• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cultur

Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

So, it a man chops off his daughter's head, claiming the right to do so according to his religion, you'll be cool with him walking on the murder charges?

That's not an area where where civil court would even come into play.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Looking into this more there is some legitimacy to the demand for legislation:
Source: Fox News

Obviously some judges need to be explicitly told that religious law is not legitimate in secular court.
The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA.
We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."​
The issue was a poor interpretation of the 1st amendment rather than use of Sharia law as precedent.



I think that the idea that is being railed against here is abhorrent. However, I do not think that the idea that we oppose is the same thing as what is actual in existence.

Powered by Google Docs
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Of course it does, plus everything lifted from the Bible....

And what is asinine about requiing American judicial decisions to be based on state and national law?

Why, nothing. Nothing at all.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

There is in fact a movement among members of the Muslim community to have recognition of Sharia law as an option in civil court. If all those concerned freely choose to have their civil disputes decided on by a court with different rules that is perfectly fine. As long as the secular option is the default I see no issue with it.

If two parties to a dispute do not seek resolution of the dispute in state and federal law, there's no point in the dumb asses going to court, they can got to their local witch doctor who can gut a chicken for them instead.

There's absolutely no reason any duly elected or appointed American judge should be conversant with the intricacies of anything except American law and precedents. Decisions made in France or Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia are simply not relevant to any case brought before a court in the United States.

Allowing litigants to demand adudication in some other code system immediately opens the requirement that the judges must be conversant in those alien systems or the rights of the litigants are being violated.

It's all nonsense. American law is supreme in the United States, anyone that doesn't like that has to examine the reasons they came here. One special feature about the United States is that no one is tied to the country with a bungee cord, they can always leave if they don't like how things are done here.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

And what is asinine about requiing American judicial decisions to be based on state and national law?

Why, nothing. Nothing at all.

Nothing asinine about that, but that is not what is happening. The wording of these laws have in most cases been so poor... basicly written by idiots, that they are so vague that they do ban pretty much anything influenced by "international or religious" law.. which is pretty much the whole freaking US legal system.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Only one of those three links could even be considered an answer to what I asked for, and that one was an internal dispute in a mosque involving who is named as trustee of the place. The second was a copyright/antitrust case that I can't fathom how would possibly fit here, and the third was just some other state trying to do the same thing as Texas here.

So. One. You've got one. Barely.

From the second link:

He called it significant that foreign authors, publishers, and nations say the agreement violates international law.


From the third link:

Supporters of SQ 755 have said the change was needed to stem a trend of activist judges turning to international law to make decisions.

I thought I'd give you some variety.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

is this seriously a concern to Republicans, Sharia law?? What a ****ing joke,
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA.
We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."​
The issue was a poor interpretation of the 1st amendment rather than use of Sharia law as precedent.



I think that the idea that is being railed against here is abhorrent. However, I do not think that the idea that we oppose is the same thing as what is actual in existence.

In effect, bringing Islamic teachings into a legal decision is using Sharia law.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

What am I missing? Since when do we apply any law outside of US code and the USC to court precedings?
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cultural laws | ...

Another idiotic right wing state. And they base this suggested law because of Newt Gingrinch it seems, who floated the lie about Dearborn, Michigan and a disorderly conduct arrest of some Christian wackos at an Arab International Fest.

Now the cracker was this article

Dearborn cited in effort to pass anti-Sharia law in Texas - News - Press and Guide



So here we have a law which is based in large part on fear, fear drummed up by a lie the moron and known liar Newt Gingrich, and one of the backers of the Texas bill, a Republican of course, "heard it on the radio" hence it must be true.

The IQ of some of the present crop of right wing politicians must be just above or around 70....

I wouldn't mind living in Texas. Seems like a great state to start a family
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

From the second link:
From the third link:
I thought I'd give you some variety.
And you think that saying something is significant is the same as citing a non-American law as a basis for a judgment?
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

In effect, bringing Islamic teachings into a legal decision is using Sharia law.
If you use the phrase "in effect" very, very liberally, I guess you could be correct. Though, since the first amendment specifically deals with religion, if we stick with this very liberal usage of "in effect" then many rulings based on 1st amendment that are relevant to religion are "in effect" bringing religion into legal decisions.

But if we stick with more regular ways of saying things, it seems that a judge made a bad ruling based on a flawed understanding of how to apply the 1st amendment and then that ruling was subsequently overturned.
The above description seems to more accurately describe events than saying that sharia law had come to America. Obviously, ymmv.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

If you use the phrase "in effect" very, very liberally, I guess you could be correct. Though, since the first amendment specifically deals with religion, if we stick with this very liberal usage of "in effect" then many rulings based on 1st amendment that are relevant to religion are "in effect" bringing religion into legal decisions.

But if we stick with more regular ways of saying things, it seems that a judge made a bad ruling based on a flawed understanding of how to apply the 1st amendment and then that ruling was subsequently overturned.
The above description seems to more accurately describe events than saying that sharia law had come to America. Obviously, ymmv.

Except in this case Islamic teachings were used specifically to inform how to rule on the issue. That is not using it "very, very liberally" because that judge's ruling was pretty much saying his actions should be judged in accordance with Islam in a court of law.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Except in this case Islamic teachings were used specifically to inform how to rule on the issue. That is not using it "very, very liberally" because that judge's ruling was pretty much saying his actions should be judged in accordance with Islam in a court of law.
To me the issue seems to stem from the judge's poor understanding of how the first Amendment works and how it should be applied.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

And this has happened in the US when?
It is likely to happen in the US when?

When has anything even remotely similar to the situation you've described ever happened in the US?
When have we allowed decapitators to walk because of religious grounds?

The above doesn't strike you as a far-fetched and hysterical worry?

Did I say that it did happen, or did I ask you how you would feel if it happened? You do know what, "?", means. Right?
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Since when was murder a civil matter in the USA?

Since O.J. Simpson got away with murder in a criminal court and afterwards was convicted of murder in a civil court.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Wrong. He was convicted of causing wrongful death in civil court, not murder. Murder is a criminal offence.
 
Re: Texas Legislature considers banning courts from recognizing foreign religious, cu

Since O.J. Simpson got away with murder in a criminal court and afterwards was convicted of murder in a civil court.

Like Skipper said he was found liable in a wrongful death suit. The standard of proof in civil court is much lower and criminal action can only arise out of disobeying an order from civil court. Losing a wrongful death case simply means the defendant is found liable, meaning legally responsible, for causing the death of a person. Such a finding can be made against an employer who maybe maintains an unsafe work place that results in the death of an employee. It is not the same as a criminal homicide conviction.
 
Back
Top Bottom