- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yeah, it does. You asked how "Sharia law" would come up in probate, and this guy is suing over that very subject.
Yeah, it does. You asked how "Sharia law" would come up in probate, and this guy is suing over that very subject.
too bad that, legally speaking, this is about contract law and not religious law. The only way "sharia law" can be applied in the united states is via contracts to which all parties are voluntary participants and the contract itself does not violate the law of the land. You know, like any other contract.
i guess hate and fear are valid grounds upon which to ban otherwise legal contractual arrangements.
Aside from that, i wish the proponents of this luck with the article vi dispute which is surely coming.
Well, out of my years of debating---about 4---I have never met a liberal who was against Sharia Law. I guess it's my lucky day.
I mean liberals in general
An example would be NPR firing Juan b/c he was "anxious" around Muslims; the point was whether or not he should have been fired but that any voice against Islam is offensive.
Constantly, I see liberal that defend Sharia/Islamic Law. There are two main sides of the point that is Sharia Law. The conservatives are always against it. What does that say of the other main side?
Absolute bull****.
Everyone, lets please ignore this guy
And I explained in there why I believe his claim to be frivolous. :shrug:
Section 1 said:The Courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.
And are you going to explain how a court may apply Sharia law within contract law?
You have made it clear you have no damn clue what you are babbling about.
In case you are as confused about me as you are about reality. I am a Conservative not a a damn Liberal, I hate no man. It's Liberals who hate everyone who thinks for themselves.
For example I hate the CULT of Islam. I hate the Cult of Black Liberation Theology, Obama is into, because it's Anti-American, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Constitution, and Anti-White people.
You could not be more wrong.
It's essentially the only way "Sharia law" is going to manifest in the United States -- two or more parties who have a conflict and agree to have it arbitrated according to "Sharia law," or advanced planning documents.
In other words, via contracts, planning documents and other similarly civil methods.
I read what you said, and you essentially said that if it's a valid will, then this amendment won't affect it.
If it's a valid will, and in it he asks that his possessions be divided according to "Sharia law," then this amendment, which explicitly states:
. . . would explicitly prevent the court from considering the very standard he is asking it to consider.
Party A enters into a contract with Party B to do a certain thing according to "Sharia law."
A dispute arises.
A suit is brought in civil court alleging a material breach of the contract.
Then why not admit it?
The United States has a civil code. That is the only laws that should be followed in contractual matters. Which the Oklahoma law will enforce.
Excellent job of mixing slander with your fear and hate.
What it WILL prevent is a situation where someone wants the court to ignore the law and decide a legal matter on the basis of Sharia -- as in, screw contract law altogether, the Koran says this is a binding agreement and we want the court to enforce it. That, I would think, would be opposed by anyone who purports to favor secular government.
So, if Sharia law says "this is a valid will," but actual probate law says it isn't, or if someone wants an intestate man's estate to be divvied according to Sharia law instead of long-standing probate law, then too bad, so sad -- Sharia loses. And that's the way it ought to be. Do you disagree?
This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Liberals defending Islam even though under Islamic rule women are oppressed.
See what I mean??
It would also be illegal to begin with. This amendment was not required if that's all that was desired. The way this reads, courts won't be allowed to consider "Sharia law" period, whether the point of "Sharia law" in question contradicts the law of the land or not.
Of course I agree, but if all that was desired was that "Sharia law" not be considered supreme above the law of the land, this amendment was not required.
It wouldn't ever have to if it's just arbitration. I already explained that.
I already pointed out the NJ rape case where apparently THAT judge didn't quite get it.
If that's true, what the hell is the point of the amendment (aside from Oklahomans pissing to mark their territory, that is)?
That's an example of a judge that needed to be removed from the bench, not an example of where it needed to be clarified that "Sharia law" is trumped by the law of the land.
That's up to OK.[
The NJ case was specifically cited as a motivation -- not something they wanted any of their own judges to do. This is perfectly within the purview of any state, to define exactly what a court's jurisdiction is and what it may consider.
Well, that's funny, because such a clarification is exactly what the appeals court did. And apparently, this judge did in fact need it.
But the appeals court could have gone along with it, and then the NJ Supreme Court could have, too. It didn't happen, but it could have.
Now, in OK, there's no chance of it happening.
Please stop lying about me.
TED,
Not a liberal, and not defending the oppression of women, thanks.
You're absolutely right, if Oklahomans feel the need to piss to mark their territory, that's their business, just like it's perfectly reasonable to call them on their silliness.
Insofar as it is within the authority of the state to do so, yeah. That authority doesn't make such a specification reasonable by its nature.
Yes, absolutely, any judge at any time could completely ignore common sense and go off the rails.
That's why there's an appeals process.
When you defend Islam in your mild way, you're essentially supporting the barbarizing of their women.
Islam states that the woman is possesion to the male. Why do you think so many atrocities happen to women under Sharia from rape, being fully-covered in garb, beatings, and stonings? I have read instances where Islamic men killed their women who were trying to divorce them. You cannot disprove those facts.
Given that this will not affect contract law, arbitration, or probate, but it will prevent a judge from doing what the NJ judge did, what's your specific objection again? Or is this simply "oh noooz! It's ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!"
No, I'm not.
I have never, not once, defended these sorts of abuses.
Please stop lying about me.