No Elephants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-02-10 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 126. How would a flag amendment spill over on Obama? He's never burned a flag. |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-02-10 07:21 AM by No Elephants
Fury against Muslims, on the other hand, combined with a lot of pre-manufactured confusion about whether Barack Hussein Obama is a Kenyan Muslim or only a Hawaiian Muslim fits right in (no pun) with this ginned up outrage over Sharia law.
Obviously, we are in great danger of his imposing Sharia law on us all, heaven help us. Or maybe foreign law-Kenyan law. Who knows?
Bet they planned state constitutional amendments about sharia and foreign law for ballotws in 2012, just for insurance in turning out the wing nuts, much as gay marriage amendments were used in 2000 and 2004. This decision on thr constitution may orce them to regroup.
Evil, ugly.
|
| -Oklahoma’s Ban on Shariah Law in Court Is Blocked |
Scurrilous |
Nov-29-10 04:32 PM |
#0 |
 -
Activist judges! I can see the anti-Sharia laws spreading like anti-gay amendments. |
thereismore |
Nov-29-10 04:40 PM |
#1 |
 -
Gays don't have a habit of chopping heads off and blowing up buildings |
DissedByBush |
Nov-29-10 08:34 PM |
#35 |
| -
Maybe you could explain exactly what sharia Laws have been used in US courtrooms? |
Winterblues |
Nov-30-10 05:14 PM |
#77 |
 -
Neither do 1.5 billion Muslims, certainly not Oklahoma Muslims. |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 10:34 PM |
#89 |
| -
When did gay stop being the new gay? Do parents and clergy of Muslims shun Muslims and tell them |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 10:31 PM |
#88 |
| -
Reminds me of a comic book I read as a kid, about Mars. |
jobycom |
Nov-29-10 04:40 PM |
#2 |
| -
And you took away from that story not to attack people or places for trumped up reasons, as |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 04:55 AM |
#117 |
| -
Drawing in the moron vote! |
Lasher |
Nov-29-10 04:49 PM |
#3 |
| -
How would a flag amendment spill over on Obama? He's never burned a flag. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 07:14 AM |
#126 |
| -
Like there aren't enough REAL threats to be afraid of! |
AlbertCat |
Nov-29-10 04:58 PM |
#4 |
| -
How the hell does someone equate religious law with International Law? |
robinlynne |
Nov-29-10 04:59 PM |
#5 |
| -
Religion and law should never mix. |
AlbertCat |
Nov-29-10 05:07 PM |
#9 |
| -
Because neither has a place in our judicial system |
DissedByBush |
Nov-29-10 05:30 PM |
#15 |
| -
Treaties rather thoroughly have a place in the US legal system |
Posteritatis |
Nov-29-10 07:46 PM |
#28 |
| -
This isn't about treaties |
DissedByBush |
Nov-29-10 08:32 PM |
#34 |
| -
So, the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma is... what? |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 08:46 PM |
#37 |
| -
Uhhh, no. |
Posteritatis |
Nov-30-10 04:06 AM |
#54 |
| -
It includes treaties, but it is not limited to them n/t |
DissedByBush |
Nov-30-10 04:05 PM |
#74 |
| -
You got one right! But, given your reply #34, only by accident. |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 10:46 PM |
#91 |
| -
Laws made by other nations? |
Demstud |
Nov-30-10 08:19 AM |
#57 |
| -
Depends on how you define "made a difference." |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 01:32 AM |
#104 |
| -
No, laws made by other nations is not international law, any more than U.S. law is international law |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 10:52 PM |
#93 |
| -
That's how it seems to me. International Law, if our country has signed onto it, |
robinlynne |
Nov-29-10 11:33 PM |
#49 |
| -
