Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[Chris]

[Chris]

[spurraider21]

more useless token bills?

[koriwhat]

That's what I thought.

Unless you can show me that followers of Sharia law in the US can impose punishments otherwise illegal in the US, you're simply wrong. Muslims in the US may believe Sharia should be practiced, but they cannot impose these punishments on others legally.

You want to exclude that part though and pretend their beliefs and commandments cons ute "law". It doesn't do that any more than the Bible's commandments cons ute law.

That's because pav is the very definition of a beta male even more than cuckBlake.

[Pavlov]

How many cases of legal infanticide happened last year?

[DMC]

the establishment clause places limitations on congress and congress alone.

you cant apply it to religious ins utions in the same manner you cant apply it to private businesses

your contention is that it's not "law" because its not a law enforced by the US or state governments. thats a semantics discussion, and its not surprising you find yourself in one

I asked for a definition of how "law" was being used in that context.

Sharia law is enforced. Sharia isn't.

"but semantics"

Dude you're a ing lawyer. You more than anyone should appreciate the differences that words can make in arguments.

[DMC]

more useless token bills?

Aren't these also laws if people agree to follow them?

[spurraider21]

Aren't these also laws if people agree to follow them?

sure. and i'm pretty sure thats the crux of the argument against people want to codify their religious laws. if christians look at the bible and say gay marriage shouldnt be practiced, then the christian community is more than welcome to observe the laws of their faith and not marry people of the opposite sex.

but the government's laws aren't subject to people's "agreement to follow" them.

but the reason i call this "infanticide bill" a token bill is because there is no state where infanticide is legal. its a political stunt, just like kamala harris' "anti-lynching" bill or the recent bill to condemn anti-semitism. they're worthless.

[DMC]

only if you assume that the imposition of punishment is the bright line to decide what is a law and what isnt

The fact that Islamic law is a legal system and this "Sharia law in the US" isn't. That's all I needed to know. You want to redefine "law" to mean "code of conduct" but there are almost endless codes of conduct including Judaic ones that aren't laws. They are simply "commandments" from non-existent deities or illiterate cave dwelling warlords.

[spurraider21]

I asked for a definition of how "law" was being used in that context.

Sharia law is enforced. Sharia isn't.

"but semantics"

Dude you're a ing lawyer. You more than anyone should appreciate the differences that words can make in arguments.

the lawyer shtick is played out. that i'm a lawyer doesnt mean that debates over semantics and be pedantic, given the context. what the word "law" in sharia law means to you or me isn't relevant. neither of us are muslim, neither of us observe their religious law. the only question we care about, i would think, is if the state or federal governments are going to codify those laws. they aren't. so no, they won't be laws of the US, or laws of the state of texas/california/virginia, etc.

they are still laws, just not in any of the jurisdictions that apply to you or me. i dont know that the ability to punish is a requirement of having a law. i mean the US Code defines how the flag can be honored, and states you cant wear it as clothing. but there's no means for the government to penalize you for violating that code

[DMC]

sure. and i'm pretty sure thats the crux of the argument against people want to codify their religious laws. if christians look at the bible and say gay marriage shouldnt be practiced, then the christian community is more than welcome to observe the laws of their faith and not marry people of the opposite sex.

but the government's laws aren't subject to people's "agreement to follow" them.

but the reason i call this "infanticide bill" a token bill is because there is no state where infanticide is legal. its a political stunt, just like kamala harris' "anti-lynching" bill or the recent bill to condemn anti-semitism. they're worthless.

So as a lawyer are you then dedicated to litigation of religious "laws"?

Show me where Sharia law exists and isn't part of the legal system, then how it's anything different than a simple self enforce code of conduct, like the ketogenic diet. Are there ketogenic laws?

[DMC]

the lawyer shtick is played out. that i'm a lawyer doesnt mean that debates over semantics and be pedantic, given the context. what the word "law" in sharia law means to you or me isn't relevant. neither of us are muslim, neither of us observe their religious law. the only question we care about, i would think, is if the state or federal governments are going to codify those laws. they aren't. so no, they won't be laws of the US, or laws of the state of texas/california/virginia, etc.

they are still laws, just not in any of the jurisdictions that apply to you or me. i dont know that the ability to punish is a requirement of having a law. i mean the US Code defines how the flag can be honored, and states you cant wear it as clothing. but there's no means for the government to penalize you for violating that code

Doesn't the US jurisdiction apply to you and me?

