Oklahoma’s Ban on Shariah Law in Court Is Blocked

[Scurrilous]

Source: NYTimes

<snip>

"A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked Oklahoma from putting into effect an amendment to the constitution that would forbid state judges from considering Islamic law in their decisions.

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of Federal District Court in Oklahoma City gave no timetable for when she would make a final ruling. The amendment has generated controversy in Oklahoma, where Muslims claim that the state is discriminating against their religion and supporters claim that there is an international movement to impose Shariah law in Western democracies.

The amendment was passed with 70 percent of the vote on Election Day in a Republican landslide, and Oklahoma politicians say its presence on the ballot helped to increase turnout among conservatives. As a result, Republicans seized the governor’s office and both houses of the Legislature for the first time in modern history.

The measure, known as State Question 755, or the “Save Our State Amendment,” forbids judges from considering or using Shariah law in their decisions, as well as banning the use of international law."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30oklahoma.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[thereismore]

1. Activist judges! I can see the anti-Sharia laws spreading like anti-gay amendments.

Muslim is the new gay.

[DissedByBush]

35. Gays don't have a habit of chopping heads off and blowing up buildings

There's nothing in the "gay laws" that says non-gays need to be killed or subjected.

But thanks for playing.

[Winterblues]

77. Maybe you could explain exactly what sharia Laws have been used in US courtrooms?

....................Exactly...Thanks for playing...

[No Elephants]

89. Neither do 1.5 billion Muslims, certainly not Oklahoma Muslims.

P.S. Sharia law doesn't require anyone to bomb anything.

[No Elephants]

88. When did gay stop being the new gay? Do parents and clergy of Muslims shun Muslims and tell them

Allah is revolted by Muslims and will send them all to hell?

Maybe Muslim is the new Jew or the new Catholic, or even the new "Mick" or "Dago," but gay is still the new gay, after all these millenia.

[jobycom]

2. Reminds me of a comic book I read as a kid, about Mars.

Some president decides that to increase his control on Earth, he will fake a war with an imaginary force on Mars. He claims the Martians are all underground, but we discovered them and now they are mad. All the Earth is so terrified of this imaginary force that they back the president's plan, and he sends a force to Mars and launches an all out missile attack at the surface, to the great cheers of the people of Earth.

The president is telling the people of Earth that the threat has been defeated, and they are all cheering him, and the ships are turning around to return home, when missile launchers begin popping up from the Martian surface.

[No Elephants]

117. And you took away from that story not to attack people or places for trumped up reasons, as

Muslims and their centers and/or places of worship are being attacked in the U.S. for no good reason.

[Lasher]

3. Drawing in the moron vote!

I guess that flag amendment thing got kinda trite.

[No Elephants]

126. How would a flag amendment spill over on Obama? He's never burned a flag.

Fury against Muslims, on the other hand, combined with a lot of pre-manufactured confusion about whether Barack Hussein Obama is a Kenyan Muslim or only a Hawaiian Muslim fits right in (no pun) with this ginned up outrage over Sharia law.


Obviously, we are in great danger of his imposing Sharia law on us all, heaven help us. Or maybe foreign law-Kenyan law. Who knows?

Bet they planned state constitutional amendments about sharia and foreign law for ballotws in 2012, just for insurance in turning out the wing nuts, much as gay marriage amendments were used in 2000 and 2004. This decision on thr constitution may orce them to regroup.

Evil, ugly.

[AlbertCat]

4. Like there aren't enough REAL threats to be afraid of!

:eyes:

Like the state of civil education in OK. YIKES!

[robinlynne]

5. How the hell does someone equate religious law with International Law?

The concept of any sort of religious law is absolutely against everything this country stands for. I don't care if it is Sharia or Christian or BUddhist. Religion and law should never mix. The result has historically been tyranny.

[AlbertCat]

9. Religion and law should never mix.

Religion is nothing but ancient government.... with its leaders claiming authority from some supernatural force rather than, say, the people's will. A king, like , oh, George III is on the throne because somewhere in the past his line was chosen, by god, to rule over everyone else. The US decided to get the religion out of government and have its citizens decide who is in charge. Very novel at the time.

These morons in OK probably would be fine with Christian laws, and even think the US was founded on Christian laws (they've been told so by many a conservative). But that is just as antithetical to the very idea of the USA as enforcing Sharia law.

[DissedByBush]

15. Because neither has a place in our judicial system

The Oklahoma action enforces that.

[Posteritatis]

28. Treaties rather thoroughly have a place in the US legal system

One has to be pretty dense to claim otherwise.

[DissedByBush]

34. This isn't about treaties

Those are made by the President and approved by the Senate.

This is about laws made by other nations, and laws made by a religion.

[jberryhill]

37. So, the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma is... what?

Not really "in" Oklahoma?

[Posteritatis]

54. Uhhh, no.

"International law" does not mean "national domestic laws that aren't American."

[DissedByBush]

74. It includes treaties, but it is not limited to them n/t

[No Elephants]

91. You got one right! But, given your reply #34, only by accident.

[Demstud]

57. Laws made by other nations?

Name one case where this kind of ban on enforcement of laws that aren't part of our legal system would have made a difference.

[No Elephants]

104. Depends on how you define "made a difference."

Has it ever happened that, say, a U.S. federal court has said, "Well, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this very issue, but I like Canada's law better, so I am going to diverge from the Supremes?" No--and that would probably be an impeachable offense if it ever were to happen in the future.

ETA: Scratch that. I am fairly confident it's never happened, but I have not read every lower federal court case from 1789 to present. I am very confident no case like that has ever been allowed to stand on appeal. And very confident about impeachability.

[No Elephants]

93. No, laws made by other nations is not international law, any more than U.S. law is international law

Laws made by France = the domestic law of France; laws made by Italy=the domestic law of Italy; laws made by thee U.S. domestic law of the U.S. and so on.

[robinlynne]

49. That's how it seems to me. International Law, if our country has signed onto it,

is law.

[robinlynne]

50. I think do not torture is one of those little international laws.

[No Elephants]

90. (A) It needs no enforcement; (B) no law "enforces" anything; and

(C) per the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma law has no place in America.

[Posteritatis]

29. Conservatives hate both

"International law" is a conservative dogwhistle for "evil communist forces implacably devoted purely to destroying America." They see allowing Muslims to set up an arbitration system among themselves in a contractual manner as exactly the same thing because omgforeigners.

[a la izquierda]

6. K & R, from an Okie

(well, a transplant, anyway).

[Mhak]

7. I'm not completely clear on this issue...

Don't we have separation of church and state for a reason? Isn't Sharia law a religious-based legal system? Isn't that fundamentally flawed?

I must be missing something here. I'm a diehard liberal, but I think this issue is not one that should be political, the classic right vs. left. I think this is a fundamental issue, and while I'm pro-religious freedom, I am NOT pro-religion-affecting-legal--decisions in this country. Can someone please explain to me what I'm apparently missing, and why anybody would support having a religion brought into the American legal system in any way? I don't want the ten commandments in our courthouses either.

