Reply With Quote
What specifically is being voted?
Thanks in advance for fully explaining this issue you found so important that you had to start a thread about it.
LoL...More muslim bigots.
http://loganswarning.com/2010/10/21/...s-whine-video/
Here is the latest update to the “Oklahoma Rep. Duncan calls for Preemptive Strike on Sharia!!~ Video” story. The people of Oklahoma get set to vote in less than two weeks, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose goal is to dominate us by Sharia is not happy.
“It’s not about Shariah law at all. It’s really about anti-Muslim bigotry,” says Razi Hashimi, spokesperson for CAIR.
Muslim Americans say the measure sends a message of hatred and intolerance and non-Muslims should not be concerned about Shariah law.
“As long as it doesn’t affect you in any way, why should you be concerned how I solve a problem between me and my brother, or neighbor who is Muslim. I do not think it should be a matter of concern for a non-Muslim,” says Tulsan Mohamed Boudhhir.
Nice try Razi, but it is about Sharia Law Did you forget this statement?
“Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on Earth.”
It is nice to see a politician that knows what CAIR is all about. Will the people of Oklahoma do the right thing, and follow in the footsteps of Louisiana? Lets hope so.
What specifically is being voted?
Thanks in advance for fully explaining this issue you found so important that you had to start a thread about it.
.
Your welcome.
You know why they are doing this don't you? It's going to piss you off big time. Because they can.
Our laws tell these muslims they can't rape married women then kill them for cheating on their husbands for example. Sooner country is just reminded them what country they live in.
Kind of like when I tell you are insecure and petty. Just a little reminder.
Oh the irony is rich here.
You didn't answer the question.
Yeah, what is being voted on here?
Seems like whatever it is would have to be very carefully worded to avoid 1st amendment smackdowns.
Probably some kind of stupid "non-binding resolution", I would guess.
I did in a round about way. That's pretty much what you are going to from me, Mr. Petty.
Last edited by jack sommerset; 10-22-2010 at 06:28 PM.
Well, you probably don't even know what the vote is about.
You probably don't even know what the word "specific" means.
And if you do, you are too petty and insecure to actually answer the question.
Interesting quote. Attributed to a guy who says he didn't say it, but the reporter who transcribed it sticks to her story.
That is the scary thing to me about religion. Almost invariably they shoot for, but won't admit to, wanting to squash all other non-believers.
It would not surprise me that the quote was genuine. By the same token, I have ZERO doubt that similar sentiments, indeed almost word for word, have been uttered by Christian zealots. , I probably woudn't have to work too hard to find similar actual quotes.
Aw, come on. Don't be lazy like that.
Gimmie.
Obviously this topic is important to you. If you want specifics you should look it up. Don't let your pettiness get in the way of thirst for knowledge.
You started a thread about it.Eh. KI have my answer.If you want specifics you should look it up.
You're either stupid or petty and insecure.
Or both.
Probably both.
You just proved it because you are too stupid and/or petty and insecure to give a simple straight answer to a question regarding the subject of a thread you started.
So it's not that important to you after all.Don't let your pettiness get in the way of thirst for knowledge.
Not compared to being petty and insecure.
so nobody knows what's being voted on?
jack is afraid that 1% of Oklahoma's population is going to impose their religious law on the other 99%
Since Jack is a lazy , I found "State question 755" for the Oklahoma ballot:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tion_755_(2010)
Here is the full text:
https://www.sos.ok.gov/do ents/questions/755.pdf
If you actually read section C of the above pdf it is pretty explicit about the complete exclusion of Sharia law.
I have little doubt it will probably pass in Oklahoma.
I have even less doubt that it will be struck down as uncons utional shortly thereafter.
I would lastly point out that the guy proposing this that was interviewed for the news piece in the OP directly lied about the CARE mission statement. He probably didn't know he was lying, but was simply ignorant.
I would note the big ugly quote at the beginning is NOT the CARE mission statement, however much the xenophobes running the show wish it were.
let there be stonings, yay!!!
Why? Sharia isn't really an approved set of laws in the US, and it's not preventing people from basically doing Sharia arbitration, only denies it's application in State courts.
If anything, the exclusion of Sharia follows through in the overly ambitious interpretation of the Separation of Church and State.
I don't see how it makes a difference, since I doubt there are many people in judicial positions in Oklahoma who would be enough of a scholar to actually make judgments based on Sharia.
If people agree to be bound by religious law and its regulations concerning marriage, property and social relations, when a dispute arises disputants (generally) submit to church law or equivalent authority, and the civil law (generally) respects the results, no?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-24-2010 at 11:57 PM.
Otherwise, cons uted authority may tend to create the impression that it is interfering arbitrarily or unduly with religion.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-25-2010 at 12:17 AM.
As in Oklahoma. Way to go OK.
(golf clap)
I think the bit about international law/treaties actually goes against the Supremacy Clause (Article IV, Section 2) of the Cons ution...
This Cons ution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Cons ution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The shall part making it compulsory...
What bit, please? You just lost me...I think the bit about international law/treaties actually goes against the Supremacy Clause (Article IV, Section 2) of the Cons ution..
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 pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
This law doesn't limit the excercise of religion, since it only denies Sharia in the Courts under state authority. It doesn't prevent private arbitration under Sharia, etc.
Allowing the courts to recognize Sharia could be seen as establishing a state religion, since Sharia by definition is religious law.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