Code and law are not the same things. Otherwise it could be unlawful to wear the flag as clothing. Would you be ok with that since you're here pretending "law" and "code" are the same things.

[spurraider21]

So as a lawyer are you then dedicated to litigation of religious "laws"?

Show me where Sharia law exists and isn't part of the legal system, then how it's anything different than a simple self enforce code of conduct, like the ketogenic diet. Are there ketogenic laws?

if by "laws" you are only referring to state/government enacted laws that all people in their jurisdiction are bound to, then no those arent laws in that context, obviously.

as a lawyer, i can only practice based on laws that are codified by the state (i dont regularly practice federal law). thats the purpose of the legal profession in the US. when i was admitted to the CA state bar, i became licensed to practice in all california state courts. so that would obviously exclude laws of religion, which do not have the same reach as laws passed by legislatures

[DMC]

if by "laws" you are only referring to state/government enacted laws that all people in their jurisdiction are bound to, then no those arent laws in that context, obviously.

as a lawyer, i can only practice based on laws that are codified by the state (i dont regularly practice federal law). thats the purpose of the legal profession in the US. when i was admitted to the CA state bar, i became licensed to practice in all california state courts. so that would obviously exclude laws of religion, which do not have the same reach as laws passed by legislatures

Still waiting for an answer to the Sharia law question.

Who's playing the semantics game again?

[spurraider21]

Doesn't the US jurisdiction apply to you and me?

of course. but nobody here claimed that the laws of islam apply to you and me, even if some people in the US bind themselves to it.

Code and law are not the same things. Otherwise it could be unlawful to wear the flag as clothing. Would you be ok with that since you're here pretending "law" and "code" are the same things.

um, the code is quite literally a collection of the existing laws in a given area. they are the same thing. when people look up "laws" they are looking up things like the US Code, or the Code of Civil Procedure, or the Evidence Code, etc etc. they're synonymous in the context of laws enforced by the government

[Winehole23]

You seem to think this...

...is right here in the United States and it's no problem.

Why do you think so?

Because that isn't a typical example. Sharia isn't the civil code here, just like it isn'tn most of the rest of the world. In most of the world it's spiritual, not civil law. As such, Sharia Law poses zero risk to anyone in the USA.

[DMC]

Because that isn't a typical example. Sharia isn't the civil code here, just like it isn'tn most of the rest of the world. In most of the world ot's spiritual, not civil law. As such, Sharia Law poses zero risk to anyone in the USA.

law1
/lô/
noun
1.
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
synonyms: rules and regulations, system of laws, body of laws, cons ution, legislation, code, legal code, charter; jurisprudence
"the law of the land"

[spurraider21]

"country or community"
"actions of its members"

[DMC]

of course. but nobody here claimed that the laws of islam apply to you and me, even if some people in the US bind themselves to it.

Islamic law is a legal system. How can that exist without being applied?

um, the code is quite literally a collection of the existing laws in a given area. they are the same thing. when people look up "laws" they are looking up things like the US Code, or the Code of Civil Procedure, or the Evidence Code, etc etc. they're synonymous in the context of laws enforced by the government

So the collection of laws in the US are the code. Where is Sharia law in that?

[DMC]

"country or community"
"actions of its members"

it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Since the US doesn't recognize their code of conduct nor allow them to impose harsh punishments on their "members", they may not impose these penalties in the US ergo no law.

But you're saying Muslim Americans aren't part of the community?

[spurraider21]

Islamic law is a legal system. How can that exist without being applied?

So the collection of laws in the US are the code. Where is Sharia law in that?

its not part of the us code, nor any state code. neither the US government or any state government has any right to enforce religious law

[Chris]

Wasting your time. They are incapable of admitting when they are completely full of . I'm curious what a "typical example" of Winetroll's version of Sharia Law is.

[Winehole23]

Go stuff yourself, DMC. Any religious scholar would know what I mean, you're just being dense: usage is king.

[DMC]

its not part of the us code, nor any state code. neither the US government or any state government has any right to enforce religious law

Neither does any individual since Americans are protected from such by law.

Since it's not part of the US code or any state code, it's not law. It's just a code of conduct, like the Boy Scout honor pledge.

[DMC]

Go stuff yourself, DMC. Any religious scholar would know what I mean, you're just being dense: usage is king.

No you were intentionally obtuse to suggest Sharia law is in effect in the US. Are you Muslim?