Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

  1. #21
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    If people agree to adhere to "shariah law" they should be free to do so as long as the exercise of it does not infringe upon the rights of others (including those in contract, you cannot abdicate your rights).
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #22
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    so as long as the exercise of it does not infringe upon the rights of others (including those in contract, you cannot abdicate your rights).
    Can you give an example of what you mean with contracts? It seems to me that you can give up rights in contracts. For example, an non-disclosure agreement is giving up your right to free speech in an area. You can't contract to do something illegal- like establish an indentured servitude relationship- but I don't think that is the same thing as saying you can't contract away your rights generally. In some ways, that is the whole point of a contract- constraining the things the parties are allowed to do more narrowly than they are by default.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    240

    rolleyes Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    All this anti-Sharia nonsense is just transparent bigotry. Muslims make up 0.3% of the population of the US. Obviously Sharia law is never going to take root in our legal system. It's just an excuse for them to express their hatred of Muslims.
    Uh, it's more like 0.8% muslims, and their numbers are projected to double within the next 20 years. Stop making sh*t up and downplaying the truth.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    A good ruling. There is no justification for attacking Muslims in this matter.

    The precedent of U.S. law is set by our judges. If a new precedent is proposed, then it must be considered by the courts - and that includes anything from Shariah law. It must be weighed against our Constitution and other laws. What OK tried to do was bypass due process by banning Shariah law before its individual aspects could be evaluated in various court cases.

    Shariah law is not going to take root in the U.S. There is simply no impetus for it. However, whitewashing a very large set of foreign laws in this way is not the way our court system works. Each aspect is evaluated for its merits, and that's that.

  5. #25
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunbelt View Post
    Uh, it's more like 0.8% muslims, and their numbers are projected to double within the next 20 years. Stop making sh*t up and downplaying the truth.
    No, according to the census, there are 1,349,000 Muslims in the US. Out of 311 million people, so that is 0.4%. And the majority of Muslims worldwide oppose basing a government on Sharia. So, at the most, that is 0.2% of the country that wants to replace the constitution with a new system based on Sharia law.

    So, how close to the number they need does that put them? In order to amend the constitution you need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate. So far, there is 1 Muslim in the House and he would never support anything like a theocracy, and zero Muslims in the senate. You also need a majority in 3/4 of the states. So far I don't think Muslims make up more than 2% in any state, so Muslims that believe we should replace the constitution with Sharia law would be 1% even in the most Muslim states...

    So yeah...

  6. #26
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Can you give an example of what you mean with contracts? It seems to me that you can give up rights in contracts. For example, an non-disclosure agreement is giving up your right to free speech in an area. You can't contract to do something illegal- like establish an indentured servitude relationship- but I don't think that is the same thing as saying you can't contract away your rights generally. In some ways, that is the whole point of a contract- constraining the things the parties are allowed to do more narrowly than they are by default.
    Yes, there are non-disclousure agreements for preservation of certain entity's rights and such (non-disclosure is mostly related to profit and property). But at the same accord, you cannot agree to be a slave, yes? You cannot agree to be beaten to near death, yes? There are certain base rights which cannot be abdicated. The point of contract is to draw legal agreement between parties; but you cannot abdicate your rights. You can agree to payments and terms and blah; but your base rights are inalienable and thus cannot be abdicated. They can agree to terms in which religious law is observed; but not at the cost of one's rights. No contract for instance can validate abuse.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #27
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You cannot agree to be beaten to near death, yes? There are certain base rights which cannot be abdicated.
    Maybe we're just using different terms for the same thing, but I think of it the other way around. It isn't that you can't contract to be beaten to near death because you have a right not to be beaten near death, it is because there is a prohibition on beating people to near death. A right is something you are allowed to do, but you can always choose not to do it and you can make that choice legally binding with a contract. You can't get around a prohibition society imposes on you by contracting with an individual, but your own individual rights, that you possess, can be handled in a contract between individuals.

    After all, free speech is maybe the most fundamental of all rights. If you can give that away in an NDA, then it's hard to say that you can't give away fundamental rights. You give away property rights any time you sell something or buy something. You give away your right to due process when you sign a settlement contract with the government.

  8. #28
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Maybe we're just using different terms for the same thing, but I think of it the other way around. It isn't that you can't contract to be beaten to near death because you have a right not to be beaten near death, it is because there is a prohibition on beating people to near death.
    Why would there be a prohibition against beating people nearly to death, such that one couldn't even enter into a contract allowing that, other than that society has determined that there is a right which must be protected by such a strict prohibition?

    If there's no right, then there's no reason for the prohibition against violating that right.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  9. #29
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Why would there be a prohibition against beating people nearly to death, such that one couldn't even enter into a contract allowing that, other than that society has determined that there is a right which must be protected by such a strict prohibition?

    If there's no right, then there's no reason for the prohibition against violating that right.
    I think of it differently. Society doesn't want people doing X to others for whatever reason- maybe because they don't want X done to them, maybe because X violates a social taboo, maybe because X causes the sewers to get backed up. Whatever their reason, they have two tools at their disposal to prevent it from happening. They can prohibit the actor from doing X or they can give people a right not to have X done to them. The different approaches have different advantages and disadvantages in different situations. Maybe it's really easy to tell who is doing X, but hard to know precisely who it is being done to. For example, pollution- it's easier to spot polluters than to track the impact to a specific individual, so prohibition is the more sensible approach. Or, maybe the party that is doing it is the harder one to pin down. For example, with free speech it's easier to identify that a particular person wants to say something but isn't being allowed to than to try to figure out whether it was the guy that denied them the marching permit, or whether it was the legislature that passed the ordinance requiring permits or whether it was the previous marchers that left a mess behind who is to blame for his loss of free speech. So in that cast it's better to create a right that the speaker can use to prevent people from silencing him.

  10. #30
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law

    As far as never citing foreign law, did we all forget that US common law is based on British common law? It's not that unusual for litigants and cite British common law in obscure cases. Lousiana's law is based on the Code Napoleon. The LA Code has been translated into English, but if there is ever a conflict in meaning, the official version is the original French version of the LA Code. Being the only civil law state, it's more common for courts and litigants to cite foreign precedent.

    As far as Oklahoma's law, it's naked bigotry. A law written to address a problem that absolutely does not exist in Oklahoma, or AFAIK, anywhere else in the US.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •