billvon 3,132 #1 January 11, 2012 . . . per the imagination of the right wingers comes a heinous court case already in progress: JUDGE: So on the charge of striking your wife, resulting in her hospitalization, how do you plead? DEFENDANT: She disrespected me, Your Honor, and I walloped her. And I'd do it again, the mouthy broad! JUDGE: Given your admission of the crime, I find you guilty of assault and battery and sentence you to . . . . DEFENDANT: Wait! Sharia law! I sez Sharia Law like them libruls sez! JUDGE: Oh, well, in that case, I vacate my previous judgment and find your wife guilty of disrespecting you, as I must under the new law. Sentence is to have acid thrown in her face. NEXT! O the humanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 January 11, 2012 That's how it goes down here in Liberal Alberta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #3 January 11, 2012 Oh Dear, there goes the planet. First we lost Eurabia and there goes Al America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #4 January 11, 2012 Didn't we, at one time, have laws like that here in the good Ol' U.S. of A.? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,506 #5 January 11, 2012 Quote . . . per the imagination of the right wingers comes a heinous court case already in progress: JUDGE: So on the charge of striking your wife, resulting in her hospitalization, how do you plead? DEFENDANT: She disrespected me, Your Honor, and I walloped her. And I'd do it again, the mouthy broad! JUDGE: Given your admission of the crime, I find you guilty of assault and battery and sentence you to . . . . DEFENDANT: Wait! Sharia law! I sez Sharia Law like them libruls sez! JUDGE: Oh, well, in that case, I vacate my previous judgment and find your wife guilty of disrespecting you, as I must under the new law. Sentence is to have acid thrown in her face. NEXT! O the humanity. I'm a bit lost here, Bill. Oklahoma lost its vote on the banning of Sharia law in appellate court (today). http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/in-oklahoma-case-another-legal-obstacle-to-banning-sharia-law/251190/ If this was a jab at redneck Okies.... point taken.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 January 11, 2012 QuoteIf this was a jab at redneck Okies.... point taken. You expected something different? Really?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #7 January 11, 2012 >Oklahoma lost its vote on the banning of Sharia law in appellate court (today). Yes. And from some of the rhetoric flying around the Internet it sounds like some conservatives are afraid that Oklahoma courts will go back to 'mandating Sharia law' or something. A few choice quotes: "The issue raised by this constitutional amendment is very simple - you are either for Sharia law or you are against it." "These liberal judges are ruining this country. Sharia law runs counter to American law and should not be used . . . It is just about time to load the firearms and retake the country." "The first people to stand before the Sharia Law should be the judges that permit this foolish and stupid set of barbaric laws. This is the United States of American where every person has the same rights before a court of law. Our system may not be perfect but we have the best justice system in the world - and Sharia courts do not offer or even recognize that. i hope these judges have their hand, head cut off. then they will know the error they imposed on the American people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,506 #8 January 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf this was a jab at redneck Okies.... point taken. You expected something different? Really? Nah.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,506 #9 January 11, 2012 Quote>Oklahoma lost its vote on the banning of Sharia law in appellate court (today). Yes. And from some of the rhetoric flying around the Internet it sounds like some conservatives are afraid that Oklahoma courts will go back to 'mandating Sharia law' or something. A few choice quotes: "The issue raised by this constitutional amendment is very simple - you are either for Sharia law or you are against it." "These liberal judges are ruining this country. Sharia law runs counter to American law and should not be used . . . It is just about time to load the firearms and retake the country." "The first people to stand before the Sharia Law should be the judges that permit this foolish and stupid set of barbaric laws. This is the United States of American where every person has the same rights before a court of law. Our system may not be perfect but we have the best justice system in the world - and Sharia courts do not offer or even recognize that. i hope these judges have their hand, head cut off. then they will know the error they imposed on the American people." You know, part of the issue is living in a State in which one can be tried under Native American law for unknown infractions while on tribal land. Enough people have been arrested while not even knowing they were on tribal land for things like trespassing, some have had their homes taken because some Native American "claimed" an ancestor was buried there... etc. What most people don't realize is that Native Law (I think its technically dependent nation... not sovereign nation) and is protected under the Constitution. Sharia law is not. But, when we call attention to some of the issues in England and that the US relies on International Law..... well, the short course for most Oklahoman's was.... If it doesn't matter that Sharia law exists, then what's the harm in formalizing that; as a State, we will not recognize it?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #10 January 12, 2012 >If it doesn't matter that Sharia law exists, then what's the harm in formalizing that; >as a State, we will not recognize it? No problems with that. The two problems with the law as it stands is: 1) the language says you cannot even CONSIDER any other law. It means the court has to ignore the background of the case if that background has anything to do with religion. 2) the language spelled out one religious law (Sharia law.) The US Constitution expressly forbids any such law; the language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." Such restrictions apply to state laws as well. Here's the original language: ======================== It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law. ========================= Change it to: ========================= It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from implementing international law. It forbids courts from implementing any religious law. ========================= and it likely would have survived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,506 #11 January 12, 2012 Quote>If it doesn't matter that Sharia law exists, then what's the harm in formalizing that; >as a State, we will not recognize it? No problems with that. The two problems with the law as it stands is: 1) the language says you cannot even CONSIDER any other law. It means the court has to ignore the background of the case if that background has anything to do with religion. 2) the language spelled out one religious law (Sharia law.) The US Constitution expressly forbids any such law; the language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." Such restrictions apply to state laws as well. Here's the original language: ======================== It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law. ========================= Change it to: ========================= It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from implementing international law. It forbids courts from implementing any religious law. ========================= and it likely would have survived. No argument. That I agree with.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #12 January 12, 2012 QuoteDidn't we, at one time, have laws like that here in the good Ol' U.S. of A.? Matt If you don't sink/drown, you are a witch?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)