U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-07-2010, 07:48 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,834,197 times
Reputation: 703

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
You do not win a card to pull out a case and call it a Sharia case because it suits you. It isn't a Sharia case. Period. So, you will need to find another example of this very horrible threat. Because your example, frankly, sucks and is a complete and total lie or if you prefer, than it is a complete and total twisted interpretation.

In the case that is being used, the woman was to leave the US as the Visa was up, the restraining order would not have been effective anyway.

And might I add that you are a proponant of making it doubly illegal, because the ancient tribal views are illegal anyway, and international jurisprudence be damned----you then point to other countries----because it suits you?

Can you wear the hijab to get a drivers license? Like no.

The most basic way to break this down is like this: Many Christians in the United States strive to be good Christians by reading their particular version of the Bible and trying to incorporate it into their daily lives.

They recognize, in most instances--IPV aside-that no matter how much they may object-they must abide by the law of the land. In this land the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

Muslims also strive to be good by applying Sharia in their daily actions. The jurisprudence that you are afraid of is called Fiqh. What is the problem? The Consitution is still the highest law of the land.

Nothing changed.

By singling out one specific religion and with minimal clarity, you have chosen one religion or any other religion over one. You cannot do that. It violates the First Amendment.


http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf
If they are willing to abide by the law of the land then there is no need to worry about banning Sharia's use within the U.S. courts as it is in the U.K.

BTW, you may wish to not call the New Jersey case a Sharia Law case, but we all know it was.

Here is the link provided by the previous poster in case you missed it, regarding the U.K.'s Sharia Laws that point out how according to Sharia Law a wife cannot be raped by her husband because he has a right to have sex with her on demand.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/10/2...-your-wife.htm

These Sharia Laws were fought for and won by Muslims in the United Kingdom. They are now in place there. I think a preemptive move to prevent that happening in the U.S. is a good thing.

Last edited by GottaBMe; 11-07-2010 at 07:55 PM.. Reason: Additional Info. for clarification
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2010, 07:52 PM
 
59 posts, read 43,398 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBMe View Post
This law banning the use/consideration of Muslim Law or any International Law in the Oklahoma Courts was recently passed with 70% of Oklahoma voter approval. Now the Muslim Group, CARE is suing to have it repealed.

Seems to me that in America, our courts should continue to base decisions on the laws of our country, not religion or other country's law. Britain, apparently is already using the Sharia Law in 85 Courts. When does a country stop being its own country?

Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com

"shall pass no law restricting religion".

It will be struck down.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 07:56 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,834,197 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneInTexas View Post
"shall pass no law restricting religion".

It will be struck down.
"restricting religion" from what? What will be struck down? The law Oklahoma passed? Or the attempt to challenge it by the Muslim group? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying.

Last edited by GottaBMe; 11-07-2010 at 08:01 PM.. Reason: Clarity
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 07:58 PM
 
59 posts, read 43,398 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBMe View Post
"restricting religion" from what?
You can't restrict religion. From what? Anything. But it is a religious law duh. Not just my words..watch TV.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 08:09 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,834,197 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneInTexas View Post
You can't restrict religion. From what? Anything. But it is a religious law duh. Not just my words..watch TV.
No need to get so nasty. If you are saying that the Muslims can not be restricted from practicing their religion, that is correct and I don't think anyone is trying to stop them. Religious freedom for all. However, our U.S. law precedes religious laws. Sharia law cannot and should not be used to decide court cases just as Catholic doctrine should not be used in court cases. We are not going to take someone to court for using birth control even though the Catholic Church may prohibit its use. That is something to be dealt with within the confines of the church as in counseling or excommunication, etc. so long as it does not go against U.S. Law. Let the Muslims do the same.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 09:33 PM
 
243 posts, read 254,566 times
Reputation: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneInTexas View Post
You can't restrict religion. From what? Anything. But it is a religious law duh. Not just my words..watch TV.
Actually you can. Watch tv.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 10:36 PM
 
29,986 posts, read 39,377,386 times
Reputation: 12792
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeoneInTexas View Post
"shall pass no law restricting religion".

