Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76
  1. #21  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    We have a president and a justice department that are sympathetic to Islam.
    Since 1980?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Since 1980?
    You don't think Carter was?
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    You don't think Carter was?
    Is there a reason I should? PS- Carter was president until January 1981. Mr. Dithers then had eight years to do something about it, followed by four years of Bush the elder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Is there a reason I should? PS- Carter was president until January 1981. Mr. Dithers then had eight years to do something about it, followed by four years of Bush the elder.
    Yes there is a reason. Carter's the reason the Ayatollah Kohmeni was able to return from exile in Paris...forcing the Shah to leave instead of helping him stay in power opened the flood gates for what we have today going on in the Middle East and in America today.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.

    It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.

    Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

    The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

    If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.
    As the basis of Sharia law blatantly breaks many laws, your arguments for that system are not well considered.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.
    Sharia law does break federal and state laws. Disputes that require testimony, for example, give more weight to testimony from Muslim men than Muslim women or infidels. That conflicts with the rules of evidence in every state, not to mention the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.
    US law in custody disputes demands that the needs and interests of the child are the primary concern. Sharia defines children as the property of the father. Custody cases therefore cannot take Sharia into account. Sharia divorce is accomplished by the husband unilaterally announcing the divorce three times. A wife cannot do the same, and all marital property accrues to the husband automatically. This violates dozens of laws regarding contracts and divorce, especially in no-fault states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

    The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

    If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.
    Jewish and Christian households do not seek to impose the Talmud or the canon of church law onto the rest of us, nor do either sets of laws state that in conflicts with secular law, the religious law is supreme. The traditions of both religions demand that adherents be good citizens as well as righteous, while Sharia commands that the righteous are only those who work to impose Sharia on all people.
    Quote Originally Posted by CueSi View Post
    Psh, could be redoing the 'let's march the Jews into the sea'. . .or maybe they're coming right for us.

    ~QC
    Islam is an imperialistic political doctrine as well as a religious doctrine. The history of those nations conquered by Islam demonstrate this. They are coming for us. Maybe not today, but soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    This should only apply to people who have agreed to this, and should be legally treated as an issue of contracts. I believe civil courts deal with issues of contracts, so if two adults enter into a contract based on Islamic Law, Jewish Law, family tradition, or just a random mish-mash, that contract should be upheld as long as it is legally binding.

    Of course religious law should not supercede criminal law, but I see no problem using it for the purpose of civil contracts.
    But once a Sharia court exists, even those who do not want to be under its jurisdiction have no choice. A Muslim who refuses to submit to Sharia arbitration is subject to accusations of apostasy, which carries a death sentence in Islam, and the same agency that governs Sharia, the local imams, also govern the fatwas on apostasy. So, if you don't submit, you die.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    It's not my place to tell women what religion they can follow or what contracts they can enter into, it's not my place to pretend to know better than they do.

    If a woman wants to enter into a sharia-based contract, that's her business. I'm not going to question her motivations or act like she has no agency of her own.

    Also, I think here in the US we should stay firm with our distinction between civil contracts and criminal law. Domestic abuse is a criminal issue and it should remain that way, regardless of what a contract says.

    I'm happy with being very firm on establishing limits between contracts and criminal laws, but adults should be able to live according to their own rules within the scope of criminal laws, and that includes religious laws and contracts.
    Oh, please. You'd negate every contract in the country if it suited a socialist government. Once again, you are taking the side of an anti-American, anti-western process.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    As the basis of Sharia law blatantly breaks many laws, your arguments for that system are not well considered.
    Wee Wee doesn't care about that part. That it goes against the very foundations of American law and culture is what makes Wee Wee so supportive of Sharia Law.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Wee Wee doesn't care about that part. That it goes against the very foundations of American law and culture is what makes Wee Wee so supportive of Sharia Law.
    It sure seems like it. If it's different than "American," it's good for WW.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    I'm hyper. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    I agree that legislators need to step in with new laws. However, they shouldn't have to. Whether you agree with this interpretation of the constitution or not, it was declared a while back that the first amendment meant the separation of church and state. That means Muslims should not get some special rights to their own legal system. The Supreme Court should be able to shoot Sharia Law down if it's brought to them by a lower court. Suppose a woman loses custody of her kids because some ignorant judge allowed the case to be ruled by sharia law. The woman could fight all the way up to the Supreme Court. At that point, they should be able to shoot it down, using the very same first amendment that some Muslims are trying to use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    I'm hyper. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I see nothing wrong with people entering into civil contracts that are dictated by religious laws, and using arbiters to settle disputes in accordance with those laws, as long as those agreements do not break federal or state laws.

    It's like a prenuptual agreement, as a contract it is legally binding, as long as the prenup doesn't include provisions that are against the law.

    Religious Jewish homes have certain customs, and they should be allowed to follow those customs, and settle their disputes according to those customs as long as they have agreed to it ahead of time and their actions aren't explicitly against US law.

    The same applies to religious Christian homes, the same applies to Muslim homes. The same applies to other religions and even non-religions.

    If you simply have family traditions and intend to continue your traditions by entering into mutually agreed contracts and using arbiters to settle disputes, that is perfectly fine.
    Well, first of all, who are you asking if they want this type of agreement? Depending on who can benefit from it is who will say yes. In Sharia law, the men will want it to rule their way. Muslim women will probably prefer a secular court. Let's wander away from Islam for a moment. Supposed a man tells his wife "I'm gay" and suddenly she's trying to take rights away to see their child. Do you really want that dispute to be handled by a fundamentalist Christian court? I don't. Jews are not without their problemos. Suppose there's an orthodox family (not common in the US, but let's pretend) in which one of the members wants to marry a Christian. Uh, are we going to have an all orthodox Jewish court deciding if the marriage can happen?

    We have separation of church and state for a reason. It's so our government does not show a preference toward one set of religious beliefs. It's like Obama said a while back. If you had an all Christian country, would it be James Dobson's Christianity or Alan Sharpton's? You don't want courts set up this way. It's opening up a can of worms for everybody including those in that religious group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •