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.

 

READ!: Courts can be tried under Islamic law? US Courts say yes...

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I don't want to trail too far off topic, but we really don't know when the fetus develops a consciousness/awareness. Technically, it is not alive until it is aware. Then again, we don't consider acorns to be trees, so why should we consider a fetus, in early stages of development, to be a human being?

Regardless of Paul's opinion on abortion, he wants to let states decide. You stated earlier that this would cause some problems, but I'm not so sure that it would be a bad thing. It would create much diversity and allow like minded people to run their own state the way they want. It's pretty obvious that having federal laws has done little for us, and the laws being passed at a federal level certainly do not represent the desires of the American people; if we're truly to be a government run by and for the people, then we have to resort to a state-by-state majority vote system. If a law is passed which a minority feels threatened by, they are more than free to move (you could argue that not everyone can afford to move, but this is beside the point; if they are against the majority vote, they should perhaps put up or shut up). We should be striving for the greatest good for the greatest number; we can't please everyone, but even 70% is a pretty sound amount.

Even if we do resort to a majority vote system, I believe the constitution still applies and the rights granted by the constitution to minority groups would be absent to alienation. A majority system would help settle issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. However, it would also make more liberal states a more desirable place to live for liberals, and more conservative states a more desirable place to live for conservatives. I think it makes a lot of sense to adopt this model; our current one really isn't doing us any good.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
For the same reason this law was ruled unconstitutional, the application of Sharia law by the courts or the government would be unconstitutional. The ruling does not say courts can apply Sharia law to U.S. citizens. It says Sharia law cannot be singled out and specifically prohibited from use.

But the idea that it would be constitutional for it to be used in the courts or by the government in the first place - the premise on which the legislation appears to be based - was a non sequitur in my opinion. Equal protection, separation between church and state, etc.
edit on 1/12/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Well my religion claims I should be immune to all human charges and never trailed can i join the club?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Question #1)

What the F### does religious or international law serve in our state courts in the first place?


If I'm a Muslim wife and my husband and I are having an issue, we can go to the court to settle it. Remember, some people are VERY tied to their religion and believe that it is the governing authority. Why shouldn't they have access to it?

It's not like courts are going to use Sharia Law unless the participants ASK them to. That's how it works.

It's kind of like this: If you and your wife were having a dispute and you went to a pastor to resolve it. Only you want his advice to be binding, so you appoint him your legal adviser and authority... That's really all Sharia Law in the US is. Muslims use the Sharia court to settle personal and private disputes.



Question #2)

Why the HELL do courts keep telling states that vote SEVENTY PERCENT to pass a law to piss-off, that their votes don't count anymore.


Read my signature. Majority Rules is NOT our way of government. There are rights that cannot be violated by laws, no matter HOW many vote for it.


I agree with a lot of what you had wrote, and I do see how a state voting on a law like this does indeed discriminate unfairly against those of a certain religion.

What I don't understand is why a state should be obligated to support their ancient laws, or worse yet make them BINDING....what a terrible idea....

They (all the religious folks) have a right to their religion and to use their religion in their families lives by obeying and adhering to their chosen systems however dogmatically they like. I support them 1000% in this respect!

However when it comes to the laws enforced by our government on the populous, ancient religious punishments have no place for endorsement in our current society.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
_________________________

It doesn't matter and has absolutely no effect.
kosher and halal laws will continue, regardless of
government or secular laws.

_________________________



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

_________________________

It doesn't matter and has absolutely no effect.
kosher and halal laws will continue, regardless of
government or secular laws.

_________________________


A law you apply to yourself, or a standard that some company applies to is their own concern and not that of a court.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


You'd think, but they keep taking a run at making it applicable anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join