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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

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.


That's simplistic - - but Yes.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 





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.


I had to quote you just to let you read what you wrote...

"Marriage was a Christian sacrament...
We regulate marriage through government..."

Get your religion out of my government... PERIOD.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
EDIT: Question answered.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 





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#.


Of course it is. That is the whole point of the gay marriage advocates.

Trivial examples:

Hospital Visitation: gay partners are usually not considered 'family' when visitation rights are restricted to family only (in most states), even when that partnership is decades long. Gay partners are not allowed to participate in medical decisions for their partners, even when that partnership is decades long. Unmarried heterosexual partners do not have this problem, even when the partnership is only months old.

Edit: I notice that a federal law prohibits the above described issue for Hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. That is great, but will that law survive the dismantling of these programs if the GOP and their allies, the fundamentalist religious-right get their way?

Insurance Beneficiary: gay partners are not allow to name each other as beneficiaries on Insurance policies or, if they can, the endowment can be easily overruled by family opposed to their relationship even when that partnership is decades long. Again unmarried heterosexual partners do not have this problem.

The list of civil rights denied to gay couples goes on and on. You may not approve of homosexual marriage, but the answer to that is much easier and more in keeping with the ideals of the Founding Fathers than an amendment forcing your religious view on everyone in the country: just exercise your own personal freedom of choice and don't marry a homosexual.
edit on 12/1/2012 by rnaa because: corrected first example



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 





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.


Marriage sacrament is much, much older than Christianity. That is your personal religious bias mapping out that viewpoint.

Society has tasked Government to keep track of marriages for the same reason that they are tasked to keep track of births and deaths - there are legal consequences associated with all these events, and a central consistent repository is needed in an age when society is not made up of little villages where everybody knows everybody else and these events can be safely entrusted to the family record keeper.

Actually, I have no problems using the word 'Marriage' for a religiously sanctified partnership, and the word 'Civil Union' for non sanctiufed partnerships as long as a 'Civil Union' has 100% absolutely the same effect as a 'Marriage' except for the Church part (currently Church weddings are two parts anyway, the religious sanctification and the civil registration). Under that restriction, if the Church wants to treat folks that are Married differently to folks that are not Married that is their business. But in that case you need to go through every law in every jurisdiction, and every private contract, insurance policy, etc etc etc and remove the reference to 'Married' and replace it with 'Civil Union', and completely remove any restriction against gay Civil Unions.

Currently Gays don't, in general, like the 'Civil Union' method because it doesn't grant the same rights as 'Marriage'. Remove that restriction and I suspect that you can reserve Marriage to religious unions, I suspect.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 





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#.


Of course it is. That is the whole point of the gay marriage advocates.

Trivial examples:

Hospital Visitation: gay partners are usually not considered 'family' when visitation rights are restricted to family only (in most states), even when that partnership is decades long. Gay partners are not allowed to participate in medical decisions for their partners, even when that partnership is decades long. Unmarried heterosexual partners do not have this problem, even when the partnership is only months old.

Edit: I notice that a federal law prohibits the above described issue for Hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. That is great, but will that law survive the dismantling of these programs if the GOP and their allies, the fundamentalist religious-right get their way?

Insurance Beneficiary: gay partners are not allow to name each other as beneficiaries on Insurance policies or, if they can, the endowment can be easily overruled by family opposed to their relationship even when that partnership is decades long. Again unmarried heterosexual partners do not have this problem.

The list of civil rights denied to gay couples goes on and on. You may not approve of homosexual marriage, but the answer to that is much easier and more in keeping with the ideals of the Founding Fathers than an amendment forcing your religious view on everyone in the country: just exercise your own personal freedom of choice and don't marry a homosexual.
edit on 12/1/2012 by rnaa because: corrected first example


All of these "rights" have nothing to do with marriage itself, and everything to do with how the government enacts its power over marriage.

If the government would just f### off in all matters of marriage (who, when, and why you marry are up to the couple... And always should be.), then you and I would not be having this conversation of which TYPE of marriage to allow legally. They should ALL be allowed. Even multiple wife marriage...

If that poor bastard wants to pay alimony to seven ex'es, that's his problem...

And as for the decision in medical cases... That is what a living will or power of attorney is for. Just look back to the Florida case where they refused to let the lady die like the family wanted. It's not just gay people that happens to.

I don't agree with it, just saying its no just a "gay" problem...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
it's kind of funny how the christian right seem to have a fit about the courts considering sharia law, but, well, they were trying to get something similar set up for christians not that long ago. they wanted their beliefs concerning family law and divorce enforced, some states, I believe have even adopted it.


and then there is this:

www.patheos.com...

www.nytimes.com...

I'll have to prod my brain a little and do some hunting as to what the christian thing was about. there was a name for it, just can't think of it at the moment, but the christians did want their own little court system for family law during the bush times.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

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.


Your wrong blue laws are enforced. Just because the aren't in your area doesn't mean they are aren't being enforced in other areas of the country. In the state I live blue laws are alive and going strong.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Such as?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


A dry county is enforcing BY LAWS. Which are not equivalent to an ENTIRE LEGAL RELIGIOUS FRAMEWORK in any manner.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
You like how the people arguing that you don't need marriage, that homosexual marriage is needed, and local bylaws suck ALSO defend Shariah.

Brilliance isn't some people's strong point.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
This thread makes my head hurt. OP's title is way past inflammatory and untrue. In reality, the OP should be ashamed of that one.

This is not the installation of Sharia. At all. The amendment is also not a ban on Sharia. Furthermore, it's not just about arbitration. Some parts of Sharia mirror our current system, while others (punitive amputation and whatnot) would always be punished under our current system at a 100% rate. They would be without this amendment, and would be with it. No defense attorney can say "your honor, my client is within his rights to divorce his wife and cut off her hand because she took 10 bucks from our account and bought a male co worker some fajitas at Chili's" and have that stick.

What this does do, is ban the use of international, and specifically Sharia (that's important) considerations when applying our laws. Things like "the international community frowns upon" and such could not be used in written responses, and should not enter the thought process of the judiciary. I don't particularly disagree with that notion. See Lawrence v. Texas 2003 where Texas' sodomy law was beaten down even though quite a bit of the international community still has anti-sodomy laws. We make our own rules. That part is good. For the record, I'm not personally pro-sodomy. I wanted to head that off real fast.

The part where they say "oh, and also specifically Sharia" is nothing more than a cheap ploy for political capital that preys upon people's fears. Sharia falls under the umbrella of international considerations, and the dual mention of it is absolutely discriminatory towards practitioners of that faith. It would be like saying "I reserve the right to not serve people at my restaurant if I don't want to, particularly black women." As stated, language exists for a reason, distinctions are made from it, and even if 80% of the people in a state want to doubly insult a particular faith, you can't do it. For instance, in my absolutely awful previous example, future legislation could be written to say "restaurants will make every reasonable attempt to serve people equally." and the store owner could say "it's not reasonable for me to serve black women, I really hate them. See my policy. I'll try to serve black men though." It would get really murky.

I hate Sharia. Seriously. I think that any religion where apostasy = death is absolute garbage. I'm pretty sure though that we were founded on the idea that "if their actions don't hurt me at all, it shouldn't matter." When they DO hurt someone else, we have the mechanisms in place already. Yeah yeah, I know the zealots will say that these heathens ARE hurting us be degrading our morality and that preemptive measures should be taken against the gays, muslims, atheists, and everyone else.

I'd like to remind them we aren't a theocracy.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Exactly.

100% of people could vote for something and it could still be wrong.

What people seem to be forgetting is the Sharia law does not exempt you from the laws of the land.

Sure go ahead and practice whatever religion you want but if it crosses the line be prepared for the punishement that fits the crime.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Also, OP, blocking an amendment based on legal grounds does not set a precedent for future installations of anything that wasn't already there. After all, when the amendment was blocked, the only place we came to was exactly where we were before the amendment. By your statement, that means that courts could be tried by Islamic law all the time.

That isn't true.

Even if it were, which it isn't, that also means your problem isn't with the ruling, but the Constitution.

Logic is hard, hate is easy.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It may have already been said (I didn't go through every post), but this is not the end of America, or the beginning of a takeover of our country OMGMUZLUMZ!! A court can consider Sharia law, or any religious or international law, that doesn't conflict with the laws of America to decide a case.

For example: say two Muslims draw up a contract to buy and sell from each other, and the contract is based in Sharia law. One of them breaks the terms of the contract, and the other sues in a U.S. court. The court can rule based on the terms of the contract if they want to, as long as the terms weren't at odds with any U.S. laws.

It doesn't matter if its Islam, Christianity, or Pastafarians. As long as their laws aren't in conflict with the law of the land, they can be considered in the case by any court. People need to just settle down.

/TOA



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
First of all, HERE is why this is unconstitutional.

The amendment was discriminatory. It calls out a particular religion and discriminates. It's pretty clear.

On 70% of the people voting for this, read my signature link. This is EXACTLY why I don't want Ron Paul to become president. He has a states rights mentality that would leave too many issues to the states and the majority in that state could pass laws to oppress the minority.

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?



Move! The law should be accountable to the people!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


NO.

I do NOT want judges to have to become multi-religious theological scholars, over some stupid contract.

How ridiculous.

Oh, you are sect A of branch B, which a consensus of 2/3 of the polled scholars suggest that this interpretation is right if the moon is blue and you face West when signing it while singing in three languages. Okay then. Fetch me the chicken so I can behead it now.
edit on 2012/1/12 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I'm not against gay marriage. And yes, Marriage as a religious institution obviously pre-dates christianity, but in this country it is fairly safe to say the obsession with regulating marriage comes from the fact that (non-shocker) this is a secular country inhabited overwhelmingly by Christian people.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by duality90
reply to post by rnaa
 


I'm not against gay marriage. And yes, Marriage as a religious institution obviously pre-dates christianity, but in this country it is fairly safe to say the obsession with regulating marriage comes from the fact that (non-shocker) this is a secular country inhabited overwhelmingly by Christian people.


It comes because families breaking down and created creates some havoc that ends up having to be mediated by society.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join