|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 3, 2011 14:54:38 GMT -5
...how come we have no "forest" or "trees" emoticons? those could come in real handy, imo... Oh you mean an emoticon that shows you think the actions of a few trees are representative of an entire forest? Yah, we do need that. ...and the cliche in question works in the reverse... (sigh)
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 14:56:17 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 3, 2011 14:58:40 GMT -5
That is your opinion & the great thing about this county is that you are entitled to it. I disagree & believe we can't judge or persecute an entire group based on the actions & beliefs of the minority.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 15:03:44 GMT -5
We need to act decisively and soon to neutuer radical islamists in our country. We don't have to tolerate, and should not tolerate subversives living in our country. We should be arresting them, and this law is a perfect tool for the purpose. Arrest them exactly for what? Using their constitutional right to free speech? Should we amend the First Amendment? I don't care for their speech either. But should we now limit speech we disagree with? Where does it end?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 3, 2011 15:07:26 GMT -5
Free speech is protected. Repeatedly beating and raping your wife over a period of several weeks or months is not your right because you follow sharia. And if a judge finds it's OK because that's your interpretation of your religious beliefs, I find no problem with lawmakers making it clear you're BOTH going to jail.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 3, 2011 15:07:33 GMT -5
That wouldn't require profiling, it would require tracking down terrorists the same way we do now. The no-no would be to just assume all muslims are secret sharia-loving terrorists at heart. How do you determine if a muslim is a terrorist or not without profiling? We couldn't stop the xmas day bomber when his on Dad gave us advanced warning. We were extremely lucky that the guy was a bumbling idiot.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 3, 2011 15:07:57 GMT -5
I disagree & believe we can't judge or persecute an entire group based on the actions & beliefs of the minority.
Fine but you will have to live with the fact your ideology is actually endangering the country as it has cost trillions for all the security measures (and wars) since the 911 attacks. 14 trillion in debt is almost insurmountable.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 3, 2011 15:12:37 GMT -5
Here again, we seem to have a problem with some people not understanding the use of SARCASM to make the point that we DO NOT behave like radical islamists. There's no global threat of extremist Christianity. There is a very real threat of extremist islamists. In your opinion. Others may see groups like Concerned Chrisitians, Orange Volunteers, Army of God, and NFLT, as christian terrorists groups that behave just like radical islamists. The thing is there are extremists on all sides & you can't assume the majority supports these extremists. Not all muslims are a threat to the US simply because there are a few extremists that are a threat. NO! This is NOT a matter of "opinion". It is a FACT that these groups-- as kooky as some of them are-- DO NOT kill innocent civilians. I think what we need is an islamist murder tally in Times Square over or under the "Debt Clock". Islamists are a very real, daily threat almost everywhere on earth. They KILL people every day. These other groups may be radical-- may even be evil-- and I'm not against keeping an eye on them, but let's be real about what IS, instead of speculating what MAY be...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 3, 2011 15:17:08 GMT -5
And before you get too excited about using Timothy McVeigh as an example- he was actually a very ardent athiest. His last words were from the poem "Invictus", not the first chapter of Romans. There's even evidence (surprise, surprise) that he may have had radical islamist help, and/or possibly even help from the government of Saddam Hussein...but we don't hear much about that, do we. Gee...wonder why?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 3, 2011 15:23:11 GMT -5
And before you get too excited about using Timothy McVeigh as an example- he was actually a very ardent athiest. His last words were from the poem "Invictus", not the first chapter of Romans. There's even evidence (surprise, surprise) that he may have had radical islamist help, and/or possibly even help from the government of Saddam Hussein...but we don't hear much about that, do we. Gee...wonder why?Because it isn't true?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 15:24:30 GMT -5
Free speech is protected. Repeatedly beating and raping your wife over a period of several weeks or months is not your right because you follow sharia. And if a judge finds it's OK because that's your interpretation of your religious beliefs, I find no problem with lawmakers making it clear you're BOTH going to jail. pbp-is this your response to me? It is my understanding the United States has laws in place to deal with beating and raping wives. One judge does not define the entire United States judicial system. Nor does one (or even a dozen) Muslims who beat and rape (or kill) their wives define all Muslims. We have non-Muslim American men who beat, rape and kill their wives too. Where did those men learn it was acceptable to do that? And yes I know the Koran has passages that address how to handle wayward wives and children. But so did the Old Testament. Beating, raping and killing women in not unique to the Muslim culture or any other culture.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 15:26:28 GMT -5
And before you get too excited about using Timothy McVeigh...There's even evidence (surprise, surprise) that he may have had radical islamist help, and/or possibly even help from the government of Saddam Hussein...but we don't hear much about that, do we. Gee...wonder why? So where's the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 3, 2011 15:27:12 GMT -5
It is my understanding the United States has laws in place to deal with beating and raping wives. One judge does not define the entire United States judicial system.
