rushmc 23 #26 November 12, 2010 When I here US supreme court justices quoting and using International law for a US dispute I know the law is not foolish"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #27 November 12, 2010 >When I here US supreme court justices quoting and using >International law for a US dispute I know the law is not foolish Bad laws are bad laws, even if things make you mad. When people hear news stories about crimes committed with guns, they might as easily "know" that gun bans are not foolish. But their feelings on the subject do not justify passing bad laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #28 November 12, 2010 Quote>So...Ignore, we have fuck ups too.. No. The smart money is on recognizing that we have fuckups too - just like they do. We stopped arresting and prosecuting the fuck ups???? No Shit???? I'm goin back to being a fuck up.................. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #29 November 12, 2010 >We stopped arresting and prosecuting the fuck ups? No, we didn't. On either side. ========= Muslim Man Kills Pregnant Wife After Ultrasound Reveals Girl Police say West Bank Palestinian choked wife to death over ultrasound results; relatives say he was jealous of brother, who has nine sons. Palestinian police in the West Bank city of Nablus arrested a man on suspicion that he murdered his pregnant wife Wednesday night because an ultrasound examination showed that she was carrying a girl. ========== Muslim brothers arrested over string of recent honor killings Two brothers from Ramle, Ramadan and Khaled Musrati, were arrested yesterday on suspicion of involvement in four recent murders in the city of Lod. Police suspect the two were hired hit men in a string of so-called "honor killings," offering their services to locals who wanted to attack their family members. The investigation has reportedly linked them to the killings of Jawdat Jasus, Amal Halili, Sami Hijazi and Abir Abu Ktifan. =========== In 2009 a Turkish news agency reported that a 2-day old infant boy who was born out of wedlock had been killed for honor. The maternal grandmother of the infant, along with six other persons including a doctor who had reportedly accepted a bribe to not report the birth, were arrested. The grandmother is suspected of fatally suffocating the infant. The child's mother, 25, was also arrested; she stated that her family had made the decision to kill the child. ============ You were saying? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #30 November 12, 2010 Quote>We stopped arresting and prosecuting the fuck ups? No, we didn't. On either side. ========= Muslim Man Kills Pregnant Wife After Ultrasound Reveals Girl Police say West Bank Palestinian choked wife to death over ultrasound results; relatives say he was jealous of brother, who has nine sons. Palestinian police in the West Bank city of Nablus arrested a man on suspicion that he murdered his pregnant wife Wednesday night because an ultrasound examination showed that she was carrying a girl. ========== Muslim brothers arrested over string of recent honor killings Two brothers from Ramle, Ramadan and Khaled Musrati, were arrested yesterday on suspicion of involvement in four recent murders in the city of Lod. Police suspect the two were hired hit men in a string of so-called "honor killings," offering their services to locals who wanted to attack their family members. The investigation has reportedly linked them to the killings of Jawdat Jasus, Amal Halili, Sami Hijazi and Abir Abu Ktifan. =========== In 2009 a Turkish news agency reported that a 2-day old infant boy who was born out of wedlock had been killed for honor. The maternal grandmother of the infant, along with six other persons including a doctor who had reportedly accepted a bribe to not report the birth, were arrested. The grandmother is suspected of fatally suffocating the infant. The child's mother, 25, was also arrested; she stated that her family had made the decision to kill the child. ============ You were saying? So yoru agreeing with me...By "thier" laws, Honor killings are OK! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #31 November 12, 2010 >So yoru agreeing with me...By "thier" laws, Honor killings are OK! You must have missed the "arrested" part in every single one of the stories. By "their" laws, honor killings are not OK - just as by our laws, killing your wife is not OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #32 November 12, 2010 Quote>So yoru agreeing with me...By "thier" laws, Honor killings are OK! You must have missed the "arrested" part in every single one of the stories. By "their" laws, honor killings are not OK - just as by our laws, killing your wife is not OK. Follow those stories up...they walk, or get a slap on teh wrist.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #33 November 12, 2010 And thank you for readding threw my lousy typing skills, without pointing them out! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #34 November 12, 2010 >Follow those stories up...they walk, or get a slap on teh wrist.... So do some US wife-killers due to police screwups etc. Doesn't mean we are OK with wife killings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 November 12, 2010 Quote>When I here US supreme court justices quoting and using >International law for a US dispute I know the law is not foolish Bad laws are bad laws, even if things make you mad. When people hear news stories about crimes committed with guns, they might as easily "know" that gun bans are not foolish. But their feelings on the subject do not justify passing bad laws.Who is mad about a law? You?