Write Review
1,979,835 Total Reviews 3,485 New Reviews
6,997 Users Online

Politics and Religion

It was a poorly written law, as are many that are drafted "for effect"
GaGamblerssmarterbrother 1307 reads
posted

and too narrowly written as to disfavor one specific religion over all others. I agree with much of the spirit of the law, but the law, as written is clearly unconstitutional.

pwilley4403 reads

So, I read that an appeals court in Oklahoma has rejected lower court rulings and upheld the plaintiff's suit that a constitutional amendment passed by 70% of the voters which forbid courts from considering International and Sharia law within the US legal system is unconstitutional based on "freedom of religion".

Sometimes things in our country appear so outrageous that you just want to scream or perhaps pray that China or Russia will in deed take us over.

So now a person's religious affiliation and it's beliefs trump US laws.  How absurd is this?  So, under this ruling, I guess it's now legal to kill US citizens (non believers) since Sharia Law demands this.

How sweet is this.....  I guess Newt and Paul were on to something critical afterall.

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker1039 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
pwilley2348 reads

Here is one link, there are others.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitutional/

Related Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitu...

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461159 reads

The story does not say what you thought it said.  The judgement simply says Sharia law cannot be singled out in the law, nor could any religion.  But it also makes clear the principle that US governs and does trump any other law, religious or otherwise.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461783 reads

I'm not going to do it for you, either, but I can guarantee no court would ever rule that Sharia law, or any foreign law (espcially one that's religious-based) can trump US law.  Have you ever heard of snopes.com, which is very good at finding the truth about Internet allegations?  The Internet is rife with wild rumor and outright falsehoods.
For example, just the other day a friend forwarded to me an article alleging Obama had hired as financial advisors all three former heads of Fannie Mae (all of whom had been sacked for misconduct).  It seemed ludicrous to me so I snopes'd it.  It turned out to be a complete fabrication.
Tell me, where do you get your daily news, the National Enquirer?  lol!

ReplyQuoteReport
pwilley1710 reads

Look dude, maybe you ought to just go fuck yourself.  Are you disputing that the AP article is a lie?  Are you disputing that the appeals court overturned the lower court ruling?  Are you disputing the appeals court majority writing wherein they said the plaintiff would suffer harm if his religious beliefs were not considered within the US legal system?

What exactly are you disputing and in the famous words of the local brethen, where in the fuck is your link to something reputable that disputes the AP article?

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461588 reads

Here's a hint: read your original post again.  Then read the article you submitted.  They don't say remotely the same thing.  If you can't figure this out, there nothing I can do.  In a nutshell, your first post said a court had ruled Sharia law would trump US law.  The article said the opposite.  The suit is only, repeat only, about whether or not a specific religion could be singled out in the law.  Are we clear now?
PS: If you think your little reply would "offend" anybody on a fuck board, you're really getting carried away with yourself

-- Modified on 1/11/2012 10:38:10 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
pwilley1962 reads

Actually, your comments and interpretation of the ruling simply reaffirm the basis for why our legal rights have gradually been eroded over time, and frankly, it's no wonder we find ourselves faced with such a mess in this country, and one that only seems to get worse.  I remember vividly the case federal law that allows confiscation of funds without court order, without conviction, and without probable cause if LE alleges the funds could have been obtained through involvement with illegal drugs.  Outcome was that some folks who were found to be traveling with large amount of cash had their cash confiscated and nearly never got it back even though they had no day in court.  I'm reminded of how our phone calls can be monitored without your knowledge and whatever you might say privately be used against you.  I'm reminded that you can no longer purchase certain meds without a prescription because some acid head might sniff it.  Little by little, we are becoming the dreaded Orsin Wells nation that everyone said could never happen... it was a fictional movie right.... LOL

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461603 reads

including the Patriot Act and the recent detention law Obama signed.  The ruling you posted about, however, has nothing whatever to do with this.  It in no way erodes anybody's legal rights.
PS: Priapus told me the name of the film-maker you cite is Orson Welles.