I think do not torture is one of those little international laws. |
robinlynne |
Nov-29-10 11:34 PM |
#50 |
| -
(A) It needs no enforcement; (B) no law "enforces" anything; and |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 10:39 PM |
#90 |
| -
Conservatives hate both |
Posteritatis |
Nov-29-10 07:48 PM |
#29 |
| -
K & R, from an Okie |
a la izquierda |
Nov-29-10 05:02 PM |
#6 |
| -
I'm not completely clear on this issue... |
Mhak |
Nov-29-10 05:02 PM |
#7 |
| -
Can someone please explain to me what I'm apparently missing |
AlbertCat |
Nov-29-10 05:11 PM |
#10 |
| -
That didn't help at all. |
Mhak |
Nov-29-10 05:16 PM |
#11 |
| -
Nobody is |
Goldom |
Nov-29-10 05:28 PM |
#12 |
| -
You are fundamentally correct and the judge is saying it has no business in the State Constitution |
Brother Buzz |
Nov-29-10 05:28 PM |
#13 |
| -
The GOP version |
bongbong |
Nov-29-10 05:42 PM |
#17 |
| -
Remember, my friend, that many Democrats also own firearms ... |
spin |
Nov-29-10 06:31 PM |
#21 |
| -
2nd Amendment? |
bongbong |
Nov-29-10 07:00 PM |
#26 |
| -
Well regulated had a different meaning in those days ... |
spin |
Nov-29-10 07:41 PM |
#27 |
| -
Yah.. and "arms" had a different meaning, too |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 08:24 PM |
#32 |
| -
Yes |
bongbong |
Nov-29-10 09:10 PM |
#41 |
| -
If you are right than explain these quotes from the founding fathers ... |
spin |
Nov-29-10 11:00 PM |
#45 |
| -
No explanation needed! |
bongbong |
Nov-30-10 11:14 AM |
#60 |
| -
I think we both have to admit that there was a lot of good discussion ... |
spin |
Nov-30-10 03:19 PM |
#71 |
| -
Oh, please, Louise. What a few politicians say is not necessarily what |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 11:37 PM |
#99 |
| -
No gun owner that I know wants to own a nuke ... |
spin |
Nov-29-10 10:50 PM |
#44 |
| -
No soldier that I know wants to be quartered in someone's home without their consent, either |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 11:07 PM |
#46 |
| -
I think our soldiers in Iraq enjoyed being in Saddam's palaces ... |
spin |
Nov-29-10 11:28 PM |
#47 |
| -
And you accused another poster of an argument without relevance or substance? |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 12:35 AM |
#102 |
| -
Lotsa gun owners, however, DO WANT.... |
bongbong |
Nov-30-10 11:18 AM |
#61 |
| -
I'm surprised that you were not aware of the fact that Americans ... |
spin |
Nov-30-10 03:48 PM |
#72 |
| -
Putting words in my mouth |
bongbong |
Dec-01-10 10:01 AM |
#81 |
| -
Why do you accuse those who support RKBA of "gun love" ... |
spin |
Dec-01-10 10:04 PM |
#87 |
| -
Nope. Exaggerating to make a point does not render the point made irrelevant or |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 12:21 AM |
#101 |
| -
So did speech and press. |
beevul |
Nov-30-10 01:08 PM |
#68 |
| -
Red Herring |
bongbong |
Nov-29-10 09:06 PM |
#39 |
| -
While it is fun to argue about the meaning of terms such as "well regulated" |
spin |
Nov-29-10 11:34 PM |
#51 |
| -
SCOTUS argument irrelevent |
bongbong |
Nov-30-10 11:21 AM |
#62 |
| -
This Isn't though. |
beevul |
Nov-30-10 01:05 PM |
#67 |
| -
You should read my posts |
bongbong |
Nov-30-10 01:09 PM |
#69 |
| -
That is NOT the preamble to the bill of rights. And your source is not |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 01:58 AM |
#106 |
| -
My first good laugh of the day ... |
spin |
Nov-30-10 03:10 PM |
#70 |
| -
spelling errors |
bongbong |
Dec-01-10 09:50 AM |
#80 |
| -
Now you are putting words in my mouth ... |
spin |
Dec-01-10 11:24 PM |
#98 |
| -
hating to beat a dead horse |
bongbong |
Dec-02-10 02:31 PM |
#129 |
| -
