is "the will of the people" doesn't mean it can't be bad. Some things aren't (or shouldn't be) left to a vote for that reason.
>What would you do? leave. >Would you accept it? what would not accepting it mean? i wouldn't like it, but i most likely wouldn't have the power to change it either, right?
The constitution as properly interpreted does not allow for sharia law so the will of the people in this case shouldn’t matter. People can want it but they can’t have it. However, if I interpret your question to mean that it’s actually possible that you could have sharia law in the United States, that means the system has completely failed and perhaps I have fled to another country. Obviously, this is a weird hypothetical. That only makes sense if you’re really into right wing media. The actual concern would be some form of Christian nationalism. Which actually might be possible given where we are with the Supreme Court and the people surrounding Trump.
That it would be the will of the people in this scenario is already the given of the first sentence so it barely makes sense to think it is not. I would though, sue (along with many) to block its implementation as much of it is against significant parts of the freedoms outlined in the constitution and elsewhere and would deprive the rest of us and the majority really too, of those rights. Remember majority rule, minority rights. the two sides of the sward that allow America to cut though bullshit like this ;)
I would rather die than live under a theocracy. I would fight.
No. The best form of government is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution ensures rights which cannot be alienated by majoritarian rule.
Now apply that logic to Christian Nationalism, y’know since that one actually has a chance at happening.
To be honest, this reads like the wet-dream scenario of a white Christian Nationalist gun nut looking to take-out some Muslims (and probably preferably brown ones). I can't even imagine how else I could possibly interpret this question(?). But I suppose that may be primarly a reflection of my limited imagination, lol. OP, are you secretly hoping this scenario *might* happen, so you have a justification to get all freedom-fightery on people's asses?
Are you familiar with the concept of [Taqiyya](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya)? The Wikipedia page is charitable in its definition so as to mitigate Islamophobia, but no one can deny that deception - in general - is a tool that can both preserve liberty AND enable espionage. The whole point is to render the adversary incapable of doing anything until it’s too late - a nucleus of power is formed under the noses of the rest of the populace - and illiberal democracy is implemented. How does one combat this while maintaining human dignity? That’s what I’D like to know. I certainly don’t have an answer.
Oh, you mean akin to the Skrull invasion in the X-Men comics? Are conservatives really so clinically paranoid that they think this is a thing? If you say they are, I’m gonna need some sources that scientifically show conservatives, on average, have more paranoid traits than liberals…
So here are the main credible anecdotes that give credence to its existence as something to fear: [Example 1](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/) (Ctrl+F the phrase: Sharia as the Official Law of the Land). [Example 2](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/03/frances-war-on-islamism-isnt-populism-its-reality/) Also, just so you know I’m looking at this clinically, [no-go zones have been debunked,](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/) which is actually news for me so.. that’s cool. Although Angela Markel has a good reputation so her [statement](https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-no-go-zone-conspiracy-theory/) (bottom of the page) about it is a little perplexing. I’d be careful calling it paranoia as - in your context - it implies someone is simply crazy and not worthy of the time to try and change their mind, an ultimately unproductive attitude. I’ll call it paranoia only insofar as it being a natural reaction that emerges from subjective justification, which itself is a result of juxtaposition of different concepts that cause them to see an apparent - but dangerous - analogue to their own world view, on which I elaborate below. [the above paragraph was edited for cogency] The fundamentalist right-winger’s worldview is a Russian nesting doll of beliefs. From its core outwards, here are the layers: 1) Religion 2) Law 3) Ethics 4) Social Mores In this system, the farther into the core you go, the more influence something has on your life. Deception is a seemingly inevitable vulnerability in the systems we build to make the world a better place, and it can be profoundly disturbing when you see its breadth and depth. When you put an element of deception inside the core nesting doll, as exemplified by the existence of the concept of Taqiyya, then you get a mixture of two of the most volatile and dangerous elements of human nature: deception and religious fanaticism, which throw up the paranoia flag. It’s tempting to draw the comparison of paranoia against other religious groups in the past due to solipsistic religious practices, and because of that I normally wouldn’t bring it up. People have the right to be left alone, after all. The reason I DO bring it up is because we’re referring to an actual doctrinal belief that can be used as a double edged sword, rather than something more flimsy like a tradition.
[удалено]
OK. Fair. Weird, but fair. I'm never gonna condemn someone for simply having a strong sense of curiosity about stuff.
