|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 3, 2011 16:05:04 GMT -5
It was Savoir Faire who (intentionally?) misinterpreted what I stated.What? I'd never intentionally misinterpret you....
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 16:09:37 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? Still waiting for the "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" evidence Timothy McVeigh may have received "islamist help, and/or possibly even help from the government of Saddam Hussein."
|
|
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 16:11:56 GMT -5
No, actually considering anything other than the law is unConstitutional. This law would clarify it. Practice Sharia all day long, but if you beat, falsely imprison, rape, or otherwise commit violence-- not only will there be a restraining order, but you will be arrested and charged. Period.
|
|
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 16:17:09 GMT -5
I think it's already pretty clear that battery, false imprisonment, rape, and other forms of violence are against the law in this country. Committing them will get you arrested and charged if you're caught. I don't see the need for redundancy.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 3, 2011 16:19:31 GMT -5
What he said!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 3, 2011 16:30:24 GMT -5
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 exactly are we wrong about? No one here is arguing that the parts of sharia law that violate US law are acceptable. All we are saying is that there is no reason to write a law that states this. US laws automatically trump religious laws & anything that violates US law isn't considered covered under freedom of religion. There have been several supreme court cases that show this fact. One judges ruling that was then overturned doesn't indicate otherwise - it simply shows that the system works like it is supposed to - when a bad ruling is made, then you can go to a higher court to correct it. How exactly are we 100% wrong, when we agree with you in principle? We just believe there is no reason to write a law explicitly against another religion - in fact I believe writing a law against a specific religion would actually violate the 1st amendment.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 3, 2011 16:33:23 GMT -5
Yanno.. I have to wonder if the judge deliberately sided with the husband (in the New Jersey case) in order to get it sent up to the Appellate courts so that a ruling could be made showing that Sharia had no place in a court room and thereby making that policy binding on a larger system.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 3, 2011 16:42:14 GMT -5
I think my system of allowing religious freedom in this country while allowing the authorities to track down actual terrorists is working fairly well.
It is working fairly well at a huge cost. Trillions to be honest. It is not worth it. What do you think we are getting out of it anyway? I think there are enough people on this continent. There is no need to keep importing poverty. And don't try to sensationalize by saying that we are "persecuting" them because of their religious beliefs. I'm simply saying we should not let in the numbers we have been. If they are "persecuted" for whatever reason in their home country that is not our problem.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,619
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2011 16:45:27 GMT -5
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 exactly are we wrong about? No one here is arguing that the parts of sharia law that violate US law are acceptable. All we are saying is that there is no reason to write a law that states this. US laws automatically trump religious laws & anything that violates US law isn't considered covered under freedom of religion. There have been several supreme court cases that show this fact. One judges ruling that was then overturned doesn't indicate otherwise - it simply shows that the system works like it is supposed to - when a bad ruling is made, then you can go to a higher court to correct it. How exactly are we 100% wrong, when we agree with you in principle? We just believe there is no reason to write a law explicitly against another religion - in fact I believe writing a law against a specific religion would actually violate the 1st amendment. This thread is starting to sound like the "More gun laws are needed in the United States" cry. The frequent response is "We already have laws in place-enforce them. No new laws needed." The same holds true for any of this legislation.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 3, 2011 16:45:56 GMT -5
Sorry-I have Attorney Burns on the mind.
No problem. It can happen to anyone, and usually does.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 3, 2011 16:47:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 3, 2011 16:50:06 GMT -5
Except the judge who said it is.
Except in the case we are referring to.
Except for the judge who allowed another religion to trump US law.
So tell me again why we don't need a law to make sure this doesn't happen anymore?
|
|
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 16:56:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 3, 2011 17:06:26 GMT -5
All the laws in the world aren't going to stop a bad judgement. So once a law is put into place, that said thing that was made illegal doesn't happen anymore? Wow, if you thought liberals were hopelessly optimistic ...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 3, 2011 17:10:45 GMT -5
Because you all can't actually find an example of where this happened & was upheld by higher courts. Even with a law in place a judge could make a bad ruling & have it later overturned. This happens all the time, this is why there are higher courts to turn to when rulings are questioned.
If you can find a case where a judge upheld sharia law over US law & it wasn't later overturned, then I will give you that we need a law in place.
|
|
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 17:11:15 GMT -5
All the laws in the world aren't going to stop a bad judgement. So once a law is put into place, that said thing that was made illegal doesn't happen anymore? Wow, if you thought liberals were hopelessly optimistic ... Murder still happens. Should we have no law against it? Or should we let Sharia trump it if that's someone's interpretation of it? Gimme a break. I know you have a brain. Use it.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 3, 2011 17:14:59 GMT -5
So we shouldn't have any laws? I knew you were snarky, but an anarchist, too?
|
|