[AlbertCat]

10. Can someone please explain to me what I'm apparently missing

People in OK are phenomenally stupid?... perhaps?...

[Mhak]

11. That didn't help at all.

Let me rephrase the question - if separation of church and state is a founding principal this country is based on, why would anybody be FOR Sharia law (a religious-based legal system) being an accepted legal practice in this country? Isn't that completely against the basic principles of our country?

[Goldom]

12. Nobody is

and nobody was before the law. That's why it's a dumb law - it outlaws something that no one was doing, and already could never have happened because of existing laws.

[Brother Buzz]

13. You are fundamentally correct and the judge is saying it has no business in the State Constitution

In her order, Judge Miles-LaGrange said the measure did not pass constitutional muster. It conveys a message, she said, that the state favors one religion or particular belief, and that the federal courts have held that such a message violates the First Amendment.

[bongbong]

17. The GOP version

Don't forget the repig version of the US Constitution is what they believe in.

1st Amendment: You can say any lie you want about Democrats but truth about the GOP is "Hate Speech".
2nd Amendment: GUNS FOR EVERYBODY! GUNS GUNS GUNS! Cowards need guns to feel secure!
3rd Amendment: Who cares about any other Amendments?
4th Amendment: See 3rd Amendment
and so on.....

[spin]

21. Remember, my friend, that many Democrats also own firearms ...

and are pro Second Amendment.

source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

If you study the graph you will find that a higher percentage of Democratic gun owners own their weapons for self defense than do Republicans or Independents.

My daughter stopped an intruder who was forcing his way through the sliding glass door in our kitchen. He ran when she pointed a .45 acp S&W Model 25-2 revolver at him. The fact that I own firearms and trained my daughter how to use them, doesn't make either me or her a coward. It just makes us prepared, and it's a damn good thing we were.



S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp revolver.

[bongbong]

26. 2nd Amendment?

I used the 2nd Amendment as a kind of a joke, but the truth is that it has nothing to do with unregulated gun ownership. Read Federalist Papers #29 and you will find out that "well-regulated" means trained like an army.

I could care less if you own one or a million guns. Just don't try to use the 2nd Amendment to justify it.

[spin]

27. Well regulated had a different meaning in those days ...

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <[e-mail]>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

As far as the Federalist papers, I'll counter your Federalist Papers #29 with Federalist no 46:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.emphasis added

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

PUBLIUS.

I'll raise you by throwing in a few quotes:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --

"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

I will call by mentioning that in two recent rulings the Supreme court upheld the Second Amendment.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia;<1><2> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.<3> In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[jberryhill]

32. Yah.. and "arms" had a different meaning, too

You can have my 10 kT warhead when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[bongbong]

41. Yes

Your response will get a "rebuttal" from gun lovers that there were primitive machine guns in use in the late 18th century, as if pathological examples have something to do with what the Founding Fathers were talking about in a populist, albeit trained-like-an-army, militia.

[spin]

45. If you are right than explain these quotes from the founding fathers ...

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

[bongbong]

60. No explanation needed!

I respect your opinion! I just don't share it - like Richard Henry Lee.

"A militia, when properly formed...."

Thanks for finding that one for me. As for the other quotes, nothing in them contradicts the idea of "well-regulated" meaning "trained like an army".

[spin]

71. I think we both have to admit that there was a lot of good discussion ...

about the Constitution before it was ratified and also on the Bill of Rights after James Madison introduced them to the First United States Congress in 1789. The debate still goes on today.

[No Elephants]

99. Oh, please, Louise. What a few politicians say is not necessarily what

any of them ever enact into law.

The second amendment, as worded, is the only thing the founders enacted--as opposed to what they bloviated about. Hell, Jefferson is the one who owned slaves before, during and after he wrote yhat every man has a right to liberty. He owned his own sons as slaves. If that doesn't tell you something....

Do you really believe those brilliant men and other members of the Contintental Congress were so lame so lame they accidentally ended up with a provison limited by the need for a militia? And not only a militia, but a well-regulated militia?

And, more importantly, the second amendment, as worded, is what the people of the states that existed then voted on. But for their votes, the second amendment would not be a constitutional provision at all. Even George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and ever member of the Continental Congress put together don't amount to beans compared to the people who voted to make the second amendmendment, as worded, part of the Constitution. And the people voted on the wording we have, not what Jefferson and Washington and others bloviated about.

[spin]

44. No gun owner that I know wants to own a nuke ...

damn things are expensive and hard to maintain and have to protected from theft. A nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.

I've never seen a serious gun owner argue that he should be allowed to own a nuke, therefore your post has humor but no substance and is irrelevant to the discussion.

[jberryhill]

46. No soldier that I know wants to be quartered in someone's home without their consent, either

And, yet, the Third Amendment still stands.

[spin]

47. I think our soldiers in Iraq enjoyed being in Saddam's palaces ...

[No Elephants]

102. And you accused another poster of an argument without relevance or substance?

Neither the Quartering Act nor its Constitutional antidote had anything to do with a ruler of a foreign enemy who abandoned his property permanently as troops advanced per a duly (sadly) adopted war resolution.

[bongbong]

61. Lotsa gun owners, however, DO WANT....

... full machine guns, tanks, bazookas, RPGs, etc etc etc.

Which, I found in a previous 2nd Amendment discussion here, are LEGAL if you have enough licenses and pay enough fees. There is even some guy that has a jet fighter in his private possession.

It appears the next step with the corporatization of America will be private armies. All you need is enough cash and you can have the "legal" right to easily kill thousands of people very quickly.

America is a wonderful place these days.

[spin]

72. I'm surprised that you were not aware of the fact that Americans ...

can own "full machine guns, tanks, bazookas, RPGs, etc etc etc" in most states. Yes, you have to have the license and the cost of a machine gun is prohibitive because of supply and demand.

Exactly why does the fact that Americans can own such weapons bother you?

Political Scientist Earl Kruschke has described how, in the gun control debate, firearms have been viewed in only three general classes by gun control advocates: 1) long guns 2) hand guns and 3) automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The first category has generally been associated with sporting and hunting uses; the second category, handguns, describe weapons which can be held with one hand such as pistols and revolvers; and the third general category has been most commonly associated in public political perception with military uses. Notably the AR-15 and AK-47 style firearms have contributed to this perception.

If sometimes confused in public debate, the two firearm types in the third general category are functionally and legally distinct. Fully automatic firearms of any kind (including military assault rifles) have been subject to requirements for registration by owners and licensing of dealers since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. Further import restrictions were part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the transfer of newly manufactured machine-guns to private citizens was banned with passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986. New machine-guns in the US are still legal for purchase by the military and by governmental agencies, including civilian law enforcement; pre-1986 registered machine-guns are available to private citizens with federal registration (where permitted by state law), and have reached high market prices, eagerly sought by collectors because of their relative scarcity. An expansion has occurred in the number of states where such automatic weapons may legally be owned; for example, automatic-weapons were recently legalized in Kansas, subject only to federal NFA regulations.<61>emphasis added

***snip***

Kruschke states, however, regarding the fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."<66>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Types_of_firearms

We already have private armies in the United States. Have you heard of Blackwater? (Or Xe, its current name. Not only do we use them in Iraq and Afghanistan but they have also been contracted by our government for stateside jobs.