Not irrelevant to Daley, but not infallible or necessarily the final word on what the 2nd |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 02:11 AM |
#107 |
| -
Heller is a narrow decision. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 01:50 AM |
#105 |
| -
How on earth does citing a reference to practices of well regulated |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 11:54 PM |
#100 |
| -
Owning a gun is the same as reading the 2d am. as saying "Guns for everybody." |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 11:06 PM |
#96 |
| -
OMG, what a huge |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 11:17 PM |
#97 |
| -
Aw, crap |
ProudDad |
Nov-30-10 04:03 PM |
#73 |
| -
I don't think this law favors any religion. Rather, I think it discriminates AGAINST one religion. |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 11:01 PM |
#95 |
| -
It comes up in several contexts |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 06:31 PM |
#20 |
| -
I did not know Sharia law forbids interest. Thanks. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 02:33 AM |
#109 |
| -
You're missing that this law singles out ONE religion. It does not say, for |
No Elephants |
Dec-01-10 10:57 PM |
#94 |
| -
Ummmm... Get a clue |
LuckyTheDog |
Nov-29-10 05:29 PM |
#14 |
| -
Ohh-k, that cleared it for me. |
Mhak |
Nov-29-10 06:00 PM |
#19 |
| -
Excellent metaphor! But, you seem to be trying to duck this issue. (Couldn't resist.) |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 02:21 AM |
#108 |
| -
Yes, because we have the separation of church and state this ballot measure... |
Pacifist Patriot |
Nov-29-10 05:45 PM |
#18 |
| -
That's actually incorrect |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 06:33 PM |
#22 |
| -
I get your point. Still going to say it was put on the ballot for nefarious reasons. |
Pacifist Patriot |
Nov-29-10 08:13 PM |
#30 |
| -
yes, it was an expression of dumbth |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 08:23 PM |
#31 |
| -
I agree the facts are important and thank you for correcting me, but... |
Pacifist Patriot |
Nov-30-10 07:07 AM |
#55 |
| -
Agree. You may be interested in Reply 112. It's not my best writing, but maybe |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 03:49 AM |
#113 |
| -
Google is your friend. |
beevul |
Nov-29-10 09:09 PM |
#40 |
| -
Intent and state of mind matter in certain circumstances |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 10:05 PM |
#42 |
| -
The appeal took well over a year, |
woo me with science |
Nov-30-10 12:12 AM |
#53 |
| -
Dupe |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 03:34 AM |
#111 |
| -
Yes, but, in denying the restraining order, the judge erred as to NJ law, Sharia had nothing to do |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 03:34 AM |
#112 |
| -
I stand corrected and said so above. |
Pacifist Patriot |
Nov-30-10 07:09 AM |
#56 |
| -
I see nothing at that link indicating the case was decided under Sharia law. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 02:48 AM |
#110 |
| -
If adopted it would prohibit Oklahoma courts from recognizing Saudi Arabian marriages |
yellowcanine |
Nov-30-10 11:23 AM |
#63 |
| -
The judge's ruling makes sense: |
robinlynne |
Nov-29-10 05:03 PM |
#8 |
| -
The judge was wrong, Shariah is law |
DissedByBush |
Nov-29-10 05:35 PM |
#16 |
| -
Anything in a contract between two parties will apply in a US court |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 06:34 PM |
#23 |
| -
Contracts have limits |
DissedByBush |
Nov-29-10 08:30 PM |
#33 |
| -
WTF? |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 08:39 PM |
#36 |
| -
Have religious food rulings ever been appealed under 1st Amendment? |
Bragi |
Nov-30-10 09:48 AM |
#59 |
| -
