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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


This is very true. So who should be the one complaining?
2




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


If they ever get into a court, no one uses their laws. Nor would anyone expect to.

Muslim phobia? No.

Enlightened Governance Defender. Yes.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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.


Those laws don't exist, and where they are still on the books they are not enforced making them moot. A red-herring and a political gambit for you to defend your pet dark horse.

How do you manage to defend gays and women's rights in one sentence and the next defend a system of laws that honours neither?

Consistency. You could at least try for it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by Annee
 


This is very true. So who should be the one complaining?
2


Exactly.

Being from the 50s - - - I experienced much Christian dominance.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
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?


There is a vast difference between a local by-law and an ENTIRE LEGAL FRAMEWORK based on one religion.

Red-herring again.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by spinalremain
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?


There is a vast difference between a local by-law and an ENTIRE LEGAL FRAMEWORK based on one religion.

Red-herring again.


You are making excuses.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by spinalremain
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?


There is a vast difference between a local by-law and an ENTIRE LEGAL FRAMEWORK based on one religion.

Red-herring again.


You are making excuses.


No, I'm being logical. You are confabulating legal standards, by-laws, single laws that have been implemented in common-law, and laws that are not enforced with the introduction of an entire legal framework of religious law to be used by the court system.

This is inherently dishonest. You hate Christianity, and therefore anything not it is better even when it is not relevant or an equivalent argument. Even when those things are worse. The proverbial cut off your nose to spite your face type of argumentation.
edit on 2012/1/11 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by spinalremain
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?


There is a vast difference between a local by-law and an ENTIRE LEGAL FRAMEWORK based on one religion.

Red-herring again.


You're right. It is a red herring. What I am saying is absolutely correct though, and it does matter in light of this discussion. What we have at the root is laws (whether they are bi-laws, Ty Laws or LA Laws is a technicality). You are all for Christian based laws because it breeds familiarity to you, whereas Islamic law does not not. There is no way that you can be ok with one and not another.

As for Blue laws not being enforced..............um no. They are indeed enforced. This country is still littered with dry counties and towns. ALL religious in their core.
en.wikipedia.org...



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


No, I'm being logical. You are confabulating legal standards, by-laws, single laws that have been implemented in common-law, and laws that are not enforced with the introduction of an entire legal framework of religious law to be used by the court system.
reply to post by Aeons
 


So what do you call an anti-abortion amendment? What do you call an anti-gay marriage amendment?

I call it an attempt to encode a restriction into the basic legal framework of the country justified by a religious outlook that seeks to impose that outlook on the entire population regardless of religious belief.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa



No, I'm being logical. You are confabulating legal standards, by-laws, single laws that have been implemented in common-law, and laws that are not enforced with the introduction of an entire legal framework of religious law to be used by the court system.
reply to post by Aeons
 


So what do you call an anti-abortion amendment? What do you call an anti-gay marriage amendment?

I call it an attempt to encode a restriction into the basic legal framework of the country justified by a religious outlook that seeks to impose that outlook on the entire population regardless of religious belief.


Yes, but if eighty percent of the state is against gay marriage, then it is their right to vote that way and pass the law they see fit.

That is the topic. We should have the right to be free from another religion just like you should be free from mine. And yes, I am one of the people who thinks the 10 commandments shouldn't be posted in any government buildings either.

Keep your god-fanaticism out of my government... All of it!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Want to be tried under Islamic law? Then don't immigrate to a non-Islamic country. It really is as simple as that. I doubt I'd be tried under Western law in Iran...



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

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Yes, but if eighty percent of the state is against gay marriage, then it is their right to vote that way and pass the law they see fit.


We legislate civil rights by religious belief?

No that is not OK.

One reason. Give me one legitimate - logical reason the civil right of marriage should be a state right.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 




Yes, but if eighty percent of the state is against gay marriage, then it is their right to vote that way and pass the law they see fit.


Not when marital status is used to define access to other fundamental human rights, justice, economic, and legal process it doesn't.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Washington Post


A proposed constitutional amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions, and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

“This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact,” Awad said. “We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry.”

The amendment read, in part: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

State Sen. Anthony Sykes, who led the Senate effort to get the measure on the ballot, said Tuesday he would continue to fight to lift the injunction.

“The federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters,” Sykes said in a statement. “At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children.”


Seriously...?

I BETTER be reading something wrong in here.

I didn't go to school for law... please... someone who knows more about this than I do feel free to chime in and tell me that I am wrong.

Question #1)

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

-and-

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.

This is even worse than the federal/state war over medical marijuana...

I can understand the SCOTUS telling Oklahoma to go to hell if they were trying to pass a law that banned the worship of Islam. But that is not what is happening. Oklahoma is simply saying that they only want to use United State and Oklahoma laws in their courts.

------------------------

As far as I can read in any articles I have seen, the amendment would ban all influence of laws (religious or international) outside the state's or federal guidelines.

Is there something wrong with that I am missing?


You have read it wrong. Islamic, Sharia law forms no part of the laws of the United States - the amendment is completely superfluous, and has its only true intent to single out a single religion for discrimination. It is, in the words of the constitutional lawyers, 'facially discriminatory'.

As to their attempting to ban international law, what is that even supposed to mean? Oklahoma is not an actor in international law (it is not sovereign in the international sense), and it has no authority to repudiate or ignore treaties signed by the United States as binding upon the constituent states (power to make treaties being a power reserved to the Federal Congress).

You have nothing to be afraid of. Sharia law is not on the horizon in American jurisprudence. This measure was unnecessary and had as its only intent a desire to state a discriminatory position against the culture of a religion. Plain and simple, neither a State nor the Federal Government is empowered with the ability to hinder the free exercise of religion (with obvious exceptions e.g. child sacrifice on religious grounds is obviously not acceptable)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 




Yes, but if eighty percent of the state is against gay marriage, then it is their right to vote that way and pass the law they see fit.


Not when marital status is used to define access to other fundamental human rights, justice, economic, and legal process it doesn't.


It is not used to access any further human rights... That is bull#.

It is not used in any form of human "justice"... That is bull#.

The fact that marriage is used in any legal process, and the fact that tax laws etc have parts that include "marriage" is just as wrong as people voting on marriage rights.

The emotional union between a man and whoever should not be defined by any religion or government. It should be defined by the two people involved.

I don't think we should have any marriage laws one way or another. So preaching to me about marital status being used in any government decision is using a bad idea to prove your bad idea.