Blackwater Worldwide

According to a company press release, Blackwater provided airlift, security, logistics, and transportation services, as well as humanitarian support. It was reported that the company also acted as law enforcement in the disaster-stricken areas, for example securing neighborhoods and confronting criminals.<142> Blackwater moved about 200 personnel into the area hit by Hurricane Katrina, most of whom (164 employees) were working under a contract with the Department of Homeland Security to protect government facilities,<71> but the company held contracts with private clients as well. Overall, Blackwater had a "visible, and financially lucrative, presence in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as the use of the company contractors cost U.S. taxpayers $240,000 a day."<80>emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

[bongbong]

81. Putting words in my mouth

"Exactly why does the fact that Americans can own such weapons bother you?"

Hilarious! I've said before that I don't care if you have 1 or a million guns. It doesn't bother me. Show me where I said it bothers me. My point on this thread has always been "don't use the 2nd Amendment to justify gun-love".

STOP ACCUSING ME OF SAYING SOMETHING I DIDN'T. If that's the best you got, you're "arguing" like a repig. Lying comes naturally, easily, and occurs 24x7 with those scum-sucking traitors.

[spin]

87. Why do you accuse those who support RKBA of "gun love" ...

For example, I don't "love" any of my firearms, they are to me just tools.

The Bill of Rights includes the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment right behind the most important Amendment, the First which gives us freedom of religion and speech, freedom on the press and the right to peacefully assemble or to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Am I a "religion lover" if I support the freedom of religion and oppose the Government making laws respecting the establishment of a religion? (I do support the religious rights we have under the First Amendment, but few would call me religious.)

I carry one firearm on a regular basis, obviously I handle this firearm often. The only times I handle my other firearms is when I take them to the range to punch some holes in paper or when I occasionally protect them from rust by wiping them down with a silicone cloth and running a lubricated patch through the barrels and cylinders.

I don't stare at my firearms with desire, nor do I fondle them tenderly. I definitely don't whisper sweat nothings to my .44 magnum. I don't give any of them personal names. They are simply tools. I treat them as I do the tools I use to do home or automotive maintenance.

You say that you don't care if I own 1 or a million guns and add "Just don't try to use the 2nd Amendment to justify it."

What do you suggest I use to justify my right to own firearms? Without those few words in the Second Amendment, citizens in the United States today would probably not own firearms. Chances are only the police and the military would be allowed to own them. At the best firearm ownership would be severely restricted and we might be like Canada or maybe Mexico.

And finally I should add that my question, "Exactly why does the fact that Americans can own such weapons bother you?" was not directed at firearms but towards your comment,

"Lotsa gun owners, however, DO WANT...... full machine guns, tanks, bazookas, RPGs, etc etc etc. Which, I found in a previous 2nd Amendment discussion here, are LEGAL if you have enough licenses and pay enough fees. There is even some guy that has a jet fighter in his private possession."

I'll even ask you again with wording that is easier to understand.

Exactly why does the fact that Americans can own such weapons as full machine guns, tanks, bazookas, RPGs, or even jet fighters bother you?

If it doesn't bother you, why did you mention it at all?

[No Elephants]

101. Nope. Exaggerating to make a point does not render the point made irrelevant or

lacking in substance. It's done all the time.

You knew what he meant, didn't you? If not, let me break it down:

You were arguing about what "well regulated militia" meant in 1789 versus the present, so he countered with what "arms" meant in 1789 versus today. Perfectly legit. You don't get the benefit of 1789 on only part of the equation. "Don't hold me to today's concept of a well-regulated militia, even though I want to own today's sophisicated weapons, not only muskets."

By the way, what you've seen of a serious gun owner is not the be all and end all of second amendment debate.

[beevul]

68. So did speech and press.

Do you really think that standard should be applied across the board?

[bongbong]

39. Red Herring

It's clear what "well-regulated" means from FP #29. FP #46 doesn't mention it, nor does it contradict the definition from FP #29. Obviously the words "well-regulated" were put into the 2nd Amendment for a reason. And FP #29 makes it clear what that phrase means.

The rest of your quotes, points, etc are completely irrelevant to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

You'll have to do a lot better than that. Maybe you can do a little mind-reading of what the Founding Fathers "really" meant when they wrote the Constitution. That's usually the next step.

[spin]

51. While it is fun to argue about the meaning of terms such as "well regulated"

and whether or not the Second Amendment means that only people in a militia should own firearms, the bottom line is that in the last few years the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia;<1><2> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.<3> In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution emphasis added

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states<1>, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.<2>

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.<3><4> The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."<5>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark<1> decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.<2> The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.<3> The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

You may disagree and present excellent arguments to prove your point but sadly for you the decision has been rendered.

[bongbong]

62. SCOTUS argument irrelevent

The SCOTUS also declared "separate but equal" was perfectly fine at one time. They also declared that corporations are citizens.

The "Supreme Court Argument" has been proven to be quite empty as a source of truth.

[beevul]

67. This Isn't though.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

http://billofrights.org


Thats the preamble to the bill of rights.

In modern english, it says that the states having at the time of the adoption of the constitution expressed a desire, for government not to misconstrue or abuse the powers granted to it, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added, to that end.

As such, the second amendment restricts government from infringing the rights of the people - specifically the right to keep and bear arms. They declared within the second amendment that it was done because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Is the bill of rights itself also an empty source of truth?

[bongbong]

69. You should read my posts

You should read my previous posts on the 2nd Amendment within this thread. Once you do that, you'll see I already addressed your point.

[No Elephants]

106. That is NOT the preamble to the bill of rights. And your source is not

legally authoritative. Find copy of the Constitution online. Try Cornell Law School's site, which is very good for a free source. You will not see that language anywhere in it.

Beyond that, I havve no idea what you think that language adds to your argument. No one is claiming the bill of rights was forced on Americans. However, originally, the Bill of Rights limited only the feds.

[spin]

70. My first good laugh of the day ...

"SCOTUS argument irrelevent"? First I'm not certain if you meant irreverent or irrelevant. I can't find the meaning of the work "irrelevent" so probably you simply misspelled it. (Misspelling is a common habit of mine that I try to blame on my aging keyboard or my fumbling fingers.) I'll assume you meant irrelevant.

Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, their rulings can hardly be considered irrelevant.

Mayor Daley of Chicago doesn't consider the rulings irrelevant. He plans to resist by placing numerous hurdles in the way of owning handguns in the Windy City. Of course, these new regulations will be challenged in court and future legal rulings will likely make handgun ownership in Chicago much easier in the future.

[bongbong]

80. spelling errors

OK, you got me. I made a spelling error. That must negate my entire argument.

Wait, did you address my points about "separate but equal", or the Citizen's United decision? Hmmmmm....

I didn't think so. Good luck in your attempt to justify SCOTUS decisions as having some kind of relevancy.

[spin]

98. Now you are putting words in my mouth ...

where did I say that it negated your argument?

