>>> >>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian
>>> >>>> law?]
>>> >>>The article says that the bill would prohibit courts from
>>> >>>considering Sharia for legal decisions. Not just Sharia, but ANY
>>> >>>non-U.S. law.
>>> >>>Suppose I insult the Muslim "prophet" Mohammed. Under Sharia this
>>> >>>is considered blasphemy and punishable by death. An Islamist mob
>>> >>>arrests me and hauls me into an American court and demands that the
>>> >>>judge sentence me to death. My actions are perfectly legal under
>>> >>>U.S. law, so can the judge consider foreign Sharia law and sentence
>>> >>>me to death?
>>> >>>Even if I were a Muslim and "consented" to abiding by Sharia, can I
>>> >>>really consent to being executed for something that is legal within
>>> >>>the borders of the country I reside in?
>>> >> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>> >> another.
>>> >> Sharia law is based on religion and Christians don't need follow
>>> >> or
>>> >> respect it...
>>> >Exactly so. Sharia law has no standing in US courts and never will.
>>> Are we agreeing on something again. Do I see icicles in hell
>>> :-)
>>Could be.
>>But really, what you are agreeing to is that the Republicans in Kansas
>>are idiots. Which is hardly a surprise.
>>Sharia law, Jewish Law, Catholic law, none of them have any standing in
>>the US.
>>The only law any judge can apply is US law.
>>So tell us why this law is necessary?
> May not be. But then again I never trust a fanatic of any
> religion. With Obama maybe it was necessary. Who knows.
President of the United States has no authority over Kansas law.
You really don't know much about the American legal system, do you?
On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:10:15 -0700, MattB wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:55:35 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:47:09 -0700, MattB
>><trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Then Sharia law can't be used here. EVER. Good We agree
>>>>Then you just pissed on one of conservatives biggest foundational
>>>>blocks
>>> I should care about pissing them off why? Right or wrong is not
>>>based on Political affiliation.
>>Mostly, because you just showed you can't read.
>>A "Conservative foundational block" is a fundamental "PRINCIPLE"---which
>>conservatives rest their ideological beliefs on---namely---"GOVERNMENT
>>SIZE and SCOPE"
> So Rhetoric. OK
>>>>A law passed (more government) where no problem existed, and couldn't
>>> Well they may not have agreed.
>>If a law was passed that has no known reason to exist---it's a use of
>>government larger than necessary and was, in fact, agreed on.
> Well I consider Islamist to be lowlife pigs that eat dog.
As a matter of fact they DON'T eat dog. It's considered 'unclean' and an observant Moslem has very nearly the same dietary rules as an observant Jew.
And yes, there are exceptions, because Islam is a world-wide phenomenon that exists in hundreds of cultures, just like Xianity. There are Xian countries were they eat guinea pigs. And others where they eat dog, or horses, and monkeys. You're an Xian--do you eat horses?
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:55:35 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:47:09 -0700, MattB
>>><trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Then Sharia law can't be used here. EVER. Good We agree
>>>>>Then you just pissed on one of conservatives biggest foundational
>>>>>blocks
>>>> I should care about pissing them off why? Right or wrong is not
>>>>based on Political affiliation.
>>>Mostly, because you just showed you can't read.
>>>A "Conservative foundational block" is a fundamental "PRINCIPLE"---which
>>>conservatives rest their ideological beliefs on---namely---"GOVERNMENT
>>>SIZE and SCOPE"
>> So Rhetoric. OK
>>>>>A law passed (more government) where no problem existed, and couldn't
>>>> Well they may not have agreed.
>>>If a law was passed that has no known reason to exist---it's a use of
>>>government larger than necessary and was, in fact, agreed on.
>> Well I consider Islamist to be lowlife pigs that eat dog.
>As a matter of fact they DON'T eat dog. It's considered 'unclean' and an >observant Moslem has very nearly the same dietary rules as an observant >Jew.
I know that. Been to the Middle East. Seen those that follow
Islam and Islamist. Sorry had the misfortune of being there when a
teen Club was bombed. Saw it and will never believe the excuses
liberals give why it was OK. I'm a little biased about Islamist as to
me they are dog excrement and to be near one is like stepping in Dog
excrement in bare feet.
>And yes, there are exceptions, because Islam is a world-wide phenomenon >that exists in hundreds of cultures, just like Xianity. There are Xian >countries were they eat guinea pigs. And others where they eat dog, or >horses, and monkeys. You're an Xian--do you eat horses?
No never as had them as pets. There are some that have I'm sure.
The followers of Islam I knew from Florida were a good people. They
rejected the Radical Islamist teaching.
>>> On 05/14/2012 08:10 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Some beliefs need to be interfered with. Should
>>>> Mormons be able to practice polygamy? Should Christian
>>>> Scientists be able to deny medical care to their children?
>>> Mitchell, I am not saying that I disagree with you, but what is your
>>> logic that the government should interfere with a religion that
>>> practices polygamy, or the right of Christian Scientists to deny
>> medical
>>> care to their children?
>>> If you would treat each issue separately, I would appreciate it.
>> Some religious beliefs need to be interfered with.
>> Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death
>> OREGON CITY, Ore. — A couple whose church preaches
>> against medical care are facing criminal charges
>> after their young daughter died of an infection that
>> authorities said went untreated. Carl and Raylene
>> Worthington were indicted Friday on charges of
>> manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death
>> of their 15-month-old daughter Ava. They belong to
>> the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have
>> a history of treating gravely ill children only with
>> prayer.
>> Ava died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood
>> infection. The state medical examiner’s office has
>> said she could have been treated with antibiotics.
>> Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner,
>> said the child’s breathing was further hampered by a
>> benign cyst on her neck that had never been medically
>> addressed, The Oregonian reported.
>> http://tinyurl.com/6pwdjoh
> And polygamy?
And faith healing? Is that a "religious
freedom" we should respect?
> Why should the government interfere with polygamy?
>>>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian
>>>>> law?]
>>>>> Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>>>>> By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
>>>>> 13 May 12
>>>>> Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the
>>>>> state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws
>>>>> in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an
>>>>> embarrassment to the state.
>>>> While this law might seem at first glance to be foolish, stop and
>>>> consider that within the past few months, we have had a US Supreme
>>>> Court Justice defend the use of foreign law in US courts. This may
>>>> be nothing more than an attempt by the Kansas legislature to ensure
>>>> that Kansas judges base their rulings only on US law.
>>> Got a cite for that claim, David?
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html [...]
>> In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended
>> the use of foreign law by American judges, suggested that torture
>> should not be used even when it might yield important information and
>> reflected on her role as the Supreme Court’s only female justice.
>> The occasion was a symposium at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio
>> State University honoring her 15 years on the court.
>> [...]
> You think a one-line opinion on a speech by a Justice amounts to an > actual cite?
> And that she said something like that doesn't mean that foreign law is
> applicable in American courts, or that she was suggesting such. > Here's what else is reported:
> She [Ginsburg] said the controversy was a misunderstanding between
> being bound by foreign law and merely citing it as a wise influence.
> She had this to say:
> “I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from
> Congress and > even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law … Why
> shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least
> as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a
> professor?”
Are not the Ten Commandments - which conservatives are always proclaiming as a source of law and morality - "foreign"?
>>>> On 05/14/2012 08:10 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Some beliefs need to be interfered with. Should
>>>>> Mormons be able to practice polygamy? Should Christian
>>>>> Scientists be able to deny medical care to their children?
>>>> Mitchell, I am not saying that I disagree with you, but what is your
>>>> logic that the government should interfere with a religion that
>>>> practices polygamy, or the right of Christian Scientists to deny
>>> medical
>>>> care to their children?
>>>> If you would treat each issue separately, I would appreciate it.
>>> Some religious beliefs need to be interfered with.
