[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - kcar - Dec 2, 2020 - 2:13pm
 
Make me a stereo system! (poof!!) - miamizsun - Dec 2, 2020 - 2:11pm
 
COVID-19 - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 2, 2020 - 2:08pm
 
Biden Lies - kcar - Dec 2, 2020 - 2:06pm
 
2020 Elections - R_P - Dec 2, 2020 - 2:00pm
 
What makes you smile? - Manbird - Dec 2, 2020 - 12:14pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Dec 2, 2020 - 11:42am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 2, 2020 - 11:13am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Dec 2, 2020 - 10:41am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - oldviolin - Dec 2, 2020 - 10:07am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Dec 2, 2020 - 9:36am
 
Now For Something Completely Different - oldviolin - Dec 2, 2020 - 8:34am
 
the Todd Rundgren topic - ColdMiser - Dec 2, 2020 - 7:24am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - aflanigan - Dec 2, 2020 - 6:48am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Dec 2, 2020 - 6:35am
 
The Obituary Page - miamizsun - Dec 2, 2020 - 5:38am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Dec 2, 2020 - 5:35am
 
Trump - R_P - Dec 2, 2020 - 1:43am
 
The Great Reset - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Dec 2, 2020 - 12:14am
 
Capital Punishment - R_P - Dec 1, 2020 - 10:29pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Dec 1, 2020 - 10:20pm
 
Trump Lies - Steely_D - Dec 1, 2020 - 8:29pm
 
Problems with Mellow Mix Stream - Coaxial - Dec 1, 2020 - 7:31pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 5:19pm
 
Economix - R_P - Dec 1, 2020 - 2:59pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - westslope - Dec 1, 2020 - 2:35pm
 
Music Geek Scoop!! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 1, 2020 - 1:47pm
 
Physical Graffiti - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 12:39pm
 
Documentaries on YT - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 12:37pm
 
In My Room - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 1, 2020 - 12:06pm
 
Rhythm - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 12:04pm
 
Recommended documentaries - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 1, 2020 - 11:50am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 11:01am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Red_Dragon - Dec 1, 2020 - 10:55am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2020 - 10:23am
 
Republican Lies, Deceit and Hypocrisy - buddy - Dec 1, 2020 - 9:13am
 
2001; A SPACE ODYSSEY - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Dec 1, 2020 - 8:05am
 
Venus and Mars - R_P - Dec 1, 2020 - 1:57am
 
Live Music - R_P - Nov 30, 2020 - 9:46pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Nov 30, 2020 - 8:40pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 30, 2020 - 8:10pm
 
Canada - R_P - Nov 30, 2020 - 7:27pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Nov 30, 2020 - 5:16pm
 
Protest Songs - rhahl - Nov 30, 2020 - 12:32pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 30, 2020 - 10:16am
 
Democratic Party - cc_rider - Nov 30, 2020 - 8:24am
 
Need A Thread Killed? - sirdroseph - Nov 30, 2020 - 5:14am
 
Supreme Court Rulings - rhahl - Nov 29, 2020 - 4:47pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Red_Dragon - Nov 29, 2020 - 2:10pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - Nov 29, 2020 - 1:22pm
 
Wow so glad I found you. - BillG - Nov 29, 2020 - 8:28am
 
Questions. - miamizsun - Nov 29, 2020 - 7:12am
 
Republican Party - Coaxial - Nov 29, 2020 - 5:47am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Nov 29, 2020 - 4:46am
 
Let them eat kale - westslope - Nov 28, 2020 - 3:47pm
 
Happy Thanksgiving! - Red_Dragon - Nov 28, 2020 - 2:46pm
 
Iran - R_P - Nov 28, 2020 - 2:42pm
 
Cache manager - BillG - Nov 28, 2020 - 1:13pm
 
I like cheese - Ohmsen - Nov 28, 2020 - 2:51am
 
♥ ♥ ♥ Vote For Pie ♥ ♥ ♥ - rhahl - Nov 28, 2020 - 2:07am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - rhahl - Nov 28, 2020 - 2:00am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 27, 2020 - 8:07pm
 
Google Home - jarro - Nov 27, 2020 - 1:57pm
 
Jam! - rhahl - Nov 27, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Race in America - R_P - Nov 26, 2020 - 12:04pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Antigone - Nov 26, 2020 - 11:28am
 
Outstanding Covers - Steely_D - Nov 26, 2020 - 10:22am
 
Next life I'm going to be a backup singer - Steely_D - Nov 26, 2020 - 10:12am
 
Alice's Restaurant - Angiea16 - Nov 26, 2020 - 9:24am
 
RP on Raspberry Pi - BillG - Nov 26, 2020 - 9:07am
 
A motivational quote - oldviolin - Nov 26, 2020 - 7:49am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Nov 26, 2020 - 7:47am
 
Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant Massacree - oldviolin - Nov 26, 2020 - 7:09am
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - Ohmsen - Nov 25, 2020 - 3:30pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 76, 77, 78  Next
Post to this Topic
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:40pm

 kurtster wrote:


No, definitely not good for our country either.  Besides, I love women. 

Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that.  That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.

But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.
 
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...
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:55pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
 
Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:50pm

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. 


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:52am

 kurtster 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. 

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.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:35am

 kurtster 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 ERA Amendment.

 
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.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:14am

 winter 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.
 
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.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:19am

 winter 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.
 
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.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:17am

 buzz 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. 

 
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.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:15am

 oldslabsides wrote:

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

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:13am

 winter 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.

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

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:09am

 buzz 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. 

 
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.

buzz

buzz Avatar

Location: up the boohai


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:54am

 winter 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.
 
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. 
winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:45am

 oldslabsides wrote:

Never did care much for article 6.
 
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.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:34am

 winter 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.
 
Never did care much for article 6.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 8:09am

 kurtster wrote:

Good for Oklahoma.  This should be the United States' next Constitutional Amendment.

Oklahoma International Law Amendment, State Question 755 (2010)


The Oklahoma International Law Amendment will appear on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings.<1><2>

 
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.

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 5:53am

 Manbird 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? 

{#Lol}
See,these are the words from a thinking man !
{#Yell}Manbird for President and Chief of UN !

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Oroville, Ca
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 19, 2010 - 6:34pm

 kurtster wrote:

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


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 19, 2010 - 6:18pm

 buzz 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.

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

buzz

buzz Avatar

Location: up the boohai


Posted: Jun 19, 2010 - 6:14pm

 kurtster wrote:


No, definitely not good for our country either.  Besides, I love women. 

Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that.  That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.

But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.
 
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.
katzendogs

katzendogs Avatar

Location: Pasadena ,Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 19, 2010 - 6:14pm

 kurtster wrote:


No, definitely not good for our country either.  Besides, I love women. 

Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that.  That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.

But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.

  NFL

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 76, 77, 78  Next