Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 22    Average: 3.9/5]
182 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 13071
Rating: 3.9
Category:
Date: 11/30/10 09:04 AM

182 Responses to Fed Judge Blocks Voter Approved Anti-Sharia Law

  1. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 5:03 am
    Link: Fed Judge Blocks Voter Approved Anti-Sharia Law - Another activist judge thwarting the will of the people or upholding the constitution?
  2. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:12 am
    No specific religions `law` should be integrated into our own. Sharia allows men to beat their wives and children, Allows families to kill apostate relatives, and other monstrosities.
  3. Profile photo of ultimakewl
    ultimakewl Male 18-29
    833 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:24 am
    @CrakrJak
    this is takin directly from the linked article
    "The controversial initiative was passed even though its supporters acknowledged they had no evidence that the state`s courts were considering Sharia -- the body of law based on Islam and the Koran -- in their decisions."

    no evidence it was being considered means the ballot initiative was nothing more than a cheap pre-emptive attack on a perceived islam threat

    yes religious law should be kept separate from state/federal law but without evidence of it happening there is no reason to do anything about
    it
  4. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:28 am
    CrakrJak, maybe you should look at the majority of Sharia law, and realize that, in general, it does not imply such "monstrosities."

    Also, please realize that nations differ in their Sharia implications.
  5. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36215 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:28 am
    Good call.

    You can`t have laws based on the values of one faith. Nor can you have laws banning those values.

    If and when the courts DO use sharial law, THEN we can kill the judge and burn the lawyers in a public square.
  6. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:32 am
    ultimakewl: There is an obvious push by muslims in America to instill sharia law, Islamic lawyers have attempted to bring sharia into courts all over.

    Look up Rifqa Barry`s apostasy legal case, If you want a dose of reality.

    Plugging the holes in a dike is always preferable before it floods.
  7. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:36 am
    hwkiller: Sharia law doesn`t allow for lawyers, Doesn`t recognize most written evidence, Doesn`t recognize forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA, And is mostly based on personal testimony and oath taking. The `judge` isn`t even a lawyer, He`s a imam or other highly regarded cleric.

    Maybe you should read up on Sharia yourself there dude.
  8. Profile photo of lingh0e
    lingh0e Male 30-39
    48 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Crakrjak - RTFA. This bill was supposed to stop courts from considering Sharia law in their decisions. In other words, there would be no beating of women or killing relatives... since no court in America would ever allow that.
  9. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:40 am
    For once I say the Muslim position is totally BS. This is America fellas. Our laws are our laws.
  10. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:42 am
    lingh0e: Then why is this judge blocking it hmmm ?
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36215 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:52 am
    They need to re-write the law so that it includes ALL religions in it`s ban, not just single out one. Then it`s not prejudicial.

    Of course, then the christians could push their stuff, could they?

    WIN / WIN
  12. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:52 am
    Not only was the voter initiative that the judge overturned unconstitutional, it was totally unnecessary. Judges take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. An initiative barring judges from considering Sharia Law would be like an Amendment barring judges from considering Chinese law
  13. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:57 am
    They ought to just tell this arrogant, liberal, Clinton-appointed, activist judge that this is a state matter over which she has no jurisdiction, and she is cordially invited to go pound sand. Then simply ignore her ruling.
  14. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:01 am
    sbeelz: This may shock you but there are already judges considering other countries laws when deciding contract law here in the states.

    I agree that that is NOT what they are supposed to do, But tell me, What law prevents them from doing it ?

    This law would prevent activist judges from screwing up or legal system even more.
  15. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:02 am
    A couple things- Sharia is sorta like Torah is for Jews or Canon Law is for Catholics, it`s a *religious* law that only applies to *religious* concerns for adherents of said religion. Furthermore there are many schools of thought involving Sharia, everything from ultra conservative anti modern, to post enlightenment modern interpretations.

    And this law not only forbade someone else`s religious practices, it specifically forbade any "non American" law from being considered, which is actually causing some native American tribes problems because the US deals with them as sovereign nations with their own laws, how well would they fare with this foisted on them?
  16. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Sharia Law has no goddamn place in the United States of America. This has nothing to do with a person`s right to practice whatever religion they so chose. I`m with Newt on this.
  17. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:06 am
    PT- It`s not a *secular* law. This really is a First Amendment issue of the first class.
  18. Profile photo of Reganom
    Reganom Male 18-29
    505 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:14 am
    "CrakrJak, maybe you should look at the majority of Sharia law"

    Stoning, lashes, amputations. The fact that those are part of the sharia law means i don`t want anything to do with it.

    Sharia law also forbids liquor which frankly is the worst part. Oh and bacon.
  19. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:15 am
    Zira: This is not a first amendment issue, This is a sovereignty issue. Sharia has no place in American law or our society, Period.
  20. Profile photo of Billito
    Billito Male 18-29
    74 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:16 am
    1) Oklahoma didn`t need this law in the first place. It isn`t like we would have to retrain all of our judges on how to make a ruling *without* using Sharia law.
    2) If you make a contract with an international party, the contract decides which law should be upheld not the backwoods court of Oklahoma. Thems the rules, get over it.

    It was all just a shot at Muslims, uncool.
  21. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:17 am
    Reganom: Definately, We can`t have them taking bacon away from us! ;-)
  22. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:17 am
    Did you read my post or not? Islam has just as much right to be practiced in America as any other religion, no state can supersede the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

    Or shall we ban Torah and Canon law as well?
  23. Profile photo of chimmeychang
    chimmeychang Male 30-39
    685 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:19 am
    The State should have no authority to be in any way involved in religious laws, and religious beliefs should in no way effect the laws of the state. I don`t so much care what religious people do as long as it only effect them. Religion is only a problem when someone tells me i cant eat bacon, or when it violates the basic human rights of unwilling participants.
  24. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:20 am
    Billito: So what you`re saying is that America`s sovereignty, Our laws, Can be usurped by another country or religion, I think not.

    Take that new world order bullsh|t somewhere else.
  25. Profile photo of Reganom
    Reganom Male 18-29
    505 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:21 am
    Islam has just as much right to be practiced in America as any other religion, no state can supersede the First Amendment to the US Constitution.


    Not wanting Sharia Law allowed into courts (thats what a few muslims have been protesting for in the UK) and being enforced doesn`t mean you can`t practice your religion.

