READ!: Courts can be tried under Islamic law? US Courts say yes..., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:08 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by TDawgRex

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Hence why I say people who vote emotionally, rather than rationally should not be allowed to vote.

I understand the sentiment, but advocating disallowing 'certain people' to vote kind of gives me the willies. If you're just stating your opinion on a forum, I can agree that people should vote on ISSUES, not "politics".

But enforcing that somehow? No, thanks. The second I put someone's right to vote up for scrutiny, I put mine there as well.

But the Majority should still rule when it comes to voting.

So... just to be clear, is that your answer to my question?:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Would you be in favor of a state voting to USE Sharia law? What if Michigan voted and 60% of them voted to use Sharia Law instead of Christian Law... Are you going to support that majority? What if your state did it?

You WOULD support your state voting to use Sharia Law... if the majority voted for it, that is?

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:15 PM by Aeons

Ignore this ridiculous argument.

Common law is NOT Christian law. Selling as such is a bit of propaganda to make you swallow this nonsense.

Religious laws are not acceptable - the problem is that *one* was singled out. Open the ban up to all religions and this problem goes away.

Laws are not voted on by most populaces, and certainly not as a whole scale replacement of the system as Mr. Benevolance is selling here. They are made in the legislature, or as common law as precedence.

If a law is useful, it will be negotiated on the floor of the legislative assembly and if it is being made elsewhere then your system is fundamentally broken.

ONE LAW.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:29 PM by sdcigarpig

Having read the law the way it was written and the reason behind it, is a good idea, but the law itself was going to be found unconstitutional as it targets one group of people.

It specifically mentions Sharia in the wording and that specifically targets those who are islamic and violates the first admendment of the Constitution. Had it in stead been written to leave that out, to be very specific to state that only the laws of the United States, it would have been ok, and there would be no legal challenge.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:35 PM by TDawgRex

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Hmmm? I understand your point as well. I've saved your Sig link for further study. I liked what I saw after a quick look, but didn't look the entire site over.

I have a inkling that if the majority voted to enforce Sharia in my State and moving out of said State was not a option. I may just take up arms.

But yes, the minority must always be represented in a fair and just manner.

I'm a simple kind of guy and just think that some laws are just not needed. Seat belt laws for example, even if they do save lives. Not wearing defies common sense and to be truthful, I have little sympathy for those who fail to display common sense in a consistent manner.

But that opens a whole 'nuther can of worms, don't it?

edit on 11-1-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:36 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by Aeons

Originally posted by Aeons
Common law is NOT Christian law.

I never said that Common Law is Christian Law. I said some of our laws are based on religion.

Laws are not voted on by most populaces, and certainly not as a whole scale replacement of the system as Mr. Benevolance is selling here.

I am selling no such thing. I asked a hypothetical question.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:50 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by TDawgRex

Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I'm a simple kind of guy and just think that some laws are just not needed.

I agree completely. I'm simple, myself.

And I think we have too many laws now and too many that aren't being enforced. We don't need more laws, that's for sure!

But Sharia Law (and any religious law that's in practice in the US) is a separate animal than our US Common Law. It's something that operates WITHIN our US law. If we think in terms of "laws" as they are commonly referred to in the US, EVERYONE here has to follow those laws. Not so with religious law. People who are practicing their religion (first amendment) are requesting to be governed according to their religion. And it MUST also be legal under US law. It's really nothing to be upset about.

In some religions, law can be thought of as the ordering principle of reality; knowledge as revealed by a God defining and governing all human affairs. Law, in the religious sense, also includes codes of ethics and morality which are upheld and required by the God.

Religious Law

I'm an atheist. I don't want ANY PART of religious law. One is just as 'bad' as the other, to me. So I will not request it and I will fight US laws that use religion as their basis (like anti-abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws, etc.) But I also firmly believe in the Constitution and the right to practice one's religion. So, I support people having the CHOICE; to have the option of using religious laws, as long as all parties agree on the terms.

That's FREEDOM, baby!

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:50 PM by Aeons

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticWould you be in favor of a state voting to USE Sharia law? What if Michigan voted and 60% of them voted to use Sharia Law instead of Christian Law... Are you going to support that majority? What if your state did it?

You most certainly did.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:55 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by Aeons

You misunderstand. I said nothing about a populace voting. State laws are made by the legislature voting on them, not the populace. Now that that's clear, can we move along?