Are you kidding, there are laws on the subject |
jberryhill |
Nov-30-10 07:03 PM |
#79 |
| -
Noted |
Bragi |
Dec-01-10 10:21 AM |
#83 |
| -
Kosher laws and the First Amendment |
jberryhill |
Dec-02-10 01:13 AM |
#103 |
| -
Thanks for that |
Bragi |
Dec-02-10 07:29 AM |
#127 |
| -
Saying laws exist doesn't answer the question whether they should exist or whether . |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 04:42 AM |
#115 |
| -
Reality based hypotheticals are easier. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 04:18 AM |
#114 |
| -
Good arguments |
Bragi |
Dec-02-10 07:34 AM |
#128 |
| -
All of that is completely irrelevant |
DissedByBush |
Nov-30-10 04:08 PM |
#75 |
| -
Not relevant to the OP, but very relevant to this subthread. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 04:48 AM |
#116 |
| -
Wrong idea--and the amendment's poor wording reflects the islamaphobia |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 04:58 AM |
#118 |
| -
OMG! |
cyr330 |
Nov-29-10 06:38 PM |
#24 |
| -
If we consider Shariah Law, it would also seem logical that we would have ... |
spin |
Nov-29-10 06:50 PM |
#25 |
| -
If Sharia law is allowed, yes... we ought to allow any religious law people like! |
ProgressiveMajority |
Nov-29-10 08:48 PM |
#38 |
| -
Read these sections of Oklahoma's marriage statutes: |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 10:11 PM |
#43 |
| -
Interesting, yes. But it doesn't contradict barring Sharia law in judges Decisions |
ProgressiveMajority |
Nov-29-10 11:31 PM |
#48 |
| -
"such" incorporates the previous qualifiers |
jberryhill |
Nov-29-10 11:54 PM |
#52 |
| -
Really? So in Oklahoma there have never been Muslim marriages? n/t |
ProgressiveMajority |
Nov-30-10 11:35 AM |
#64 |
| -
Well, it's a valid reading of the statute |
jberryhill |
Nov-30-10 12:25 PM |
#66 |
| -
Do Muslim clerics qualify under "the Gospel" clause? |
ieoeja |
Nov-30-10 04:13 PM |
#76 |
| -
Link? |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 05:56 AM |
#124 |
| -
Not necessarily. You could have an Islamic clergy member marry you, BUT |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 05:23 AM |
#121 |
| -
So,a wiccan or Budhist ceremony is out of the question? I guess Oklahoma |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 05:17 AM |
#120 |
| -
Sure. Let;s not allow jurors to shoot judges, either. Let's pass a law |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 05:09 AM |
#119 |
| -
Sharia law has already been used (but then overturned) in a U.S court |
Bragi |
Nov-30-10 08:21 AM |
#58 |
| -
It's such a minor case, and was overturned... |
ProgressiveMajority |
Nov-30-10 06:49 PM |
#78 |
| -
I think we need to acknowledge the facts in any debate |
Bragi |
Dec-01-10 10:18 AM |
#82 |
| -
If we don't point out some positive aspect of Sharia, than why not have a constitutional ban on it? |
ProgressiveMajority |
Dec-01-10 01:27 PM |
#84 |
| -
Not sure we disagree |
Bragi |
Dec-01-10 01:40 PM |
#85 |
| -
Yeah, I think we do agree! That's a rare thing for me online... :) |
ProgressiveMajority |
Dec-01-10 04:55 PM |
#86 |
| -
It was never used. Please see Reply 122 and 112. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 05:49 AM |
#123 |
| -
Sharia law was NOT used. And NJ Superior Court overturned it in July of this year. |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 05:40 AM |
#122 |
| -
P.S. As far as sources: |
No Elephants |
Dec-02-10 07:08 AM |
#125 |
| -
No surprise. |
aranthus |
Nov-30-10 12:01 PM |
#65 |
| -
Oklahoma gvrnmt sure has time and $$ to burn huh? |
lunasun |
Dec-01-10 10:47 PM |
#92 |
| -
Who in any case... |
LeftishBrit |
Dec-02-10 02:43 PM |
#130 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread