Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76
  1. #31  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    You don't think Carter was?
    Okay Rock, it's not about the President. Why did this guy stay there during the Reagan and Bush years?

    The authorities obviously don't have enough evidence on this guy yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    And once again you prove you have zero clue as to what the separation of church and state is all about.
    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  
     

  3. #33  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Okay Rock, it's not about the President. Why did this guy stay there during the Reagan and Bush years?

    The authorities obviously don't have enough evidence on this guy yet.
    Obtuse much?
    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  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,027
    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.
    Best comment of the thread.

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    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.
    I would say that what we have in the Middle East was the inevitable consequence of subjects (not to mention religious fanatics) outnumbering kings. What we have in the US was entirely preventable, and since Ronald Reagan was Mr Amnesty for illegal aliens, one might as well lay it at his feet as anyone. But in reality, it's not Ronald Reagan's fault. It's the naivete of the American people and our ill founded belief that everyone in the world is basically the same, and they all want the same lifestyle and style of government that we do. Clearly, we were wrong. That's a collective we. There are people in this world who really do believe in angry desert gods and that life in service to mythology is preferable to self determination and liberty. We have some of our own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I would say that what we have in the Middle East was the inevitable consequence of subjects (not to mention religious fanatics) outnumbering kings. What we have in the US was entirely preventable, and since Ronald Reagan was Mr Amnesty for illegal aliens, one might as well lay it at his feet as anyone. But in reality, it's not Ronald Reagan's fault. It's the naivete of the American people and our ill founded belief that everyone in the world is basically the same, and they all want the same lifestyle and style of government that we do. Clearly, we were wrong. That's a collective we. There are people in this world who really do believe in angry desert gods and that life in service to mythology is preferable to self determination and liberty. We have some of our own.
    I didn't know you could still get LSD.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    I didn't know you could still get LSD.
    It's more commonly known as Acid now.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Does this also apply to "honor" killings? Should that be allowed under the same umbrella?
    Of course not, that clearly falls under the scope of criminal law.

    What I'm talkin about only applies to contracts. The religious nature of the contract only specifies the rules of the contract, but it doesn't not overrule the laws concerning how contracts function.

    The old testament has rules and punishments including stoning, as well as dietary restrictions. If a person wanted to use the old testament guidelines to formulate a contract that specified what foods would be served in a certain situation, that would be perfectly legal because serving certain foods does not violate criminal law. If, however, someone wanted to use old testament guidelines to make a contract that allows stoning someone to death for a breach of rules, that would not be legal because such a contract violates criminal law, and is therefore not a legally binding contract.

    You can have contracts follow whatever rules you like, it doesn't matter if they are from a religion or not, or which religion, as long as the contract falls within the scope of criminal law. If it does, then the contract is legally binding and therefore falls under the scope of civil law, where people are expected to fulfill their obligations agreed to in legally binding contracts.





    Of course you're happy. It doesn't apply to you. You're conveniently tolerant when it comes to the suffering of women. So are all the left wing men I know.


    I want women to be able to exercise their freedom every bit as much as men. I don't want women to suffer, but I'm not their daddy, it's not my place to tell them what they are allowed to do, even if I think it's not good for them.



    Let's change it up a bit. Suppose a tolerated religious legal system required that every family donate one child to the religious life, regardless of how many children they had. (The Catholic Church used to require that families tithe children to the church in the middle ages. That is how Hildegard von Bingen became a nun: her family tithed her to the Catholic church.)

    Let's say it was you, Wei Wu Wei, who were the tithed child in your family. You did not wish to be tithed, you wanted to get married and have a family. You are afraid of the church and of the potential for sexual abuse. Should there be an intervention by the legal system of the nation preventing your being tithed?
    No there shouldn't. Parents are allowed to send their kids to boarding school, to military school, to church camps, to "pray the gay away" treatment centers, to live with relatives, or even to be adopted. Sending to a church seems to fit just fine within that scope of parental rights.

    As long as the children are free to make their own choices when they come of age, and as long as the parents aren't deliberately putting them in harms way (which would be child abuse), then I don't see any issue with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    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.

    I'm curious about what you mean here, could you elaborate on what about Sharia blatantly breaks laws?

    I'm not a Muslim scholar, but from what I can tell, the aspects that are against criminal law cannot be part of a legally binding contract, the aspects that are not against criminal law should be fine.

    It doesn't take any new laws to deal with this:

    If a person makes a sharia-based contract, and that contract violates criminal law, then the contract is not legally binding and the criminal courts can deal with it.

    If a person makes a sharia-based contract and it doesn't violate criminal law, then it is legally binding and is dealt with in civil court.

    Conservatives claim they are against larger government intrusion into personal matters, so this thread is a little confusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    Okay so that rule cannot be part of a legally binding contract. Simple enough.


    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.
    I don't know all the laws concerning these matters, but again, it's just a matter of which parts can be considered legally binding and which cannot. IF the couple decides that the husband can end the marriage with three declarations, then fine, they can be "separated", but they will still require proper divorce proceedings.

    All of the marital property accrues to the husband? That sounds like a prenuptial agreement, which is perfectly legal and practiced often.






    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.
    it doesn't matter.

    I can make up a set of 12 rules on my own, rules 1-10 can be totally arbitrary and stupid, but still legal. Rule 11 can be illegal in my country, and rule 12 can state that my rules are supreme above US law.

    I can still create a contract based on some of these rules: rules 1-10 would be legally binding, rule 11 could not be legally binding, and rule 12 won't mean a damn thing if I went to court.

    Just because some of the rules conflict with secular laws doesn't mean the entire set of rules cannot be used, it just means those specific rules cannot be used.

    Just because I have a rule that says my rules are higher than US law desn't mean my rules can't be used in a contract either, it just means I'm going to be upset when a US court ignores that 12th rule.








    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.

    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.
    IT sounds like you have absolutely no faith in your own country.

    If people are able to use their own contracts to settle disputes (as everyone is already entitled to do), then the entire society will fall apart and all current US laws and courts will be nullified. It's ridiculous and paranoid.

    Allowing people to enter into contracts governed within civil law and superceded by criminal law is not going to destroy the legal system. Contracts have always been allowed, and conflicts about what is legally binding have always arisen. It's nothing new. The only difference is that this concerns Islam and you seem to be believing the dogmatic ramblings of Islamophobics.


    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.
    Once again, you are trying way too hard and relying on hyperbole to avoid having a real sensible discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    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
  •