>>>It is taken out of context (As all things that remotely smells like discrimination). The minister had its say about the issue. He was making a case of how democracy works. If 2/3 of the citizens want sharia to be instated then it should. Of course this would not likely to become reality. His explanation was excepted by our governement
>>
>>So much for separation of church and state, then. No, I don't think it was taken out of context at all.
>>
>>>And a gentle reminder to you: The netherlands would not be the first western country with experience with the sharia. I leave it up to you which country it is, but its closer than you might think.
>>
>>Gee, Wally - enlighten me.
>>
>>>It might also not hurt to have some background to what the sharia means and what it does and does not cover and how it coexists with the regular laws. You also have to keep in mind that there are as many flavours of the sharia as there are countries having this installed.
>>>
>>>Many people react oversensative to 'threats' they don't understand. This is clearly such a case.
>>
>>As usual, you retaliate with insults - a little more subtle this time, but there nonetheless. "Sharia" in any flavor, remains the same - laws dictated by religion, which I (and most other non-Muslims, I imagine) have no interest in living under. You scream about the Christian right forcing it's beliefs into our government, yet sharia is OK by you? Are you sure YOU understand what sharia means?
>
>Well, to be fair, Sharia only affects those live according to it's dictates (Muslims, eg). If Texas allowed Sharia, you personally, would not be 'living under it'. For all that, though, I still think allowing it is a very bad idea. A nation should not have one law for some and different laws for others. I hate to think of the horrible hodge-podge that would finally ensue if every group was allowed to have their own set of laws.

How about laws for the rich and laws for all others? We are a nation of laws. Some people are more equal than others. :)