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #36 November 15, 2010 QuoteQuote>When I here US supreme court justices quoting and using >International law for a US dispute I know the law is not foolish Bad laws are bad laws, even if things make you mad. When people hear news stories about crimes committed with guns, they might as easily "know" that gun bans are not foolish. But their feelings on the subject do not justify passing bad laws.Who is mad about a law? You? No he is not mad. As we all know (at least those who can mace educated guesses), that the muslim world represents so many employment and equalities to women world wide, we know they mean well for them, and afford them every protection according their unequivocally and brighter way of the world view. How many "calm the wifey" episodes we don't hear about in a single year from these well meaning feminists empowerers....let see, I'll do as Wendy, look up wikipedia for a good answer."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #37 January 10, 2012 >We will see how this plays out Yes we will. And it looks like US Constitution 1, Islamophobes 0. Score one for the US. ================= BREAKING: 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals Declares Oklahoma’s Sharia Ban Unconstitutional Jan 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm The 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals struck down Oklahoma’s ban on Sharia law today, declaring that the Sooner State’s move violated the United States Constitution. In November 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative to prevent Sharia law from being used in the state, something that even the measure’s defenders could not identify ever happening. Following Oklahoma’s lead, Sharia hysteria soon made its way to other states – including Arizona, Louisiana, and Tennessee – orchestrated by a small group of anti-Muslims misinformation experts. . . Before the Oklahoma law could take effect, however, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking the measure while courts considered its constitutionality. The 10th Circuit, which includes one George W. Bush appointee, a Carter appointee, and an Obama appointee, heard oral arguments in September 2011. Today, the 10th Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower court’s permanent injunction. In a 37-page decision, the three-judge panel agreed that Oklahoma’s Sharia ban violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional. On page 32, the 10th Circuit identified the heart of the matter, that Oklahoma’s move had no basis in reality but simply singled out Muslims for discrimination. ======================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #38 January 10, 2012 Quotethe three-judge panel agreed that Oklahoma’s Sharia ban violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional. So, in other words, if Sharia law wasn't based upon religion, then the ban WOULD be allowed. It's only the religious aspect of it that makes it unconstitutional. Let this be a lesson to those who want to oppress others. Make all the oppressive laws you want, just don't make it part of your religion. Then you'll be good to go! Okay, that was tongue in cheek humor. But let's see how many people miss that, and instead go bat-shit crazy over that statement! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #39 January 10, 2012 >So, in other words, if Sharia law wasn't based upon religion, then the >ban WOULD be allowed. And if the ban solved an actual problem, and if the law did not single out a specific religion for discrimination - then yes, it might have had a better chance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #40 January 11, 2012 If anyone cares to read it, here is the 10th Circuit's opinion. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf The reasoning seems solid to me. As billvon accurately stated, this law tried to correct a problem that did not exist by singling out one group of people for discrimination. The law is flatly unconstitutional. Americans of any political view ought to be able to understand that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 January 11, 2012 QuoteIf anyone cares to read it, here is the 10th Circuit's opinion. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf The reasoning seems solid to me. As billvon accurately stated, this law tried to correct a problem that did not exist by singling out one group of people for discrimination. The law is flatly unconstitutional. Americans of any political view ought to be able to understand that. So, the court has ruled in FAVOR of a law based on religion? Interesting...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #42 January 11, 2012 ?? Could you clarify what you mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 January 11, 2012 Quote?? Could you clarify what you mean? They ruled in favor of sharia law, which is religion-based.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #44 January 11, 2012 Nice troll. Not taking the bait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 January 11, 2012 QuoteNice troll. Not taking the bait. Wasn't a troll. Maybe you should take those blinkers off every now and then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #46 January 11, 2012 If it wasn't a troll, and your comment was serious, then you need to read the opinion because you obviously don't understand what the court said. The court ruled against pointless discrimination against Muslims. The court did not rule "in favor of" Sharia law. When courts strike down laws that discriminate needlessly against certain groups, it doesn't mean the court is "in favor" of that group's beliefs. The Supreme Court has ruled that cross-burning is a constitutionally protected activity (unless it is done with the intent to intimidate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black. In other