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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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


Exactly, why does nobody get this, Sharia law does not trump US law.

End of story.

If someone is killed etc. under Sharia Law, well to bad, thats murder and someone is going to jail.

Also this whole reaction as if this is something new is astounding, many religions have their own "laws" and carry them out every day.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.

The entire system of common-law is based on precedent.

Asking judges to adjudicate contracts based on chicken beheading, and than have it inserted into common law as an appropriate means of dealing with civil matters.

Which eventually devolves into civil judges requiring extensive knowledge on religious legal systems, to properly adjudicate the stupid mess you are inviting.

Precedent.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
reply to post by Annee
 


Are you an attorney or a judge ?


Are you ignorant?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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?


I have no intention of co-existing with Islamic Law.

Ever. Period. Not in this lifetime.

The middle ground exists in all the Western nations. It is already there. That it is being rejected I notice. If you want to live in a Shariah legal system, there are about sixty countries you can apply to. You are invited to remove yourself to one.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.


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

They have not affected US law.

What precedent?

You are very creative.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.


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

They have not affected US law.

What precedent?

You are very creative.


I can't beat being down right delusional, creative to get through to the delusional is about all I've got.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No and since you are not a lawmaker how do you know how the law would be written or perceived by the courts.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:44 PM
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?



You misunderstand the Constitution. First of all, states do not have rights, only people have rights. Second of all, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights. A state would not Constitutionally be allowed to discriminate on its own citizens by adopting Sharia Law.

In fact, your hypothetical "what if your state voted to adopt Sharia Law?" question is about as far-fetched and ridiculous of a presumption as that question asked last week during the GOP debates; "What if states moved to ban contraceptives?" Its an absurd, illegal notion and would never gain serious traction.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
reply to post by Annee
 


No and since you are not a lawmaker how do you know how the law would be written or perceived by the courts.


"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."

At some point you realize you are talking to a closed mind.

Done.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Voodun should also be used in conjunction with US law.

Anyone? I think that precedent should suggest that the state provide the chicken, but that the defendant has to bring the knife to behead it, and the claimant has to clean up the blood.

Clearly, this is the BEST way to run a judicial system.

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



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



so what happens when that sharia law is used AGAINST you?

say for example, your son is killed by a muslim girls father because he didnt approve of their dating. he claims he somehow has the right to protect his family's honor according to sharia law. and the court has to agree. your sons dead, the murderer walks free and sets a new court precedent that undermines current US laws.

so you think its fine for him to walk free because he has his right to his religious freedom from the laws everyone else has to follow right? thats really what you think?

and i dont know if that is something actually in sharia law. just an example of the other side of things. also, just try to imagine pulling this same garbage in a sharia controlled country.

see how far you get telling their courts they have to respect your christian beliefs in their courts. good luck with that buddy.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
You have to be less concerned about those sorts of things and more concerned about things like these things slipping in:

"Shariah is the ultimate framework of reality and ethical guidance"

"A woman's testimony is worth 1/4 of a man's"

Blood money.

Application in familial law - which is awesomeness if you get a look at it.

Inheritance.

Offense.

Blasphemy.

Those suggesting that Turkey's "dual system" works are full of it. All the "dual" cohesiveness of the past 40 years has been being undone rapidly by the government in the last decade, with increasing rapidity over the last few years.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
This is part of the problem. People think that because they are in America that they can have everything the way they like it. We don't care about anyone's outrageous religious beliefs, especially when it comes to the law. Here in America, a CIVILIZED nation, we have something called separation of church and state.

This little bit was implemented for a very important reason, and we are not going to change it for some religious nuts, no matter what religion. If this happens, then you are going to have every other religion wanting to do the same thing, and then yelling discrimination when they think Islam is being favored.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:15 PM
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.


Excuse me? Ever visited anywhere in the giant state of Texas? Have some of the laws been relaxed? Yes. Still can't buy liquor (spirits) on Sundays by law. Beer or wine, yes, but no liquor stores.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
Precedent. That's why it matters. It creates precedent.


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

They have not affected US law.

What precedent?

You are very creative.




I can't beat being down right delusional, creative to get through to the delusional is about all I've got.



At what point will you simply acknowledge that you either understand that other religions have had this same ability IN AMERICA for a very long time, or acknowledge that you did not know about Amish, Jewish, and Canon law in America? You simply fear Muslims more than you do Amish?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Amish "laws" aren't being used in court in a "conjunction" way.

You sir are a bad citizen who doesn't have any interest in good governance, and freedoms derived in a system that already contains the middle ground - because you want to look nouveaux.

This hodge podge you are looking to create is a mess that will leave your country weak.

This is not an embrace of "religious freedom" this is an attempt by political activists to implement a prong in a total warfare push.

Precedent is absolutely a concern, and that you do not understand that is an example of how very bad of a citizen you truly are.
edit on 2012/1/12 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


These are by-laws, and have no similarily in any way to the implementation of an entire theocratic legal frame work.

Anyone following will notice that not ONCE has anyone actually shown that what I've said is wrong. Not once.

They don't *like* it. They don't want it to be true. They bring arguments that a fallacious. But not once do they address the actual problems.

Because they cannot.


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



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pngxp
 


Again.

Sharia law does not trump US law.

Thats Murder and hes going to jail.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tgautier13
 


You're right. States don't have rights. I didn't say they did. The phrase "States' Rights refers to the powers reserved for the states.


Originally posted by Tgautier13
You misunderstand the Constitution.


No doubt I don't understand every bit of it, but I have a working knowledge.


Second of all, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property.


I am very aware of the 14th Amendment. Here's an excerpt:



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States


Now, if this all works as it should, why is it that certain people in SOME states are not permitted to marry? What's this? A state has made a law abridging the privileges of citizens of their state? Just the gay ones? And the federal government allowed it. Well, what do you know?

Forgive me if I'm not all trusting that the states would stick to the Constitution. I'm not going to trust a government that gives the state powers to make laws and then doesn't enforce the Constitution to back up the people.



In fact, your hypothetical "what if your state voted to adopt Sharia Law?" question is about as far-fetched and ridiculous of a presumption as that question asked last week during the GOP debates; "What if states moved to ban contraceptives?" Its an absurd, illegal notion and would never gain serious traction.


I don't think that's an absurd question at all.

24 States Enacted 92 Abortion Restrictions In 2011

– Bans: The most high-profile state-level abortion debate of 2011 took place in Mississippi, where voters rejected the ballot initiative that would have legally defined a human embryo as a person “from the moment of fertilization,” setting the stage to ban all abortions and, potentially, most hormonal contraceptive methods in the state.
...
Nine states also passed laws making it harder to avoid pregnancy in the first place.


I wish I was as confident as you that these crazy laws would not get passed, but the Feds don't have a good record of Constitutional protection, IMO.

.
edit on 1/12/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The best part of your defense is that over the course of a couple of generations, this stuff will start rolling back your prized views.

Because, Muslims out breed homosexuals. Awesomeness. Then you argue with the people who would actually be somewhat defensive of the standards and creation of precedence and legislation that would protect your other prized dark horses.

It is like you have such limited scope of thought and vision, that you destroy yourselves. Seriously, it is like trying to stop a retarded snake from paralyzing the prey it just caught not realizing it is devouring its own tail.

I cannot decide if I should defend you from your own stupidity, or if I should sit back and be amazed at its scope.


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




top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join