skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A federal judge bars the state's Save Our State Amendment pending further proceedings.
“While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice of law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures, regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any, the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith,” the judge wrote.
... Scott Boughton, an assistant attorney general for the state, defended the measure, saying it was only intended to keep Oklahoma judges from looking at the legal principles of other nations and cultures in applying state and federal law. When the judge asked if that had ever happened in Oklahoma, Mr. Boughton acknowledged that he did not know of an instance in which Shariah law had been invoked by the courts....
Posts
105 comments:
Do laws against polygamy single out the Mormons?
Seriously.
How stupid are lawyers?
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
No. Oklahoma singled out Sharia tyranny from being imposed by incompetent and bribed Judges. This isn't Canada where exactly that has become an approved method of getting along with a murderous religious cult in their midst. Oklahomans just say no surrender.
Badger-people:
Armed student holding hostages in your (general) neck of the woods? Per Fox News. Marinette(?)WI.
Anyone nearby/know anything?
Is he Muslim?
What really matters is how he feels about health care.
wv: unbeat
Squares?
"Miles-LaGrange, received a certificate from the University of Ghana in Accra, Ghana, West Africa in 1973 ..."
Talk about your judge shopping.
But wait ... it gets better. Check out this bio ... it has all the liberal standard-bearings:
* special assistant to the Justice Department African Development Group
* a Lecturer in the Women's Studies Program at the University of Maryland, College Park in 1981.
* was nominated by President William J. Clinton
* member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, a racist sorority which excludes white girls
A racist Bill-Clinton lesbian foreigner.
That's like hitting the fucking Quinella at Churchill Downs.
Our judicial system is so fucking crooked it's not even funny.
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St.
Rm. 3301 (Fifth Floor), Courtroom 301 (Third Floor)
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
It's a relief to know that Oklahoma has solved all of its real problems and can now turn its attention to completely hypothetical ones.
Phone: work(405) 609-5400
Fax: fax(405) 609-5413
And if Sharia law was singled out, what's the constitutional violation? Frankly, it's a damn shame that judges even need to be told to limit themselves to U.S. law, but there it is.
The idea that this judge might find it problematic to tell judges to limit themselves to U.S. law...well, that's what recall provisions are for.
My folks in rural Oklahoma tended to prevent or settle disputes with a lever action Winchester, and a 12 gauge pump for backup (and quail hunting).
The implication in that original question is that Muslims *shouldn't* be singled out...
..until one goes "BOOM!" and then everyone wants to know why they *weren't* being singled out, of course.
I thought we were supposed to have a single standard when it came to the Law in this country, Professor, and that the Consititution wasn't supposed to be a suicide pact that aids suicide bombers by elevating their diseased, mentally-constipated cultural norms to the same level as our own, vastly-superior culture.
If you want Sharia Law, go back to whatever sandy litterbox it was that you've crawled out of.
May I get an answer to this hypothetical, Professor (seeing as how lawyers just LOVE hypotheticals)?
Assume that Sharia Law was operative somewhere in the United States. Assume that a Muslim father, upset that his daughter a) wears too much eye makeup, and b) has had an abortion, stabbed said daughter to death.
A state court convicts him of murder (or a lesser charge of manslaugher, given the "emotional circumstances" of his crime).
However, this father has the option to appeal to a Religious Court, and does so; the Sharia Court decides that according to "a Strict Constructionaist" reading of the Koran, the daughter was his "property" and he was within his "rights" to take her life because she "shamed" the family -- and he is acquitted.
How does your brilliant legal/feminist mind explain how Justice has been served?
well, its the same holding pattern they were in with the initial injunction.
And yes, a state is allowed to chose its legal system, even if it gives some citizens a frowny face that they can't bring in their barbaric legal code.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the law said the courts can't apply the Napoleonic Code.
Trooper makes a good point. The fact is that this law could have been better written and should have been passed by the legislature.
Trooper York said...
Do laws against polygamy single out the Mormons?
Seriously.
How stupid are lawyers?
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer
=================
Absolutely. And lets add when the Holy Roman Catholic Church was still running ecclesiastical courts in certain parts of Europe, Latin America, and in some Italian principlaity and SPanish colonies in the 18th, even 19th century - Catholic Leaders in America were warned they would be summarily arrested if any Papist courts were sniffed out in any Catholic community.