I mentioned the misspelling merely because I was uncertain of your exact meaning. You should have also noticed that I mentioned that I often misspell words.

I said,

""SCOTUS argument irrelevent"? First I'm not certain if you meant irreverent or irrelevant. I can't find the meaning of the work "irrelevent" so probably you simply misspelled it. (Misspelling is a common habit of mine that I try to blame on my aging keyboard or my fumbling fingers.) I'll assume you meant irrelevant."

All rulings by the Supreme Court are relevant. It is the most powerful court in the United States. There are times when decisions are changed years later such as in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 which established the doctrine of "equal but separate" which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The Plessy v. Ferguson was very relevant until the Brown v. Board of Education made it irrelevant.

The definition of relevant is ...

a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

You may disagree with the rulings of the Supreme Court and so far I have been surprised that you haven't. You could point to the 5 to 4 rulings in both recent cases involving the Second Amendment to back up your point. Still the decision has been made and it's very relevant and has already caused changes in the gun laws of Washington D.C. and Chicago.

To point how relevant the Supreme Court Decision was to Mayor Daley and Chicago all you have to know is that the Supreme Court ruled on McDonald v. Chicago on Monday June 28, 2010 and Chicago passed new gun laws on that week on Friday July 2, 2010. Handgun ownership was no longer prohibited in the Windy City.

Chicago passes revised gun law, allowing handgun ownership

The new gun law, which effectively puts an end to Chicago’s controversial handgun ban, establishes strict guidelines about who can apply for a permit.

By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / July 2, 2010

Chicago

One day after Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley unveiled a proposed ordinance regulating firearm ownership, the Chicago City Council passed it by a vote of 45 to 0.

The revised gun law effectively puts an end to Chicago’s controversial handgun ban, which was the last of its kind in the United States. On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that put the handgun ban into jeopardy.

The new ordinance allows handgun ownership in Chicago but establishes strict guidelines about who can apply for a permit. It prohibits gun shops within city limits and requires potential handgun owners to register their guns with the Chicago Police Department. In addition, it requires handgun owners to have both a city permit and a state firearms identification card.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0702/Chicago-passes-revised-gun-law-allowing-handgun-ownership

Of course, Chicago's new regulations are already being sued.

[bongbong]

129. hating to beat a dead horse

I usually post very tightly, hoping that folks reading my posts can get the intent. I'll explain my post to you.

SCOTUS decisions, whether it be guns or slavery or political donations, rarely have much to do with Original Intent or justice or truth or logic or WHATEVER. So using them as some kind of "authority" about guns is a classic case of False Argument, in this case Argument From Authority. The SCOTUS makes all kinds of laws but it doesn't mean they're right. And you STILL don't understand the ONLY POINT THAT I'VE ARGUED THIS WHOLE TIME!!!!!

To repeat myself the 1000th time, I don't care if you have a gun, a thousand guns, or missiles. JUST DON'T USE THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO JUSTIFY IT! The justification just DOESN'T EXIST.

[No Elephants]

107. Not irrelevant to Daley, but not infallible or necessarily the final word on what the 2nd

Amendment means. And therefore, not relevant to your discussion with bongbong about what the 2nd really means.

Yes, it is current law, but the SCOTUS has reversed itself.


The poster's meaning was clear, if you read the post as a whole.

[No Elephants]

105. Heller is a narrow decision.

[No Elephants]

100. How on earth does citing a reference to practices of well regulated

courts tell anyone what a "well-regulated militia" of 1789 was? Hell, it doesn't even tell us what a well regulated court of 1789 was.

And, fyi, you're citing the Old English Dictionary, which does your argument no favors: The British militia of 1789 was pretty damn well regulated. Come to Boston. We still have some of their uniforms and weapons in our museums. And the reason a few colonists desperate for bullets were able to beat them was Brits were so well regulated, they even fought in formation, and colonists were able to snipe.


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)"

You're taking that literally? Women, infants, disabled males and females, aged, both slave and free? Maybe some of those folk had no legal rights then, but all of them were still considered "people" then. So, obviously, Mr. Mason wasn't pronouncing any legally binding definition of a militiaa.

If a village consisted of 100 people, sure, maybe all the ablebodied, agile males over a certain age in the village might5 be in the militia of that village, but that still doesn't tell us what a "well-regulated militia meant.

Militias of 1789 had officers and drills, maybe even some uniforms. Otherwise, they would have been armed folk, maybe armed rabble or an armed mob, but not "a well-regulated militia. Again, come to Boston.

Sorry, cut and paste from the NRA does not make your argument for you in a way that stands up to much examination. And it's also one of the reasons I dislike arguing this issue. It takes very little time to paste this stuff, but a lot5 more time for me to een begin to analyze how awful it iz, in terms o supporting the NRA koolaid position.

[No Elephants]

96. Owning a gun is the same as reading the 2d am. as saying "Guns for everybody."

More lefty gun owners, like Ed Schultz, seem to accept reasonable regulation quite willingly than do RWers, whet5her or not they own a gun or plan to.

[No Elephants]

97. OMG, what a huge

straw person you erected. Bongbong never claimed Democrats don't own guns. And even zillions of Democrats owning guns has less than zero to do with how RWers interpret the second amendment.

[ProudDad]

73. Aw, crap

now you've done it...

Here come the denizens of the Gungeon...

:hide:

[No Elephants]

95. I don't think this law favors any religion. Rather, I think it discriminates AGAINST one religion.

[jberryhill]

20. It comes up in several contexts

Contracts - Contract clauses between parties can assign arbitration to anyone, including a religious body. For example, employment of a minister, rabbi, imam, whatever, may be contingent upon continued accreditation by some church body. The church, synagogue or mosque has the right to expect that the arbitration decision will be upheld.

Or in an even simpler commercial context, the example I use is a restaurant which contracts with a supplier for, say, kosher food. If a shipment is rejected and the parties go to court, then standard industry practices with respect to "what is kosher" will be a fact question subordinate to resolving the dispute.

Certain criminal contexts - many crimes depend on "intent" or state of mind. You can't serve alcohol to a minor, but most states exempt alcohol served in connection with religious practices - e.g. communion. Also, many criminal defendants are remanded to "community service". Such community service obligations can be performed under the auspices of a religious organization. It is up to that religious organization to certify that the service was performed. If, for example, the guy did his work on a Sunday, but the church had specified he couldn't do whatever it was on Sunday, then you have a "religious dispute" nested inside of the certification question.

Finance - This is one that is largely specific to Muslims. Islam forbids interest. As a consequence, there are a variety of financial vehicles, such as "Sharia mortgages" which establish fee-for-service structures which work "sort of like" mortgages, but do not involve interest. Again, this is a subset of the overall contract question, and the Constitution guarantees a right of contract between parties, including court enforcement.

[No Elephants]

109. I did not know Sharia law forbids interest. Thanks.

I believe the Bible forbids it, but I couldn't swear to that.

[No Elephants]

94. You're missing that this law singles out ONE religion. It does not say, for

example, no religious law shall be applied in the courts of Oklahoma.

