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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Most attempts at new abortion laws are based on ethics.

The other is a definition differentiation, and no matter how much you think so people will merely start finding ways to identify the marriage of heterosexuals from the partnerships of other people. That's what language is for. And there are distinct legal difference between these partnerships, particularly in dissolution that is going to cause chaos because you're being stupid.

Most Sunday laws are gone.

But your integrity is so consistent that you'll of course immediately defend all these "blue laws" because you also want Shariah. RIGHT? Because you'd like to at least pretend that you have some internal integrity.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by buster2010
 


Most attempts at new abortion laws are based on ethics.

The other is a definition differentiation, and no matter how much you think so people will merely start finding ways to identify the marriage of heterosexuals from the partnerships of other people. That's what language is for. And there are distinct legal difference between these partnerships, particularly in dissolution that is going to cause chaos because you're being stupid.


Really?

And what distinct legal differences would there be between same gender marriage? And what chaos would that be?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


You wont just be forced to wear a full burqa, FOX news will be replaced by Al jahzeera all bacon products removed the stores, alcohol will be banned and you will be required to fast for Rammadam, if you fail to comply you will be stonned to death. Allah Akbar.



NO bacon? We're gonna haft to rethink this Sharia law thing.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by buster2010
 


Most attempts at new abortion laws are based on ethics.

The other is a definition differentiation, and no matter how much you think so people will merely start finding ways to identify the marriage of heterosexuals from the partnerships of other people. That's what language is for. And there are distinct legal difference between these partnerships, particularly in dissolution that is going to cause chaos because you're being stupid.

Most Sunday laws are gone.

But your integrity is so consistent that you'll of course immediately defend all these "blue laws" because you also want Shariah. RIGHT? Because you'd like to at least pretend that you have some internal integrity.


Did I ever say I wanted Sharia law? No I didn't. But a law cannot be passed that singles out one religion that's discrimination.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by buster2010
 


Most attempts at new abortion laws are based on ethics.

The other is a definition differentiation, and no matter how much you think so people will merely start finding ways to identify the marriage of heterosexuals from the partnerships of other people. That's what language is for. And there are distinct legal difference between these partnerships, particularly in dissolution that is going to cause chaos because you're being stupid.


Really?

And what distinct legal differences would there be between same gender marriage? And what chaos would that be?


Custody and tax issues are two examples. While I would love to go into it here, you can make another thread.

Language exists for a reason. Pretending distinctions don't matter is a manner for people to try to push agendas. Distinctions are defining.

As a quick example, in custody in divorce biological children can pass from the bio-parent to the non-bioparent, then in remarriage and another dissolution the custody is extended out to the new non-bio-parent like a daisy chain. They are granted extended legal status in parenthood that extends beyond the definitions and constraints of heterosexual relationships in a way that is designed to break the system. For example, if a child's biological parent on one side is homosexual that relationship's other partner is granted legal parent status, but on the other side if that bioparent is heterosexual their partner is specifically barred from legal parenthood without absolution of from the biological parent.

That you haven't heard much about this merely shows how few of these relationships exist, because these issues are all based out of existing law in Canada and its application.

The legal category should have allowed for a new form of legal partnership that could allow for the new issues. But no, that would be not good enough. It has to break the system, because really, you all just hate marriage not that you want to extend it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I think that Oklahoma should publicly defy any involvement by the US courts, This should come from the Governor in the Media. Words to the effect that "It's not going to fly here."

Then perhaps Oklahoma should invoke the NDAA and order the guard to arrest that judge. Offer a 50,000$ reward to any civilian who helps trap the judge, then the guard should squirrel her away, never to be seen again, on the grounds that the judge is deemed by the State of Oklahoma to be a domestic terrorist, acting as an agent of a hostile foreign power. When TPTB come after the judge, using the black dressed and armored terrorists, the standing orders ought be that .that she be executed immediately in her cell pending penetration by an attacking force.


She gets no lawyers, no visitors, no rights and per the agreement of the NDAA no one has to tell anyone about it. The judge will simply be FINISHED. After all the NDAA applies to everyone right?

(some did say that the judge was a female right?)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Custody and tax issues are two examples. While I would love to go into it here, you can make another thread.

Language exists for a reason. Pretending distinctions don't matter is a manner for people to try to push agendas. Distinctions are defining.


I was basing my question on the premise that marriage/custody/birth laws were equal.