And we said "no" to efforts of native americans to replace certain US laws with laws coming from the Shaman of the tribe.
And judicial assertions of only sovereign US courts would hold sway went past NAs, Catholics and Mormons to clamp down on Christian Fundies trying to apply "Biblical Law", and the amusing cults like Rastafarians advocating free drug use under the "laws" of their religion. And crackdowns on Voodoo and Santorini religious code and practices.
Just another stupid lawyer dressed in robes that somehow - we are supposed to worship blindly like Jews did the laws made by their High Priesthood the Sanhedrin?
We have 5,168 lawyers dressed in robes calling themselves the Highest Branch of American Justice. Each sovereign over all of us on any matter, they say, as they individually opine on any matter...
They even disagree on their mighty whims.
The two best days for American Democracy were when Andrew Jackson told John Marshall to fuck off and when Abraham Lincoln told Roger Taney to fuck off.
"... that's what recall provisions are for."
Sorry, Tim, but it is not possible to recall a federal judge. They can be impeached, (only seven have been in our entire history) but then they usually just become members of the United States House of Representatives. Federal judges are appointed for life.
In case anyone had any doubt, yes, Her Esteemed Federal Judgness Vicki Miles-LaGrange is an affirmative action black woman, appointed by Bill Clinton. A Vassar grad who holds Leftist views.(Surprise!!)
Yet another reason to hold a Constitutional Convention since the Amending Process is now dead thanks to special interests lined up in opposition on any "significant matter". Been dead since the early 60s.
Only way you get rid of
Judges For Life - is by fixing all the present problems of the US Constitution "Insta-citizenship", only Congress can spend more than they have, "lifetime judges, abuse of Senate Advise and Consent - in one big revision.
Just once, I'd like to see the Tea Party types muster the courage Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln and DARE to say "fuck off" to some hack appointed by some long gone President --back up at him or her sitting in their Mighty Courthouse Temple, dressed in black robes and surrounded by dozens of fawning, adoring fellow lawyers on the make.
"Did Oklahoma single out Muslims for disapproval?"
Seems like they singled out judges who would use Shariah Law to excuse acts otherwise against the law (Federal or state). Not all judges would do that nor would all Muslims use Shariah Law as a reason to kill their daughters.
Jesus Christ, Cedarford. Shut the fuck up.
You know I just saw "Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson" on Broadway and well...Andy came off as kinda a fanook...not that there's anything wrong with that.
he did not know of an instance in which Shariah law had been invoked by the courts
In short, a solution in search of a problem.
As if there aren't enough laws.
I wonder if they will be writing plays about Obama 100 years form now.
"Bloody, Bloody Barack Obama's Lip?"
"He Stooped to Surrender?"
Boy! The understanding of US law as demonstrated by the majority of comments here makes me really, really glad the commenters will never be on my jury.
Here're a few clues:
Comity
Choice of Law
Religious Accommodation
Contractual Arbitration
All of these, in all 50 States, have called upon 'foreign' and yes, even 'religious' law since, well, since the US started. It's not new, it's not a sneak attack by Muslims. It's your own freaking history that you somehow managed never to learn.
US courts give equal--and only equal--treatment to all religions, even those with one follower. State are obliged to honor the judgments entered into by the courts of other US States, including those that apply some aspect of foreign or religious law.
Just think! Our defective school textbooks say that the Know Nothing movement belonged to the middle of the 19th C. Clearly, they're wrong. It thrives today.
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Financial Ruin?"
Come on, Trooper. The man is a Light Worker. They'll be doing plays about Obama 2,000 years from now -- the same play every year, actually, during Obamatime.
I think Oklahoma would have done better to pass a law insisting on Sharia being used. The outcome would have been the same but we might have heard some arguments against it.
"How to succeed or not in politics without really trying"
Have muslims singled themselves out for disapproval?
Hey John Burgess, the law is an ass.
Some of us want to kiss it.
Some of us want to kick it.
"The Sweet Smell of ...Well Not Success Exactly But The Media Will Cover for Me."
The real bottom line seems to be that Shariah law is not really law, but religious doctrine. One religion's doctrines cannot be singled out for disfavor.
The judge concluded that Shariah law “lacks a legal character” and “is not ‘law’ but is religious traditions that differ among Muslims.” As a result, she said, the amendment “conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.”
