popsjumper 2 #151 January 12, 2012 Quote>BAN? Remove em from the bench for even trying. Go for it! Remove every Oklahoma judge who has applied Sharia law instead of US or Oklahoma law to any case. I'm all for it. I'll even wait while you find one. Should I hold my breath or go make popcorn?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #152 January 12, 2012 I already provided a link that references 50"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
popsjumper 2 #153 January 12, 2012 Entire post edited: Ok...forget it. You guys have gone around and around the bush so many fucking times that all sense of point and counter-point has been lost. You've created a big fucking black hole. I can't take it anymore. So here's my thought and you can take it or leave it. I don't care. Fuck it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #154 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteHowever, 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. Does that mean that they would have to write new laws to cover each individual religious law and have a ruling on the constitutionality of each of them? As I understand the rejection, it only addresses Sharia Law because that was only what was written in. It doesn't mean that Sharia Law gets preference over any other religious law. Am I off base here? Maybe the double negative is confusing me. You are correct. The troll is just trolling again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #155 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteHowever, 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. Does that mean that they would have to write new laws to cover each individual religious law and have a ruling on the constitutionality of each of them? Changing the language of the amendment to refer to any religious law would cover the situation, I think. QuoteAs I understand the rejection, it only addresses Sharia Law because that was only what was written in. It doesn't mean that Sharia Law gets preference over any other religious law. Am I off base here? Maybe the double negative is confusing me. One of the points of the case is about his will and sharia law. If the will is legal in it's distribution per state law, why does sharia matter? If it's not legal per state law, why should sharia overrule state law, and does that not fly in the face of the current employment of the separation clause? I can envision the case being used in an attempt to force the state to allow precepts of sharia that could go counter to state law. There's no way to know for sure until a case comes up, but the *possibility* is there. Other religions don't have equivalent cases to be used in the same way, unless there's cases regarding canon law that haven't been mentioned.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #156 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteHowever, 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. Does that mean that they would have to write new laws to cover each individual religious law and have a ruling on the constitutionality of each of them? As I understand the rejection, it only addresses Sharia Law because that was only what was written in. It doesn't mean that Sharia Law gets preference over any other religious law. Am I off base here? Maybe the double negative is confusing me. You are correct. The troll is just trolling again. Nice PA.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #157 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHowever, 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. Does that mean that they would have to write new laws to cover each individual religious law and have a ruling on the constitutionality of each of them? As I understand the rejection, it only addresses Sharia Law because that was only what was written in. It doesn't mean that Sharia Law gets preference over any other religious law. Am I off base here? Maybe the double negative is confusing me. You are correct. The troll is just trolling again. Nice PA. If the shoe fits...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #158 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHowever, 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. Does that mean that they would have to write new laws to cover each individual religious law and have a ruling on the constitutionality of each of them? As I understand the rejection, it only addresses Sharia Law because that was only what was written in. It doesn't mean that Sharia Law gets preference over any other religious law. Am I off base here? Maybe the double negative is confusing me. You are correct. The troll is just trolling again. Nice PA. If the shoe fits... Looks *great* on you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