Why you chose to include the statement you did - - I found odd.

My life is not without many complicated family issues. Try proving paternity when the father is dead.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Sacredsax
Someone correct me if I am wrong,


OK. Allowing people to use Sharia Law if they want to is not an official government endorsement of sharia law, neither is is prohibited. People use Canon law and Jewish Law all the time and no one complains... It's a matter of understanding that the US courts are NOT going to be implementing Sharia law for anyone but those who request it.


So, while *people* may use Canon and Jewish law "all the time," actual *judges* in *court* should not be using any religious law. Courts are there to enforce (a) statutes; and (b) civil law (where "civil law" is meant as the opposite to religious law) - the law amongst and between people who may have need of dispute resolution *outside* of a religious setting.

Also, would you supporters of sharia be comfortable having a judge enforce it against you?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LanceCorvette

Also, would you supporters of sharia be comfortable having a judge enforce it against you?


This is tiring


Sharia law would be selective only for those who believe and choose Sharia law.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LanceCorvette

Also, would you supporters of sharia be comfortable having a judge enforce it against you?


This is tiring


Sharia law would be selective only for those who believe and choose Sharia law.



Except when you want to shop around.

Jurisdiction shopping within jurisdictions. What a great system.
edit on 2012/1/11 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
Custody and tax issues are two examples. While I would love to go into it here, you can make another thread.

Language exists for a reason. Pretending distinctions don't matter is a manner for people to try to push agendas. Distinctions are defining.


I was basing my question on the premise that marriage/custody/birth laws were equal.

Why you chose to include the statement you did - - I found odd.

My life is not without many complicated family issues. Try proving paternity when the father is dead.



With a brother or grandfather's DNA. Even a paternal uncle.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I don't see any problem with this. At first when I read the title I thought it was a measure to allow the implementation of Sharia Law, but it is not at all so. It simply states that this proposed law is unconstitutional, just like Sharia Law would be. The fact that the majority of Oklahoma voters voted for this makes no difference. America is a lawful public that protects its minority citizens (throtetically of course, in reality it is often not so).

If one were to attempt to implement Sharia it would itslef be a violation of the American citizens first amendment right and quite possibly Americnas 4th amendment rights if they were to restrict the movement of women or other religous groups. It would itself be struck down in the supreme court, not to mention their would be a public uproar as most US citizens would refuse shuch xenophobic and uncivilized bigotry.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Except when you want to shop around.

Jurisdiction shopping within jurisdictions. What a great system.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Sharia Law would be used in conjunction with US law, where it does not violate it. Sharia law is not used INSTEAD of US secular law.


As I said.

This is tiring.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
With a brother or grandfather's DNA. Even a paternal uncle.


Non existent.

Or perhaps a grandmother - - - currently trying to sue for custody.

You do know about mitochondrial DNA - - right? Closest match.

Minimum lawyer/'court costs: $5000


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



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
Except when you want to shop around.

Jurisdiction shopping within jurisdictions. What a great system.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Sharia Law would be used in conjunction with US law, where it does not violate it. Sharia law is not used INSTEAD of US secular law.


As I said.

This is tiring.


Except when the Shariah ruling then is used in jurisdiction shopping.

This idea isn't tiring. It is down right stupid.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Majestic Lumen
 


I think many would agree with you in theory however on the other side of the coin if they want Sharia Law they best pack up and go back to where they come from. If they can't abide by OUR laws, they can go home.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Majestic Lumen
 


I think many would agree with you in theory however on the other side of the coin if they want Sharia Law they best pack up and go back to where they come from. If they can't abide by OUR laws, they can go home.


Like the Amish and certain Jewish sects? That have used their own laws for years.

Muslim phobia - much?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Sacredsax
 


um... paragraphs are your friend, and mine too.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
For everyone crying about this; why aren't you all crying about state and local Blue laws concerning the sale of alcohol? Is it because Christianity is familiar and Islam is just this alien, radical thing?

This country has many many laws regarding religious laws, acceptable behavior etc.... This is just another, only it's a different religion. This is Oklahoma Muslims being able to address their sacred laws in a court of law. How will it negatively affect non Muslims?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
This is Oklahoma Muslims being able to address their sacred laws in a court of law. How will it negatively affect non Muslims?


It won't.

But those Blue laws sure affect everyone that is not Christian.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join