The answer?
Yes.
But the other question is "Do I really care?"
"Shariah is most assuredly law as ordained by Allah and transmitted by the Prophet (pbuh). The Qur'an contains Shariah. Some infidel states blink at this basic truth and attempt to soften Shariah through a secular, statist veil. But Allah's law will not be muted.
Oh infidel Americans, Shariah is inevitable. Your ridiculous lying lawyers only hasten what Allah has foreordained. We laugh at and yet welcome the absurd arguments of your judges who slit their own and your throats while kissing the ring of Islam.
Separation of church and state--how absurd--do you doubt Allah or the Prophet (pbuh)? You ridiculous infidels welcome Shariah even as you squeal. Allahu Akhbar!"
Damndest thing I heard from my taxi driver on the way home from the airport yesterday. Thanksgiving was terrific.
Hey Judge, Big F##KING Deal. so there's a possibility/likelihood that one particular religion will be singled out. So F##KING what?
All Hail our Judicial overlords! Resistance is futile.
Why even discuss it? When our black robed philosopher kings decide we must have Gay marriage or must not whatever, people jabber about it and say its wrong or right. But its all meaningless bullshit.'Cause we all love having Ivy league lawyers rule us.
Americans love lawyers and they dream of making millions just sitting on their ass writing 100 pages briefs on why 'blah blah' is right and 'blah blah' is wrong. So it ain't going to change.
Wake me up when the Judges decide we can vote on it.
Why would Shariah be targeted? It's not like they've tried to blow up folks at a Christmas tree in Portland or flown into buildings.
They're just yer average religion that wants you to submit, or die.
What's the big deal?
Seven Machos said...
Jesus Christ, Cedarford. Shut the fuck up.
================
Is it possible for you to disagree without taking Gods name in vain as you cuss someone, Machos, you fuckstain...??
It is now time to take our national security seriously and do an inventory of all of the Muslims living her whether they are citizens or not. Non-citizens should get the boot back to the middle east. Muslims who are citizens should only be released after passing a stringent back ground check and taking a oath of loyalty to our county on their bible the Koran.
I seem to recall, even before 9/11, people getting exercised at Mrs Justice Ginsburg and Mr Justice Breyer for using Euro law to justify their opinions (the Professor may be able to enlighten us). How does anybody know that wasn't the inspiration?
Trooper York said...
You know I just saw "Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson" on Broadway and well...Andy came off as kinda a fanook
As they once said on the lines at Bayou Barataria, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?".
PS Nice to see Cedar hates the Catholics as much as the Jews.
The Book of Mormon, Alma 10:27:
And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
John Burgess,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you're saying the judge was right, it begs several questions. Do you believe that Shariah law would offer a legal defense to a charge of spousal abuse, or rape of a wife by her husband? How about honor killing, or stoning, genital mutilation or convicting rape victims of adultery or fornication and killing them. Those are all approved religious laws or traditions in a number of nations? Does foreign or religious law have the power to overrule public policy?
"Congress passed a final federal antibigamy provision in 1892, which excluded polygamists from immigration into the United States. This exclusion remains part of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Code."
On the other hand, homosexuality is grounds for the death penalty under some strains of Shariah law, so would the murder of a gay man by a Muslim be justified by Shariah law?
I don't believe that concerns about Shariah law is bigotry. It's the avowed aim of a lot of radical Imams who preach violent Jihad. Until Muslims speak out against these radicals and terrorist groups, instead of complaining over politically incorrect slights the way CAIR does, Americans will remain in doubt about what they really believe. How about some fatwas excommunicating people who conspire to kill Americans and overthrow non-Muslim governments?
Sharia law in Oklahoma?
C'mon, gimme a break.
Next up on the "legislation meant to pander" list:
-Oklahoma outlaws the wearing of University of Texas jerseys on Saturday's in the fall
Trooper,
A hundred years from now folks are going to think we were idiots because only 42% of us are certain that BHO was born in America.
In the future our absurdity will seem very backward; as all irrational hate eventually does. The future will view us as easily scared nitwits, who were easily manipulated by professional conservatives, who were laughing all the way to the bank.
edutcher - "PS Nice to see Cedar hates the Catholics as much as the Jews..."
Meaning not much, no more than giving Jews or Muslims or their religious/business groups power over America is subversive. Same with some CHristian Fundie arguing that Bible laws are supreme over American laws.