ReplyQuoteReport
pwilley1589 reads

Husband in Oklahoma beat the shit out of his wife because he felt she somehow disrespected him.  Neighbor witnessed it, call the cops.  Man was arrested for assault/domestic violence.  His defense was that he was entitled to his actions under Sharia Law.  He was convicted.  Case was overturned on appeal because lower court failed to take into account mitigating factors advocated by his religion.

So, just because you tell me the ruling wouldn't trump US Law, doesnt' make it so, when there are actual facts that say otherwise.  Just because you tell me the ruling doesn't set up scenario's where Sharia Law would influence court decisions, doesn't make it so.  It already has.  And lest you think this limited or far fetched, consider a scenario where you look a muslim woman in the eyes and offer some friendly smile/greeting as you pass her on the street.  Sharia would permit the woman's husband to whip your ass for violating Sharia Law and defaming his wife.  If charged with assault and the man uses a Sharia defense, what now?  There is already precedence for him to probably win the argument.

Not a far fetched as you might think.

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u1496 reads

International law has a long and historical standing in the United States. When we enter into a treaty, international law is applied. No, lower courts can't trump international law. No, the Fox News bogeyman of Shiria Law isn't going to turn the US into an Islamic Republic. Stop your pants shitting, pwilley.

ReplyQuoteReport
pwilley2209 reads

Mr. Wonka, the article quoted was not written by Foxnews.  It was written by AP.  The ruling's verbatim majority opinion directly states that the plaintiff showed convincingly that unless his religious beliefs were taken into account, he would suffer harm and therefore his freedom of religion afforded by the First Amendment would be violated if a court failed to take those beliefs into account in rendering it's rulings.

Perhaps you and Mr. Inicky46 prefer the passive viewpoint that our courts are good ole boys and surely they wouldn't force legal decisions based on Sharia Law, but fact is you're wrong.  In Oklahoma they already did this which prompted the voters to approve a State Constitutional Amendment so that it couldn't happen again, only to have their desire overturned on appeal.  Just because the link was provided by Fox, doesn't mean the facts are wrong.  I'm not so easily convinced in your belief that the ruling means nothing.  These events in the court system didn't happen for nothing, voters didn't go to all this trouble for nothing, ...

I'm hoping you two are right in your views about the meaning of all this, but I'm not convinced given what has now transpired in Oklahoma.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky462183 reads

Sharia is not a language.  So, no, I do not speak it.  I think what you're missing is the plaintiff only sued because he believed the law interfered with his practice of his own religious beliefs.  Neither he nor anybody else (you excepted) thinks the decision means Sharia law trumps US law.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod748 reads

All the Tenth Circuit did was to rule that the district court had properly granted a preliminary injunction that prevented the Board of Election from certifying the  Oklahoma amendment that precluded Oklahoma courts from considering or applying Sharia law.

     So no decision has been made on the merits yet as to whether the amendment violates the Constitution. The fed courts do believe that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of this claim.

    But, even if the plaintiff ultimately wins, that does not mean that Sharia law will “trump” Oklahoma or other law.

        Religious laws almost never trump our criminal law. If your religion says it is okay to kill someone, that is no defense to a murder charge in our country.

     Where Sharia laws may properly be applied would be in civil litigation. If you want to contract with someone and specify that Sharia law governs your contract instead of Oklahoma law, that is perfectly okay to do but for this proposed amendment. Or I guess if you marry under Sharia law and one party seeks a divorce under those laws, the court might apply Sharia law rather than Oklahoma law.

     But except for rare instances like this, Sharia law will never trump US law.

ReplyQuoteReport
michael_z9712124 reads

The court said that Oklahoma could not favor or disfavor a particular religion in creating a law.

I agree with that belief.

Conservatives talk about following the Constitution except for protection of rights of the minority.

My interpretation is that a person still has to comply with all state laws when living in Oklahoma.

Nowhere did it say that religious beliefs trumps other laws.



ReplyQuoteReport
GaGamblerssmarterbrother1308 reads

and too narrowly written as to disfavor one specific religion over all others. I agree with much of the spirit of the law, but the law, as written is clearly unconstitutional.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!