Republicans in Tennessee want to jail people for practicing Shari'a Law.

[i just got lucky]

Originally Posted by DimesLikeHefner

Originally Posted by i just got lucky

Christians

Uhh NO. 

uhhh, yes.  Part of it might be political...but a huge part of this plays in to hatred towards other religions. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Originally Posted by paliplaya2010

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.

For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.

"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife “not guiltyâ€

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Originally Posted by paliplaya2010

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.

For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.

"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife “not guiltyâ€

 

[wooly willy]

Really good article on Shariah law by Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law. It's long but worth the read

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=shariaislamiclaw

 

[wooly willy]

Really good article on Shariah law by Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law. It's long but worth the read

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=shariaislamiclaw

 

[raymo24tx]

rashi wrote:

We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?


Exactly, International and religious laws should only be used to SOME extent.  They shouldn't fully overrule the whole Constitution.

 

[raymo24tx]

rashi wrote:

We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?


Exactly, International and religious laws should only be used to SOME extent.  They shouldn't fully overrule the whole Constitution.

 

[ryda421]

freedom of religion out the window ?

 

[ryda421]

freedom of religion out the window ?

 

[rexanglorum]

Essential1 wrote:

---

That's nothing... Arizona is going to ban Sharia Law... And KARMA... Good thing they will ban it, so they don't get paid back for it.

  

That State is a a giant garbage dump, literally and figuratively. It is the political playground of racists, sadists and dimwits and it is the destination for California meth addicts who relocated, the cost of living in Central San Bern County was just too high.

 

[rexanglorum]

Essential1 wrote:

---

That's nothing... Arizona is going to ban Sharia Law... And KARMA... Good thing they will ban it, so they don't get paid back for it.

  

That State is a a giant garbage dump, literally and figuratively. It is the political playground of racists, sadists and dimwits and it is the destination for California meth addicts who relocated, the cost of living in Central San Bern County was just too high.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

rashi wrote:

We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?


Exactly, International and religious laws should only be used to SOME extent.  They shouldn't fully overrule the whole Constitution.

That doesn't make any sense. If you use International Law or any type of Religious Law, you just circumvented the Constitution.


[h1][/h1]

[h1]Article VI[/h1]
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Show me where it says anything about using International Law in this "Supremacy Clause". Believe me, I'm no fan of the Constitution either.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

rashi wrote:

We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?


Exactly, International and religious laws should only be used to SOME extent.  They shouldn't fully overrule the whole Constitution.

That doesn't make any sense. If you use International Law or any type of Religious Law, you just circumvented the Constitution.


[h1][/h1]

[h1]Article VI[/h1]
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Show me where it says anything about using International Law in this "Supremacy Clause". Believe me, I'm no fan of the Constitution either.

 

[paliplaya2010]

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Originally Posted by paliplaya2010

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.

For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.

"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife “not guiltyâ€

 

[paliplaya2010]

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Originally Posted by paliplaya2010

Originally Posted by Raymo24TX

Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.

For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.

"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife “not guiltyâ€

 

[abovelegit1]

Obvious bigotry is obvious. The Supremacy Clause already exists to express the ultimate authority of the Constitution, but these bigots can't help but try, in any which way they can, to let those crazy Muslims know that they're not welcome in good ol' Tennessee.

 

[abovelegit1]

Obvious bigotry is obvious. The Supremacy Clause already exists to express the ultimate authority of the Constitution, but these bigots can't help but try, in any which way they can, to let those crazy Muslims know that they're not welcome in good ol' Tennessee.

 

[Animal Thug]

Wow. I'm at lost for words for things of this nature.

Check the first section of the proposed bill: It states:

The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular. The threat from terorrism has documented to exist outside our national borders and within the homeland.
 

What a joke. The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular?? Really?? Since when?

This country we call America is crap. Yeah I said it.

 

[Animal Thug]

Wow. I'm at lost for words for things of this nature.

Check the first section of the proposed bill: It states:

The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular. The threat from terorrism has documented to exist outside our national borders and within the homeland.
 

What a joke. The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular?? Really?? Since when?

This country we call America is crap. Yeah I said it.

 

[Animal Thug]

Originally Posted by LLCoolMichael

Nashville, TN resident checking in/

Checking into what? Racism?

 

[Animal Thug]

Originally Posted by LLCoolMichael

Nashville, TN resident checking in/

Checking into what? Racism?

 

[budweiser]

Rockin' the casbah.

 

[budweiser]

Rockin' the casbah.

 

[dame theory]

I mean... ya'll do know that there are some states you can't hold public office in (Mississippi for example) and other small districts if you don't accept the existence of some higher power?

BTW, this is not a violation of freedom of religion if in fact Sharia attempts to supersede the US legal code...It is a violation if we're just targeting muslims because we can...but its clearly motivated by christian superiority.

 

[dame theory]

I mean... ya'll do know that there are some states you can't hold public office in (Mississippi for example) and other small districts if you don't accept the existence of some higher power?

BTW, this is not a violation of freedom of religion if in fact Sharia attempts to supersede the US legal code...It is a violation if we're just targeting muslims because we can...but its clearly motivated by christian superiority.