The middle of the 19th Century saw some very reactionary Popes that supported established power over the people, disfavored democracy, greatly favored establishment of State censors and for Catholics to avoid friendhips and relationship with non-Catholics. And 1st obedience to the Pope over any national leader.
France, America, Latin governments, and pro-Democracy Italian Revolutionaries were right to stomp all over those 1830-1875 Popes wishes.
Helped Catholics assimilate and further embrace secularism in running a nation.
We should be doing the same thing to our Islamoids....in spades.
Why are you upset at C-ford - Seven?
He's an obvious Liberal Moby. That's why he always mixes in the Jew hate with normal conservative positions and then out of the blue attacks conservative.
Gary Rosen (his sock puppet) used to charge in and accuse him of antisemitism if no one else did.
I wouldn't be surprised if "Cedarford" is really Charles Johnson.
We didn't think we had a problem with keeping Scottish law out of this country's legal system until that fuck Arlen Specter dragged into Clinton's impeachment trial.
In short, a solution in search of a problem.
As if there aren't enough laws.
Indeed. Conservatives are for less government until they want more government.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Hey! I don't mean one of THOSE government guys, [the big government guys]. I mean me, the little government guy, who only serves in government to warn you of the evil of the big government guys. Mind you, if I had my way there wouldn't be ANY government guys, but since there are so many big government guys there needs to be more little government guys than big government guys to make government littler".
RC -- Cedarford used to post at brothersjudd until he unceremoniously booted. That was well before Charles Johnson went insane.
If Cedarford is a moby, he's a good one and an incredibly persistent, consistent one.
Oh no, Beth is here. Now c3 is gonna complain that this thread it going to turn into another Cowboy's vs. Saints argument!
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Is the name "Cedarford" copyrighted?
I think not.
former law student wrote...
The real bottom line seems to be that Shariah law is not really law, but religious doctrine. One religion's doctrines cannot be singled out for disfavor.
So if judges rely on Sharia that's ok, but if legislators rely on Christianity or Mosaic law, it violates the Establishment Clause.
That makes perfect sense in today's judicial climate.
RC -- It was the same Cedarford. I expect he will vouch for that.
So if judges rely on Sharia that's ok, but if legislators rely on Christianity or Mosaic law, it violates the Establishment Clause.
Come on, man. Don't make me agree with FLS again. This is getting painful and weird.
The very basis of American and British law -- the reasonable person standard -- is anchored precisely in the Golden Rule. That's one. There are a trillion more.
The Swiss seem to be figuring this out way ahead of the rest of Europe. Once you get a system that allows Shariah courts in certain "communities" you will get areas official, sanctioned police officers won't go.
That's the canary in the mineshaft. If that bird dies, it's a long, painful shuffle toward servitude.
Blasts from our past.
Not a Hebe anywhere in sight here but C-fudd is still blaming it on da Joooooos. Don't you get tired of jacking yourself off to sleep over those old Tiger Beats, you pathetic old boomer nitwit?
"Gary Rosen (his sock puppet)"
Bwahaha, from his boytoy. Can't even come up with anything original.
It seems to me that the point of the post is not the merits or lack thereof in the amendment, but that the lawyer said that the amendment was not targeting Islam. When asked if any instance of using other laws was used, the lawyer then replied referring solely to Islam, thus betraying that the amendment is indeed targeting that one religion.
In other words, this post is pointing out a fatal error by the government's attorney.
I think y'all have completely missed the point.
I keep reading Oklahoma as Obama.
We know we belong to the man
And the man we belong to is grand!
And when we say
Yeeow! Ayipioeeay!
We're only sayin'
You're doin' fine, Obama!
Obama O.K.
There's your play, Trooper.
Wow, what a mess.
First of all, according to the article, the law targets laws of foreign countries and Sharia. Since Sharia is religious law, "laws of other countries" doesn't cover it. So no other religious law is singled out. So what? Wouldn't Sharia law be the only religious law that needs to be singled out? Are there christian, Jewish, etc. equivalents?
What amazes me here, and I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it, is that forbidding a judge, a government agent whose job is to impose the will of the government, from imposing religious law does not violate the establishment clause, it codifies it.
What this federal judge is suggesting (but has not yet ruled), that judges should be allowed to apply Sharia law, is itself a clear violation of the establishment clause.
