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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The Supreme court should rule that the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion but the congress must not act on behalf of an established religion. Depending on the Oklahoma constitution religions can not be restrained but courts also do not have to enforce religious law.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
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


Your example has nothing do with religious laws and more about a personal contract. If your personal contract does not violate the law, then the courts will uphold it, whether it is based on religion or otherwise.

You people saying "it's because they specified a religion as an example...",

IF THE COURTS DIDN'T SPECIFY THAT IT WOULD CONSIER RELIGIOUS AGREEMENTS, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS TOPIC.

If they just said "we will consider all contracts that don't violate the law or constitution", then we wouldn't even be having the religion argument.

Again, keep your religion out of my courts.... ALL OF YOUR RELIGIONS!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 





and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality


This is legal. Not stop assuming a million things and read.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I cant wait for other religions to abuse this. Or does it apply only to Muslims?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
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?


This is very recent. I think just last year.

At least one lesbian who had been with her partner for (I think) 30 years - was denied any rights to her dying partner. She wrote a book about it. Anyway - - Obama has been open to LGBT advocates - - this was brought to his attention.

He then made it mandatory for all hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid to allow same gender partners and/or any person the patient wants. Relatives nor hospitals can now deny rights to same gender partners or anyone else the patient wants with them.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Zodak
 


At the international level, there is just the one. On a local level, some others have some.

I want some of these people to make their backroom deals. I do. Because when one party realizes that they can do better by renegotiating their contract in a secular system, they'll do it. Rendering their stupid experiment into a farce.


If some people are willing to create vehicle accidents so that they can get insurance money, I suspect it is rather likely that those same people realizing that they can get more money through a real contract process will do it.

I'd like to see a couple of these put into the media to highlight how awesome it is.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zodak
I cant wait for other religions to abuse this. Or does it apply only to Muslims?


The Amish and some Jewish sects have had their own laws for years.

How has that affected you?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


They aren't adjudicated in COURT.

No judge is using their laws.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Annee
 


They aren't adjudicated in COURT.

No judge is using their laws.


No judge is going to use the Sharia Law either.

They have their own "courts" - - just like the Amish and the Jewish sects.

If it needs to go to US courts - - it would not be under Sharia Law.

An Amish case. An Amish girl was raped. She did not feel she was getting justice in the Amish courts. She took her case to the US courts. Those who raped her were tried by US laws and convicted under US laws.

It was her choice NOT to accept Amish belief - - but to take it to US courts. Amish law had no jurisdiction in US court.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


IT SHOULD NEVER GO TO A KANGAROO COURT AT ALL.

Delusional. Christians bad. Amish idiots even being allowed to try to adjudicate a rape, okay. Gay marriage - good. Religion that would hang your participants in gay marriage - good. By-laws - bad. Adoption of entire theological legal frameworks - good.

Does it hurt to make it through the day trying to negotiate this level of internal lack of consistency?

Never mind. This level of internal consistency merely indicates a deep seat lack of want to think for oneself. Some left-wing talking head put out these as talking points, actual appeal to context of sense is not required.


edit on 2012/1/12 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Annee
 


IT SHOULD NEVER GO TO A KANGAROO COURT AT ALL.


Get off your high horse.

Some people really believe in their religion -- and think those beliefs are law. Who the hell are you to judge them and tell them they are wrong.

If it doesn't work for you - - - then obviously you are not going to use them.

But there is no way - - US courts are going to use those laws.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Uh huh. So why are concerned about them making a law saying they won't?

I don't care how strongly someone feels about their religion. Enacting its laws because you just REALLY want it isn't acceptable.

My High Horse is a War Horse. I won't be getting off it. I intend on using it to kick some heads in.
edit on 2012/1/12 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Uh huh. So why are concerned about them making a law saying they won't?

I don't care how strongly someone feels about their religion. Enacting its laws because you just REALLY want it isn't acceptable.

My High Horse is a War Horse. I won't be getting off it. I intend on using it to kick some heads in.


You are trying to make it something it is not.

US courts will only use US laws.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Then you wouldn't argue about this law at all. You'd just say, "Oh, well this law just entrenches what already is the case. So no biggy."

Attempts to have religious contracts being adjudicated as if they are real legal contracts by judges is a form of it being used in court. Which then creates precedent. Precendent is then used in other cases.

I am not making into what it is not. I have correctly identified the massive problem in allowing this nonsense.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Sharia Law and English Common Law can't coexist - this has been tried in modern countries like Malaysia and incredible bias is shown to sharia law.

I have been there, talked to many people who live there and wholeheartedly believe that despite being Muslim themselves America would be a far better place for them to live.

BTW courts are used to make rational decisions that sometimes voters are unable to given the information available to them, that they blocked a law is sometimes whats necessary.
edit on 12-1-2012 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
Sharia Law and English Common Law can't coexist


They are NOT coexisting.

How do you get this across to someone?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Annee
 


Then you wouldn't argue about this law at all.


Of course I am not arguing the law.

Why would I argue the law? I am not Muslim.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
How will the american public react when under "Sharia law" a woman is convicted of adultery and is sentenced to death by stoning


Or when under "Sharia law" that someone is publicly beheaded



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
How will the american public react when under "Sharia law" a woman is convicted of adultery and is sentenced to death by stoning


Or when under "Sharia law" that someone is publicly beheaded


NO - - how will those who believe in Sharia Law react to a decision made by Sharia Law.

Stoning is NOT legal by US law - - therefore is NOT legal under Sharia Law in the US.

Geeze - - this is getting annoying.l



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Are you an attorney or a judge ?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join