It was just a hypothetical question. I'm not selling anything. I'm just giving my opinion for free.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:56 PM by LucidDreamer85

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

Religious law is for those people are are soooooo dumb they can't even figure out what common sense is.

They are so behind genetically and mentally that they can't think for themselves...

They do as they are told. They always obey.......

even when told to do something that would seem stupid.

Can't wait til 2013

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:59 PM by sweetnlow

religious law cannot work for all peoples therefore it cannot apply especially in this country, if they need sharia law to live then they must move back to the nations they came from that lives this way, like arabia and afganistan, where they have NO RIGHTS

I say we just tell them to get the hell out.......GET OUT

edit on 11-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:06 PM by ldyserenity

reply to post by Kafternin

So WTH is this saying then???

“Narrated Abu Sai’id Al-Khudri: The Prophet
said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal half
of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He
said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of the
woman’s mind.” Bukhari vol.3 no.826 p.502.
So if a Muslim man were to rape a Muslim
woman, the man’s word would count twice as
much as the woman’s. The word of a non-
Muslim does not count at all in a court of law
against a Muslim. Muslim man rapes a non-
Muslim woman, even if a second non-Muslim
woman is present, his word (that he did not do
it) would count equal to the word of both of
them.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
said in an annual report that one woman is
raped every three hours in Pakistan. Even
worse, 72% of all women in police custody in
Pakistan are physically and sexually abused.
The Woman’s Action Forum says that 75% of
all women in jail are under the charge of
“zina” (fornication). It was never stated how
many men, if any, were in jail for that. See Why
I Am Not A Muslim p.324 for information and
examples.

Menorah.org
Are you seriously that intellectually deficient?

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:13 PM by Aeons

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Aeons

You misunderstand. I said nothing about a populace voting. State laws are made by the legislature voting on them, not the populace. Now that that's clear, can we move along? It was just a hypothetical question. I'm not selling anything. I'm just giving my opinion for free.

Uh huh.

State's do not vote in entire systems of legal framework.

You're clarity - it resembles propaganda so well.

ONE LAW.

edit on 2012/1/11 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:20 PM by ldyserenity

Here is another very good article on it:
Top Ten Reasons Sharia law should be kept out of societies

edit on 11-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: fix title

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:23 PM by YouAreLiedTo

Ok, I issue a question...

If two islamics are in a criminal trial for attempted homicide, and the state says they will prosecute no matter if the victim wants to press charges or not...

What happens if the victim agrees to an Islamic trial and agrees that the defendant was justified in his actions under Islamic law?

Does the prosecution say screw you, you tried to kill someone and lock him up? Or do they let him go under Islamic law, knowing he might do it again?

THIS is what we are getting at...

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:26 PM by ldyserenity

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

Honestly I am more worried about a non muslim woman's testimony being "written off" under Sharia law so the muslim men can get away with rape.

edit on 11-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: spelling

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:28 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Aeons
State's do not vote in entire systems of legal framework.

I have no idea what that means. It's clear you think we disagree with something, but I don't know what you're saying, so it's hard to know for sure.

Originally posted by Aeons
You're clarity - it resembles propaganda so well.

I'm what now? Again, I have no idea... The only propaganda I'm spreading is my opinion.

ONE LAW.

No clue what that means either.

I've tried to have a discussion with you, but we seem to be speaking somewhat different languages. Take care, now.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:33 PM by Aeons

You claim earlier that people don't "get" the law and you do, but then try here to paint yourself as someone who doesn't comprehend the concept of a legal framework and the role of the legislature.

Okay then.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:33 PM by Annee

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Ok, I issue a question...

If two islamics are in a criminal trial for attempted homicide, and the state says they will prosecute no matter if the victim wants to press charges or not....

I don't think Sharia law would cover this type crime in America.

I think Sharia law only covers civil type crimes.

edit on 11-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:33 PM by Aeons

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Ok, I issue a question...

If two islamics are in a criminal trial for attempted homicide, and the state says they will prosecute no matter if the victim wants to press charges or not....

I don't think Sharia law would cover this type crime.

And you'd be wrong.

reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 03:39 PM by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Ok, I issue a question...

If two islamics are in a criminal trial for attempted homicide, and the state says they will prosecute no matter if the victim wants to press charges or not....

I don't think Sharia law would cover this type crime.

And you'd be wrong.