The judge's defenders (as well as the judge herself) have it exactly backwards. Not a surprise given the rogues gallery of defenders the judge has here.
A 'living' Constitution is an ironic one, so that the establishment clause will soon mean precisely the opposite.
hmmmm. So the next time you wingnuts want the judges to profess a belief in our Judeo-Christian heritage and the faith of our founding fathers you will be equally up in arms about the consideration of this religion(s) into contemplation of the law?
Really?
Can't wait! (and by the way, that might be the violation - all or none)
In which HDHouse demonstrates for the umpteenth time that he either can't read, or can't understand what he reads.
As if that needed further proof.
Yes, HD, if a Judge adheres to the American principles that empower him, then that's the same as relying on a set of ancient foreign customs from the other side of the world.
Next up on the "legislation meant to pander" list:
-Oklahoma outlaws the wearing of University of Texas jerseys on Saturday's in the fall
Ha!
It was a sea of red in Little Rock on Saturday. WPS! Suck it, LSU!
@pogo
i read just fine...just not the jibberish you write.
what part of "all or none" don't you understand? all religions are excluded or no religions are excluded from contemplation from the bench. if you select just one either way you are either establishing or suppressing, take your pick.
and judeo-christian has no part in our founding fathers...christian (mainly protestant) yes, judeo no... it is a manufactured term that is only a hundred or so years old and frankly was invented to placate the protestants who were rightfully upset about the treatment of the Jews....something of a inclusive turn of phrase.
get over yourself. you are rarely right.
received a certificate from the University of Ghana in Accra,
Ha ha!
...may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval...
That's a good thing.
We are a Christian nation, not a rag head nation. The problem is that judges pretend otherwise.
HD, you do understand the purpose and effect of founding this Country, don't you? It was to provide an escape from the stone age violence and brain-diseased ignorance that made up the basis for all other systems of Law at the time.
HDH, can you talk in sense instead insults for once? What is the christian equivalent of Sharia law?
That's your main problem, you keep saying some variation of "all or none", but Sharia IS all. There is no equivalent in the world's other major religions.
Maybe you don't know what Sharia law is?
forbidding a judge, a government agent whose job is to impose the will of the government, from imposing religious law does not violate the establishment clause, it codifies it.
Good! I'm going to set up a kosher meat market in OK City, selling only regular beef chicken and lamb, naturally, because religious doctrines are unenforceable in Oklahoma.
@linlconf... well two real things come to mind about our founding; one dealing with kings and the otehr dealing with religion. what part of either don't you understand?
@tommcguire ... there is no court case or any record whatsoever of Sharia law being considered in Oklahoma. there is plenty of record regarding the bible being considered and for many the bible IS LAW...or did you miss that part of the discussion?
as to insulting Pogo...and? don't insult my intelligence with weak sister spincrap and I won't insult you.
there is no court case or any record whatsoever of Sharia law being considered in Oklahoma
I don't follow this line of reasoning (as it is used as an argument against the law). Why can't a law be preemptive, in view of anticipated problems? Even if it has not happened in OK, it has happened in other places (The New Jersy marital rape case, although overturned on appeal, is enough to scare the bejesus out of all of us, IMO.)
I'm a small government type of person, but I certainly want what government is in place to be somewhat forward thinking? Why wait until there is a problem before putting in a simple, cost free fix for it?
- Lyssa
HD, educate me about the Founding of our Nation, won't you?
I'm looking directly at three wall cases of books on the topic, but I'm sure you'll be able to boil it all down for me better than those dusty old tomes ever did. Do try.
Having read the ballot question, I know the proposition also purports to prohibit consideration of tribal laws in OK courts. This may be the real motive behind the proposition in the former Indian Territory.
Judges accepting a limit on their powers coming from the people via vote?
Inherently "unconstitutional"! Citizens can't go around instructing their betters.
The judge concluded that Shariah law “lacks a legal character” and “is not ‘law’ but is religious traditions that differ among Muslims.”
As my sainted Grandma would say:
"Horseshit!"
The judges assertion is a bald-faced, taqiyya ridden lie.
Muslim governments the world over actively use Sharia to govern, prosecute and punish offenders of Islamic religious requirements in their civil and CRIMINAL courts.
The judges "conclusion" doesn't hold up to reality on the ground back here on the planet Earth.
What an ignorant woman. How do leftists get the reputation for being "smart" when such stupid things fall out of their brains?
Libtard: and judeo-christian has no part in our founding fathers...
The Constitution of the United States.
Our entire code of law is founded on judeo-christian values.
Your claim is about the stupidist thing I've read on the web this years. Grats.
Muslim governments the world over actively use Sharia to govern, prosecute and punish offenders of Islamic religious requirements in their civil and CRIMINAL courts.
Sharia law as part of another country's law is a different issue. Let us say that an Oklahoma company outsources work to a Muslim country company. The Muslim country company negotiates a choice of law provision that all disputes will be handled according to its country's law. This proposition would invalidate that provision, violating the Constitution's doctrine forbidding state impairment of contracts.
But let us further say that other country's laws are acceptable as long as they're not Sharia law. Say the Muslim country is Malaysia, which has a hybrid of English common law and Sharia law. Would interpretation according to the English common law half be OK but interpretation according to the Sharia half taboo?
As far as criminal law goes, I don't see an OK court ordering the stoning of adulterers. Nor do I see an OK court holding an adulterer for extradition to a Sharia law country. Crime would have to be defined by US/OK law.
My point is the claim that Muslims don't use Sharia as LAW is a lie.
Muslims are commanded to by the Koran, whether they live in the US or not.
Islam demands subordination of the secular to Islam, period. That is why they drive out or kill Christians, Jews and apostates from their societies, when they aren't forced to live in a second class "dhimmi" status, paying jizya, which is a "you are Allahs Bitch" tax, living only under the sufferance of Muslim whim.
Sharia is the religious justification for Islamic terrorists ehich are aided and abetted by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Student Association and CAIR. Just because Muslims are on US soil doesn't change this about Islam.
This law was not well thought out. It has the unintended consequence of banning English Common Law, Magna Carta, and the Ten Comantments.
@ SGT Ted The judges assertion is a bald-faced, taqiyya ridden lie.
No she is just abysmally ignorant. And I would wager a lot that she will never bother her lazy self to find out what Sharia really is.
That's what diversity training does for you.
Seven wrote: Come on, man. Don't make me agree with FLS again. This is getting painful and weird.
The very basis of American and British law -- the reasonable person standard -- is anchored precisely in the Golden Rule. That's one. There are a trillion more.
Wow, Seven, you've gotten so smart recently that nobody knows what the hell your talking about.
Are we to suppose that the tenets of the "Golden Rule" are associated with a particular religion? If not, what's your point?
Are we to suppose that the tenets of the "Golden Rule" are associated with a particular religion?
Yes. Obviously. When Jesus summed up the law of the prophets, he was talking exclusively about Jewish prophets. He wasn't talking about Hindu prophets or the prophets of the Greek gods. Islam had not yet been invented.
FLS, I think you've got interesting point on Malaysia. Except that you didn't read the State Question closely. SQ 755 states that neither Sharia NOR international law shall not be considered in Oklahoma state courts. So your hypothetical isn't that hard to solve. If the suit ends up in an Oklahoma court that court won't consider any law but US/OK law in its deliberations.
What's that you say? That it nullifies a contract that specified another legal system? Yep. We can argue over whether that's a bug or a feature. And I wish that's what the suit had been brought over, as it's the actual issue rather than this religious freedom smokescreen.
Your speculation over the real motivation is almost right. The motivation for passing the law was the one stated--a pre-emptive strike against Sharia. The motivation against it is almost certainly driven by Indian gaming concerns. There's big, big money in those tribe-vs-state decisions.
HDH, so what's you're saying is you can't answer my question but you also won't admit that you can't answer my question. The fact that some law may be in agreement with prescriptions of the bible is an entirely different matter.
The people here who say our laws are biblical already are wrong but that's also besides the point.
Bottom line is you don't seem to understand what Sharia law is and I can't really continue this conversation until you educate yourself.
Seven wrote: 'Are we to suppose that the tenets of the "Golden Rule" are associated with a particular religion?'
Yes. Obviously. When Jesus summed up the law of the prophets, he was talking exclusively about Jewish prophets.
Sorry. The tenets of what Christians call the "Golden Rule" are associated with numerous religious faiths as well as humanism. Thus, a legal premise reflecting those tenets does not reflect a particular religion.