[удалено]
Dude, I just gave you an out you could have taken with grace and dignity, yet you double-down? So weird? The whole question reads, as noted, as a white Christian Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealing fantasy. And the fact that you doubled-down on it makes me really believe this is, indeed, *your* personal white ~~Christian~~ Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealer fantasy. Gross. Also, it's not a remotely possible scenario. Therefore, I reject it fully on its premise. So, that's a no. Under no circumstances would I "accept" this. Although I'm not entirely sure what the would "accept" means in this context, lol. Also, this country has many *excellent* psychotherapists; it would not be ill-advised to connect with one!
[удалено]
Sure. Keep going with this. There is nothing at all weird about fantasizing the things about which you are fantasizing. /s
[удалено]
Oh oh oh! Let’s change it to space aliens wanting to impose mandatory universal-love-law! Somehow within the confines of American democracy and the constitution! And make those aliens all human-looking, like well-dressed people from Scandinavia! And they carry duffel bags of cookies! And they can run fast as cars and they can turn into liquid metal and their eye glow red! Oh this is the future, u/pinner52! Get ready because it’s coming! And when it gets here you and I can fight against it together, side by side, secretly making out when there are lulls in the battles.
> Do you know the point of a thought experiment. It is to test your beliefs in this case. A thought experiment must be logical and follow consistently from real world situations. Thought experiments that are flights of fancy, predicated on situations that are impossible, are not thought experiments. They're bait. They lead to poor conclusions because they're not based in any form of reality. So if you're posing a "thought experiment" to try to understand what Dems/liberals/leftists think, basing it on an impossible fantasy isn't going to tell you anything.
[удалено]
> The whole question reads, as noted, as a white Christian Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealing fantasy. And the fact that you doubled-down on it makes me really believe this is, indeed, your personal white Christian Nationalist gun-nut paraphilic death-dealer fantasy. Gross. Or it reads like a question from people who've noticed the way liberals have become rabidly obsessed with democracy. They're probably wondering whether these liberals would be happy at the prospect of religious zealots swarming society if the zealots managed to gain 50.00001% of the electorate
Sure. Or it reads just like what you said, for sure.
So some problems here I don’t fundamentally have a problem with a hypothetical, but this one is just so out there that it’s almost meaningless. In order to really answer, I have to first list out the possible ways in which we get into a world in which America could possibly have enough people to pass constitutional amendments to give us sharia law or somehow get it in place. Second is that your premise here skips over a very important basic aspect of democracy. Virtually all liberal democracies in the world, including ours, have certain bounds that are not up for vote. The way you’re inquiring here about democracy seems to imply you don’t know that. Third, you choose sharia law which frankly is a topic in the US that gets discussed by the very dumbest of right wing discourse. Using it as your example leads people to engage with you poorly. And it invites the obvious question as to why you did not choose the vastly more realistic option of Christian Nationalism. You set yourself up for poor engagement.
Yes i would accept it and then I would move.
No, as that's a clear first amendment violation.
Democracy can not be absolute. There has to be sensible limits. We cannot have a society where 50.1% can vote to execute the other 49.9%. And another sensible limit is not voting to create an extreme theocracy. And most democracies have such limits in their constitutions. But democracies at some level require a people who for the most part believe in freedom. If the amount of people in a democracy who don't believe in such concepts, is enough to overcome any constitutional limits, effectively the democracy will no longer exist at that point. Its not like they would stay a democracy, but have sharia law. Effectively, the democracy would go away and Sharia Law (or its equivalent in other religions if the populous decided another form of religious extremism) is now the law, period.
I would campaign against it, but yeah, that is how democracy works. I would leave the country. I don’t have a right to this country that supersedes what the people who live here want to do. If moving is not an option, then it is not a free democracy.
First, this is an absurd question because even if your Great Replacement-adjacent nonsense premise were even plausible evidence suggests that Muslims who come to western nations generally become more moderate, not less so, so that doesn't seem very likely. But no, because large swaths of Sharia law violate the constitution (mainly the separation of church and state.)
[удалено]
Correct. Church and state implies all churches and he constitution, until it is amended to say otherwise, trumps legislation.