[LuckyTheDog]

14. Ummmm... Get a clue

The whole "Sharia is coming" thing is a canard.

You might as well pass a law that invalidates the pronouncements of the Munchkin coroner from the Wizard of Oz.

[Mhak]

19. Ohh-k, that cleared it for me.

I was never under the impression there was a "Sharia is coming" thing going on, I get it now. I wasn't being facetious in my original post, I honestly didn't know what was going on, the article didn't clear things up for me so I asked here.

This being another GOP making-bigotry-from-nothing ploy makes perfect sense.

[No Elephants]

108. Excellent metaphor! But, you seem to be trying to duck this issue. (Couldn't resist.)

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Yes, because we have the separation of church and state this ballot measure...

was utterly ridiculous. Sharia law has never been and would not be used as a basis for legal ruling in this country under our existing laws. Therefore the entire issue was moot to begin with. The backers got it on the ballot simply as a way to galvanize conservative voters by playing on their anti-Muslim sentiments.

Hatred, bigotry, fear and push-politics.

[jberryhill]

22. That's actually incorrect

If a financial institution contracts with a customer under a "Sharia mortgage" or similar non-interest financing scheme, the terms of the contract, while based in Sharia law, will be enforced by a court under the Constitutional protection of the right of contract.

There are other examples of that kind of thing, which I posted upthread.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. I get your point. Still going to say it was put on the ballot for nefarious reasons.

Certainly not because its legally necessary.

[jberryhill]

31. yes, it was an expression of dumbth

But, again, I'm trying to follow Biden's principle of "argue the facts and policy, and not motivations".

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. I agree the facts are important and thank you for correcting me, but...

motivations are definitely relevant. In some cases, highly so.

[No Elephants]

113. Agree. You may be interested in Reply 112. It's not my best writing, but maybe

the points come across despite me.

[beevul]

40. Google is your friend.

"Sharia law has never been and would not be used as a basis for legal ruling in this country under our existing laws."

Google is your friend.

Use it:

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2920493701290332770&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr


The above court case is what brought this all about.

Read the whole page.

"has never been and would not be used as a basis for legal ruling in this country under our existing laws" is simply not true.

[jberryhill]

42. Intent and state of mind matter in certain circumstances

However, that case is WIDELY misinterpreted.

That case was an appeal of a civil action seeking a restraining order - which WAS granted on the appeal.

Note where it says:

"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."

There was an ENTIRELY SEPARATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST THAT GUY.

[woo me with science]

53. The appeal took well over a year,

during which time this woman was subject to a great deal of abuse.

That is a problem.

[No Elephants]

111. Dupe

[No Elephants]

112. Yes, but, in denying the restraining order, the judge erred as to NJ law, Sharia had nothing to do

with it.


Happens all the time, whether the women are married or single, christian, Jewish or atheist. And some times, the women die. Horrible, but not unheard of. And the passage of a year certainly has zero to do with Sharia law. Our courts are clogged.


A religious belief of the defendendant is not Sharia law. It simply is his personal religious belief. And your own personal beliefs, religious or secular, may be testified to in court to show you did not intend to commit a crime.


The idea that a husband cannot be convicted of raping his own wife was our law not all that long ago. And the major issue in rape now, even of wives, is consent, more so than the perp's intent. The lower court judge messed up on NJ rape law and over 150 years of U.S. federal law about the relation among personal religious belief, criminal intent and freedom of religion. Sharia law never entered into it.



From the appellate opinion:

N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c provides that "n actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person" under several circumstances, including when "he actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury." N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(1). To establish physical force for the purposes of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2, the plaintiff does not have to prove force in addition to "that necessary for penetration so long as the penetration was accomplished `in the absence of what a reasonable person would believe to be affirmative and freely-given permission.'" State v. Velasquez, 391 N.J. Super. 291, 319 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting State in the Interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422, 444 (1992)). Testimony by plaintiff at trial adequately established the absence of freely given permission.

<snip>


"Defendant's conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken."






If this case had been decided under Sharia law, the appellate court opinion would somewhere say that flat out and also state the lower court was wrong to apply Sharia law. If that appears in the appellate opinion, I missed it. I see only error in finding his own, personal, subjective, religious belief meant he had no criminal intent.

We've had cases holding that as to other religions since the 1800's and no one got hysterical, maybe because those cases predated right wing nuttery, Limbaugh, etc.

[Pacifist Patriot]

56. I stand corrected and said so above.

The "Google is your friend" statement was unnecessary and snarky. Not all of us have time to read 5,000,000 words a day. I posted what I thought to be true and when corrected acknowledged that. I don't mind being wrong. I do mind being condescended to. Have a good day.

[No Elephants]

110. I see nothing at that link indicating the case was decided under Sharia law.

[yellowcanine]

63. If adopted it would prohibit Oklahoma courts from recognizing Saudi Arabian marriages

Because Saudi Arabia has Sharia law - which covers marriages. Therefore an Oklahoma court could force a Saudi wife to testify against her husband, for example; while other spouses cannot be forced to do that. This is against the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

[robinlynne]

8. The judge's ruling makes sense:

The judge concluded that Shariah law “lacks a legal character” and “is not ‘law’ but is religious traditions that differ among Muslims.” As a result, she said, to comply with the amendment, “Oklahoma courts will be faced with determining the content of Shariah law, and, thus, the content of plaintiff’s religious doctrines.” This amounts to “an excessive government entanglement with religion,” which the courts have held is unconstitutional, she wrote.

[DissedByBush]

16. The judge was wrong, Shariah is law

In fact it constitutes the legal system of many countries.

It is not an entanglement with religion to state that religious law should not be used in our courts.

That is explicitly prohibiting such entanglement.

The amendment had the right idea, that only US secular law should apply in US courts, but it was poorly worded, leaving it open to attack.

[jberryhill]

23. Anything in a contract between two parties will apply in a US court

And if the parties agree on, e.g. arbitration by a religious body, then the arbitration ruling of that religious body will be enforced by the court.

But, let me ask you a simpler question - should Muslims be allowed to get married in the US?

Because many states require two things - (a) a license, and (b) a "solemnification".

The solemnification requirement can be satisfied by a civil ceremony, an oath taking, a religious service, or other act of the parties indicating a solemn endorsement of the marriage license.

So your position is that if a couple gets a marriage license, and then has a Muslim wedding ceremony, the State of Oklahoma should not recognize them as married.

Do I understand your position correctly, or would you reconsider?

[DissedByBush]

33. Contracts have limits

You cannot make a contract to do something illegal.

Contracts of adhesion, where one side has unequal bargaining power, or was forced or coerced, do not hold up in court.

In a tight Muslim society the men have all the power. In a Shariah divorce the woman would be highly likely to be coerced into accepting the local Muslim court's decision (the arbitration) instead of having a fair hearing in a US civilian court.

Can she accept being beaten for her supposed transgressions? The Shariah court will likely say that was within the law. She will be coerced into not going to a US civilian court to get justice.

Muslim honor killings of women who have shamed their families do happen in Western societies, and the killers are always unapologetic.

Usually they are killed for acting "too Western."

But all of that has no relation to the case here. It is about judges not being able to look to Shariah or international law when making their decisions. They must use only US law.

As for marriage, we treat all religions equally, any can perform a marriage, even an atheist can (justice of the peace, civil ceremony only).

[jberryhill]

36. WTF?

In order to get a divorce, you have to comply with the divorce statute.

What I'm telling you is that marriage statutes in most states require a two-step process, and while they always include a non-religious option, you are essentially saying "any religious official except a Muslim one".

And, duh yes, contracts do have limits, but that's not the freaking point.

If a restaurant contracts with a supplier for kosher food, and the supplier delivers food which the restaurant owner says "this is not kosher", then the two of them are heading to court on a contract dispute. At issue in that court is going to be whether or not the contract was breached. A necessary fact question to that decision is "was the food kosher"? Yes, a court is going to have to decide that. And the court is going to have to decide that by reference to ordinary commercial practices in the kosher food industry. If the evidence shows that the ordinary commercial standard is that preparation of the food has to be overseen by a rabbi recognized by one of the XYZ or ABC rabbinical associations, then that is the standard that is going to be applied by the court.

That is what the Uniform Commercial Code says - terms are defined by the relevant ordinary commercial practices applicable to the transaction.

These kinds of subsidiary questions come up ALL OF THE TIME.

No, the penalty for breach can't be "I'll cut your hand off", but you have a very simplistic view of what goes on in contract cases EVERY DAY.

[Bragi]

59. Have religious food rulings ever been appealed under 1st Amendment?

On reflection, I don't understand why any dispute about the authenticity of any religious-designated food should be allowed to take up the time of a U.S court.

Say I set up a new religion (Bragism: Join up now!) and preach that all Bragists must eat food that is officially bestowed with magic properties that can only be given by me, Bragi.

A dispute then arises between two parties as to whether a particular food shipment was indeed given the magical properties that only I can bestow.

Why should a U.S courts deal with such nonsense?

Surely it's a matter for us Bragists to decide, not the courts?

And if us Bragists can't decide the issue, then Meh, everyone should just be told to go home and have a nice day.

Anyway, I find it odd that country that separates church and state has the state court apparatus intervene to decide on religious matters like the religious authenticity of foodstuffs.

Why doesn't it violate the First Amendment to have courts decide religious authenticity of foodstuffs?

[jberryhill]

79. Are you kidding, there are laws on the subject

So, you are saying that anyone who contracts for Kosher food should be able to stiff the supplier, and there is no recourse under the contract?

A court will interpret any contract clause by reference to what "kosher food" means in the relevant industry.

I sure hope you don't live in New York - these are some of their state laws:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

§ 201-c. Persons certifying as kosher; filing with department. 1. Any
person who certifies any non-prepackaged meat, meat preparations, meat
by-products or poultry as kosher or kosher for Passover, and any person
who certifies any non-prepackaged food or food products as kosher or
kosher for Passover shall file with the department, in accordance with
regulations set by the commissioner, a statement of such person's
qualifications for providing such certification.


----------

§ 349-a. Observant consumer protection law. 1. No person selling or
exposing for sale any mezuzah or tefillin which, to the seller's
knowledge, does not satisfy orthodox Hebrew ritual requirements shall
represent, by direct or implied oral or written statement, that such
mezuzah or tefillin is kosher or meets orthodox Hebrew religious
requirements.

2. No manufacturer, fabricator or importer of mezuzahs or tefillin
shall sell or transfer for sale any mezuzah or tefillin unless the
following truthful consumer information is printed legibly upon the
article itself, upon its packaging, or upon a label securely attached
thereto

(a) the name and address of the manufacturer, fabricator, or importer

(b) in the case of any mezuzah or tefillin that, in the form
reasonably expected to be sold at retail, is not in accordance with
orthodox Hebrew ritual requirements, the word "non-kosher."

3. No person selling or exposing for sale any mezuzah or tefillin
shall sell such article without the accompanying consumer information
specified in subdivision two of this section.

4. Any sale, transfer for sale, or exposure for sale in violation of
the provisions of this section shall be deemed a deceptive practice
within the meaning of section three hundred forty-nine of this chapter,
and any remedy provided therein shall be available for the enforcement
of this section.

5. (a) "Mezuzah" means the religious article designed to be affixed,
according to Jewish law, to the doorposts of rooms in a home, including
the parchment or other matter upon which passages from the Bible are
written, and the writing thereon.

(b) "Tefillin" means the religious article, also known as
"phylacteries," designed to be worn, according to Jewish law, on the
upper arm and head during morning prayers, including the parchment or
other matter upon which passages from the Bible are written, the writing
thereon, the capsules in which the parchment is contained, and the
straps affixed thereto.

------------

And, yes, pursuant to these laws of the State of New York, the Agriculture Department has regulations on the qualifications of kosher certifiers.

[Bragi]

83. Noted

I haven't actually given this much thought until recently, but I really don't understand why it is constitutional for U.S legislators to pass laws regarding religious practices, even if it is for the purposes of having courts enforce and adjudicate contracts that pertain to religious matters.

I accept the idea that apparently it is constitutional, but I still question the wisdom in this.

[jberryhill]

103. Kosher laws and the First Amendment

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/102/jfogel.rtf

[Bragi]

127. Thanks for that

very interesting. I will read it with care. At first glance, it at least tells me not totally alone in wondering about the constitutionality of US governments and courts enforcing religious food regimens.

[No Elephants]

115. Saying laws exist doesn't answer the question whether they should exist or whether .

they are constitutional. Does the NY law care as much about whether a crucifix or rosary sold as having been blessed by the Pope was ever anywhere near Papa? Or whether a wiccan ram's horn is not really a goat's? If not, why not?


In any case, I DO find this a disturbing level of involvement. Also, those laws seem as unnecessary as the Oklahoma law, but passed to pander, rather than to shun and shame.


Though I did not read in detail, it seemed most or all of them would already be covered by labeling laws and fraud, misrepresentation laws. It doesn't mattet whether you are misrepresenting as to a mezzuzah or a pair of ballet slipper. Shoes, toothpicks, crosses, hair dye. Misrepresentation is the issue. You don't need, and don't ever have, a separate group of laws for every item you can possibly misrepresent about.

So why separate laws for misrepresentation as to religious items? My guess--making folks who don't know any bettet think you've done something special for them, when existing secular misrepresentation laws were already addressing their worries. Ooops. Sounds like misrepresentation.

[No Elephants]

114. Reality based hypotheticals are easier.

If I contract for a kosher wedding reception and my caterer arrives with a main course of pork chops instead of the kosher chicken provided for in the contract, why should I be denied redress because of a religious issue in my contract?

The court or a special master appointed by the court will hear testimony on whether or not pork chops are kosher. More likely, the parties will stipulate. And the judge is deciding, if anything, only which witness is more credible, not whether the food is eligible for a rabbi's seal of approval in the eyes of God. Big deal. It's not as though anyone is making a law saying the entire state or nation must eat kosher or that the judge has to rule on whether I'm going to hell or not.

It's not much different than hearing a case where my neighbor contracted with the DJ for hip hop and the DJ played 1940's swing and jazz all night. Judge does not have to know which is which, only whether my neighbor's witness on music seems more knowledgeable and/or more believable than the Dj's.


Why should we make courts available for that? Well, for one thing, I pay the same taxes as my neighbor, whose religion does not require special music or special food. For another, we, as a society, WANT folks to settle disputes in court, instead of beating each other up or breaking into each other's homes for refunds. Rule of law, not law of the jungle.

[Bragi]

128. Good arguments

I too "WANT folks to settle disputes in court, instead of beating each other up" but I wonder why normal consumer protection laws wouldn't be sufficient, without specific reference to specific religious practices.

Thanks again. Your comments are at least helping one person to better understand this issue.

[DissedByBush]

75. All of that is completely irrelevant

That is not what the amendment was about.

Halal in the above case would be treated no differently than kosher.

[No Elephants]

116. Not relevant to the OP, but very relevant to this subthread.

And where you do you get that halal would be treated no different than kosher? The Oklahoma law single out Sharia law.

[No Elephants]

118. Wrong idea--and the amendment's poor wording reflects the islamaphobia

that prompted its adoption.

[cyr330]

24. OMG!

OK will be taken over by terrorists! :)

[spin]

25. If we consider Shariah Law, it would also seem logical that we would have ...

to also consider Biblical law and if we did that we would have to consider Mormon law and permit polygamy.

Biblical law in Christianity generally refers to a discussion of the applicability of Old Testament law in a Christian context. Also referred to as Mosaic Law (which includes the Ten Commandments), God's Law or Divine Law, it refers to the statements or principles of law and ethics codified in the first five books of the Bible. These first five books are called the Torah in the Hebrew Bible (in Hebrew: תּוֹרָה‎,<2> see also Strong's Concordance H8451,<3> generally translated as "the Law" in English translations of the Bible), and the Pentateuch in the Christian Bible. There are diverse views of the issues involved with most concluding that only parts are applicable, some concluding that none is applicable, and others concluding that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_law_in_Christianity

The history of Mormon polygamy (specifically polygyny) began with Joseph Smith, Jr. claiming to have received a revelation on July 17, 1831 that some Mormon men would practice "plural marriage." This was later published in the Doctrine and Covenants by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).<47> Despite Smith's revelation, the 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, written after the doctrine of plural marriage began to be practiced, publicly condemned polygamy. This scripture was used by John Taylor in 1850 to quash Mormon polygamy rumors in Liverpool, England.<48> Polygamy was made illegal in the state of Illinois<49> during the 1839–44 Nauvoo era when several top Mormon leaders, including Smith,<50><51> Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, took plural wives. Mormon elders who publicly taught that all men were commanded to enter plural marriage were subject to harsh discipline.<52> On June 7, 1844 the Nauvoo Expositor criticized Smith for plural marriage. After Joseph Smith's murder by a mob on June 27, 1844, the main body of Mormons left Nauvoo and followed Brigham Young to Utah where the practice of plural marriage continued.<53>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Mormonism

Let's not.

[ProgressiveMajority]

38. If Sharia law is allowed, yes... we ought to allow any religious law people like!

My problem with the amendment is that it singles out Sharia law. It ought to be a ban on any religious law.

But a lot of people seem to be arguing that Sharia law should be allowed as part of contracts (or perhaps even Sharia based Statutory law if passed in a normal legal manner?). If Sharia based contracts and statutory law should be allowed in the US, than I can't see any reason to ban any other religiously grounded law whether it be Mormon or Old Testament. Any such laws should just be passed in a normal legal manner.

The separation of church and state of course seems a issue, but if the new laws are just things which people commonly agree on that happen to also be contained in Sharia law than separation should not be an issue. I mean it can equally be argued that Monogamous marriage is grounded in Christian and Judaic religious traditions, so if we were to ban any laws which stem from religious traditions than the ban on Polygamy really ought to be struck down. The concern with Church and State is that the state not endorse some specific church, so wholesale adopting Sharia and subjugating the passage of laws to a Mullah would of course be out of the question. But passing into law some part of Sharia would be acceptable I suppose.

[jberryhill]

43. Read these sections of Oklahoma's marriage statutes:

http://law.justia.com/oklahoma/codes/2006/os43.html

§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.

A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

...

D. Marriages between persons belonging to the society called Friends, or Quakers, the spiritual assembly of the Baha'is, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which have no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society, church, or assembly.

---------------

Kinda interesting, no?

[ProgressiveMajority]

48. Interesting, yes. But it doesn't contradict barring Sharia law in judges Decisions

Since Sharia law is not a religion, Islam is a religion and an ordained(?) Imam would therefore fall under "any such society church or assembly" and therefore be able to perform a legally binding marriage ceremony. The proposed constitutional amendment would prevent a judge from ruling that the marriage was a "Sharia" marriage and therefore has special conditions, or from the state passing laws which declare special "Sharia" marriage rules. To be clear this is a total non-issue anyway, since any objectionable aspect of Sharia (marital rape allowance) is contradicted by established law and it's not like any state assembly is going to pass Sharia based laws.

What could in theory happen is a Muslim couple writing up a marriage contract based on Sharia terms for any future divorce, that would be made impossible by this. Or in a far off world... the state adding another marriage statute that makes Sharia marriages have the force of law as they do in Saudi Arabia. Its ambiguous but it seems like some people here would be open to the latter possibility (when both parties in the marriage agree). If that's the case than any religious based marriage or family law that people want to submit themselves to (polygamy whatever) ought to be OK.

(I'm not sure, but it's possible you're objecting to the very allowance of a religious authority to perform marriages... if so I totally disagree since it's merely an option when both parties agree, not a requirement).

[jberryhill]

52. "such" incorporates the previous qualifiers

Note that the specific denominations mentioned are a "church" "society" and "assembly". The language is specific to those three.

The remarkable thing is that only a "rabbi" made it into the previous paragraph, where categories of clergy are limited to those who preach "the Gospel".

That is one awful statute. My point in bringing it up was more of an aside on how it literally excludes Hindus and a bunch of others.

And, no, you can't write up a contract defining your divorce terms, period. Divorce is entirely governed by statute. Whether one "agrees" to anything or not, you just can't do that.

[ProgressiveMajority]

64. Really? So in Oklahoma there have never been Muslim marriages? n/t

[jberryhill]

66. Well, it's a valid reading of the statute

Those kind of things usually come up if/when someone raises a ruckus, such as a pinhead in the tax department or family court.

I just find it amusing that "the Gospel" gets prominent mention in there.

[ieoeja]

76. Do Muslim clerics qualify under "the Gospel" clause?

They are, after all, down with the whole "son of God" thing. In fact, the Jewish rejection of Jesus is the reason the Koran gives for Arabs replacing Jews as the Chosen People.

[No Elephants]

124. Link?

All I've ever heard-including from a Muslim friend-is they beieve Jesus is a prophet, only a prophet--and not even the greatest prophet, who would be, of course, Mohammed. :shrug:

[No Elephants]

121. Not necessarily. You could have an Islamic clergy member marry you, BUT

you'd have to have a secular marriage, too, or the statute would not cover your marriage. Ditto Wiccans, Buddhists, Daoists, etc.


Clearly, Oklahoma's legislature has played favorites among religions in more than one statute---and that's a very big no no.

[No Elephants]

120. So,a wiccan or Budhist ceremony is out of the question? I guess Oklahoma

has not established a religion. It's established several.

[No Elephants]

119. Sure. Let;s not allow jurors to shoot judges, either. Let's pass a law

that forbids that. Oh wait we already have one. It simply forbids murder, whether o judges or jurors or bailiffs. We don't need a different statute for each group. And, if we did, why in hell would you single out only one group? Well, because of bias, I guess.

The Mormon issue you're so worried about was decided by the SCOTUS in sround 1860. And it applied to all religions. If only the Oklahoma legislature had gone to the wizard for a brain, we could have avoided one long, dumbass and often Islamaphobic thread.

[Bragi]

58. Sharia law has already been used (but then overturned) in a U.S court

The claim being made by several posters in this thread that Sharia law has never been used in U.S courts is simply not true. Sharia law was cited by a NJ judge in 2009 in deciding a rape case (Note: this judgment was subsequently overruled by higher courts.)

Note as follows:

"In the discussion and debate surrounding Question 755, supporters in search of an example where the bogeyman shariah was permitted inside American courtrooms kept pointing to a New Jersey case where the court denied a restraining order to a woman who was sexually assaulted by her then-husband. The judge ruled that the husband did not have a "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" her as the husband was merely under the impression that he was exercising his prerogative as a husband under Islamic law. What's rarely reported, however, is that the decision was promptly overturned on appeal because the application of shariah, or the "cultural defense," conflicted with civil law."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asma-uddin/caliphate-on-the-range_b_778207.html

I agree with the higher court (obviously), but I think this this information about the NJ case may provide some useful context that suggests Okla voters are not totally crazy, and may have felt when they cast their ballot they there could be some risk that future U.S courts might use Sharia law in deciding cases.

In fact, as the CNN article below indicates, the NJ case was used in advertising by groups campaigning for Question 755. (I suspect the info that the ruling was overturned

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html

My point in posting this information is to suggest that we on the left side of the spectrum need to use real facts in our arguments if we want to win the debate on concerns about Islam in the U.S, which is currently being dominated by, and I fear, being won by the right.

The left will not win public support for tolerance if we start from the premise that anyone who has any concerns at all about Sharia law is either a bigot, or totally crazy, and then make our case using false claims, such as the claim that Sharia law has never been used in U.S courts.

[ProgressiveMajority]

78. It's such a minor case, and was overturned...

So saying that it was never actually used, in a final sense, is close enough.

I mean, even mentioning that case you linked... just weakens our side of the argument.

Instead of pointing out something negative like that, we should point out that there are positive or at least neutral aspects of Sharia (such as Sharia loans).

[Bragi]

82. I think we need to acknowledge the facts in any debate

Seriously, do you really think that those who are advocating intolerance against Muslims are not aware of the NJ case, and that we should not talk about it because it "weakens our side of the argument"?

As per the CNN article I posted upthread, the NJ case was even highlighted in ads in support of the Okla. ballot question, no doubt because the organizers believed it was a powerful argument for them.

And you think we should just ignore it, and point out "positive or at least neutral aspects of Sharia."

Why?

Are we now defending the idea of using "positive or at least neutral aspects of Sharia" in U.S courts? Would we not, by making this argument in this context, be setting ourselves up to be accused of wanting to do exactly what the Okla ballot intends to prohibit?

[ProgressiveMajority]

84. If we don't point out some positive aspect of Sharia, than why not have a constitutional ban on it?

That's what I don't get. I mean, if you point out that negative examples (The NJ court case) and nothing positive, why not ban it? Because of some very abstract idea about not discriminating against any specific set of religious laws, even though there are apparently differences between them?

[Bragi]

85. Not sure we disagree

What I'm saying is that we can't ignore unpleasant facts that might be out there, like the NJ case, and that anyone who tries to do this will ultimately be seen as either uninformed about the issue, or dishonest in trying to deflect attention from the facts.

As for making a case about the "positive aspect of Sharia" law, well, other than convincing people that there is a movement afoot to use Sharia law in U.S courts, I'm not sure what that argument would accomplish.

Frankly, I think the smart thing to do in response to the Okla ballot would be to just do nothing.

Trying to get the courts to nullify the vote is about the best way I can think of convincing the 70 per cent who supported the ballot question that a ban is probably prudent, if not necessary.

[ProgressiveMajority]

86. Yeah, I think we do agree! That's a rare thing for me online... :)

[No Elephants]

123. It was never used. Please see Reply 122 and 112.

[No Elephants]

122. Sharia law was NOT used. And NJ Superior Court overturned it in July of this year.

Reply # 40 had a link to the NJ appellate opinion overruling it. Here is the link again.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2920493701290332770&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

And please see Reply 112.

[No Elephants]

125. P.S. As far as sources:

1. I hope we can agree that the case itself the most important and reliable source.

Not a single mention of Sharia law, only mention of the husband's personal beliefs. If he had gottn Sharia law all wrong, it would have been irrelevant. The issue was his own personal mindset, specifically whether he intended to commit a crime. The judge in the lower court took the position that you cannot intend to commit rape if you personally believe someone has a duty to give you sex. This is simply wrong--under NJ law.

2. CNN's description is accurate. Here it iz:


"The question might seem a befuddling one for a ballot in the heartland, but it stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a firestorm."


Note: no mention AT ALL of Sharia law, only of the husband's personal religious beliefs.

Problem is, CNN goes on to discuss the claims of groups campaigning for 755, without bothering to point out that their claims do not match exactly either the case itself or CNN's own description of the csse.



3. Huffpo's version


Says Sharia law was used in the case and also says the husband used a "cultural defense." Neither is so. Sharia law was never mentioned in the case and he used the defense of lack of criminal intent (based on his his personal religious belief, not on his Moroccan culture). So, the Huffpo version shows a lack of care.

4. Groups campaigning for Question 755


Agenda driven and under no duty to be accurate. Can be as careless (or dishonest) as can be in describing a legal decision. Groups seeking gay marriage amendments made very outrageous claims. You can't gin up outrage against Obama, er I mean, against Muslims by saying a court considered a Muslim's own personal religious belief when determining whether he intended to commit s crime. So, spin it just a bit and it becomes thd court used Sharia law to decide the case. Baloney.

[aranthus]

65. No surprise.

Even Conservatives have admitted that it's unconstitutional. It's good that it got smacked down, but it would have been better had it never passed in the first place.

[lunasun]

92. Oklahoma gvrnmt sure has time and $$ to burn huh?

you would think taxpayers there would be mad,
not afraid of Muslims,
just mad at the waste.

[LeftishBrit]

130. Who in any case...

is seeking to institute Sharia law in Oklahoma?