It will be struck down.
Please quote the US Constitution correctly. Words and punctuation have meaning. Perhaps a bit more reading and lot less television!

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 10:50 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,834,197 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Please quote the US Constitution correctly. Words and punctuation have meaning. Perhaps a bit more reading and lot less television!

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:48 AM
 
202 posts, read 324,731 times
Reputation: 156
Wow! I am still amazed by the, what is to me obvious, programming many of you have suffered by watching too much of Fox News and CNN. I suggest you all (a few of you aside) check out the propaganda thread. You might learn something, or you might be too far gone to learn it. I pray to God you are not. The U.S. and your community are NOT, I repeat NOT, suffering from a threat of a Shariah Law takeover. What you do obviously suffer from is ignorance and lack of true knowledge. This is actually the most dangerous threat in the U.S. - willful ignorance.

And to the poster who suggested the reason that I, as a female, do not consider Islam mysogynistic is because I know nothing else, nothing better. I am happy to tell you that you are dead on wrong. I am a convert. I spent 32 years of my life as a non-muslim. I grew up in an educated, middle-class, non-religious household. I did spiritual seeking for a number of my years beginning in my twenties. I have seen plenty, experienced plenty, known all kinds of people, dated all kinds of men/guys (never any physically abusive though, that's for sure). I am a very hard-headed, independent-minded, well-educated women. I know exactly the difference between being a muslim women (and now happily married to a muslim man - and I converted before I met him thank you very much) and not being one.

So why don't you all just PLEASE turn off your T.V.'s and go visit places with people you may not regularly encounter in your daily lives. I wish the muslim community in the U.S. overall was more active in inviting non-muslims into the masjids and to islamic events and celebrations, because I think this would clear up so many misunderstandings!!!!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 01:22 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,807,363 times
Reputation: 1855
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You are in denial.

I already did look at the arguments. AND I quoted the ruling:a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)

On June 30, 2009, the judge rendered an oral opinion in the matter. He commenced his opinion by stating that plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in conduct that constituted assault, criminal restraint, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, and harassment under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The judge found from his review of the evidence that plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had engaged in harassment, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4b and c, and assault. He found that plaintiff had not proven criminal restraint, sexual assault or criminal sexual contact. In finding assault to have occurred, the judge credited, as essentially uncontradicted, plaintiff's testimony regarding the events of November 1, 16 and 22, 2008. The judge based his findings of harassment on plaintiff's "clear proof" of the nonconsensual sex occurring during the three days in November and on the events of the night of January 15 to 16. He did not credit plaintiff's testimony of sexual assaults thereafter, since there was no corroboration in plaintiff's complaints to the police. The judge also found no criminal restraint to have occurred.

The judge therefore found that the parties had no reason to be together again, but immediately thereafter, he noted that their baby was expected in August and "[t]hat will require that the parties be in contact presumably." The judge then concluded:

In this particular case, this court does not believe that a final restraining order is necessary under the circumstances. There's no need for the parties to be associated with one another. They are divorced now. They don't live together. They don't have to be together. . . .

[T]his was a situation of a short-term marriage, a very brief period of physical assault by the defendant against the plaintiff and it's now a situation where the parties don't live together, won't be living together and won't have a need to be in contact with one another.

Under those circumstances, the court finds that a final restraining order is not necessary to prevent another act of domestic violence. The Court will not enter a final restraining order. Nonetheless, the judge cautioned defendant not to have any contact with plaintiff and to instruct his family members and friends to have no further contact with plaintiff's family. Additionally, the judge acknowledged that the two would have to be involved in litigation over the baby and child support.

As a final matter, the judge recognized the pendency of a criminal action against defendant, and indicated its existence constituted an additional basis for the judge's ruling denying a final restraining order, since he assumed that a no-contact order had been entered as a condition of bail.



Quote:
If you need more clarification...UK Islamic Council: You Can't Rape Your Wife
If you need more clarification read the court order again.

Try again.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top