>>> Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death
>>> OREGON CITY, Ore. — A couple whose church preaches
>>> against medical care are facing criminal charges
>>> after their young daughter died of an infection that
>>> authorities said went untreated. Carl and Raylene
>>> Worthington were indicted Friday on charges of
>>> manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death
>>> of their 15-month-old daughter Ava. They belong to
>>> the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have
>>> a history of treating gravely ill children only with
>>> prayer.
>>> Ava died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood
>>> infection. The state medical examiner’s office has
>>> said she could have been treated with antibiotics.
>>> Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner,
>>> said the child’s breathing was further hampered by a
>>> benign cyst on her neck that had never been medically
>>> addressed, The Oregonian reported.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6pwdjoh
>> And polygamy?
> And faith healing? Is that a "religious
> freedom" we should respect?
>> Why should the government interfere with polygamy?
> That was what I was asking you.
I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in fact I have said exactly the opposite.
Faith healing is another matter, one with which I struggle. On the one hand, I think that society has an obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. On the other hand I believe that the final authority on treatment of a minor child must rest with the parents, unless it can be shown that they are unable or unwilling to protect their child. The bottom line is that if the person who wishes to embrace faith healing is a responsible adult, their wishes should be respected. Where minor children are involved, each case should be treated on a case by case basis. If the life and safety of the child is not at risk the government should stay out of it.
>>>>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>>>>>> Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>>>>>> By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
>>>>>> 13 May 12
>>>>>> Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the
>>>>>> state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws
>>>>>> in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an
>>>>>> embarrassment to the state.
>>>>> While this law might seem at first glance to be foolish, stop and
>>>>> consider that within the past few months, we have had a US Supreme
>>>>> Court Justice defend the use of foreign law in US courts. This may
>>>>> be nothing more than an attempt by the Kansas legislature to ensure
>>>>> that Kansas judges base their rulings only on US law.
>>>> Got a cite for that claim, David?
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html [...]
>>> In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the
>>> use of foreign law by American judges, suggested that torture should
>>> not be used even when it might yield important information and
>>> reflected on her role as the Supreme Court’s only female justice. The
>>> occasion was a symposium at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State
>>> University honoring her 15 years on the court.
>>> [...]
>> You think a one-line opinion on a speech by a Justice amounts to an
>> actual cite?
>> And that she said something like that doesn't mean that foreign law is
>> applicable in American courts, or that she was suggesting such. Here's
>> what else is reported:
>> She [Ginsburg] said the controversy was a misunderstanding between
>> being bound by foreign law and merely citing it as a wise influence.
>> She had this to say:
>> “I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress
>> and
>> even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law … Why
>> shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as
>> much ease as we would read a law review article written by a
>> professor?”
> Are not the Ten Commandments - which conservatives are
> always proclaiming as a source of law and morality - "foreign"?
>>>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>>>> The article says that the bill would prohibit courts from considering
>>>> Sharia for legal decisions. Not just Sharia, but ANY non-U.S. law.
>>> Except the Constitution already covers the former (first amendment,
>>> you know), and as for the latter, define "non-U.S. law". Does this
>>> mean that because many other nations had laws against murder before
>>> the US did, courts may not enforce laws against murder?
>> That makes no sense at all, since U.S. law prohibits murder.
> But Americans didn't think of it FIRST! That what the ignorati in
> Kansas have passed without realizing it; a document recognizing a law
> only if it is unique to America.
That's not the way I interpret it. The Kansas law prohibits judges from considering foreign law in their rulings, meaning only American law can be considered. The American law does not have to be unique to America.
Blasphemy is illegal under Sharia but free speech under American law.
There is no American law against blasphemy, so the judge cannot consider Sharia. Murder is illegal under American and Sharia law, but the judge is only considering American law when issuing his sentence.
You did make a weak point about the Kansas law singling out Sharia but not Christian or Jewish law. I haven't read the text, but a good lawyer would make sure that the law was neutral -- banning consideration of *ALL* non-U.S. legal codes by judges. This shouldn't be necessary, but lately leftists have been demanding that Islamists be allowed to operate Sharia within the borders of Western nations -- in the name of religious freedom -- even though Sharia violates almost every principle Western civilization and constitutional law stands for, including freedom of speech and religion.