    BUT if your religious conviction means you want to stone someone to death, give them 100 lashes or amputate a hand, then i don`t want you near me.
  26. Profile photo of Reganom
    Reganom Male 18-29
    505 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:22 am
    "The State should have no authority to be in any way involved in religious laws"

    Nor should religious law ever be above state law which i hear people calling for a fair bit.
  27. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:23 am
    Zira: This law in no way bans anyone from practicing their religion, It bans judges from considering Sharia law in the courtroom.

    How would you like it if you were a muslim woman in this country trying to get a divorce from your abusive husband, But couldn`t do so because the judge allowed Sharia law into their courtroom ?

    Yeah, I don`t think you would it like it one bit.
  28. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:25 am
    How many times do I have to say this? Sharia is *not a secular* law, it`s like Torah or Canon Law is for Jews and Catholics, a *religious law* about *religious concerns* *only for member`s of that specific religion*. The only reason ultra conservative anti modern Sharia is practiced as secular law in some Muslim nations is because there there is no separation between church and state, the two are essentially the same in a theocracy.
  29. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Crakr, it would never come up. It`s like a ecclesiastical "marriage tribunal" for Catholics seeking to be remarried *in their church.* While in the secular world, divorce is still very much an option. A good example of religious and secular law going on divergent paths.
  30. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:30 am
    Zira: Wrong, Sharia law covers it all, Both secular and religious concerns, It affects contracts, banking, real estate, marriages, crime, everything.

    You`re very misinformed Zira, Do some more reading on it.
  31. Profile photo of Reganom
    Reganom Male 18-29
    505 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:30 am
    "only for member`s of that specific religion"

    To me it doesn`t matter if it only applies to the religious members. Some of what sharia law demands is wrong. Amputations, stonings, lashings. Thats not right.
  32. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:33 am
    Once again, different schools of Sharia, from crazy Osama Taliban type to Modern Enlightened Sharia forms. The two are completely different types.

    All anyone has to do is look up the differences in how Sharia is interpreted vis a vis backwoods Pakistan and secular democracy Turkey.
  33. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:33 am
    Zira: Again, It goes waaaaay beyond marriage or religious concerns.

    And again I ask you, "How would you like it if you were an abused muslim woman trying to get a divorce from your husband and were denied it because the judge allowed Sharia law into the court ?"
  34. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:36 am
    Crakr, It. would. never. come. up.

    But you know who could really help us here, Baal.

    *Yells at top of lungs* Baal, a little help here please? Your wisdom and insight is needed!
  35. Profile photo of GhettoNinja
    GhettoNinja Male 30-39
    886 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:36 am
    Minus all the avant garde catch phrases like, liberal <blank>, activist judges, and the like...I personally think all religions and their "laws" or "commandments" should not factor into legal decisions made in this country.

    There are laws that happen to parallel religous text but should not be considered as religous in nature or origin.

    Murder being the most obvious parallel law.

    Sharia may be okay for a country ruled by the religion, as say...Iran. But pigs will fly before you see anyone successfully defend themselves using religous text or laws in this country.

    We are not Vatican City nor are we Iran. The Pope and all the Imams around the world can say and do what they want, however, our country is not ruled or governed by them.

    The 1st amendment allows for the free practice of your religion.

    There is no provision for making religous law US law.
  36. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:39 am
    This is basically the point I was trying to make- The two are *already* completely different in this country. Religious law is not secular law.

    Point blank.
  37. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:40 am
    Zira: It has come up, In many cases. Do I need to list them for you ?

    Read this, And it`s not just one isolated case.
  38. Profile photo of Billito
    Billito Male 18-29
    74 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:41 am
    no, crackrjak, I`m saying that we ratified the CISG that allows the exporter of the choice of law. That outright trumps this Oklahoma law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I think that is great. It is not the supreme law of all lands I think that is also great. If you make an international contract (and many US citizens do on a regular basis) you cannot forbid international law at the state level.
  39. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1443 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:42 am
    Just ban any religion, or other countries legal systems, from influencing the decisions made in law. If you are going to ban Sharia influence then you might as well go for the problem as a whole.

    However if this ban goes in place, you must leave the countries that is under Sharia law and not attempt to change it like we (UK/US/ect) are currently attempting.
    Since you are so against other countries laws effecting your country CrakrJak, do you think we should leave countries with Sharia law "to beat their wives and children, Allows families to kill apostate relatives, and other monstrosities."?
  40. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:45 am
    Crakr, remember that Maddow clip I once introduced into a discussion on Con conspiracy theories? Sharia law scares were part of it, in other words, it never happened, (except in RW land of course).
  41. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:46 am
    Zira: You keep sidestepping and dancing around the issue. Sharia is not just `religious law` it concerns everything. Even if it was only religious law, It should never usurp our American laws, Ever!

    This law doesn`t restrict anyone from practicing their religion, It prevents judges from using Sharia to deny people`s rights under American law.
  42. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:48 am
    Too many double and triple negatives here. Who was stopping Sharia law from being admissible in court, the judge or the ballot? Whichever it was, I agree with that one.
  43. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:48 am
    Zira: Maddow is a liberal zealot. If that is where you are getting your opinions from I weep for you.
  44. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:48 am
    A modern enlightened interpretation of Sharia would be very different than say an extreme Muslim fundamentalist version is. Obviously, I don`t know all the ins and outs because I`m not Muslim, we would have to ask someone who is and has a little more background on the subject, ie. Baal.
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:49 am
    almightybob1: The ballot was, By 70%.
  46. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:51 am
    Zira: I don`t care how `modern` or `enlightened` it may seem to you, It has no place in American courts.
  47. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:52 am
    Maddow is a blackbelt journalistic master who is hella smart and I respect her very much. I know you and I don`t see eye to eye a lot, but rejecting the info because of the person who said it isn`t reasonable. If Glen Beck said one reality based thing I wouldn`t hesitate to back him up on it even though he is Glen Beck.
  48. Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:53 am
    If this applies to Muslims, this also has to be applied to Christians, Jews, and Hindus as well, in equal measure.
  49. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:54 am
    almightybob1: The ballot was, By 70%.
    Got it, thanks.

    I wonder what the percentage would have been if it was Bible law.
  50. Profile photo of DJDoubleb
    DJDoubleb Male 30-39
    382 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:08 am
    It`s redundant. The first amendment takes care of this already... BS attack on Muslims for no other sake than thumbing your nose at Muslims.
  51. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:13 am
    Crakr, just so you know, Sharia law allows for women to get divorces.

