[Oklahoma's ban on Sharia law was struck down by a federal appeals court. The judge in this case just so happens to be a black woman.]
Um, exsqueeze me? SEVENTY percent of the voters in the 2010 elections in OK voted FOR this and ONE CLUELESS baboon in a black robe says, "Sorry Charlie"?
Oklahoma needs to thumb its nose at this brain-dead twit and implement it anyway, citing the 10th amendment in the process.
Fukking liberals REALLY chap my ass...image
31 comments
Good.
That means you will be in violation of federal law, and will be arrested.
If Oklahoma doesn't like it, well too bad. It's one state out of 49, and if the rest of the midwest decides to rebel as well, they will also notice the army is kinda better equipped then whatever inbred militia they have.
I agree with him.
That decision was anti-democratic (since the people voted FOR it, like it or not) and infringes upon state rights.
@matante: and Stalin ruled a huge empire. What are you doing with YOUR life?
@Arath:
Your argument makes no sense.
Any ban on Sharia law is redundant, thanks to the 1st Amendment making any religious-based legal system unconstitutional. The ban was also simultaneously discriminatory, in that it treated Islam differently than any other religion.
So you have a law that is unnecessary due the 1st Amendment, and also violates it. This is why the federal district court considered it unconstitutional and struck it down, and why the appeals court upheld the decision. The 10th Amendment and any states-rights argument don't apply, because we're considering a power specifically granted to the federal government.
</member of a family of lawyers>
I'm not sure what to make of your ad hominem, but I'm sure it's irrelevant to this discussion.
@Anon
I suspect the implication is that because Stalin was an atheist, all Atheists are therefore Stalinists.
His being racist, nor many of the voting Oklahlomans being otherwise backward, does not make them wrong to oppose Sharia Law, as surely nobody who frequents this site would want it anymore than we'd want the fevered Christian Taliban dreams of the christian dominionists either.
i do believe bringing stalin in the discussion is known as "godwin's corollary"
otherwise, thanks for the info, anon. didn't catch up at all on the thingie
@Arath
Except the United States is most definitely NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, established as such to expressly prevent bullcrap like this.
States do have the right to make laws that don't violate the Constitution, though.
I'm somewhat ignorant on this matter and speak from supposition so please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but isn't the case of Sharia Law a matter of application to followers of the religion and not an attempt to levy it against non-believers or those who attempt to drop the faith, so long as it stays within the bounds of the country's existing laws? A familiar example might be the Vatican's internal investigations into allegations of priestly misconduct or more broadly their general practice of assigning pennance?
I'd whole-heartedly agree with those 70% of voters if the court case were a matter of allowing Sharia to be enshrined in in civil law, giving Sharia the power to over-rule existing rights in it's sentencing, and/or forced on non-Muslims, (I strongly suspect that's what they believed the case to be,) but as I understand the situation the suit was an attempt to ban the practice within the Muslim community itself.
@Anon
I would have agreed with Timberwolf on the "banning Sharia Law" thing, but you raise a good point. The Constitution already bans it, and such a needless ban through legislation violates the same constitution.
These people have no fucking clue what Sharia law is. Every Muslim I spoke to at my college opposes it as well on 1st Amendment grounds.
Passing such unnecessary laws proves the people are uneducated when it comes to the Constitution. Which is sad. MY school district requires all 7th & 8th graders to study and pass a test on the Constitution.
The shit that went on in Oklahoma is proof that not every school district requires these tests. It also proves that all school districts SHOULD require these tests.
@ Reynardine
Then try Monkey Butt powder, chapped ass.
Personally I recommend Torgo's Executive Powder - apply directly to the buttocks!
Here's the thing guys, Sharia law encompasses a LOT. Yes, it involves crime and politics and the like, but it also governs sexual practices, dietary habits, prayer, fasting, etc. It further touches on legal issues such as inheritence, marriage/divorce and child custody. So believe it or not, Sharia law does get used by American courts to resolve disputes between Muslims. One particular case was of arbitration between ex-trustees of a Mosque in Florida:http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/appeals-court-wont-stop-hillsborough-judge-from-considering-islamic-law/1198321
In those cases it is perfectly acceptable, and Constitutional, to use the beliefs of the people involved in the legal dispute. It is also not the equivalent of stoning a women to death for being raped--something that could never be recognized as part of our law because, well, we have laws against both murder and rape.
But that's what the constitution is FOR isn't it, numbnuts?
Yes, part of its function is to protect the people from a powerful state, but it's also to protect the people from each other.
If we just let people vote on the rights of of others then do you think minorities would have rights at all? Why would you vote to give gay people the right to marry? You're not gay, none of your friends are gay, plus it's ICKY. That's why the state has to step in sometimes and say 'fuck you, gays are people too'
Nothing anti-democratic here. If the people really wanted to allow this stupid law to be in place, it would be. They'd just have to amend the constitution. Since you don't have enough people to do that, it won't happen.
What's not democratic about that?
@Arath
thomas jefferson even wrote about that fear. democracy is too easy to abuse, so we have a government that protects people from mob rule.
this stupid law is mob rule, it violates the first amendment no matter how people will whinge over it, it singles out a group, no matter how disliked.
@Arath
thomas jefferson even wrote about that fear. democracy is too easy to abuse, so we have a government that protects people from mob rule.
this stupid law is mob rule, it violates the first amendment no matter how people will whinge over it, it singles out a group, no matter how disliked.
"Fukking liberals REALLY chap my ass..."
Relax, Timberbutt, I gotta remedy...
image
Now, you may kindy shut up. Thanks!
@RevDG - I would argue the Founding Fathers dreaded "tyranny of the majority" because they wanted a tyranny of the minority instead. Various diary entries and personal writings from them indicates that is what they did indeed want because most of them were wealthy landowners themselves who dreaded that majority rule would distribute land and property more evenly. They also viewed the common man as ignorant, uneducated and disinterested (which has some truth to it) and viewed educated literati as somewhat of "benevolent dictators" like Plato who should guide the ignorant masses into the light. They didn't want a complete aristocracy or plutocracy but they didn't want a completely equal society either - hence why they made it so that only white men over 30 with property can vote and so that people could keep their slaves.
"Well, the homos had better kiss their asses good bye if Sharia gets a hold of them. They can thank the baboon in the black robes."
Duly noted, dumbass. Now go back to spewing incomprehensible bullshit on your wingnut forum.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