"The measure doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says that courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions."
"The bill passed both chambers by wide margins because even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn't represent a specific political attack on Muslims."
>>On the one hand, I think that society has an obligation to protect those
>>who cannot protect themselves. On the other hand I believe that the
>>final authority on treatment of a minor child must rest with the
>>parents, unless it can be shown that they are unable or unwilling to
>>protect their child.
> Hmmm--that would constitute waiting until they were dead to decide, I
> assume?
On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:34:50 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:18:33 -0700, MattB
><trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:58:14 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:39:04 -0700, MattB
>>><trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>I would be interested in seeing you support this assertion.
>>>> Yes it would. Just not with his normal Rhetoric BS.
>>>You moron---It's American history--taught in all schools, a historical
>>>record
>>>Google "pettis bridge"
>> Yes HISTORY. That was learned from when are you going to come
>>into reality with your Rhetoric?
>>20, 30 , or 40 years ago. What about the NOW? Liberals have thier
>>heads in the sand of the past. Can't face reality. Well Liberal
>>Progressives can't.
>You must be joking
>Your ideology has not LEARNED from history.
I as a person I did and you attack me for not being racist. You
want me
to be your kind of racist and bow before you. NO
You do get your wish you I now call Nigger. Blacks in general NO.
Just
you low life trash liberal Progressive. YES I know you will now make
a new
subject line. Maybe with a edited quote or partial sentence. Liberal
Progressive way that.
You have shown by you methods that you lack all honor and
credibility. OK
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424) - not licensed for commercial
use: www.pgp.com
On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
> >> fact I have said exactly the opposite.
> > But---it should
> > Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
> marriage?
How is same sex marriage destructive? What would change for the
worse? And why can gays adopt kids while being unmarried? If you
really a had legitimate concern about the destruction of society as
you know it (whatever it is that you think it is), you'd be more anti-
adoption for gays than anti-marriage. In a marriage, two gays only
end up "corrupting" each other; in adoption, a gay parent could
possibly end up "corrupting" the child.
> > What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
> > to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
Does that question make sense? Of course not. Hartung asked it?
> On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
>>>> fact I have said exactly the opposite.
>>> But---it should
>>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
>> marriage?
> How is same sex marriage destructive?
Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage. I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.
>>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
>>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
> Does that question make sense? Of course not. Hartung asked it?
You are correct, that was very poorly worded.
The question should have read like this:
Why is a marriage of more than two people any worse than a marriage of only two people?
> > On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
> >>>> fact I have said exactly the opposite.
> >>> But---it should
> >>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
> >> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
> >> marriage?
> > How is same sex marriage destructive?
> Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex
> marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say
> that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I
> believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage.
> I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.
So on the one hand you say that you didn't say that same sex marriage
is destructive, yet on the other hand you ask Roselles to explain why
one is more destructive than the other. Implying, of course, that you
believe the other (gay marriage) is destructive, since Roselles
doesn't seem to think it is because he claims plygamy is the
destructive one, or so you claim he claims. Do you see why nobody can
swallow what you think about anything? Because you're not even honest
about what you yourself think. It keeps slipping through all those
"oops" things you say, and without you even realizing it, which is the
worst part of your ignorance.
> >>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
> >>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
> >> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
> > Does that question make sense? Of course not. Hartung asked it?
> You are correct, that was very poorly worded.
> The question should have read like this:
> Why is a marriage of more than two people any worse than a marriage of
> only two people?
Perhaps because there's more than one other person to deal with and
satisfy? It's tough enough as it is just to get along with one other
person. Not only that, but what about death benefits? Which
surviving spouse gets the benefits? All of them? That would mean
sharing among the 4 wives the $80 the guy left them, when a single
wife could have all $80 for herself. If you want to have multiple
women, don't marry any of them. What's the point? Just live with
them. That way, you can dump any one of them at any time that she
gets on your nerves, no mess, no fuss.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:52:44 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:22:26 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy,
>>>> in fact I have said exactly the opposite.
>>> But---it should
>>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>>Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
>>marriage?
> There is nothing in any social construction allowing multiple partners
> as legal.
ANY social construction? Or just American?
> There IS a guarantee that all citizens have equal rights and protection
> under the law
> So---limiting TWO (2) citizens to a contract (licensing required) is
> within legal and moral limits.
>>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
>>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>>Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
> Because I say so.
OK, so you're a bit squeamish. Take a cultural anthropology class. Most cultures have or have had polygamous marriages in an amazing variety of forms over the centuries. Most have produced extremely stable societies and succeeded brilliantly in the primary goals of marriage: providing immediate community and raising healthy children.
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:36:28 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>> On 05/15/2012 02:29 PM, wy wrote:
>>> On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
>>>>>> fact I have said exactly the opposite.
>>>>> But---it should
>>>>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>>>> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
>>>> marriage?
>>> How is same sex marriage destructive?
>> Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex
>> marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say
>> that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I
>> believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage.
>> I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.
> Multiple contractual considerations are legally "messy".
> Social order of the western traditon is predicated on equal rights of
> citizens and the nature of those licenses are specify 2. Color,
> creed, or sexual preference isn't a consideration.
>>>>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
>>>>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>>>> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
>>> Does that question make sense? Of course not. Hartung asked it?
>> You are correct, that was very poorly worded.
>> The question should have read like this:
>> Why is a marriage of more than two people any worse than a marriage of
>> only two people?
> Contractual considerations, socially unacceptable, and because I say
> so. (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
> things they don't like)
On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:02:11 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 13:43:20 -0700 (PDT), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>On May 15, 3:36 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/15/2012 02:29 PM, wy wrote:
>>> > How is same sex marriage destructive?
>>> Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex
>>> marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say
>>> that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I
>>> believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage.
>>> I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.
>>So on the one hand you say that you didn't say that same sex marriage
>>is destructive, yet on the other hand you ask Roselles to explain why
>>one is more destructive than the other. Implying, of course, that you
>>believe the other (gay marriage) is destructive, since Roselles
>>doesn't seem to think it is because he claims plygamy is the
>>destructive one, or so you claim he claims. Do you see why nobody can
>>swallow what you think about anything? Because you're not even honest
>>about what you yourself think. It keeps slipping through all those
>>"oops" things you say, and without you even realizing it, which is the
>>worst part of your ignorance.
>With Hartung---it is usual when he gets cornered to demand a litany of
>"cites" and evidence. When he does that---you can be assured he's
>losing.
This from the guy who demands that others do his homework for him? The
irony...
On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:56:19 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:36:28 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>wrote:
>>On 05/15/2012 02:29 PM, wy wrote:
>>> On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
>>>>>> fact I have said exactly the opposite.
>>>>> But---it should
>>>>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>>>> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
>>>> marriage?
>>> How is same sex marriage destructive?
>>Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex >>marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say >>that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I >>believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage. >>I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.
>Multiple contractual considerations are legally "messy".
>Social order of the western traditon is predicated on equal rights of
>citizens and the nature of those licenses are specify 2. Color,
>creed, or sexual preference isn't a consideration.
>>>>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
>>>>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>>>> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
>>> Does that question make sense? Of course not. Hartung asked it?
>>You are correct, that was very poorly worded.
>>The question should have read like this:
>>Why is a marriage of more than two people any worse than a marriage of >>only two people?
>Contractual considerations, socially unacceptable, and because I say
>so. (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
>things they don't like)
In other words, you can't really answer his question.
On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:54:15 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:56:19 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:36:28 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On 05/15/2012 02:29 PM, wy wrote:
>>>> On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
>>>>>>> fact I have said exactly the opposite.
>>>>>> But---it should
>>>>>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>>>>> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
>>>>> marriage?
>>>> How is same sex marriage destructive?
>>>Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex >>>marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say >>>that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I >>>believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage. >>>I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.
>>Multiple contractual considerations are legally "messy".