    In fact, Sharia law was one of, if not, the first system of laws that allowed for women to file for divorce in the Middle East, for the very reason of abuse.

    So Sharia law wouldn`t restrict it (in most cases). Women can divorce in Islam. It`s not forbidden, it`s just not recommended.
  52. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:14 am
    It is unconstitutional and unlawful, separately.

    1) By singling out the laws of one faith, it easily breaches the first amendment.

    2) The plaintiff gave a perfectly reasonable example of how it will impact him:
    "My will asks the judge to consider an aspect of Shariah regarding charitable giving upon death," he said. "This amendment means my will is invalid because it mentions Shariah."

    It is perfectly reasonable, and he gives further examples where this would discriminate specifically against one group over others.

    It`s Black and White why the judge ruled in his favor. He`s right. It is unconstitutional. The article itself makes this 100% clear.
  53. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:22 am
    Oh and unlawful:

    A court cannot predefine what it will and will not consider. Oklahoma courts cannot forbid their judges from looking at Texas law for example, or chinese law.

    In all cases, the Judgement have no impact on US law.

    If it is illegal to do X under US law, it is still illegal even if X law says otherwise.

    This is the case NOW.

    All this is doing is saying that Muslims, and only Muslims, when acting WITHIN US LAW, have the legality of various faith based documents dismissed. Not that they can be dismissed. That they MUST BE DISMISSED.

    (DNR orders, wills, marriage contracts, and in some cases anything upto and including loan agreements that are made with Islamic contexts in mind).

    All of those would become inadmissible in a court of Oklahoma law.
  54. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:23 am
    Whoa, that was quick. Hiya Baal, I thought I`d defer to your experience here regarding Sharia, seeing as how you could probably blow the rest of us out of the water when it comes to Islamic questions. ;)
  55. Profile photo of Guy6870
    Guy6870 Male 13-17
    143 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:25 am
    I thought church and state were seperate
  56. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:28 am
    This sounds like the thing that happened in California!

    So this is BS and that is not. I See.
  57. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:29 am
    Or he could blow us out of the water with the bomb on his chest.
  58. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:30 am
    What concerns me about all this is... why now? Why is this all of the sudden an issue. Meaning, Sharia law has been around for centuries in other countries and only recently has Sharia been pushed (quite tenaciously) in the UK, France and now more and more in the U.S.
    What is the agenda here? It has been established that multiple countries practice Sharia and good for them, but most do not. Is it a deliberate exploitation of our individual freedoms by these Muslims? Can a Christian in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt or Iran demand NOT to be considered under Sharia Law?

    Say what you will about this, my opinion is that it is a deliberate exploitation of the rights our Constitution provides. Furthermore, I think it is just another way for Islamic extremists to gain a foot hold, inch by inch in any way it can on a global scale. I think there is an agenda here.
  59. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:40 am
    Aj- That was totally inappropriate. For example, since you`re a xian am I to suppose you`re going to bomb an abortion clinic?
  60. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Well, going over Zira`s points.

    Shariah law is not "everything", it is specifically religious law. Shariah incorporates secular and non Muslim courts.

    Divorce is indeed legal. The earliest case of Islamic divorce is at the behest of a woman.

    Shariah is not one school of thought. I can think of at least 5 off the top of my head, not counting interpretations of individual countries.

    Only one of which holds all the accusations Crakr levied (repeatedly).

    In effect, I agree with at least 90% of what Zira has said so far. With a 10% window of error for anything I might have missed.

    Is there anything specific you wanted Zira?
  61. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:42 am
    All of those would become inadmissible in a court of Oklahoma law.

    As it should be. Sharia has no place in American courts, Those that believe it does are ideologues and zealots. Women are being denied their civil rights because as one judge said "his actions were consistent with his practices." after the wife was beaten and raped and she sought a restraining order against him.

  62. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:43 am
    Or shall we ban Torah and Canon law as well?
    Yes. Any "law" that has not been passed by the legislature and signed by the executive cannot be considered in any civil or criminal proceeding.
  63. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:43 am
    You covered it pretty well, Crakr and I were basically disputing different forms of Sharia and how much it encompassed.
  64. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:45 am
    Ollie, those examples are likewise *religious* law, not *secular*. You`ve just said you`re in favor of banning Judaism and Catholicism from being practiced in the US. Congratulations.
  65. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:49 am
    "Can a Christian in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt or Iran demand NOT to be considered under Sharia Law? "

    In most Islamic countries, there are non-Muslim courts, as outlined in Shariah law. In serious cases (as the Prophet did) members of the community will be used as Judges. (So a Jewish judge would often reside over a Jewish case, irrespective of if Jewish law was being applied).

    The only exception I know of is Saudi. (No non Muslim courts).

    As with the US, local law trumps foreign, so if a Jewish guy killed a Muslim guy, Muslim law would apply, in the Muslim country.


    Also, Splurby, you asked months ago if debating here has made me happier... no, I wouldn`t say that.

    I enjoy it sometimes, other times I feel like I`m arguing when I just can`t be bothered anymore.

    However, I do feel that if I don`t I`d feel worse, by not putting for the alternative to certain objectionable viewpoints).
  66. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:53 am
    Baalthazaq says: All of those would become inadmissible in a court of Oklahoma law.

    Crakrjak says: As it should be.


    Quick question. Islam only? My marriage, to my wife, should be nullified, and all details within the contract, because I`m Muslim?

    Really not a first amendment issue? I really hope people reading this can see the problem Crakr is clearly missing here.
  67. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:54 am
    Baal: Sharia law does cover `everything`, If it didn`t how could any court in islamic countries function at all if it didn`t ? According to Sharia, there is only one law, Not 5 not 4 not 3... one.

    Your attempt to obfuscate the issue will not work on me. I`ve seen the barbarity of Sharia law and will not stay silent about it.

    Go ahead Baal & Tira, Keep defending Rapists, Child Abusers, Wife Beaters, etc.. That try and hide behind Sharia Law, Continuing to do that is just making you both look insane.
  68. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:54 am
    You`ve just said you`re in favor of banning Judaism and Catholicism from being practiced in the US. Congratulations.
    QueenZira, you`ve just said you`re a blithering idiot. I said no such thing. Read what I said. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Only laws that have been legally enacted are to be considered when deciding civil or criminal cases.