One judicial decision sets precedence. The US legal system is based on case precedence.
We have non-Muslim American men who beat, rape and kill their wives too. Where did those men learn it was acceptable to do that? And yes I know the Koran has passages that address how to handle wayward wives and children. But so did the Old Testament.
Non-Muslim wife beaters are not following religious ritual. They just have chromosome damage.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 3, 2011 15:28:31 GMT -5
And before you get too excited about using Timothy McVeigh as an example- he was actually a very ardent athiest. His last words were from the poem "Invictus", not the first chapter of Romans. There's even evidence (surprise, surprise) that he may have had radical islamist help, and/or possibly even help from the government of Saddam Hussein...but we don't hear much about that, do we. Gee...wonder why? McVeigh was an atheist, at times, and a devout Christian at other times. He couldn't seem to settle on what he was.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 3, 2011 15:29:54 GMT -5
They are also not sanctioned to do this by their society, as many muslim societies do. In the muslim theocracies these men come from, it is considered acceptable to beat, rape and kill wives, daughters and other female relatives. Police will not arrest and courts will not convict in many cases.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 3, 2011 15:30:09 GMT -5
It is my understanding the United States has laws in place to deal with beating and raping wives. One judge does not define the entire United States judicial system.One judicial decision sets precedence. The US legal system is based on case precedence. We have non-Muslim American men who beat, rape and kill their wives too. Where did those men learn it was acceptable to do that? And yes I know the Koran has passages that address how to handle wayward wives and children. But so did the Old Testament.
Non-Muslim wife beaters are not following religious ritual. They just have chromosome damage. It was a low level court that made this decision, it's not binding on anyone. Anyway, it got appealed and overturned, so that appeals court decision is binding on that lower court, and every other lower level court in that district.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 3, 2011 15:35:49 GMT -5
It is my understanding the United States has laws in place to deal with beating and raping wives. One judge does not define the entire United States judicial system.One judicial decision sets precedence. The US legal system is based on case precedence. Ok...now carry that out a bit further SF. Since the original ruling was overturned, wouldn't the precedence now be that religious law does not trump US law?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 3, 2011 15:37:24 GMT -5
And before you get too excited about using Timothy McVeigh...There's even evidence (surprise, surprise) that he may have had radical islamist help, and/or possibly even help from the government of Saddam Hussein...but we don't hear much about that, do we. Gee...wonder why? So where's the evidence? Here's some, Tennesseer. It's an interview with McVeigh done by Time magazine: www.time.com/time/reports/mcveigh/interview/interview2.html
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 3, 2011 15:39:01 GMT -5
Ok...now carry that out a bit further SF. Since the original ruling was overturned, wouldn't the precedence now be that religious law does not trump US law?
I was replying to the poster who asserted that judicial decisions do not mean anything. Precedence is what runs the courts.
And... it did slip my mind that it was overturned...my bad.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 3, 2011 15:41:14 GMT -5
I didn't see the "devout Christian" part you referred to in your post...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 3, 2011 15:47:18 GMT -5
It is my understanding the United States has laws in place to deal with beating and raping wives. One judge does not define the entire United States judicial system.One judicial decision sets precedence. The US legal system is based on case precedence. We have non-Muslim American men who beat, rape and kill their wives too. Where did those men learn it was acceptable to do that? And yes I know the Koran has passages that address how to handle wayward wives and children. But so did the Old Testament.
Non-Muslim wife beaters are not following religious ritual. They just have chromosome damage. It was a low level court that made this decision, it's not binding on anyone. Anyway, it got appealed and overturned, so that appeals court decision is binding on that lower court, and every other lower level court in that district. If a victim of domestic violence doesn't need a restraining order TODAY, then they don't need one at all. Nobody asks for a restraining oder three months from now. You actually practice law? Jeeze!
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 3, 2011 15:53:35 GMT -5
It was a low level court that made this decision, it's not binding on anyone. Anyway, it got appealed and overturned, so that appeals court decision is binding on that lower court, and every other lower level court in that district. If a victim of domestic violence doesn't need a restraining order TODAY, then they don't need one at all. Nobody asks for a restraining oder three months from now. You actually practice law? Jeeze! WTF are you talking about? SF asked about when a decision is binding and I answered his question.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 3, 2011 15:55:47 GMT -5
Yes, we should definitely wait until one gets through and becomes legal precedent. Then you can stop voting and driving, start wearing your burka and living like a dog...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 15:56:12 GMT -5
Ok...now carry that out a bit further SF. Since the original ruling was overturned, wouldn't the precedence now be that religious law does not trump US law?I was replying to the poster who asserted that judicial decisions do not mean anything. Precedence is what runs the courts. And... it did slip my mind that it was overturned...my bad. That is not what I said Mr. Burns. I said one "One judge does not define the entire United States judicial system." I said nothing about his decision in the case.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 3, 2011 15:56:22 GMT -5
And since when does a lower court ruling not matter? Since when is a judge's ruling, in ANY court, "not binding on anyone"? I bet you've stood before a few judges that would beg to differ.