So, what was your point? (10:38)
Fen said...
Libtard: and judeo-christian has no part in our founding fathers...
The Constitution of the United States.Our entire code of law is founded on judeo-christian values. "
1. I don't find God in the constitution. Do you? cite please.
2. judeo-christian?
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
% of
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
imagine that...more Huguenots than Jews. 3-0.
got any juice there or are you just pulling it out of your ass as usual.
@timmcguire
you can't continue this conversation because there isn't one.
When Sharia law is posted on the U-tot-em stores in Oklahoma stating that shoplifters will have their hands cut off and then stoned to death let me know. otherwise, leave me and us and oklahoma alone.
they have enough problems with coburn and inhofe.
The tenets of what Christians call the "Golden Rule" are associated with numerous religious faiths as well as humanism
So what? When they were incorporated into American law, it was commonly understood to be Christianity underlying it.
If you believe in God, does that make you a Muslim since Muslims worship the same God as Christians? After all, it's the same God, and a legal premise reflecting God does not reflect a particular religion.
So, what was your point?
Seven wrote: So what? When they were incorporated into American law, it was commonly understood to be Christianity underlying it.
If you believe in God, does that make you a Muslim since Muslims worship the same God as Christians? After all, it's the same God, and a legal premise reflecting God does not reflect a particular religion.
So, what was your point?
What are you talking about?
Since you seem to lose the plot between one post and the next, it really doesn't matter what my point was.
However, I was certainly interested to hear from you that that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. I thought that was a matter of considerable theological debate.
I was certainly interested to hear from you that that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Well, no. It's not. Certainly, it's not a matter of logical debate.
1. Two religions worship one God and no others.
2. We will stipulate that both these religions are correct in that there is, in fact, one God and no others.
3. I will let you try to figure this part out.
Seven wrote:
1. Two religions worship one God and no others.
2. ....
Heady stuff, Seven. Of course your phrasing begs the question and there is no reason per your "logic" to exclude other monotheistic religions.
Of course if we proceed beyond what you call "logic," we get into that messy theological stuff and questions like: Do Muslims worship the Triune God of the Christians?
Not all debates lend themselves to "logic" based on personal predilections.
Do Muslims worship the Triune God of the Christians?
this is an excellent point. Of the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity is the odd one out, with Islam being merely a reformed branch of Judaism.
fls wrote: Of the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity is the odd one out, with Islam being merely a reformed branch of Judaism.
The Kuran may state that Allah is Yahweh of the Bible, but that does not make it so, nor does it oblige Jews and Christians to believe it. Certainly, neither the revealed character nor the teachings of Allah militate in favor of that conclusion.
The New Testament may state that God is Yahweh of the Bible, but that does not make it so, nor does it oblige Jews and Muslims to believe it.
Fun.
The New Testament may state that God is Yahweh of the Bible, but that does not make it so, nor does it oblige Jews and Muslims to believe it.
Just so, Seven. A significant step forward. Next, you'll be speaking of the hermeneutical implications of such things instead of merely offering conclusory allegations.
Hombre -- If the Jews, Christians, and Muslims say they are worshiping one God, then it must be the same God. God gave us the world, so He gave us logic.
Your best arguments here -- your only arguments -- is that one or more of the three is worshiping improperly or that there was an attempt at god thievery. But we cannot be dealing with multiple deities here.
Seven wrote: Hombre -- If the Jews, Christians, and Muslims say they are worshiping one God, then it must be the same God. God gave us the world, so He gave us logic.
No. If all Jews, Christians and Muslims agree that they are worshiping the same God it must be so. They don't and it isn't.
Other monotheists claimed or claim to be worshiping one god, do you think that is also the same God? Was Ahura Mazda, for example, the same God?
If the revealed character and the teaching of Allah differ from those of the God of the Bible, how do you argue logically that they are the same God? If you believe the teaching of the Bible, how do you argue that Allah is God at all?
I do agree that God gave us logic.
"Islam being merely a reformed branch of Judaism."
Right. And Arabs are semites, so they can't be antisemitic. Therefore it is OK for Hamas to call for the genocide of Jews in its charter, but not OK for Israel to defend itself.
fls == full of lots of shit
Rosen -- why don't Jews stone adulterers any more, as The Lord commanded?
Post a Comment