|
Tab Menu 1
| Political Talk Political News |
 |
|
11-05-2010, 10:49 AM
|
 |
Cross-examine it!
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orcutt, CA.
Posts: 6,736
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisp
Yes, the Oklahoma law is unconstitutional. It clearly specifies a particular type of religion that it is banning. By doing that it is clearly contrary to constitutional law, namely, the 1st amendment.
Had the law simply banned the application of ANY religious laws in regards to federal or state cases, it would be fine, since it is just elaborating on the 1st amendment. But, you cannot put a redundant law on the books that so clearly goes against another law.
|
Your not making sense. If it is redundant then it can't also be unconstitutional. It does not ban religion.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
|
11-05-2010, 10:56 AM
|
 |
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,754
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
Your not making sense. If it is redundant then it can't also be unconstitutional. It does not ban religion.
|
You didn't read my post. I said that if it did not specify a religion, THEN it would be a redundant law. This DOES specify a religion, thereby not being redundant but unconstitutional.
|
11-05-2010, 10:57 AM
|
|
Cross-examine it!
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orcutt, CA.
Posts: 6,736
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisp
You didn't read my post. I said that if it did not specify a religion, THEN it would be a redundant law. This DOES specify a religion, thereby not being redundant but unconstitutional.
|
No it does not, it specifies Sharia law not a religion.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
|
11-05-2010, 11:01 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,754
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
No it does not, it specifies Sharia law not a religion.
|
Sharia law is a religious law. It would be the same as if they said they could consider the Ten Commandments when making decisions.
|
11-05-2010, 11:03 AM
|
|
Cross-examine it!
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orcutt, CA.
Posts: 6,736
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisp
Sharia law is a religious law. It would be the same as if they said they could consider the Ten Commandments when making decisions.
|
No it would be the same as if they said they COULDN'T use the 10 commandments.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
|
11-05-2010, 11:06 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,754
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
No it would be the same as if they said they COULDN'T use the 10 commandments.
|
That is what I meant. Darn that apostrophe and t button for hiding.
|
11-05-2010, 11:04 AM
|
|
Cross-examine it!
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orcutt, CA.
Posts: 6,736
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisp
Sharia law is a religious law. It would be the same as if they said they could consider the Ten Commandments when making decisions.
|
That is not a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
|
11-05-2010, 11:06 AM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,829
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisp
Sharia law is a religious law. It would be the same as if they said they could consider the Ten Commandments when making decisions.
|
Twisp! It would NOT be the same; it would be the same if they passed a law stating that courts could NOT consider the Ten Commandments when making decisions. It's just a reassurance to voters, basically, that courts are going to be fair and NOT allow religion - or international law (even or maybe especially when that law is based on religion) to influence decisions.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
|
11-05-2010, 11:10 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,754
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBrattified
Twisp! It would NOT be the same; it would be the same if they passed a law stating that courts could NOT consider the Ten Commandments when making decisions. It's just a reassurance to voters, basically, that courts are going to be fair and NOT allow religion - or international law (even or maybe especially when that law is based on religion) to influence decisions.
|
That is what I meant. Just couldn't stretch far enough for that apostrophe and T button.
It would be the same thing, and Christians would be up in arms about it if that were ever tried.
Reassurance or not, you must see how it violates the 1st amendment.
Why is it okay to skirt constitutional law when it comes to Islam?
|
11-05-2010, 11:11 AM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,829
|
|
|
Re: OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisp
That is what I meant. Just couldn't stretch far enough for that apostrophe and T button.
It would be the same thing, and Christians would be up in arms about it if that were ever tried.
|
So courts can presently use the Ten Commandments to decide cases? When was that decision handed down?
Quote:
Reassurance or not, you must see how it violates the 1st amendment.
Why is it okay to skirt constitutional law when it comes to Islam?
|
Absolutely not. I don't see how it violates the first amendment whatsoever; rather, I see how it reinforces it.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 PM.
| |