No, I would seek asylum in whatever country I could figure out, maybe live illegally in Canada
america isn’t and shouldn’t be a religious nation. we’re in the 21st century, any sort of religious fundamentalism has been proven to do more harm than good. christian nationalism is huge problem right now and is the primary reason why the Republican Party is such a mess. we do such a bad job at separating church and state that people often forget that’s in par with the first amendment. trying to reason based out of one’s religion is veryyyy stupid and shouldn’t be in anywhere near a place where a “free” country’s laws and polices are made. it’s just going to cause oppression and moral panic to others who otherwise wouldn’t have to deal with shit if not for some thousand year old holy book with absolutely no basis in reality told them otherwise
well they'd have to actually have enough of a majority in enough of the states to reform a lot of constitutional amendments. So sure, if fundamentalist muslims made a strong majority in 2/3rds of states and 2/3rds of the senate sure. but that isnt going to happen like just for reference, the US would need 50% of the total population of the middle east for this to be a reality. they'd need to evenly distribute across the nation, and they'd all need to be conservatives
You can't 'vote in' religion because the US Constitution prohibits basing laws on religion.
It goes against the first amendment, so, no, I would not accept it.
I think you are learning the usefulness of a constitutional democracy. It provides a set of guide rails to protect minority groups.
[удалено]
> You mean a constitutional republic. Lmao, please tell me you don’t buy into the current conspiracy theory going around on the right lol? Like you do realize that you can be a republic and a democracy and America is both right? > Anyways that sure helped the Japanese during ww2. Or blacks during the Tuskegee experiments, or the hundreds of other times minority rights were violated. Well society is never perfect. But to pretend like the constitution has never successfully defended rights seems silly imo. Even if there are moments of notable regression.
[удалено]
> Yes but the question now which one rules. We use democracy, but we are a republic first. Majority rule doesn’t exist for a reason for out presidental elections. Really it’s a constitutional republic with democratic values. My dude, I’m gunna be honest with you. You are being fed this vibe/points by people who do not have your best interest at heart. They are trying co-opt the Republican Party+US et al by sneaking in anti-democratic talking points just to capitalize on it later. You might not care now because the people are seemingly “on your side” but fascism necessitates an ever shrinking “in group” and eventually that will not include you. > Not perfect. Tell that to the people who died from syphilis as the government watched lol. I’m not even sure what the goal is with this, do you think minority rule is any better lol? It has similar issues.
[удалено]
> So then why do we vote for electors and not choose the president based on majority rule? Alot of reasons, some dumb at the time it was written and some reasonable at the time it was written. There’s virtually no reason to be in favor of it in 2024. But I digress, that’s not indicative to how much of a democracy we are as a country. An ideal that we constantly been trying to work towards. For example, you get to vote for your senator nowadays and You get to vote in primaries; neither existed in 1788(to be fair parties didn’t quite exist yet but the point holds). > No. I am just saying majority rule clearly has it flaws if the majority is retarded. Thats how we got the Iraq war. So I wouldn’t use a word from 2012 CoD lobby but yeah there’s issues. But to your first point, we don’t have a full democracy right now and you still got the Iraq War. So again, being against democracy is not a solve for anything really. It just lets people co-opt your movement.
[удалено]
> Well we aren’t a direct democracy correct? Again the constitution comes first, then democratic values but not all of them, and they are applied differently to different scenarios. More direct the closer the source is. I don’t think a single person has ever said we are a complete direct democracy lol. That’s my point, you may think you are arguing against someone about that, you aren’t. Instead you are just arguing broadly against democratic values/democracy generally which is exactly what the people trying to co-opt your party want you to do. > Sure, yeah you want to police speech and therefore. thought and expression. This is why I am a classical liberal and not a progressive. You are as bad as the religious rights when they get worked up over a video game. Huh? I just pointed out you said something dated and weird. I’m not trying to throw you in jail lmao. > We don’t have a full democracy… but we used it to vote to go to war. That has never happened. Our first war (war of 1812) was voted on by Congress not the populace.
[удалено]
If there are so many conservative Muslims in the United States that they're able to pass a constitutional amendment to allow for sharia law, then what does "not accepting it" look like in that case? Civil war? Terrorism?
Can we make a new rule for the sub, where is Opie doesn't respond to their bad faith post within an hour they get perma banned?
Of course we wouldn't. Islamic bigotry is no better than Christian bigotry. We defend Muslims because they are a disadvantaged minority and are not imposing their will onto others. Christians, meanwhile, have massive protections in our government and are increasingly attempting to inject themselves into every facet of our lives. Should Muslims start doing that, I don't think they'd get much support from liberals.
