Yes it is an opinion piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz and so perhaps is adulterated with her own imprint of a certain anti-Islam school of thought and but I take your point and would not argue thank you Bill.
Islamaphobiaphobia in Britain...?
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Yes it is an opinion piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz and so perhaps is adulterated with her own imprint of a certain anti-Islam school of thought and but I take your point and would not argue thank you Bill.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
Here is a piece from the New York Times, although you can't trust the reporting from this paper...
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/nidal_malik_hasan/index.html
The following quote from the article is why you can't trust the NYT as a paper...
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/nidal_malik_hasan/index.html
The following quote from the article is why you can't trust the NYT as a paper...
Context is important, Bill. So are word meanings. An enigma is something hard to understand or explain. That doesn't mean said something is unknown. Big difference there.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
It's an entomology thing ... see what I did there? :lol: Yeah, double word-play attack! 
WC_lun
Senior Master
ROFL This bit of advice from the person who uses Brietbart's web site as a source for so much of his information. Thanks for the laugh, Billi
LOL!! Fixed. Now reads, "Big difference"
OP
- Thread Starter
- #29
Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/
The steps taken may have been premature but it is obvious that some judges don't get the whole U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land. If representatives or senators want to make a foreign law legitimate here, they can submit it through the legislative process. Judges aren't supposed to use foreign laws to make their decisions, even and especially shariah. This step merely goes there to make it clear to judges before they start acting silly.
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/
The steps taken may have been premature but it is obvious that some judges don't get the whole U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land. If representatives or senators want to make a foreign law legitimate here, they can submit it through the legislative process. Judges aren't supposed to use foreign laws to make their decisions, even and especially shariah. This step merely goes there to make it clear to judges before they start acting silly.
It is and one wonders what the time and money spent on that could have been used for in this time of recession.
The nerve of some people, demanding our citizens be held to our laws...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18117529
Interesting and refreshing to hear such relatively straight talking from a politician - being in the Lords helps in shaking off the party shackles and speaking more plainly of course.
Interesting and refreshing to hear such relatively straight talking from a politician - being in the Lords helps in shaking off the party shackles and speaking more plainly of course.
It is good to hear someone speaking plainly. The whole situation needs to be looked at not just a bit here, a bit there. Focusing only on the race issue clouds the care issue and vice versa. There needs to be a proper inquiry with a remit to look at every factor without any hysteria, bias or preconceived ideas.
WC_lun
Senior Master
Umm religious law has never been used instead of civil law. In fact, this is one of the reasons so many are wondering why our government is using religious belief to decide who can marry. No one is trying to replace our civil law with Sharia law. This is a fake issue, used to frighten men and women who can't think critically and to play to a minority of the Kansas Republican base that is anti-Islam. This is just fear mongering.
It is also lawmakers wasting time and tax dollars. There is no need for this law at all, but Kansas does need to balance its' budget, repair infrastructure, hire teachers, etc. Instead of taking care of the things they need to take care of, they are debating and passing useless bills that aren't needed.
Sharia law is used by many Muslims in Kansas and elsewhere as a way to live thier life. If they have a dispute, they use Sharia law and an Imam to settle the dispute. You know, trying to settle it before going to court spending more tax payer dollars. You'd think conservatives would be all about Muslims trying to settle thier differences through thier mosque, instead of wasting tax dollars, but I guess the Islamaphobe has a greater hold on a few of them.
By the way, other religions also have mechanisms in place to mediate disputes using thier own laws and religious beliefs, like Judaism or Catholism. Why are those religions not being talked about as wanting to take over America's civil law code?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #35
Just to remind you that it was actual judges, at the Supreme Court no less, who believe they should be able to base their rulings on foriegn law instead of the United States constitution, the supreme law of the land...
Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/
So...it isn't unreasonble to think that if American Supreme court justices are not going to do their job properly, that some action needed to be taken at the local level to head off any future problem. The idea of previous "precedent" in law makes it important to get ahead of the curve on any new trend in the law. That is all this state did, and it isn't unreasonable. The islamaphobiaphobics aren't the best judges of what should or shouldn't be done to safeguard our legal institutions from judges who don't respect the U.S. constititution.
Actually, that was probably a reaction to this...
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21551/
So...it isn't unreasonble to think that if American Supreme court justices are not going to do their job properly, that some action needed to be taken at the local level to head off any future problem. The idea of previous "precedent" in law makes it important to get ahead of the curve on any new trend in the law. That is all this state did, and it isn't unreasonable. The islamaphobiaphobics aren't the best judges of what should or shouldn't be done to safeguard our legal institutions from judges who don't respect the U.S. constititution.
WC_lun
Senior Master
I must admitt an error. Religion has replaced much of our civil law...Judeo-Christian religion. I have to wonder what would happen if legislatures started fixing that?
This Sharia law is a non-issue. There is no need for it. The use is just more fear tactics. Pointing out that a judge has ruled in a way you don't like just makes you like everyone else in the country. Stop using it to support more fear mongering please.
This Sharia law is a non-issue. There is no need for it. The use is just more fear tactics. Pointing out that a judge has ruled in a way you don't like just makes you like everyone else in the country. Stop using it to support more fear mongering please.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
Yes. How ironic that a state that has banned Sharia law banned gay-marriageon the basis of Levitic law....
Yes. How ironic that a state that has banned Sharia law banned gay-marriageon the basis of Levitic law....
Nah, you just reading things into it.....
Incorrect. That was one of the many lessons learned from the sex scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston. The abusing priests were shuffled around from place to place and never prosecuted. The ringleader, Bernard Cardinal Law, a man with deeper political connections than the Mayor of Boston, was never prosecuted and simply whisked away to a posh job at the Vatican...Safely outside the jurisdiction of state and federal Law Enforcement.
Now in Philadelphia there is a case where a TSA agent is a former priest, dismissed for molesting children. Because the matter was handled by the church and not prosecuted by the local law, he passed the background check required for TSA agents. TSA says he is primarily checking baggage and won't usually be touching children, so that makes it OK, right?
WC_lun
Senior Master
Carol, that was NOT a case of religious law superseding civil law. Where in the Catholic cannons is child molestation approved? It was a case of men with too much power getting away with criminal behaviour because other people did not want to take them on. Happens a lot and has nothing to do with religion.