The bottom line for me is simple-- since we definitely have muslims here who are confused about what the bounds of their supposed "freedom of religion", and we have brainless liberal judges who are equally confused-- it would be nice to have a law in place at the federal level that banned judges from considering sharia. At the very least a law clarifying that religious beliefs-- of ANY faith-- that permit violence, false imprisonment, rape, etc.-- are NOT COVERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
It's really simple- on this thread, not only are we conservatives 100% correct, and you "other" people 100% WRONG, but it's actually imperative that the rest of you realize and admit you're wrong, and unite with us. Sharia isn't like the New Deal, or Great Society. It's not like Title IX, multiculturalism, welfare, or sex education. We can't wait 40, 50, 60, 70 years to find out you're wrong and fix things. We fix this NOW, or none of us lives to argue about it 70 years from now. And that's the fact, jack.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 3, 2011 15:57:38 GMT -5
Yes, we should definitely wait until one gets through and becomes legal precedent. Then you can stop voting and driving, start wearing your burka and living like a dog... I can't say that I am actually concerned about that at all......One wingnut judge made a stupid decision. It happens, but most judges are decent people making decent decisions.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 3, 2011 15:57:53 GMT -5
My ideology has not caused the 14 trillion in debt. If you want to argue my ideology might be endangering some in this country, then fine, but you also have to accept that your ideology persecutes millions of innocent people using the basis that they are guilty simply based on their religious beliefs.
I will take the risk that a potential terrorist might slip through the system over becoming a society that assumes guilt based on religion. How many successful terrorist attacks have happened in the US since 9/11? - I think my system of allowing religious freedom in this country while allowing the authorities to track down actual terrorists is working fairly well.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 16:00:36 GMT -5
Sorry-I have Attorney Burns on the mind. It was Savoir Faire who (intentionally?) misinterpreted what I stated.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 3, 2011 16:01:30 GMT -5
And since when does a lower court ruling not matter? Since when is a judge's ruling, in ANY court, "not binding on anyone"? I bet you've stood before a few judges that would beg to differ. The bottom line for me is simple-- since we definitely have muslims here who are confused about what the bounds of their supposed "freedom of religion", and we have brainless liberal judges who are equally confused-- it would be nice to have a law in place at the federal level that banned judges from considering sharia. At the very least a law clarifying that religious beliefs-- of ANY faith-- that permit violence, false imprisonment, rape, etc.-- are NOT COVERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It's really simple- on this thread, not only are we conservatives 100% correct, and you "other" people 100% WRONG, but it's actually imperative that the rest of you realize and admit you're wrong, and unite with us. Sharia isn't like the New Deal, or Great Society. It's not like Title IX, multiculturalism, welfare, or sex education. We can't wait 40, 50, 60, 70 years to find out you're wrong and fix things. We fix this NOW, or none of us lives to argue about it 70 years from now. And that's the fact, jack. I don't know how to put it any clearer. Lower court decisions are not binding on any other courts. Their decisions can be what's called "persuasive" meaning other courts can look to what what done in that court but they don't have to follow it. Once a decision from a lower court is appealed, that decision is binding on all the courts under that appellate court, but it's not binding on other appellate courts. Every judge I've appeared in front of has followed this, because it's the law.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 16:04:30 GMT -5
And since when does a lower court ruling not matter? Since when is a judge's ruling, in ANY court, "not binding on anyone"? I bet you've stood before a few judges that would beg to differ. The bottom line for me is simple-- since we definitely have muslims here who are confused about what the bounds of their supposed "freedom of religion", and we have brainless liberal judges who are equally confused-- it would be nice to have a law in place at the federal level that banned judges from considering sharia. At the very least a law clarifying that religious beliefs-- of ANY faith-- that permit violence, false imprisonment, rape, etc.-- are NOT COVERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It's really simple- on this thread, not only are we conservatives 100% correct, and you "other" people 100% WRONG, but it's actually imperative that the rest of you realize and admit you're wrong, and unite with us. Sharia isn't like the New Deal, or Great Society. It's not like Title IX, multiculturalism, welfare, or sex education. We can't wait 40, 50, 60, 70 years to find out you're wrong and fix things. We fix this NOW, or none of us lives to argue about it 70 years from now. And that's the fact, jack. What is it like living in your world of (according to you) absolutes?
|
|