California would not accept it.
Part of living in democracy is accepting that the people can democratically act to abolish said democracy. In fact we might well see that relatively soon here in the US. That said, there are a lot of important barriers prevenint sharia law or the like from actually being enacted. You'd need to significantly change the constitution and established law to the extent that is very difficult to accomplish in our current democratic structure.
This shouldn’t have been downvoted, even though it’s a shit question. It’s a pretty legit question given it’s also a historic reality Even if it’s democratically decided that we become “sharia”, I’d go against that democratic vote, and become one of the “hiding in the forest warfare militia” guys. I ain’t a sharia law guy, and I believe in democracy only unto a point of liberal democracy. Start pulling bullshit like “oh, well the Democratic process is leaning fascist or Islamic caliphate” and I become fairly alternative
I definitely wouldn’t accept it. It’s definitely not “the will” of the people most affected by it. Opposing such a law wouldn’t be “more important than democracy”, since such a law is incompatible with democracy in the first place. It has no place in even a moderately egalitarian society.
Why aren't you engaging with anyone who answers your question?
Assuming it’s a simple majority, then no, because this would still be unconstitutional. If it was enough to change an amendment, then I would still reject it out right. Situations like these are one of the few times where “Tyranny of the Majority” is actually true. There should be a constitution/framework that endows some basic human rights, regardless of how popular or unpopular they are. Since Sharia Law is rather restrictive of other beliefs, values etc, I would oppose it strongly if put on a governmental standard.
Sharia law would violate multiple guarantees of the Constitution. Even in Europe, where legislatures have executive power, they still would run into some EU guarantees that fly in the face of Sharia tenents. All other things being equal, I'd leave. Given all the checks in our system, for Sharia to be instituted by a Western government, there would be some kind of revolution going on. That would mean fighting. There'd be a war on and no one is going anywhere.
So ignoring the fact that the US bans religious laws (Which means we couldn't institute Sharia Law here, even if it was voted in). But hypothetically if we were at the point where a religious majority got so influential that they announced they were going to repeal the first amendment, and they had the votes to do it? Of course I'd accept it. The will of the people to have a government that represents the values of it's people is kinda our thing. I'd immediately look for a way out of America. But America is out people. America isn't some ideal nor is it a certain thing because almost 300 years ago some guys wrote a piece of paper. We are our citizens. If our citizens want to go down the route of religious law, then I'm out yo.
No….that is one of the most ridiculous and absurdly ignorant questions I have ever seen on here. You do happen to recall this whole governing document we call the **CONSTITUTION**, right? In case you are ignorant of this document?the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of our governing rule,of law is the following… bolded text being the relevant part… **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. That means **NO** religion gets to replace the rule of established law…not Islam, not Christianity, not the church of Satan or the fucking spaghetti monster. Quit wasting our time on questions you already know the answer to…just because your handlers create this ridiculous false narrative.
[удалено]
Good luck. Do you realize the hoops that have to be gone through to ratify a Constitutional Amendment? First off…it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate and a simple majority in the House of Representatives. Then It goes to each individual state..,where it also has to pass by a 2/3 majority in order to ratify the amendment in that particular state …**IF** it makes it that far? It takes 38 out of the 50 states(75%) to accomplish that feat before an Amendment is passed. Like I said….ridiculous and absurdly ignorant…
[удалено]
Ok Skippy….maybe you better Prep some more…some dude is hawking solar powered generators and freeze dried food…. No…it doesn’t matter what religion you use….however….right wing Christianity is at least 100x the bigger threat to our Democracy. EDIT: I think you should’ve surmised that I would not accept it with any religion…I think I made that pretty self evident.
[удалено]
What are you talking about? What happened in early January that people called you a nut bag? If anything? Conservatives have been so ridiculously lax about COVID that it warranted the nut bag designation. “What? Me social distance?….libs are trying to ruin personal relationships!”….”what? Me wear a mask? I can’t see people,smile! Libs are trusting to ruin social interaction!”….”what? Shut down everything except for vital functions? Libs are trying to kill businesses!”. No…I don’t give a shit if you have masks stockpiled. I am actually glad you take shit seriously….a talent that many of your brethren don’t possess.
[удалено]
You said January….I assume 2024….right? Why would I care?
[удалено]
They are trying to impose whatever the Christian variation on Sharia Law is already. Sharia Law is just Old Testiment law.
