dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Yep and the dems love loading the benches with these liberal dim wits that have an "anything goes" attitude.
Consider it a gift from me to you.
- Thread starter witness23
- Start date
Yep and the dems love loading the benches with these liberal dim wits that have an "anything goes" attitude.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Maybe because they are not the majority of the people who are making these claims, but a small minority with an agenda that may be hidden or the same as other hate groups.
Did you know that the person who been screaming the most about the Mosque in NYC worries about the take over of by a minority group in this country and spreads rumors as facts while writing style along the same lines as some white supremacists groups?
Well first the separation issue has been with us for something like forever, the term was first used in the latter part of the 19th century but the issue was addressed starting in 1947 to this very day. The people accept it as a fact of life, there wasn't a fear borne out of it nor was there an attack on any specific religion.
Second fear is not going to just disappear, there was fear of the Jews in the 30s through the 50's, a lot of separate but sort of not equal crap going on until we evolved. The blacks were the same way in from the turn of the century till the 70's and the Catholics didn't have anyone who was president until 1960 because of the fear that they would take over the country and we would be ruled by the Pope.
Being cautious is one thing but using an excuse that has no real foundation is another. If we are going to pick on one religion, then it is good to pick on all of them - from Tribal laws to Catholic and Jewish laws, all should be banned from the court room and that should include Buddiha, Shinto and a lot of others. We don't complain when Halakha is used in New York court rooms or when there is a use of tribal law in federal courts, all seem to be the exact same issue but without the fear of someone taking over the country.
Yes we have two SC who look outside the court for answers, that is truly a problem and maybe they should be impeached for it. We have and always will have judges who look outside the letter of the law and try to make a judgment on cases, they are working within our system of justice.
The link you posted is about a case that happened a while ago, here is my comment about it.
From the thread http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/43970-wife-beating-ok-new-jersey.html
Well seeing that this happened in 2008,
- the case was not about Sharia law or how wife beating or any thing is permissible as it was stated and misleading in the article,
- the judge inappropriately dismissed the needs of the victim and went against the statutes of NJ,
- it has been brought to the Appellate Court in NJ and the requested restraining order was issued
BUT it doesn't seem to mean much to the articles author or those who seem to try to justify hate by reading this author's work who really did an injustice himself by writing this sh*t.
The most important thing to me is a referenced article about Sharia law coming to America that has this in it;
Please note the highlighted idiotic comment made by a professional entertainer and later by a "journalist".
I digress ...
The truth is not there to be found in the original article from GOPUSA (catchy URL).
Pulling the two related cases in the database and reading it, the author must have done the same research as I did and come up with a lot of facts that were actually left out of the article he wrote like ... the Imam's comments ...
The Imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband's sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere. However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife "like any animal." The Imam did not definitively answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his advances if his wife said "no." However, he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape.
The part in the middle of the two bold sentences is as important as a dog with flees. I mean that yes the husband has to respect his wife but the question is answered by the acknowledgement that NJ law and coerced sex is rape. If the Imam says the law is the law, it is the law.
However the case wasn't all about the sex or the beatings but about a divorce, other issues with a reconciliation and a lot of things that seem to me are between two people who we don't know.
Overall the actual truth is this;
- Wife beating is not ok, even if you don't leave a mark (the author is an a** for making the mark comment).
- NJ law states clearly that criminal sexual abuse is just that, and the appellate court did indeed say that.
- That this has zero to do with Islamic law, Sharia law or any Muslim issues but has to do with domestic violence and a bad judge.
But see you missed an important thing that makes the NJ case a non-issue - IT HAPPENS IN OTHER PLACES WITH OTHER RELIGIONS.
In New York's Orthodox Jewish community there was a case where the husband beat the crap out of his wife because she talked to a stranger. The cops didn't arrest the husband which was an automatic thing under NY law but rather told the wife to leave without her kids because it was HIS house, not hers. Eventually she ended up in a divorce proceedings initiated by the husband and the judge was convinced by a couple Rabbis that the husband under Jewish law was to raise the kids and their mother was restricted to seeing them because of the seriousness of the crime she committed under Jewish law. The judge agreed with it based on documentation and following the practices of the court in that area.
This case is one of many that happened within the many Jewish orthodox communities, a closed society that does not agree with our laws but lives under their own - sound familiar?
Why isn't the suppression of Jewish Orthodox women a big issue but Muslim women are?
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Oh for the love of God! The way are judicial system is set up you will never, ever, ever see it replaced by Sharia Law. You know why?????? Because the supreme law of the United States is the CONSTITUTION.
bobwg
Expert Expediter
The Dems dont think the constitution is the supreme law example Health care they will hire 16,000 IRS agents to enforce the health law especially the part that says if you dont have health insurance and it meet s Federal govt rules you will be fined $$$$$$$ There is nothing in the constitution that gives the feds the power to force you to buy something
witness23
Veteran Expediter
So.....now you want to go from Sharia Law in New Jersey(which is a non-story) to the health care debate? Wow!
I know you are afraid, its okay, I understand, I would be to if I believed everything I heard from Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly, its okay, were all going to be just fine. This is what you do, listen very closely.......you ready? DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE IDIOTS!!!!
Sorry, sorry......it is okay if you listen to those guys, just don't believe everything they say.
Yea it is always a non story when it fits the argument. No problem that a women can be legally raped a few more times until the verdict is overturned. Non story my a*#
And again we hear the argument that because it happens in other situations it is ok to happen in this one. Like I said in a previous thread wrong is wrong no matter where or why. It was a baseless argument before and is still one today.
And again we hear the argument that because it happens in other situations it is ok to happen in this one. Like I said in a previous thread wrong is wrong no matter where or why. It was a baseless argument before and is still one today.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Read the actual truth of what happened, what the cases were all about, the reaction from the appellate judges and most importantly who has been spreading the bullsh*t around. The link, the article and the information leaves it all a non-issue because all of it leaves out very important information that is needed just to understand the information and see what happened. It is easy to make the argument that something happened based on the flurry of email of propaganda that takes place but it is also easy to see where the problems sit on a lot of issues if people would take the time and effort to dig a bit.
Sorry but this was my point about people who will not dig into these issues and only believe what they want to read because they do not want to learn are the real problem, no one else. Neither the issue of rape or violence against women is discounted in my posts but the issue I posted that applies to this thread is, which is Oklahoma is voting on Islamic law.
The move by Oklahoma is actually really stupid when you think about it and leaves us looking at what else should we be prepared to change and what rights are we willing to give up. BECAUSE once we start going down the path of using fear to change our way of life like this and the way we hand out justice, we are truly ****ing doomed and the terrorist win.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I'll tell you what Greg, you have more patience than I do. You spell it out for them and they still just don't get it.
bobwg
Expert Expediter
Oh and we should belive every thing you say???? and you claimed that the constitution is the supreme law and I was pointing out another example of the dems not thinking of it is