    Murder is a crime not because it is prohibited by the 10 Commandments, but because the law against it was passed by state legislatures and signed into law by their governors.

    Elements of religious law may be incorporated into federal, state, or local law IF they are properly enacted. Otherwise, they have no force of law.

    When replying to posts by conservatives or libertarians, please do not project your prejudices onto us. Just read what we say and know that that`s what we mean -- nothing more, nothing less.
  69. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:56 am
    @QueenZira:

    Yeah. I love bombing abortion clinics.

    I`m actually a pro-choice Christian. Those do exist you know.

    I was just giving Baal a hard time. He knows I`m kidding.
  70. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:56 am
    Baal: So there are non-muslim courts for those hikers ? That`s Bullsh|t and you know it.
  71. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:57 am
    This is all we need to know.
  72. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:58 am
    Ollie, if you`re dumb enough to not be able to see your own hand in front of your own face, then please absent yourself from discussions with people who have a functioning Neocortex.

    Read my posts again. Don`t make me have to speak s.l.o.w.e.r for you.
  73. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:59 am
    Baal: No one is suggesting your marriage be nullified, That would never happen because it wouldn`t come before the court. Quit being purposefully obtuse and absurd.
  74. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    Again, Crakr, we`ve been over this before. There are differences in types of Muslims as there are in xians. For instance, the Aryan Nations xian, The Jerry Falwell xian and the UU xian.

    Don`t blur the lines.
  75. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36215 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Whoa! This "Religious Freedom" stuff is getting out of hand! When they wrote that poo they didn`t mean for those weird religions like boo-dists or muz-limz or hin-dooz. It was enough they tolerated the jooz!

    No, they just mean Religious Freedom as long it`s CHRISTIAN and not some bizarre form of christianity like more-monz!

    Don`tcha hate it when it bites you in the ass like that?
  76. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:04 pm
    Zira: Your ideology is so obvious when you correctly spell the word muslim but purposely misspell Christian as xian.

    Transparent as cellophane, Your liberalism is.
  77. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    By your syntax I assume you think you`re Yoda now eh?

    I say "xian" because I get tired of having to constantly type out C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N all the time, I`m gonna get carpal tunnel you know?
  78. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Besides, I think I`ve mentioned here before that I quite like the emphasis put specifically on the virtue of Justice in some forms of xianity. Would that they all did that.
  79. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Zira: Oh really, Then why not use the word brain instead of `Neocortex` ?

    Quit while you`re ahead, Instead of embarrassing yourself further.
  80. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    Embarrassing myself because I have a good vocabulary? Uh no, my bookwormy speech is as it is and I`m quite happy with it thank you.
  81. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    madest: Voters have the right to change the law, It`s called democracy, And that`s how it works.
  82. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    Crakr, we don`t live in a direct democracy where mob rule decides every little thing. We have a Constitutional democracy where our Constitution is our rule book as to how we govern the country, and no state law can nullify the demands of the US Constitution.
  83. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    Actually, you know what?
    Here is my marriage contract:

    Page 1: I owe my wife a car (Done)
    3: If she divorces me, she owes me a car or ~$20K.
    2: In the case of divorce, under all circumstances, she gets half of everything.
    Onwards: She doesn`t owe me a car, and can immediately dissolve the marriage if I:

    Don`t maintain or have sex with her for 6 months.
    Am "ill natured".
    Contract an STD.
    Take a job that impacts her social status.
    Take a job that goes against Islamic practice.
    Deemed insane.
    Imprisoned , or to be imprisoned for >5 years.
    An addict.
    Desert my family for 6 months.
    Convicted of anything that would lower her social status.
    Missing >6 months.
    Sterile.
    Marry a second wife without her consent.

    There are no more rules in the contract.

    Behold the evil that is Shariah! Muauahahahaha!
  84. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Zira: As I asked before and you keep sidestepping, "How would you like it if you were an abused muslim woman trying to get a divorce from your husband and were denied it because the judge allowed Sharia law into the court ?"

    Don`t say it would never happen, It already has. If you choose to remain ignorant of that fact then that`s your bad.
  85. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    I already answered you. Why isn`t my answer good enough?
  86. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    Baal: As I said it would never come up, Your `marriage contract` doesn`t mention Sharia, You are not in America, And the contract was instituted where you live.

    Point moot.
  87. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    I`m not being obtuse and absurd, I`m pointing out that the legal document, would no longer be legal, because it would mean the court needs to consider Islamic law.

    This is exactly the type of thing the law prohibits. Anything else it would prohibit is ALREADY prohibited as demonstrated by the overruling of the case you brought up.

    The case you brought up was not legal. As judged by the higher court. It was already, in law, wrong.

    It`s also in the original article, which I`m really suspecting you didn`t read at this point.
  88. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    Zira: Your `answer` wasn`t an answer, It was a non-answer, a sidestep to avoid answering the question honestly.
  89. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    And If I haven`t mentioned it before, Nice Commentary Gerry ;D
  90. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    Bactrack again, Once more I already gave you my answer.
  91. Profile photo of Mr_Pedo_Bear
    Mr_Pedo_Bear Male 70 & Over
    997 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    @Zira , the constitution can be changed and is due a constitutional amendment keeping with how often it usually changes. Actually has been awhile since the last one.

    @Crakrjack True its called democracy but to protect the minority it takes a lot of effort to do something if it goes against the constitutive. You need to get an amendment through and good luck with that.
  92. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    Baal: Your `marriage contract` doesn`t mention Sharia at all. Anyone at all could write up a marriage contract like that even if they were atheist. So please, Quit it, Your trying to nitpick on crap that would never happen.
  93. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    I know the Constitution can change. However it would take a Ginormus apocalyptic issue to make it so. I don`t see any changes in the immediate future.
  94. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    madest: You failed civics class in high school didn`t you ?
  95. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    @auburnjunky-
    come on- you posting that link would be like me posting a link to Fred Phelps and stating "this is all we need to know about Christianity." The guy in that video about wife beating is an extremist- it`s ridiculous to suggest that he speaks for all Muslims. The fact that he uses the Koran to justify his position is irrelevant- I could use the Bible to justify calling you a sinner because you wear poly-cotton blends.

    As for the idea that it is wrong for judges to oppose anything that the majority of voters pass- there is a reason we have a constitution- and there is a reason that the US Constitution cannot be amended by voter referendum. People are fickle, stupid, and prejudiced- the Bill of Rights ensures that they can`t just go around passing any damn law they please because they`re pissed off and confused.
  96. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    My marriage contract, to my American wife front page:
    Islamic Marriage certificate

    In the name of Allah, Most gracious, Most Merciful.
    Quran quote 21/30.
    ******

    Remember the part where I said American wife? There may be reasonable cases under which I happen to live in the states, like I did for several years.

    Also, my marriage certificate is not issued by the country I live in.
  97. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    you know, sharia law is a legit method of prosecution in the U.S., granted that both parties agree to participate. Think Judge Judy.
  98. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    Baal: This law still would not nullify your marriage, Your being absurd.

    However, If your wife wanted a restraining order against you, You wouldn`t be able to use Sharia law , With this law in effect, To deny her that right.
  99. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    It`s also issued by an Islamic body, not a secular court, which makes it effectively Sharia. Religiously sanctioned.

    It is also based on the guidelines set forth in Shariah.

    I know it looks alot like any other marriage certificate. Perhaps you imagined a Shariah certificate to mainly deal with beheadings?

    It`s not my fault you`re nuts.

    (Also, Zira, yeah I know AJ is kidding).
  100. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    madest: No they wouldn`t need to revoke the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment doesn`t allow other countries or religions to institute their law over American law. It`s called `freedom of speech` not `freedom to make your own law`.
  101. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    "However, If your wife wanted a restraining order against you, You wouldn`t be able to use Sharia law , With this law in effect, To deny her that right."

    That is legally the case, without the law you mentioned.

    This is discussed in the article we are talking about.

    The higher court ruled that it was UNLAWFUL to do that. The lower court drated up. Lower courts will continue to NOT PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE LAW, irrespective of how many times you say the same thing.
  102. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    Ok, just thought I`d help out that`s all.
  103. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    Also, "You`re not in America" has 0 point in whether the law is unjust. Which it has just been demonstrated, in the article you seemingly refuse to read, to my examples, to the further example YOU YOURSELF JUST CLAIMED SHOULD NOT COUNT, is.
  104. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm
    @yanging-
    You`re getting criminal law and civil law mixed up. Judge Judy does not hear cases which involve "prosecution." Prosecution implies that a crime has been committed. She hears civil cases. If people enter into a legally binding contract, and that contract is based on Sharia Law, then the case can be heard in a civil court. Although if a person were to enter into a contract under Sharia Law that violated US law, it would very likely to be found null and void. For example, if slavery were permitted by Sharia Law (I`m not saying that it is- I know virtually nothing about Sharia Law), that doesn`t mean that the courts will honor a contract I make with someone that makes them my personal property.
  105. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    Also, I`d just like to point out here, this is the first time in all 3000 posts I`ve seen Madest on the Muslim side of any fence.

    If me and Madest can agree... like seriously, I`ve suddenly got hope for Israel/Palestine.
  106. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    Baal: It should never have had to go to a higher court, Period.

    1. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. Sura 5:90-91.

    2. Islam allows husbands to beat their wives. Qur’an, 4:34

    3. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge, physical eye for physical eye. Qur’an, 5:45

    4. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. Qur’an, 5:38

    5. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated. Qur’an, 5:33. As an alternative, the convicted may have a hand and the opposite foot cut off while being banished from the land instead of crucifixion.

    6. Islam commands that Homosexuals be executed. Abdu Dawud no. 447. Burning to death, stoned while against a wall, or stoned and thrown over a cliff.

    7. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. Qur’an, 24-6

    8. Islam orders apostates
  107. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    8. Islam orders apostates to be killed. Sura 9:11-123

    Let all that become `legally justified` here in America ? Never!
  108. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    @sbeelz

    Thanks for that. I was a bit confused as to how that could possibly be the case. But it was a point made in the OpEd in my local campus paper, and I just took it at face value. Thanks for clearing that up!
  109. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    madest: It`s not against the constitution. You`ve got a bad misunderstanding of the law.
  110. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    @CJ-
    The law the voters were trying to pass in Oklahoma was vague, redundant, and establishes official, legal prejudice against a specific religion. It`s that last part that violates the First Amendment. But the law is totally redundant because Judges are already prohibited, by taking an oath to uphold the Laws of their State and Country, from considering ANY religious laws above civil or criminal law.
  111. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    sbeelz: As I`ve already shown judges have already taken Sharia law into consideration in many court cases, When they shouldn`t.

    It should never have to wait to go to a higher court for that wrong to be righted either.

    Sharia does not belong in America, Period.
  112. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    "It should never have to wait to go to a higher court for that wrong to be righted either. "

    And yet most of the injustices in this country have to be taken all the way to the supreme court.
  113. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    Crakr, If I remember correctly there is something about the Arabic language (THE language of the holy Koran according to many Muslims) that makes it so a single sentence can be rendered to indicate many different things, it`s impossible to completely tell just how that affects interpretation *and* the history of exegesis context.

    Besides, I`ve even seen a feminist interpretation of the Koran ("The Korana") that speaks very powerfully to certain Muslim women in the reform movement, for example.
  114. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    "8. Islam orders apostates to be killed. Sura 9:11-123

    Let all that become `legally justified` here in America ? Never!"

    CJ, your argument is absurd. Under the current laws of this country and every state in the nation, one cannot use their religious beliefs to justify murder. Christians in the US have tried to do so in cases where children have died during exorcisms. 44 States have actually passed laws PROTECTING Christian Scientists from prosecution, which have been used to let parents get away with allowing their children to die from minor diseases. Without special protection, however, US law does not allow judges to let people off the hook when they break laws in the name of religion.
  115. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    1) "It should never have had to go to a higher court".

    Agreed. This law would have had 0 impact on that case.
    This law would have made it unlawful to consider it.
    It was already unlawful to consider it.
    It didn`t work.

    2) Assuming all of these are true (which I contest entirely), they are not legal in the US, and the ability for courts to consider Islamic law does not impact that one iota.

    It would not make illegal things legal. See Sbeelz comment on Civil vs Criminal charges.

    As for your quotes:
    1) Your quote does not support your statement.
    2) Your quote is disputed.
    3) Is effectively mentioning the "OT" ruling. (read it)
    4) Unless he says sorry. (read next line)
    5) That`s the punishment for war crimes. (read it)
    Etc.
  116. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    I know your stances Madest. I`m just saying, if I`m honest, I would have thought the Anti-Religion part of the brain would have trumped your Pro-Constitution part.

    That does, in my experience, seem to be the default for many people. <.< >.> *cough* Yeah, I know it was a cheap shot *Cough*.
  117. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    "As I`ve already shown judges have already taken Sharia law into consideration in many court cases, When they shouldn`t."

    I found the article you posted, and it is disturbing. But the judge`s ruling is insane and in conflict with existing law. Just like judges who rule that it`s not rape if a woman is wearing sexy clothes.

    Do we need laws, or even a Constitutional Amendment clarifying that the First Amendment means that a Judge cannot take a person`s religious beliefs into consideration when that person violates the rights of another? Perhaps. As I mentioned, Christians in this country have hidden behind their religion to try to get away with murder and child abuse, and have succeeded in some cases. But a law that singles out Islam and Islam alone is unconstitutional.
  118. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    madest: State`s put amendments to their constitutions on voting ballots occasionally. Sometimes, Those amendments lead to other states following suit.

    As far as Federal amendments those are usually sent to be ratified by state legislatures, They need 3/4ths (38 states out of 50) to be ratified.
  119. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36215 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    Just to clear things up ...

    Sharia Law according to GLEN BECK

    for what it`s worth...
  120. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36215 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:07 pm
    yeah... that`s the art of trolling
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    V
  121. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    This law would have had 0 impact on that case.

    It would`ve had immense impact, No beaten and abused spouse should have to wait for a higher court for an expedient restraining order.
  122. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Actually as a simpler way of arguing Crak.

    Hanafists (the largest, oldest Muslim school of thought), disagree literally with 100% of your statements there. (Except they agree the word means beat, but due to other laws, say that "you are not allowed to beat your wife with anything more than a twig".

    This is so that it coincides with other Islamic laws like "you cannot hurt your wife". This also goes along with stuff like the "ill natured" comment in my marriage contract found below.

    That`s all Shariah buddy.

    Also, individual countries disagree with you. Again you`ll only find one school of thought, and one country that agrees with your definition of shariah.

    The smallest, and newest. Saudi Wahabbism.
  123. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    lol- thanks Gerry. While I STRONGLY dislike Beck, I can`t help but admire him as the God of All Trolls. Like he`s one to talk- he joined a religion that, up until recently, sanctioned polygamy and the forced marriages of 12 year old girls to old men (and the FLDS still do).
  124. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    "No beaten and abused spouse should have to wait for a higher court for an expedient restraining order."

    I do agree with this. But I do not agree that a specific law against Sharia is appropriate or necessary. Like I said, extremist Muslims aren`t the only ones who try to hide behind their faith when they commit crimes.
  125. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    Crakr.

    I want to institute a law that makes it illegal for Crakr, and only Crakr to be a murderous pedophile.

    I want it to be in the news, every single day. With your name in the headlines.

    "DO YOU WANT THIS MAN dratING YOUR CHILDREN THROUGH A GUNSHOT WOUND In THEIR TINY HEAD?!"

    Would you say that is a "fair" thing to do?

    Now you may say it is already illegal, so it`ll have no impact.

    But I`ll just say it`d have an IMMENSE impact on poor mothers and fathers who don`t know where their lost children to murderous pedophiles.

    Tell you what, just send some pictures. I`ll make some posters and put em up around your neighbourhood.

    Still fair? Nothing wrong with it?

    Hey and if you dare disagree. I`ll just post pictures of cases that wouldn`t be impacted by this law, but I`ll go SEEEE?! really, really, really loud.

    Reckon I`ll get a 70% vote?
  126. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    Baal: No, But I`d vote for a ban on you making absurd and potentially libelous statements like you did below.

    Once again I see that you have tread into the arena of personal insults by implying `Crakr to be a murderous pedophile.`

    Whenever you`re loosing the argument you resort to such stupidity. Insults are the last resort of scoundrels.
  127. Profile photo of Linkenberger
    Linkenberger Male 18-29
    1164 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    HOT TOPIC DEBATE! Ladies and gentlement, fasten your seatbelts and set your minds to "open".
  128. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    eek..
  129. Profile photo of kittehdee29
    kittehdee29 Female 18-29
    803 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    @Crakr, Baal was using something we like to call "an example"

    He was saying you actually boink kids.
  130. Profile photo of kittehdee29
    kittehdee29 Female 18-29
    803 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    wasn`t*
  131. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    Guh, technically my last (deleted) message was spam, so... if there are people who happen to be interested in my profile, the next 10 minutes might be a time to look at it... that`s all I`ll say.

    Also, I`m off to bed.

    Crakr:
    "Whenever you`re loosing the argument you resort to such stupidity."

    The idea that I`m losing this argument is absurd.
    What I actually do, is once I`ve adequately explained my point and you still don`t understand, I make an equal but opposite argument to yours.
    You then get offended at the ridiculousness of it.


    Also, I didn`t call you a murderous pedophile.
    I just want laws against it.
    You`re the one who got all bent out of shape about the law being put in the place.


    Why are you against the anti-murderous pedophile bill? *Points at Crakr and wiggles eyebrows at everyone else* SEEEE?! ;)
  132. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    @sbeelz:

    I agree. Judges shouldn`t do that, regardless of the outcome.

    I was against the judge overturning the gay marriage vote in Cali, and I am against this judge, just the same.
  133. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    Baal: If I had ever used such an `example` aimed toward you I`d be banned, But you`ve gotten away with it, More than once.

    Your so called arguments aimed personally toward me are never equal or opposite, Instead they are insulting and defamatory.

    What`s ridiculous is that even if I complain about it, You will get away with it yet again.

    You`re truly sick if you think it`s amusing to libel someone like you did, And you would definitely get `Bent out of shape` If it was done to you.
  134. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    madest: abortion was not made legal through a `law`, It was found legal through a court ruling. There is a big difference between the two.

    Btw, Many states do put legal restrictions on abortions that have been found to be constitutional.
  135. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:07 pm
    @madest: "State laws cannot trump federal laws. It`s exactly why abortion is legal all across America."

    So if the marijuana legalization bill in CA would have passed, you would have supported the feds shutting it down?
  136. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    Good one, AJ :-)
  137. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    @madest: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    So now, according to this, it`s legal for Mormons to have multiple wives? Hmmmm.....
  138. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:13 pm
    No. Your point was federal law trumps state law.

    I know you would not argue that point in the marijuana debate. You would flip flop.
  139. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    @madest: "State laws cannot trump federal laws."

    This is what I was responding to. Sorry for not reading it all.

    Now answer my question about Mormons and polygamy, and the first amendment.
  140. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    madest: Yous just sank your own argument with Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,....

    It does not say, "Congress shall allow religious law". In fact, Blocking this law could be considered a de facto `establishment of religion` into our courts.
  141. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    Yeah madest. Going by your argument, Mormons can have multiple wives, and satanists and sacrifice animals. Both are fixtures of those religions, and both are illegal on a federal level.
  142. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    Waistung was better.

    Also, the argument is cyclical because there IS NO CLEAR ANSWER!
  143. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    Madest: The constitution was written and signed on parchment, Not hemp. True there were initial drafts of it written on hemp paper, But the final draft is on animal parchment.

    Once again, You fail civics class.
  144. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    madest: Obviously not, AJ trounced you as well.
  145. Profile photo of lames415
    lames415 Male 18-29
    8 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    So if the marijuana legalization bill in CA would have passed, you would have supported the feds shutting it down?

    The feds criminalize/regulate marijuana and other narcotics under the commerce clause. The argument isn`t that the feds don`t have the authority to make marijuana a schedule I drug, but rather that they should not.

    Here the state is singling out one particular set of religious law (one notably absent in any OK decision I`ve ever read) for disapproval. This seems to run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

    It also forbids reference to international law, which could have some Supremacy Clause problems too, but that issue doesn`t seem to stir the pot as much as the sharia portion.
  146. Profile photo of Standards
    Standards Male 18-29
    564 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    religions only here so people have stuff to do on the weekends
  147. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    lames: The operative word of the `establishment clause` is establishment, Not `exclusion`.

    This law wouldn`t restrict anyone from practicing islam as their religion, It only excludes Sharia from being included into our courts.
  148. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    Aj- Satanists (at least the Laveyan type) don`t sacrifice animals, however religions like Voodoo and Santeria most certainly do. And they have all the constitutional protection allowing them to do so. The only time a religious law can be impeded is when it threatens somebody else`s freedom, like what would be the case in a *human* sacrificing religion or in the case of polygamy.

    Actually by this logic you should *not* be for the Cali vote on gay marriage, this falls under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process clause.

    No one has their Constitutionally guaranteed rights put up to a majority vote, the rights of the minority are not determined by the whim of the majority.
  149. Profile photo of yanging
    yanging Male 18-29
    172 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    I like how people are asking madest to defend certain religious rights with the first amendment when, in reality, these rulings regarding mormonism and satanism take into account multiple factors such as privacy, rights of the federal government vs. state government, and freedom of speech.
  150. Profile photo of kingpong
    kingpong Male 18-29
    639 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    Umm... Why would Sharia Law be considered in the first place? I though separation of church and state was one of those things we fought a revolution over.
  151. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    Without special protection, however, US law does not allow judges to let people off the hook when they break laws in the name of religion.

    But if the law of that religion is considered, then they would not be breaking the law.

    Let`s say I was a follower of a religion within which it was legal to steal from people who have big feet.

    If my religious law is considered, I have not broken the law if I steal from someone with big feet.
  152. Profile photo of lames415
    lames415 Male 18-29
    8 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 3:21 pm
    lames: The operative word of the `establishment clause` is establishment, Not `exclusion`.

    Well the text is about creating laws respecting an establishment of religion. And, if you think about it, how else would a government establish a religion over the others if not by outlawing them? In any event, the last 200 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence sort of teases this out. The clause doesn`t just disallow the government from establishing a national religion, but also from giving preference to one over all the others. This is the same clause that is used when the government hangs up the 10 commandments (as a court tried to do not long ago), or puts religious displays up.
  153. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    QueenZira, go f*** yourself, you stupid arrogant kuhnt.
  154. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    And may the Goddess kiss you to sleep every night with pleasant dreams and bright starry skies watched over by Her silver mirror.

    Namaste.
  155. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    QueenZira, I accept your apology. I`m happy to hear that you agree with me and admit that you were wrong.
  156. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Not in this particular (or really any other) lifetime.
  157. Profile photo of Seastone
    Seastone Female 18-29
    613 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    Wait... since when was religion allowed to be considered in a court of law? Well, if I`m an old, old-school Jew and believe in an eye for an eye, does that mean I can demand that someone who blinded me be blinded in turn as his punishment? If that was the case, then this would make sense, but it`s not.

    No other religious laws are considered (though obviously moral opinions stemming from them are), so why should the Muslims be treated differently?
  158. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    QueenZira, are you saying that I read something into your post that you didn`t actually say or mean? I`m shocked, SKOCKED! Where in the world would I EVER have gotten such an idea?
  159. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 5:13 pm
    @seastone: Would the Supreme Court`s decision on the sacrifice of animals fit the bill?

    Animals can`t be killed for non-food reasons EXCEPT for religious reasons?
  160. Profile photo of LuckyDave
    LuckyDave Male 18-29
    675 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 5:39 pm
    When was it said that they were ever using Sharia law? When was it ever said they were using Jewish law? Hindu? Buddhist? Catholic? I think some people are just getting out of hand, if Islamic law is barred, then so should all other religious law, and only the law of the land should rule. This is how it should be anyway, but seeing as barring Catholic law wouldn`t pass for obvious reasons, then it simply must refer back to the separation of church and state, which if I recall correctly, already bars this sort of freaking thing from happening in the first place.
  161. Profile photo of mvangild
    mvangild Male 30-39
    527 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    I think the judge did the right thing here. The law violates separation of church and state. Of course, that should also mean that the various "blue laws" across the country should also be struck down.
  162. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm
    "Of course, that should also mean that the various "blue laws" across the country should also be struck down"

    Well, open a liquor store, keep it open on Sunday in a city where it`s illegal, then take your case to the Supreme Court.
  163. Profile photo of axeman929
    axeman929 Male 30-39
    195 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 6:36 pm
    You can kill any animal you own...you just can not have them fight each other, mutilate them, or not feed them, or abuse them.
  164. Profile photo of michaelcsr
    michaelcsr Male 40-49
    559 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    Now, I have been accused of being liberal at times, so some people will look at me in shock when I say this. If 70% of Okies voted for it, THAT makes it constitutional. The separation of chruch and state only means that the church can`t persicute you for not folowing thier doctorine. That`s what freedom of religion is. If the people of OK want no consideration for sharia law, then it`s their right to do so. Now, that Federal judge is unconstitutional.
  165. Profile photo of pyrrhios
    pyrrhios Male 30-39
    185 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    The problem is the law is a solution without a problem. Also, not mentioned in the article is the interference the law would have had with trade agreements with corporations from outside the united states. It is simply a very bad law, regardless of it`s specificity toward a faith, violating that whole 1st amendment thing.
  166. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36215 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    We need to reconsider the wisdom of doing anything that 70% of Okies approve of.
  167. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    @Gerry1of1-
    What do you mean by that? Everyone knows that Oklahoma is the Land of Enlightenment.
  168. Profile photo of Jackson13W
    Jackson13W Male 30-39
    155 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    woah... just going to throw this out there. the beginning of the first amendment:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
  169. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    "If 70% of Okies voted for it, THAT makes it constitutional."

    *facepalm*
  170. Profile photo of phoneybone
    phoneybone Male 18-29
    1744 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    wouldn`t considering Sharia law in the first place violate US`s separation of church and state? I know I know, that`s no where *officially* in the law, just saying.
  171. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 1:00 am
    Baal: If I had ever used such an `example` aimed toward you I`d be banned, But you`ve gotten away with it, More than once.

    Actually, scroll back to page 6 or so where AJ made a comment about Baal being a suicide bomber. And note that he is not banned.

    It`s funny that you claim Baal`s insults are his last resort, when it was clearly just an example. Anyone`s name would have sufficed.
    In fact, taking offence at things that are clearly not intended as an insult and demanding apologies seems to be YOUR last resort, for when you know the argument is lost. A quick focus change to the disgusting insult and you`ve grabbed the moral high ground.

    Sadly, that tactic is painfully transparent.
  172. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 2:58 am
    There are many comments here that seem to suggest the article hasn`t been read.

    There are multiple pages in the article.

    Examples are given of what is currently considered with regard to law. Those are the only type of things considered.

    None of the scare-tactic scenarios presented by posters here, are real scenarios.

    "So if my religion says eye for an eye does that mean..."
    No. It doesn`t. This law wouldn`t have changed that.

    US law ranks above all other law. If it`s illegal at the top, it`s illegal. Full stop. Unless SPECIFICALLY excluded (Kosher laws for food).

    If it is ALREADY legal, then a judge can consider any law they like with regard to various civil matters. A judge can, for example, consider Islamic Law to determine if someone has broken conditions for their marriage.

    There is nothing wrong with that.
  173. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 3:13 am
    "So if the marijuana legalization bill in CA would have passed, you would have supported the feds shutting it down?"

    If federally it was deemed unconstitutional, sure.
    The protocol is important.

    Personally, I`m happy to change various parts of the constitution. I`m all in favor of taking away everyone`s guns.

    However, do I think that the constitution should be ignored, modified, altered, and messed around with willy nilly? No.

    You obey the laws, in the order they have applied to them. You petition to change those laws that are seen to be wrong or unfair, but you do all of that through the processes put in place to do so.

    In this case, there are at least 2 elements above Oklahoma state law, that say this is unlawful.

    Ergo, no. Even before the fact that the law is stupid, fear-mongering, vague drivel.
  174. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 3:22 am
    A judge can, for example, consider Islamic Law to determine if someone has broken conditions for their marriage.
    But only if there is a marriage contract which outlines it. You couldn`t just get married `normally`, then turn round and say "my wife`s behaviour X violates Sharia law, therefore I get everything in the divorce". You`d have to have a signed contract beforehand, in which case it just becomes like any other contract. I have no problem with that - contract law is contract law.
  175. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 3:43 am
    Sortof Almighty.

    You`re talking about getting married under one legal system, and getting divorced in another.

    However, legally "Past Conduct" is a factor in deciding how money is distributed between two divorcing partners (at least in the UK).

    This doesn`t mean "she ate bacon, I want more money" is valid, because it doesn`t apply to the marriage. Certain marriage contracts may also have vague stipulations on "conduct".

    In those cases a cheating partner could effectively be considered to have acted in a way that was inappropriate to the expectations of the agreement.

    In a case where they were married under another system/tradition where polygamy/polyandry is allowed, sleeping with another partner may not result in the same ruling, as the partner might not be able to show a reasonable expectation of exclusivity in the relationship.
  176. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 3:53 am
    In other words, trying to be as simple as possible.

    Two people get married under X tradition.
    "Marriage" has a specific meaning in that tradition.
    The contract is vague and states that if a partner acts in a way not consistent with marriage, they have obligation Y.

    Assuming all the above falls within local law, depending on X, whether either partner has obligation Y, can reasonably be considered with regard to X, as opposed to the definition under the local tradition.

    All this falls under "Past Conduct".
  177. Profile photo of PierreJeanFR
    PierreJeanFR Male 40-49
    1360 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 4:22 am
    boring
  178. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 6:01 am
    "Actually, scroll back to page 6 or so where AJ made a comment about Baal being a suicide bomber. And note that he is not banned."

    HEY I WAS KIDDING! :) :)
  179. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 8:35 am
    "If 70% of Okies voted for it, THAT makes it constitutional."

    *facepalm*
  180. Profile photo of mmill928
    mmill928 Female 18-29
    275 posts
    December 1, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    It might be alright if it said that no religious law should be considered in criminal cases. But singling out Sharia while also not limiting it to criminal cases makes it very discriminatory.
  181. Profile photo of TIMESWORDSMN
    TIMESWORDSMN Male 13-17
    304 posts
    December 2, 2010 at 9:16 am
    This is completely beside the point, but when i clicked the link there was a small video down in the corner that advertised an "IRobot Roomba".
    Being a complete nerd I immediately drew connections with Issac Asimov`s `I, Robot`. This brought many hilarious visions to my mind of Roomba`s that became self aware.
    Here`s the website for it.
  182. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    January 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm
    Oh America

Leave a Reply