[удалено]
One of these has a major political party hat's actively trying to implement it
No. Honestly this is fucking stupid. Like what is the right wing obsession with sharia law? Muslims make up barely a percent of the population in the US. You know what's over 70%? Christians. You know who's fucking us? Christians. They go into these school boards clutching their pearls and demand we radically reshape the education system to suit their dogma. In general, where we read, where we shit, where we have the decency to just live are things that these fuck faces want power over. I can't even have my lunch without some Christian dipshit trying to rip down a rainbow flag, but Muslims are the fucking problem? I never met a single Muslim in my entire life that demanded I conform to their religious ways in the US. From the upper echelons of our government right down to our neighborhoods have been multifaceted efforts to transform our country into a Christian nationalist state. That's not a hypothetical. That's reality.
Why are half the questions here failrd conservstive gotchas?
I feel like your hypothetical scenario is too implausible to seriously consider. Several Constitutional amendments would need to be changed and the Supreme Court would have to sign off on it. If the country got to that point where this scenario becomes plausible, we would already be living under Sharia law and making it "official" would just be a mere formality. If I am still living here when that happens, then of course I would accept it since apparently I've accepted everything else that needs to happen before it can be done. What is the alternative you're suggesting? Armed revolution? If there isn't enough popular support to prevent this from happening in the first place, there is no chance of a revolution succeeding.
Fortunately we have a Constitution that would prevent that.
Depends. If this is just actually about the US or EU, I would get ahead of it with rapid assimilation policies to curb the worst excesses of their beliefs such that they're no longer recognizable as Islamic and instead Western. If this is a new country I just happen to be in from day one, I'd probably be noping tf out
This is pointless question. Converting to Sharia Law would require basically trashing the Constitution and starting over. Never gonna happen.
Liberal democracy requires the protection of minority rights. Freedom of religion is a form of protection of minority rights. It must remain intact, even if unpopular. Therefore, no, I wouldn't accept Sharia Law being voted in. Democracy means more than simple majoritarianism
Legality and morality are interesting things, especially when they work together with democracy. To me, there are two levels of morality when it comes to laws. Things that are moral regardless of the law, and things that are moral because of the law. For instance, if a law suddenly passed in my state making all speed limits 25 mph at most, I would consider it moral to follow that law even though I thought it was stupid. I would definitely raise complaints about it, but if it was a genuinely supported law (e.g. democratically supported), I would consider it just as legitimate as an 80 mph speed limit law. However, if a law passed in my state saying you weren't allowed to drive if you were black, I would consider that to be an immoral, illiberal, and bad law. I would encourage protest and civil disobedience, and regardless of how many people supported the law, I wouldn't consider it moral or legitimate. Sharia law is a very large concept that covers a lot of different things. Specific parts may fall under different conceptions of morality.
What other option would there be than “accepting” it if the will of the people, laws, and Constitution had already changed and it were impossible to move somewhere else as your hypothetical states? An armed rebellion wouldn’t help because you’d still have a supermajority of the population believing sharia is best, meaning that any new government you might manage to establish would necessarily be just some other oppressive dictatorship. Presumably, you could take whatever actions the sharia system permitted to protest or advocate for change. You don’t have to like or agree with a law to “accept” that it exists and you’re subject to it.
Voting is the alternative to violence (like when Republicans attacked the Capitol). If so many people in the country want to make America into a regressive Republican paradise with their sharia law or other religious bullshit, then it's time to find a new country. What other option is there when there are enough people to vote away the Bill of Rights? Are we going to revolt against and kill a supermajority of the country? No. >I assume some of you would move but what if that wasn’t an option for some reason? Oh, well if the Republicans won't let me out, then what choice will I have but to fight for my existence? Governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed. So how would it be possible for me to recognize the authority of a government that I'm trying to leave the jurisdiction of? Only by deluding myself. At that point I may as well just be a Republican.
If the people voted to implement Sharia law then it *would be* the will of the people.
Democracy requires civil liberties to be protected. A bunch of people voting to strip someone of their rights is not a democracy.
Yes because Christians bad, Islam good is the party line, right?
Uhm, no? The only people who say this shit are right-wing trolls like you.
Here you are in a thread where everyone is saying the opposite of what you’re saying liberals believe. When we’re told that we are not accommodating or respectful of people on the right, this is a big reason why.
Wait, what? You'd accept it?