sundevil777 102 #51 August 30, 2010 QuoteThat'll be the sound of silence then. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3936691#3936691 You ought not make such a conclusion just by me taking a little bit of time away from following every little thing on SC. QuotePretty funny eh? Especially when you consider that it is ILLEGAL in many countries to deny the holocaust so as not to offend Jewish peoples sensibilities. I'm not so sure that it is illegal because Jews needed it to be that way. I didn't think there was any movement in the US by Jews to do so, I wonder if it wasn't simply a way of making neo-nazis illegal, as I thought that the nazi party was illegal in Germany. Seriously, I would never support a law making that illegal.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #52 August 30, 2010 Thanks for you viewpoint.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #53 August 30, 2010 QuoteYep, no need to pay attention to them, they are a religion of peace, that just want to live their lives! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2VkIu8TL_I&feature=player_embedded I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading. Sharia courts are not, by any measure, conquering the UK. They are one of many extra-judicial bodies whose decisions are binding only to the extent that the parties to such decisions have agreed to be bound by them. This is generally the case where two Islamic businessmen, or two Jewish businessmen etc, decide that in the event of dispute a final decision will be made by the local Imam or Rabbi. Such decision making bodies can also be non-religious, for example where parties to a contract agree that the decision of some third party expert will be binding on them. In the case of family law, such extra-judicial decisions are only binding to the extent that those subject to them volunteer to be bound, or can be coerced into forgoing their right to seek a decision in the law courts. This raises a legitimate concern; the coercion of women and other vulnerable members of certain communities to accept unofficial decisions as being final. This is not unique to Muslim communities though. There are plenty of vulnerable elderly people who are coerced by unscrupulous relatives to deal with their property in certain ways, or vulnerable wives who are intimidated into accepting their husbands’ decisions without recourse to the courts which would, if made aware of their plight, enforce their rights against those who seek to oppress them. To take away the rights of people to conduct their affairs according to their faith would, in my opinion be a disproportionate (and tyrannical) response to the admittedly oppressive practices that take place in certain communities (as well as in private throughout society). It would also lead to a situation where the courts MUST take jurisdiction over every kind of dispute, which would just be impractical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #54 August 30, 2010 QuoteGee all that ANGER Clint..... What was that post time on a SAT night???? Hmm interesting DATE NIGHT in TX I think I know why BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA So you do not deny defending their actions. Nice.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #55 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteMuslim immigrants cannot legally beat or kill their wives in America or any other western nation. There is no way to circumvent murder laws. Really? Tell that to [URL "http://www.google.com/m/search?oe=UTF-8&client=safari&hl=en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=1161&fsdt=4750&q=nj+judge+joseph+charles"]Judge Charles of NJ[/URL]. Imagine how the victim here felt when she found out she couldn't even get a restraining order against her rapist/ex-husband, let Aline secure a conviction in a criminal trial. Judge Charles is a practitioner of Sharia Law? How interesting. I'd use the word disturbing instead of interesting. He is supposed to practice law under New Jersey law and federal law. Instead of keeping it in the legal realm, he considered the man's beliefs and religion, neither of which is relevant to any element of the alleged crimes. He didn't even need to decide of the census happened, only whether a restrainig order was reasonable. He stated, based on the filings from each party, that they probably did. Right there is grounds for a protective order. But instead he went on about what the man thought and excused his actions. He shouldn't have considered sharia law, but he did. Do you understand now? QuoteJudge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife. According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -- alleged: "Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do." In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #56 August 30, 2010 Quote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #57 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteYep, no need to pay attention to them, they are a religion of peace, that just want to live their lives! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2VkIu8TL_I&feature=player_embedded I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading. Sharia courts are not, by any measure, conquering the UK. They are one of many extra-judicial bodies whose decisions are binding only to the extent that the parties to such decisions have agreed to be bound by them. This is generally the case where two Islamic businessmen, or two Jewish businessmen etc, decide that in the event of dispute a final decision will be made by the local Imam or Rabbi. Such decision making bodies can also be non-religious, for example where parties to a contract agree that the decision of some third party expert will be binding on them. In the case of family law, such extra-judicial decisions are only binding to the extent that those subject to them volunteer to be bound, or can be coerced into forgoing their right to seek a decision in the law courts. This raises a legitimate concern; the coercion of women and other vulnerable members of certain communities to accept unofficial decisions as being final. This is not unique to Muslim communities though. There are plenty of vulnerable elderly people who are coerced by unscrupulous relatives to deal with their property in certain ways, or vulnerable wives who are intimidated into accepting their husbands’ decisions without recourse to the courts which would, if made aware of their plight, enforce their rights against those who seek to oppress them. To take away the rights of people to conduct their affairs according to their faith would, in my opinion be a disproportionate (and tyrannical) response to the admittedly oppressive practices that take place in certain communities (as well as in private throughout society). It would also lead to a situation where the courts MUST take jurisdiction over every kind of dispute, which would just be impractical. Kinda hard to appeal the decision, no?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #58 August 30, 2010 Quote Kinda hard to appeal the decision, no? In the case of a commercial dispute; yes. The court will simply look at the contract and tell the parties that they agreed that a third party's decision would bind them, therefore they are bound. It’s pretty straight forward contract law. In other cases, the only difficulty in obtaining an "appeal" against the decision of an extra-judicial body stems from the individual's willingness to go to court, which may be affected by community pressure, intimidation etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #59 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMuslim immigrants cannot legally beat or kill their wives in America or any other western nation. There is no way to circumvent murder laws. Really? Tell that to [URL "http://www.google.com/m/search?oe=UTF-8&client=safari&hl=en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=1161&fsdt=4750&q=nj+judge+joseph+charles"]Judge Charles of NJ[/URL]. Imagine how the victim here felt when she found out she couldn't even get a restraining order against her rapist/ex-husband, let Aline secure a conviction in a criminal trial. Judge Charles is a practitioner of Sharia Law? How interesting. I'd use the word disturbing instead of interesting. He is supposed to practice law under New Jersey law and federal law. Instead of keeping it in the legal realm, he considered the man's beliefs and religion, neither of which is relevant to any element of the alleged crimes. He didn't even need to decide of the census happened, only whether a restrainig order was reasonable. He stated, based on the filings from each party, that they probably did. Right there is grounds for a protective order. But instead he went on about what the man thought and excused his actions. He shouldn't have considered sharia law, but he did. Do you understand now? QuoteJudge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife. According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -- alleged: "Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do." In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." I understood the first time round thank you. |What has this poor decision by someone who should know better got to do with Sharia law? He was not compelled to take Sharia into account, no one asked him to as far as I can tell.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #60 August 30, 2010 Quote .... And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Says who? Perhaps, I missed something. Could you kindly help me out? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #61 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Comprehension and cognative processing evading you today are they?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #62 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Comprehension and cognative processing evading you today are they? No - you are clearly making an argument for approval because it is cultural. Your argument is that because it is done here and hthere it must be OK.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #63 August 30, 2010 QuoteNo - you are clearly making an argument for approval Don't talk bollocks.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #64 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteNo - you are clearly making an argument for approval Don't talk bollocks. I don't know how to talk bollocks.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #65 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo - you are clearly making an argument for approval Don't talk bollocks. I don't know how to talk bollocks. And yet you do it so well.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #66 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo - you are clearly making an argument for approval Don't talk bollocks. I don't know how to talk bollocks. And yet you do it so well. If you say so. I must have learned this "Talking Bollocks" from listening to liberals for so long.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #67 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Comprehension and cognative processing evading you today are they? No - you are clearly making an argument for approval because it is cultural. Your argument is that because it is done here and hthere it must be OK. No that is your view not mine. My point is that Honour killings are not Islamic but cultural, murder is not acceptable for any reason.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #68 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Comprehension and cognative processing evading you today are they? No - you are clearly making an argument for approval because it is cultural. Your argument is that because it is done here and hthere it must be OK. No that is your view not mine. My point is that Honour killings are not Islamic but cultural, murder is not acceptable for any reason. AH - but it isn't murder if it is in the name of Allah, and imdemnified by the koran? right?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #69 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo - you are clearly making an argument for approval Don't talk bollocks. I don't know how to talk bollocks. And yet you do it so well. If you say so. I must have learned this "Talking Bollocks" from listening to liberals for so long. It may suprise you to learn that outside of the USA people are not generally viewed in terms of Liberal and Conservative. Its rather childish.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #70 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Comprehension and cognative processing evading you today are they? No - you are clearly making an argument for approval because it is cultural. Your argument is that because it is done here and hthere it must be OK. No that is your view not mine. My point is that Honour killings are not Islamic but cultural, murder is not acceptable for any reason. AH - but it isn't murder if it is in the name of Allah, and imdemnified by the koran? right? NoWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #71 August 30, 2010 QuoteA major argument against sharia was the concept of two systems of justice. Another was the idea that someone might not really be consenting, and be subject to community pressure to use the sharia law. Does this not work today with the Aboriginal Justice Systems that are in place in many provinces? Wouldn't that be considered two justice systems? Playing devils advocate...can we not integrate sharia law as was done with aboriginal justice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #72 August 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote'Honour' killings are not Islamic, they are cultural./traditional, People of other religions (Including Catholics & Jews) also commit these murderes. in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honour killings', in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery, it still happens. http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Issues-and-Analysis/Why-Are-Hindu-Honor-Killings-Rising-in-India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du'a_Khalil_Aswad http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/wile.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html http://www.karentintori.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=21 And that makes it OK in your book. We get it. Comprehension and cognative processing evading you today are they? No - you are clearly making an argument for approval because it is cultural. Your argument is that because it is done here and hthere it must be OK. No that is your view not mine. My point is that Honour killings are not Islamic but cultural, murder is not acceptable for any reason. AH - but it isn't murder if it is in the name of Allah, and imdemnified by the koran? right? No No, it isn't murder in your belief system. Got it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #73 August 30, 2010 Do you actually think you're being clever?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #74 August 30, 2010 Quote .... AH - but it isn't murder if it is in the name of Allah, and imdemnified by the koran? right? No No, it isn't murder in your belief system. Got it. Read your own question again - s l o w l y ..... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #75 August 30, 2010 QuoteDo you actually think you're being clever? You haven't actually MET Clint have you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
