kurtster wrote: 
I'm not quite sure which components you are referring to, but the first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

It rightly says that Congress (the State in this case) doesn't support or interfere with any religion directly. People can gather up under any peaceful cause they want and complain to their representatives without interference.  Seems pretty reasonable to me. Sharia, like many other sets of "God's laws" has many different interpretations depending on if the followers are modernist, fundamentalist, evangelical...

 oldslabsides wrote:
 
Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?

Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for:

Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations.  WTF ?

This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review. 

 kurtster wrote:

For the most part that's true—international treaties have only indirect effects on people's behavior within a state*. Which makes the OK proposition both pointless and in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

*One of the few areas where state law gets involved with treaties is in regard to extradition, tho usually the impact is the other way around—the state law can interfere with exercising a treaty.

 kurtster wrote: 
I don't know of any specific examples, but I'm confident that there are any number of commerce treaties that have significant impact on businesses and individuals here in the US. If we sign a treaty that says we won't impose the death penalty, that would preclude any state from imposing the death penalty. If we sign a treaty that says we will no longer manufacture lead-based paint, then none of the states get to give any of their pet manufacturers a pass on the Pb. A treaty specifying we will sell stealth technology only to our NATO allies means companies that manufacture stealth components have some pretty significant restrictions on their sales and marketing.

Again, I'm not in favor of Sharia law or any kind of "separate but equal" justice system in the US. We all need to be held to the same standards. I'm saying that the existing separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution already covers that. I'm saying that we don't need to keep proliferating laws to cover situations already covered under existing law. And I'm saying that logically if you're going to pass a law excluding one specific set of religious traditions from our judicial system, you need to exclude them all or it's discriminatory. You can't say "your religious traditions are unacceptable for our system of justice, but mine are okay".

So instead of saying "Sharia law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Buddhist law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Jedi law is not to be used for judicial decisions", it's easier and fairer to stick with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I don't see how adding redundancy to the already burdensome body of law in this country is going to maximize my rights.

 winter wrote: 
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution.  To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable.  If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers.  There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems.  Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way.  A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them.  To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the proposed ERA Amendment.

 winter wrote: 
Yes, it was.  However, George did make exception to his principle concerning temporary alliances in time of war - as distinct from long-term alliances like say, NATO or the UN.

 buzz wrote: 
I'd prefer my daughter live in country with laws based on logic, reason and equality not any religion.  Too bad Vulcan is a made up place.  Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time.  Christianity, while its current practitioners are not as blatant about it, is just as misogynistic as Islam.  Ever been a girl in a christian community?  Its not a very equal place to be.  That is one of the reasons I reject organized religion.  I got tired of being told I was lesser because I had a uterus.  At least I think I have one, I've never actually tested the theory.

When was the last time you voted for someone who did as promised?  I've always referred to elections as choosing the least of the evils.  I wish we could execute reform guaranteeing us the right to a lobbyist free government; politicians who do as they are asked to by those they represent; justices who rule based on law and reason instead of their own personal agendas.  It's bizarre that we even have to vote on this in any state.  Why wouldn't ruling be based on our own laws?  But then again, how many rulings are based on deals, agendas, personal views and political alliances?

I know, I know.  I 'm a dreamer.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)

You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.

 winter wrote: 
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.

 buzz wrote: 
My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own.

And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out.

I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.

 winter wrote: 
The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary.
 
Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law?
 
There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions. 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment.

Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth.

 winter wrote: 
Never did care much for article 6.

 kurtster wrote: 
Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma?

And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory.

The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws.

 Manbird wrote:
See,these are the words from a thinking man !
Manbird for President and Chief of UN !

 kurtster wrote: 
That depends on what the stone-throwers consume to provide their bodies energy to throw the stones. And how did they get to the stone-throwing site? Walk? Ride donkeys? Drive a 1969 Ford Galaxy 500? Are the stones man-made? Were they transported there or do they occur naturally in the immediate area? 

 buzz wrote: 
You know, you are quite right about that.  It is carbon neutral.  Perhaps, I was too hasty.

 kurtster wrote: 
cant we just make one little exception for honor killings? and maybe just one more so we can stone people to death. it is way more green than electrocution.

 kurtster wrote:  NFL