>>Social order of the western traditon is predicated on equal rights of
>>citizens and the nature of those licenses are specify 2. Color,
>>creed, or sexual preference isn't a consideration.
>>>>>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
>>>>>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>>>>> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?
>>>> Does that question make sense? Of course not. Hartung asked it?
>>>You are correct, that was very poorly worded.
>>>The question should have read like this:
>>>Why is a marriage of more than two people any worse than a marriage of >>>only two people?
>>Contractual considerations, socially unacceptable, and because I say
>>so. (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
>>things they don't like)
>In other words, you can't really answer his question.
> >> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
> >The article says that the bill would prohibit courts from considering
> >Sharia for legal decisions. Not just Sharia, but ANY non-U.S. law.
> >Suppose I insult the Muslim "prophet" Mohammed. Under Sharia this is
> >considered blasphemy and punishable by death. An Islamist mob arrests me
> >and hauls me into an American court and demands that the judge sentence
> >me to death. My actions are perfectly legal under U.S. law, so can the
> >judge consider foreign Sharia law and sentence me to death? Even if I
> >were a Muslim and "consented" to abiding by Sharia, can I really consent
> >to being executed for something that is legal within the borders of the
> >country I reside in?
> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
> another.
> Sharia law is based on religion and Christians don't need follow or
> respect it...
First Amendment.
The religious test clause.
Read the Constitution, geniuses. Sharia law is ALREADY illegal. So are
Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Scientology law.
> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
Actually, they already have.
Among the main components of Sharia is what we refer to as the Old
Testament. That includes Leviticus, which is what these self-same
morons always cite as "proof" that God hates the gays.
The Constitution, thankfully, bans all religious law. Thank God. So,
basically, the people of Kansas think they're getting Heavenly Brownie
Points for passing a law that's already law.
> ansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state
> courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making
> decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the
> state.
> The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and
> 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the "Sharia
> bill," because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code
> from being recognized in Kansas.
> The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not
> indicated whether he will sign it.
> In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured
> foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will
> protect them. But an opponent said the bill's real purpose is to hold
> Islam out for ridicule.
> Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past
> two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that
> American laws prevailed on American soil.
> Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States
> where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other legal
> systems into account in decision-making.
> Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or
> other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.
> "I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States, to
> know the freedoms they have in regard to women's and children's rights,"
> said Mast, a Republican. "An important part of this bill would be to
> educate them."
> State Senator Tim Owens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said
> there was no need for legislation reaffirming American laws that already
> exist. All the proposed legislation does, he said, was target one
> particular group - Muslims - for discrimination.
> 'Utter Nonsense'
> "It's based on fear, it's based on intolerance and it is not based on
> understanding of the Constitution," said Owens, a Republican, who said
> the measure is an embarrassment to Kansas.
> "People will ask, 'How narrow has that state become?'" Owens said. "How
> unwelcoming is this state?"
> He said non-U.S. companies may be unwilling to do business in a state
> whose residents object to "anything different than what they think is
> appropriate."
> Roughly 20 states have considered legislation similar to what has passed
> in Kansas, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-
> Islamic Relations in Washington. Some state legislatures, including
> Kansas, have passed laws that do not mention Sharia by name, he said.
> Hooper said there was a movement by conservative-leaning state
> legislatures to introduce anti-Islam bills that have no legal foundation.
> "Really, the goal seems to be (to demonize) Islam and (to marginalize)
> American Muslims," Hooper said. "Some (states) have passed these watered-
> down bills and declared a great victory. It's utter nonsense, but if your
> goal is to promote intolerance, I guess you won."
> After Oklahoma voters approved a law in 2010 barring state judges from
> considering Sharia law specifically in making decisions, federal courts
> granted an injunction preventing the law from taking effect.
> A three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver
> upheld the injunction, ruling the law unfairly discriminated against a
> particular religion.
> Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life including
> religious obligations and financial dealings, and opponents of state bans
> say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.
> A report earlier this year showed that nearly a third of Americans
> believed American Muslims want to establish Sharia law in the United
> States.
