rushmc 23
rushmc 23
QuoteI'm really sorry that you completely ignore what so many people are trying to tell you, Mike.
The only one I have seen doing this is 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
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNobody is suggesting that. .
Exactly
Yet you pick one and not the other
Marc, have you met me? You should certainly know by now I pick NO religion over another.
that is why I am surprised by your postion
You seem to have no problem with a court of the US using Sharia law yet I think it is safe to assume you would NOT want a court to use canon law
This puzzles me
See, this is where Oklahoma went wrong. If they had suggested that laws can't take RELIGIOUS LAW into account, they would have been fine. Of course that would have never flew because there are too many people that think law comes from religion in a contorted weird way and they LIKE the rules of their own particular religions.
But they didn't . . . they singled one out. Ya can't do that and stay Constitutional.
To make your position here have any validity, you have to say that Sharia is a religion
Is that what you are doing?
Sharia law is Islamic law. The two are inseparable. How do you not know this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNobody is suggesting that. .
Exactly
Yet you pick one and not the other
Marc, have you met me? You should certainly know by now I pick NO religion over another.
that is why I am surprised by your postion
You seem to have no problem with a court of the US using Sharia law yet I think it is safe to assume you would NOT want a court to use canon law
This puzzles me
See, this is where Oklahoma went wrong. If they had suggested that laws can't take RELIGIOUS LAW into account, they would have been fine. Of course that would have never flew because there are too many people that think law comes from religion in a contorted weird way and they LIKE the rules of their own particular religions.
But they didn't . . . they singled one out. Ya can't do that and stay Constitutional.
To make your position here have any validity, you have to say that Sharia is a religion
Is that what you are doing?
Sharia law is Islamic law. The two are inseparable. How do you not know this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
Same post billvon provided
Doenst change a thing
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,076
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>YOU are defending a ruling that says courts in OK CAN use them is they chose
I am defending a ruling that says that judges can consider anything they choose when coming to a verdict - provided they rule per the laws of the state and the country. Do you object to that?
>And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory
>by picking one religion over another
A judge can _consider_ canon law or Sharia law if they so choose, as they might do if someone was married under canon or Sharia law, or wrote a will under canon or Sharia law. They cannot base a ruling on it.
I am defending a ruling that says that judges can consider anything they choose when coming to a verdict - provided they rule per the laws of the state and the country. Do you object to that?
>And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory
>by picking one religion over another
A judge can _consider_ canon law or Sharia law if they so choose, as they might do if someone was married under canon or Sharia law, or wrote a will under canon or Sharia law. They cannot base a ruling on it.
rushmc 23
Quote>YOU are defending a ruling that says courts in OK CAN use them is they chose
I am defending a ruling that says that judges can consider anything they choose when coming to a verdict - provided they rule per the laws of the state and the country. Do you object to that?Nope, and that is all the OK vote was about. There is not a religious componet to it UNLES you claim Sharia is a religion
>And by saying NO to the use of canon law YOU are being discriminatory
>by picking one religion over another
A judge can _consider_ canon law or Sharia law if they so choose, as they might do if someone was married under canon or Sharia law, or wrote a will under canon or Sharia law. They cannot base a ruling on it.
But they have!
See my reply to SkyDDecker
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
A judge can _consider_ canon law or Sharia law if they so choose, as they might do if someone was married under canon or Sharia law, or wrote a will under canon or Sharia law. They cannot base a ruling on it.
Another point
If judges, by law, can not base a ruling on it, why consider it to begin with?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,076
>If judges, by law, can not base a ruling on it, why consider it to begin with?
Because the fact that a man is married to a woman might have some bearing on the case, even if the marriage was done under canon or Sharia law.
Because the fact that a man is married to a woman might have some bearing on the case, even if the marriage was done under canon or Sharia law.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNobody is suggesting that. .
Exactly
Yet you pick one and not the other
Marc, have you met me? You should certainly know by now I pick NO religion over another.
that is why I am surprised by your postion
You seem to have no problem with a court of the US using Sharia law yet I think it is safe to assume you would NOT want a court to use canon law
This puzzles me
See, this is where Oklahoma went wrong. If they had suggested that laws can't take RELIGIOUS LAW into account, they would have been fine. Of course that would have never flew because there are too many people that think law comes from religion in a contorted weird way and they LIKE the rules of their own particular religions.
But they didn't . . . they singled one out. Ya can't do that and stay Constitutional.
I don't disagree - they *should* have stated 'religious law' and not 'sharia law'.
However, that doesn't mean that the decision does *not* now give an advantage to sharia law over the laws of other religions (are there any others besides canon for the catholics?) due to the specific wording, since the decision can be used in court cases referencing sharia law.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
See, this is where Oklahoma went wrong. If they had suggested that laws can't take RELIGIOUS LAW into account, they would have been fine. Of course that would have never flew because there are too many people that think law comes from religion in a contorted weird way and they LIKE the rules of their own particular religions.
But they didn't . . . they singled one out. Ya can't do that and stay Constitutional.
To make your position here have any validity, you have to say that Sharia is a religion
Is that what you are doing?
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln