Can our on-line lawyers...

or to get a bit more back to the original op - what if OK had voted to ENFORCE Sharia law? embedding a religious set of laws into our system is unconstitutional. Banning religious laws is also unconstitutional.

Laws should not be dictated by religion.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I never really understood why those on the right are so anxious to bring unwanted children into a life of deprivation and poverty. Surely they should be happy that millions upon millions of potential hoodlums have not been brought into the world.
Click to expand...

and I have never understood why those on the left assume that every child aborted would have led a life of deprivation and poverty....my two were put up for adoption instead of being aborted.....they were not unwanted, were not deprived, were not impoverished.....
 
tekkychick said:
So let's pose a question -if sharia law says it's illegal to murder someone, and OK says we can't enforce Sharia laws, does that mean we can't prosecute someone for murder?

It's just a stupid law and should never have been enacted.
Click to expand...

That post is about as stupid as you can get.....WE make the laws we live by, not the Muslim religion or any other religion....
If Sharia law says you can beat your wife twice a day....WE have laws that say you can't.....

I can't ban you. Your posts feed my superiority complex and reinforce my self pride in being on the right side of debates.....
You, desh, Thingy, ..... love to hear from you on any topic....
 
NOVA said:
That post is about as stupid as you can get.....WE make the laws we live by, not the Muslim religion or any other religion....
If Sharia law says you can beat your wife twice a day....WE have laws that say you can't.....

I can't ban you. Your posts feed my superiority complex and reinforce my self pride in being on the right side of debates.....
You, desh, Thingy, ..... love to hear from you on any topic....
Click to expand...

Exactly. We make the laws. Therefore condoning or banning any religious set of laws is unconstitutional. Irrelevant. And stupid. Kind of like you, actually.
 
tekkychick said:
or to get a bit more back to the original op - what if OK had voted to ENFORCE Sharia law? embedding a religious set of laws into our system is unconstitutional. Banning religious laws is also unconstitutional.

Laws should not be dictated by religion.
Click to expand...

Banning religious laws is certainly constitutional.....when our laws contridict them....if they don't contradict them, its irrelevant and a moot point...OUR law
will be enforced as its written.

I suggest you get educated some....

Lawmaking in the United States

The Constitution of the United States and its amendments form the basis of our legal rights and privileges. Only laws that fall within the framework of the Constitution and the legal precedents regarding the Constitution's intent can remain in effect.

The text of the Constitution is available on the behind the Reference Desk on the 2nd floor in print; and available at the THOMAS web site http://thomas.loc.gov

http://tinyurl.com/offl

NOTICE....nowhere does the Constitution say that US laws will be made by the Muslim Islamic religion....or any other country or religion in the world conserning
the United States.
 
Whatever, Nova. There are a lot more things to get upset about than a judge ruling something unconstitutional that should never have been passed in the first place.

No one is saying Sharia law should become US law. Just saying the law banning it is unconstitutional.
 
tekkychick said:
Whatever, Nova. There are a lot more things to get upset about than a judge ruling something unconstitutional that should never have been passed in the first place.

No one is saying Sharia law should become US law. Just saying the law banning it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Not to mention another knee jerk reaction by fear filled Righties afraid of the practitioners of other religions.
 
The law was thrown out because it singled out sharia. If conservatives were concerned about religious law, like sharia, entering our courts then they would not argue, as they often have on this board, that court actions based on religious dogma are not a violation of the first amendment because they are not congress making a law. That's the very argument the idiots used to rationalize Roy Moore's actions.

Nova's source for showing how sharia is being used is a joke.

In the first case a Nationwide Resources Corporation was owed money and sued a Pierre Zouheil a resident of Morocco and citizen of Syria. Zouheil was owed money on a promissory note by a couple he had went into business with. Nationwide sued for garnishment. Zouheil claimed the money should not be garnished because it was community property owned by he and his wife. However, the laws of Morocco and Syria do not recognize communal property. The court found that it was Pierre's property separately.

The second case involves an Imam who was fired by the Islamic Center of Little Rock (ICLR) because the ICLR claimed his sermons violated Islamic law and created disunity in the community. The Imam sued the ICLR. The court dismissed his suit because they refuse to interfere in a church's choice of clergy as it would violate the first amendment.

It all appears to be bullshit.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....illogical....it is, in fact, the Constitution that bans religious laws....how can banning them be unconstitutional.....
Click to expand...
tekkychick said:
Exactly. We make the laws. Therefore condoning or banning any religious set of laws is unconstitutional. Irrelevant. And stupid. Kind of like you, actually.
Click to expand...

tekkychick said:
Whatever, Nova. There are a lot more things to get upset about than a judge ruling something unconstitutional that should never have been passed in the first place.

No one is saying Sharia law should become US law. Just saying the law banning it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Not to mention another knee jerk reaction by fear filled Righties afraid of the practitioners of other religions.
Click to expand...


NO ONE can come to the US and start to exercise their own set of laws, religious or otherwise.....Its against the Constitution, which IS the law......
It would be UN-Constitutional to hold anyone accountable for breaking a law that cannot possibly BE a law if it was not enacted by Congress and conform to the Constitution.

Therefore, to claim some right to do so is UN-Constitutional.....which this idiot lefty judge ruled against.

Laws not expressly passed by the US Congress are irrelevant and banned(forbidden) from being enforced throughout the nation.....is it the word 'banned' that you
object too....use any word you like that effectively means the same thing it you must....its the principle.

Laws not passed by the French gov. are not the laws of France
Laws not passed by the German Gov. are not the laws of Germany

Are you two just belligerent or just extremely stupid....or both. I think both.
 
NOVA said:
Laws not expressly passed by the US Congress are irrelevant and banned(forbidden) from being enforced throughout the nation.
Click to expand...


NOVA himself explains why Sharia law WILL NEVER BE LAW within the USA.

Hence there is no need for Oklahomans who are asceered of them creepy Mooslims to pass any anti-Sharia law.
 
NOVA said:
NO ONE can come to the US and start to exercise their own set of laws, religious or otherwise.....Its against the Constitution, which IS the law......
It would be UN-Constitutional to hold anyone accountable for breaking a law that cannot possibly BE a law if it was not enacted by Congress and conform to the Constitution.

Therefore, to claim some right to do so is UN-Constitutional.....which this idiot lefty judge ruled against.

Laws not expressly passed by the US Congress are irrelevant and banned(forbidden) from being enforced throughout the nation.....is it the word 'banned' that you
object too....use any word you like that effectively means the same thing it you must....its the principle.

Laws not passed by the French gov. are not the laws of France
Laws not passed by the German Gov. are not the laws of Germany

Are you two just belligerent or just extremely stupid....or both. I think both.
Click to expand...

Where is anyone being held accountable for a law not passed by some division of US government? You are arguing nonsense. It's not happening and there is no threat of it happening.
 
Professor Baxter said:
The law was thrown out because it singled out sharia. If conservatives were concerned about religious law, like sharia, entering our courts then they would not argue, as they often have on this board, that court actions based on religious dogma are not a violation of the first amendment because they are not congress making a law. That's the very argument the idiots used to rationalize Roy Moore's actions.

Nova's source for showing how sharia is being used is a joke.

In the first case a Nationwide Resources Corporation was owed money and sued a Pierre Zouheil a resident of Morocco and citizen of Syria. Zouheil was owed money on a promissory note by a couple he had went into business with. Nationwide sued for garnishment. Zouheil claimed the money should not be garnished because it was community property owned by he and his wife. However, the laws of Morocco and Syria do not recognize communal property. The court found that it was Pierre's property separately.

The second case involves an Imam who was fired by the Islamic Center of Little Rock (ICLR) because the ICLR claimed his sermons violated Islamic law and created disunity in the community. The Imam sued the ICLR. The court dismissed his suit because they refuse to interfere in a church's choice of clergy as it would violate the first amendment.

It all appears to be bullshit.
Click to expand...

Whats you point....the cases you post about are totally irrelevant to the topic....and mean absolutely nothing concerning religious laws...our country certainly considers people living in another country and the law he abide by when dealing with them....and of course dismissal of the second case is obviously correct...thats a conflict within
a church and its members, none of our business, its violates no US civil law.

If the case I mentioned was thrown our because it singled out one religious group, thats understandable....a technicality that could be fixed in the wink of
a eye and then be passed as it should....she found the law in violation of establishment clause...thats what I was seeking clarification on from our learned
counselors....



that doesn't change anything about my conclusion that no religious law can be enforced without the express approval of Congress, which then would become
law....US law rather than religious law and THAT is what this debate has evolved to somewhere around post 19 or thereabouts....
lets not hijack the thread into some other topic.....
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Whats you point....the cases you post about are totally irrelevant to the topic....and mean absolutely nothing concerning religious laws...our country certainly considers people living in another country and the law he abide by when dealing with them....and of course dismissal of the second case is obviously correct...thats a conflict within
a church and its members, none of our business, its violates no US civil law.

If the case I mentioned was thrown our because it singled out one religious group, thats understandable....a technicality that could be fixed in the wink of
a eye and then be passed as it should....
I did not read the judges written ruling....

that doesn't change anything about my conclusion that no religious law can be enforced without the express approval of Congress, which then would become
law....US law rather than religious law and THAT is what this debate has evolved to somewhere around post 19 or thereabouts....
lets not hijack the thread into some of topic.....
Click to expand...

:palm:

The cases were from your source (post #19) claiming the use of sharia in US courts. You are right, they are not relevant.

I am on topic. There is no threat of the establishment of religious law except from extremist right wing wackos, like Roy Moore, his supporters and defenders. The court was right to throw out the referendum.
 
tekkychick said:
Exactly. We make the laws. Therefore condoning or banning any religious set of laws is unconstitutional. Irrelevant. And stupid. Kind of like you, actually.
Click to expand...

apparently you still have me on ignore....a shame really, because if you didn't you would have a chance to answer the question "How can the constitution be unconstitutional?"......
 
Professor Baxter said:
:palm:

The cases were from your source (post #19) claiming the use of sharia in US courts. You are right, they are not relevant.

I am on topic. There is no threat of the establishment of religious law except from extremist right wing wackos, like Roy Moore, his supporters and defenders. The court was right to throw out the referendum.
Click to expand...


Thats a typical lefty debate tactic. I'm right because I say I'm right. Cased closed....

My link in Post 17 already proved there IS a threat of the establishment of religious law right now in the courts.

Sorry fool, you're wrong and a loser.

Poor Baxter.
 
NOVA said:
Thats a typical lefty debate tactic. I'm right because I say I'm right. Cased closed....

My link in Post 17 already proved there IS a threat of the establishment of religious law right now in the courts.

Sorry fool, you're wrong and a loser.

Poor Baxter.
Click to expand...

Okay, post #17.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

That is where I got the cases that you said were totally irrelevant to the topic. Go to the pdf...

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

Go to page 58 and you will find the first case involving Nationwide Resources Corporation and Zouheil.

The only thing you have proven is that you are a moron that will uncritically accept the first thing that appears to confirm your bias. You swallowed the assertion in the title without bothering to read anything about the individual cases. It's a bunch of bullshit and has nothing to do with Sharia.

The third case involves some Black Muslims from the 1960s who complained that there religious rights were being violated and the court (from what I read , properly) dismissed all of their claims. The fact that the complaints of Black Muslims were dismissed 50 years ago does not do anything to prove there IS a threat of the establishment of religious law right now in the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top