You are trying to fix a bad idea with another bad idea.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sacredsax
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the sixth article of the U.S Consitution and the 'establishment clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment already forbids the government from establishing a preference for one religion. Official government endorsement of sharia law, is thus already prohibited. May I add that more than 24 states have considered measures intended to restrict judges from consulting sharia law. In 2009 Mr. Yerushalmi began writing "American Laws for American Courts", a model statute that would prevent state judges from considering foreigh laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights in the United States. This law was intended to appeal not just to the growing anti-shariah movement, but also to a broader constituency that long opposed the influence of foreign laws in the United States. Early versions of the law passed in Tennessee and Louisiana 'Made no mention of shariah - which was necessary to pass muster. So the KEY Phrasing was to not mention or use the word shariah. OBama appointments. Kagan, Pro sharia(for 30 more yrs), David Heyman- asst sec for policy for DHS, and Arif Alikhan (Napolitano appted) a devout Shariah Law Muslim, Other Pro-Shariah Obama appointees include; Dalia Mogahed, Obama’s Muslim advisor who has been a firm defender of CAIR and ISNA. Both of these US groups are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Other Pro-Shariah Obama appointees include; Dr. Ahmed Zewali, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development; Kareem Shora, Homeland Security Advisory Board; Harold Koh, nominee as Legal Adviser of the State Department; Dr. Vali Nasr was appointed to co-direct Obama’s foreign policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no doubt, in fact, proof abounds there is a very soft and sometimes aggresive push for shariah law to be the norm, we need only look across the pond to see it;s results. The only thing I can add is aggressive phone and letters to any and all your representatives that help gaurd (and some of those that chip away at it as well) Our Constitution. Lastly, may I encourage you to visit Conservative Action Alerts. They have a pre-made letter that will automatically send a letter to all your representatives that will support the cause and sanctity of the intent our forefathers had. If I may add Mr. Franklins response to a question posed to him, Mam, I have given you a republic, if you can keep it. There has been and continues today small and large attacks and chipping away at what we were given. It defines who we are and what we represent, and a breakaway from a King that lived by laws that kept it's people in serfdom, which in my opinion is the very act that is being reenacted by many that 'seemingly' act in office or not,,, for our good. As we are aware, their fruit, or what they produce is proof of their intent, to bring us down, one chip at a time. I salute you all that are present or past members of our military and police that do in fact or have in fact protected with all they had the security and preservation of Our Constitution. The very model every government looks to as a guide to better their country where ever they may be. Obviously, there are countries that are very much dictatorial, Oligarchical, or Monarchical. The Last of which I fear is being invoked by our current President. So as my first reply, as a fellow member of our armed forces, I beseech you, regardless of any prerequisites, in what ever manner you can, to stand against those, that have predisposed, exclusive, maniacal, or malicious intent, that in any way stands against Our Constitution, and Our Declaration of Independence. Sadly I admit there are those that are wolf's in sheeps clothing that portend to declare their Oath To The Constitution when in fact conspire to deceive, harm, and undo what our forefathers even died for, to give us. If you think not, then start please with a read the Conressional Record, Proceedings and debate of the 83d Congress, Second Session, Speech of Hon. Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota, in The House Of Representative. Wednesday, April 28, 1954. Special Thanks to American Deception and Liberty Gun Rights. I digress, though remain vigilante, and continue my hunt for the theatrics of Soros and friends. Godspeed, and may Godbless, now I go to bless God.


Very true, succinct, and eloquent.
2nd line



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
I can see where this is going, honor killings, beheading's and being able to stone one to death will be legal, so says SCOTUS so let them have their right to due such things, as long as it is on their own kind. and they can not be prosecuted for such actions in our court.


how incredibly ... dense.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 




Yes, but if eighty percent of the state is against gay marriage, then it is their right to vote that way and pass the law they see fit.


Not when marital status is used to define access to other fundamental human rights, justice, economic, and legal process it doesn't.


It is not used to access any further human rights... That is bull#.

It is not used in any form of human "justice"... That is bull#.

The fact that marriage is used in any legal process, and the fact that tax laws etc have parts that include "marriage" is just as wrong as people voting on marriage rights.

The emotional union between a man and whoever should not be defined by any religion or government. It should be defined by the two people involved.

I don't think we should have any marriage laws one way or another. So preaching to me about marital status being used in any government decision is using a bad idea to prove your bad idea.

You are trying to fix a bad idea with another bad idea.


The simple truth of legal realism is that the law reflects (to an extent) public morality. Historically, Marriage was a Christian sacrament and that is why the state began to regulate it once issues of taxation and deducations et c became necessary. We don't regulate marriage through the government because necessarily any of us believe that the gov't is the right conduit for such regulation, simply that that is historically how it has been. Similarly, after seeing the evils of discrimination played out in full in WW2, we in the West have put greater need on protecting the rights of the most vulnerable and hated in society. It is all a question of balance and proportionality.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 




Yes, but if eighty percent of the state is against gay marriage, then it is their right to vote that way and pass the law they see fit.


Not when marital status is used to define access to other fundamental human rights, justice, economic, and legal process it doesn't.


It is not used to access any further human rights... That is bull#.

It is not used in any form of human "justice"... That is bull#.

The fact that marriage is used in any legal process, and the fact that tax laws etc have parts that include "marriage" is just as wrong as people voting on marriage rights.

The emotional union between a man and whoever should not be defined by any religion or government. It should be defined by the two people involved.

I don't think we should have any marriage laws one way or another. So preaching to me about marital status being used in any government decision is using a bad idea to prove your bad idea.

You are trying to fix a bad idea with another bad idea.


More excuses.

And you did not answer the question.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:30 AM
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.



It wouldn't even be 'enforcable' in courts, I imagine. Just a private, alternate dispute resolution.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join