It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Someone336
yeah the constitution is a protection from government and religion.
guess you never heard of the american who killed his daughter because she dated outside of her religion
guess you never heard about the american who raped and beat his wife because she was his property.
and that case the judged ruled in the husbands favor.
muslim americans who practiced sharia and shaira superceeds american law,
yeah i am for the constitution but where were the constitutional rights for those victims and the many others
cafeteria conservative give me a break.
I’m well aware of the differences between the ‘and’ and ‘or’ conjunctions, thanks.
Originally posted by TonyBravada
And B, there's a key word (key words) in there... "and" or "and which." ... In any case, legal terminology is very clear in the difference between an "and" and an "or" in a law; and means both, not either.
Because I understood you to be defending the statute. If you weren’t/aren’t, as I assumed, then I misunderstood your position and we’re actually in agreement.
So if your point is that it targets Islam then why even argue the point by quoting me?
The crime is murder, not the religious beliefs of the criminal. This may shock you, but Christians murder people too.
Originally posted by neo96
guess you never heard of the american who killed his daughter because she dated outside of her religion
No. The courts apply the laws used in formulating a contract. Marriage is a contract. The persons in question were, IIRC, married abroad and married according to sharia or local religious laws.
muslim americans who practiced sharia and shaira superceeds american law
Originally posted by neo96
READ UP the new jersey court case about the husband and wife where the judged ruled in favor of the husband to do whatever he wanted per his religion.
LOOK IT UP.
First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA, said, "The Shariah law debate is a total distraction," and he noted that in the U.S., two people may sign a contract and give an Islamic court the power to determine if the contract is breached. In a 2003 case, for instance, a Texas district court ruled that the private "Texas Islamic Court" should decide the amount a husband owed his wife in a divorce proceeding -- because when they got married, they had signed a contract specifying that was what they wanted.
But assault is illegal, regardless of any contract, Volokh said, and the Appellate Court in New Jersey ruled correctly.
Read more: www.foxnews.com...
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by aptness
did you forget to mention that she went home and could have been raped and murdered while it was in appeal?
all in the name of religious freedom.
laws only have one chance to get it right and it failed.
No one is asking you to defend a religion. We would, however, appreciate if you accurately represented the facts.
Originally posted by neo96
and i am not sitting here defending a religion that says they can do whatever they want to.