words, if a bunch of rednecks want to burn a cross out in the woods somewhere by themselves, that's OK with the Supreme Court. That does not mean the Supreme Court was "in favor of" cross-burning in the sense that they approve of it or applaud it. In this case, the Appellate Court ruled against discrimination, not "in favor of" Sharia law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #47 January 11, 2012 QuoteSo, the court has ruled in FAVOR of a law based on religion? Interesting... Right. So now some group of muslims is free to establish their own closed community somewhere, and rule their own little world using sharia law. It would be discriminatory to tell them they can't, so says SCOTUS. And then you have to wonder why Mormons can't have multiple wives under THEIR own religious laws - isn't that discriminatory against them? Or those religious groups that marry off their young daughters at age 14 and 15 to much older men? If we can't tell muslims they can't have sharia law, then how come we DO tell mormons they can't have mormon law, and we DO tell others that they can't marry off teen underage girls? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 January 11, 2012 QuoteIf it wasn't a troll, and your comment was serious, then you need to read the opinion because you obviously don't understand what the court said. There you go ASSuming again. From the complaint: QuoteHe objects to the amendment’s singling out his religion for negative treatment. He claims the amendment’s implementation would cause multiple adverse consequences, such as stigmatizing him and others who practice the Muslim faith, inhibiting the practice of Islam, disabling a court from probating his last will and testament (which contains references to Sharia law), limiting the relief Muslims can obtain from Oklahoma state courts, and fostering excessive entanglement between the government and his religion. Refusing to allow sharia law is 'inhibiting the practice of Islam'? Must have missed where that would prevent them from worshipping. Must have also missed where sharia law takes precedence over state law. He expects the state to submit to sharia law regarding his will, as well -again, must have missed where sharia law takes precedence over state law. He expects the state to submit to sharia law regarding relief from the courts - again, must have missed where sharia law is now ascendent over state law. QuoteThe court ruled against pointless discrimination against Muslims. Unproven, unless you can show where sharia law *IS* ascendant over state law. QuoteThe court did not rule "in favor of" Sharia law. The amendment stated that courts will use federal and state law, not sharia law, to decide cases. The AC blocked the amendment, thus allowing sharia law to be used in deciding cases. It fails Lemon and it fails Larson because the inclusion of sharia law discriminates in favor of Muslim claims. It is *not* neutral to all religions. The court was going to take it in the shorts from one side or the other - by upholding the argument for the inclusion of sharia law, they've now opened the door for the inclusion of Christian law.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #49 January 11, 2012 And if the Appellate or Supreme Court ruled that courts could not consider Christian law, my guess is that you'd be upset. Look, you (and John Rich) are reading way too much into this opinion. All the court did here was to reject a law it found discriminatory. The court didn't say that Sharia law was "ascendant" over state law, the court didn't say that anyone had to "submit" to Sharia law, the court certainly didn't say it would be OK for Muslims in America to refuse to obey federal or state law and live under Sharia law. All the court said was that it is likely unconstitutional to discriminate against a group based on nothing more than their religious beliefs. If you subscribe to any religion (or none at all) I'd think you would agree with that. The sky is not falling here. The court simply ruled against needless discrimination. That's all. Edit to add: OK you seem to have read the opinion. My bad for making a faulty assumption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 January 11, 2012 QuoteAnd if the Appellate or Supreme Court ruled that courts could not consider Christian law, my guess is that you'd be upset. Incorrect. QuoteLook, you (and John Rich) are reading way too much into this opinion. All the court did here was to reject a law it found discriminatory. The court didn't say that Sharia law was "ascendant" over state law, the court didn't say that anyone had to "submit" to Sharia law, the court certainly didn't say it would be OK for Muslims in America to refuse to obey federal or state law and live under Sharia law. If you read the claim, it is evident that Awad is claiming harm from the exclusion of sharia law. QuoteAll the court said was that it is likely unconstitutional to discriminate against a group based on nothing more than their religious beliefs. And it is equally unconstitutional to give advantage to a group over their religious beliefs. QuoteIf you subscribe to any religion (or none at all) I'd think you would agree with that. The sky is not falling here. The court simply ruled against needless discrimination. That's all. Exclusion of sharia law wasn't discrimination, because all religions were treated equally - there was no advantage or disadvantage based on religion. The courts are in a cleft stick - with this decision, if they don't allow the inclusion of sharia law, they'll be going against the decision. If they *do* allow the inclusion of sharia law, they give an advantage to Muslim claimants. I see this one going to the Supremes sooner or later.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
