Arguments to take place in Oklahoma over ban on Islamic law in courts - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;26224531]all this talk of banning Muslim shit is really starting to worry me a bit[/QUOTE] omg a ban on religious law in the court system lets be worried (but if its against christianity then its fine of course) It amazes me how the same people who flipped out over the 10 commandments being displayed inside of a court are now acting worried and surprised because "omg little brown people" can't have their religious laws in court. once again though I think this is a case of politically correct people speaking out on an issue they don't understand (because it affects "the brown people" in a non-positive way therefore it must be bad)

while banning shariah law itself may have a racist background in whoever came up with the bill, it's completely constitutional to ban the state adopting religious law, in fact, that's guaranteed in our constitution, so this is really just a redundancy. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeus;26225033]omg a ban on religious law in the court system lets be worried (but if its against christianity then its fine of course)[/QUOTE] christians dont run into the opposing sects churches and blow themselves up

Do i still need to put my hand on a bible if i'm going to testify?

[QUOTE=Zeus;26225033]omg a ban on religious law in the court system lets be worried (but if its against christianity then its fine of course)[/QUOTE] how about that fiasco about the Muslim community centre a couple months back?

[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;26224531]all this talk of banning Muslim shit is really starting to worry me a bit[/QUOTE] God forbid America tries to keep its government free of religion, you know, like the constitution says?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26224574]America is more Protestant than Roman Catholic.[/QUOTE] Doesn't feel that way around here. (Boston area) On topic stuff: There is absolutely no reason to specify that Sharia law needs to be singled out for a ban. A prohibition on government favoritism or exercise of religion covers those grounds just well enough. Specifically banning Sharia just reeks of intolerance and government-endorsed prejudice. No sane person should support this ban; at best it's redundant, at worst, it's intolerant and every bit as oppressive as the worst in sharia law. Also, I was under the impression that in civil cases you can agree to whatever arbitration you feel like making binding. I'm probably mistaken, though.

[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;26225139]how about that fiasco about the Muslim community centre a couple months back?[/QUOTE] it was perfectly legal to build, just like a neo-nazi convention center in the middle of warsaw is legal, it was just discouraged when you're encouraging using a form of law that includes stoning to death and cutting off hands as punishments for public indecency and stealing (in that order) because apparently it's according to the word of God in a country with not only seperation of church and state but also common sense and equality, you need to shut up

[QUOTE=cccritical;26225733]it was perfectly legal to build, just like a neo-nazi convention center in the middle of warsaw is legal, it was just discouraged[/quote] A+ analogy.

[QUOTE=cccritical;26225733]it was perfectly legal to build, just like a neo-nazi convention center in the middle of warsaw is legal, it was just discouraged [/QUOTE] I believe Poland has similar anti-nazism laws as Germany does, so no, you couldn't build that in Warszawa. (These are unjust as long as all parties are not directly inciting violence, they have the right to freedom of expression).

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26225801]I believe Poland has similar anti-nazism laws as Germany does, so no, you couldn't build that in Warszawa. (These are unjust as long as all parties are not directly inciting violence, they have the right to freedom of expression).[/QUOTE] I didn't say nazi barracks, let's assume this hypothetical convention center is as peaceful but still rage-inducing as furcon

[QUOTE=cccritical;26225733]it was perfectly legal to build, just like a neo-nazi convention center in the middle of warsaw is legal, it was just discouraged when you're encouraging using a form of law that includes stoning to death and cutting off hands as punishments for public indecency and stealing (in that order) because apparently it's according to the word of God in a country with not only seperation of church and state but also common sense and equality, you need to shut up[/QUOTE] because muslims are neo nazis. okay [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] and thanks i'll keep that in mind for when I start encouraging it

I'm curious - was this a case against Sharia being used in courts overall. Which I find hilariously wrong - considering that the only laws that should be applicable are actually passed laws, international ratified treaties and potentially outside commonalities as long as they are expected to be used and the law might actually know about them. Or is that a case of Sharia being denied in equity and similar cases? Where it doesn't really belong, but might be acceptable as long as it doesn't run in conflict with state laws.

[QUOTE=cccritical;26225733]it was perfectly legal to build, just like a neo-nazi convention center in the middle of warsaw is legal, it was just discouraged[/QUOTE] so the 9/11 hijackers represent all muslims? all muslims obviously have the same ideology as them, right?

[QUOTE=JDK721;26225968]so the 9/11 hijackers represent all muslims? all muslims obviously have the same ideology as them, right?[/QUOTE] The idiocy of a vast percentage of the American people says yes.

[QUOTE=JDK721;26225968]so the 9/11 hijackers represent all muslims? all muslims obviously have the same ideology as them, right?[/QUOTE] when did I imply that when group 1 fucks group 2's shit up and group 2 is pissed at group 1 it's not bright of group 1 to start institutions around group 2's shit oh but wait I [i]must[/i] be racist, my opinion has nothing to do with history and everything to do with the color of their skin :downs:

[QUOTE=cccritical;26226030] when[B] group 1[/B] fucks group 2's shit up and [B]group 2 [/B]is pissed at group 1 it's not bright of group 1 to start institutions around group 2's shit [/QUOTE] Your idiocy really contributes to the division of the American society.

[QUOTE=cccritical;26226030] oh but wait I [i]must[/i] be racist, my opinion has nothing to do with history and everything to do with the color of their skin :downs:[/QUOTE] Pretty much. There's not really any historical basis for anything similar to 9/11.

Also you failed to take into account the perpetrators of "group 1" were condemned and pretty much disowned by "group 1" as a whole.

nonsense. dontcha know group 1 all share the same ideology?

[QUOTE=starpluck;26226240]Your idiocy really contributes to the division of the American society.[/QUOTE] here I'll make a diagram so you can understand it better, might still be too complicated for you: group 1>fucks shit>group 2, group 2>mad at>group 1, group 1>build institutes near>group 2

Regardless, it is still unsensitive of them to want to build a Muslim community centre there - they may have not done it, but a sect of their faith did, whatever anyone says, even though they may have been disowned.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26222478]Except that the Shariah is a religion-based law and thus accepting it goes against the first amendment.[/QUOTE] doesn't stop christian voters from voting in their religious interests. Never has [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Anteep2;26226952]Regardless, it is still unsensitive of them to want to build a Muslim community centre there - they may have not done it, but a sect of their faith did, whatever anyone says, even though they may have been disowned.[/QUOTE] so what you're saying is that Muslims aren't allowed to mourn 9/11 because someone claiming to hold their belief system did it, including the families of the numerous innocent american muslims who were killed on 9/11? that's a terrible thing to say

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;26227483]doesn't stop christian voters from voting in their religious interests. Never has[/QUOTE] posting commandments in a court of law is absolutely nothing like using sharia law the only thing I can think of that christians voted for that has a religious vs. political effect is taking evolution out of textbooks, which is dumb in my opinion

[QUOTE=Anteep2;26226952]Regardless, it is still unsensitive of them to want to build a Muslim community centre there - they may have not done it, but a sect of their faith did, whatever anyone says, even though they may have been disowned.[/QUOTE] not at all. the whole point of them building the community center there is to teach tolerance, etc. and show that not all muslims are extremists.

I don't think most of you realize this bans the use of all foreign law in court judgments. It's not something understandable but unnecessary like just banning sharia, it's a moronic overarching law passed by american exceptionalist nationalistic idiots [QUOTE=cccritical;26227556]posting commandments in a court of law is absolutely nothing like using sharia law the only thing I can think of that christians voted for that has a religious vs. political effect is taking evolution out of textbooks, which is dumb in my opinion[/QUOTE] Uh, Prop 8?

[QUOTE=cccritical;26227556]posting commandments in a court of law is absolutely nothing like using sharia law the only thing I can think of that christians voted for that has a religious vs. political effect is taking evolution out of textbooks, which is dumb in my opinion[/QUOTE] last I checked pretty much all opposition to same sex marriage is based in the Christian right

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26225056]christians dont run into the opposing sects churches and blow themselves up[/QUOTE] No, they gather armies then launch massive wars and run storming around Islamic countries. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;26227556]posting commandments in a court of law is absolutely nothing like using sharia law the only thing I can think of that christians voted for that has a religious vs. political effect is taking evolution out of textbooks, which is dumb in my opinion[/QUOTE] Uhh, what? The commandments are Judeochristian concepts and while they weren't officially recognized the implications clearly were there. I know more about this subject than probably most people here because I actually have met Roy Moore and yes, his rulings were most certainly based on them. Also, you should check your history books. You're sure to find a number of Supreme Court cases involving the Establishment Clause.

[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;26225128]Do i still need to put my hand on a bible if i'm going to testify?[/QUOTE] You don't have to.

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26225056] christians dont run into the opposing sects churches and blow themselves up[/QUOTE] Irish? That's a brand of soap, right?

Surely allowing shariah law impedes on a womans human right to not be raped?