> The same report, by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion
> Research Institute, showed 88 percent of Americans acknowledged knowing
> little about Muslim beliefs.
>> >> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>> >The article says that the bill would prohibit courts from considering
>> >Sharia for legal decisions. Not just Sharia, but ANY non-U.S. law.
>> >Suppose I insult the Muslim "prophet" Mohammed. Under Sharia this is
>> >considered blasphemy and punishable by death. An Islamist mob arrests
>> >me and hauls me into an American court and demands that the judge
>> >sentence me to death. My actions are perfectly legal under U.S. law,
>> >so can the judge consider foreign Sharia law and sentence me to death?
>> > Even if I were a Muslim and "consented" to abiding by Sharia, can I
>> >really consent to being executed for something that is legal within
>> >the borders of the country I reside in?
>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>> another.
>> Sharia law is based on religion and Christians don't need follow or
>> respect it...
> First Amendment.
> The religious test clause.
> Read the Constitution, geniuses. Sharia law is ALREADY illegal. So are
> Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Scientology law.
Not illegal, specifically, but certainly not recognized by any American court.
>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
> Actually, they already have.
> Among the main components of Sharia is what we refer to as the Old
> Testament. That includes Leviticus, which is what these self-same morons
> always cite as "proof" that God hates the gays.
> The Constitution, thankfully, bans all religious law. Thank God. So,
> basically, the people of Kansas think they're getting Heavenly Brownie
> Points for passing a law that's already law.
>> ansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state
>> courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making
>> decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the
>> state.
>> The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and
>> 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the "Sharia
>> bill," because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code
>> from being recognized in Kansas.
>> The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not
>> indicated whether he will sign it.
>> In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured
>> foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will
>> protect them. But an opponent said the bill's real purpose is to hold
>> Islam out for ridicule.
>> Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the
>> past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion
>> that American laws prevailed on American soil.
>> Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States
>> where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other
>> legal systems into account in decision-making.
>> Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or
>> other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.
>> "I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States,
>> to know the freedoms they have in regard to women's and children's
>> rights," said Mast, a Republican. "An important part of this bill would
>> be to educate them."
>> State Senator Tim Owens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
>> said there was no need for legislation reaffirming American laws that
>> already exist. All the proposed legislation does, he said, was target
>> one particular group - Muslims - for discrimination.
>> 'Utter Nonsense'
>> "It's based on fear, it's based on intolerance and it is not based on
>> understanding of the Constitution," said Owens, a Republican, who said
>> the measure is an embarrassment to Kansas.
>> "People will ask, 'How narrow has that state become?'" Owens said. "How
>> unwelcoming is this state?"
>> He said non-U.S. companies may be unwilling to do business in a state
>> whose residents object to "anything different than what they think is
>> appropriate."
>> Roughly 20 states have considered legislation similar to what has
>> passed in Kansas, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on
>> American- Islamic Relations in Washington. Some state legislatures,
>> including Kansas, have passed laws that do not mention Sharia by name,
>> he said.
>> Hooper said there was a movement by conservative-leaning state
>> legislatures to introduce anti-Islam bills that have no legal
>> foundation.
>> "Really, the goal seems to be (to demonize) Islam and (to marginalize)
>> American Muslims," Hooper said. "Some (states) have passed these
>> watered-
>> down bills and declared a great victory. It's utter nonsense, but if
>> your goal is to promote intolerance, I guess you won."
>> After Oklahoma voters approved a law in 2010 barring state judges from
>> considering Sharia law specifically in making decisions, federal courts
>> granted an injunction preventing the law from taking effect.
>> A three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver
>> upheld the injunction, ruling the law unfairly discriminated against a
>> particular religion.
>> Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life including
>> religious obligations and financial dealings, and opponents of state
>> bans say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.
>> A report earlier this year showed that nearly a third of Americans
>> believed American Muslims want to establish Sharia law in the United
>> States.
>> The same report, by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion
>> Research Institute, showed 88 percent of Americans acknowledged knowing
>> little about Muslim beliefs.
