Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Kansas bans Sharia Law
78 views
Skip to first unread message
2966 Dead
May 13, 2012, 1:33:10 PM5/13/12
to
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
islamic-law
[Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
Kansas Bans Islamic Law
By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
13 May 12
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.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
islamic-law
[Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
Kansas Bans Islamic Law
By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
13 May 12
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.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Dänk 42Ø
May 13, 2012, 2:29:29 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> islamic-law
>
> [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?
> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> islamic-law
>
> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
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?
MattB
May 13, 2012, 3:44:08 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <da...@purpleurkle.org>
wrote:
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...
wrote:
another.
Sharia law is based on religion and Christians don't need follow or
respect it...
Matt
May 13, 2012, 3:49:02 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 1:44 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
Thank you, because that is one line I PROMSE I'm going to reprint
over and over.
Christians are not religious nor lawful. Thanks.
Matt
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
over and over.
Christians are not religious nor lawful. Thanks.
Matt
2966 Dead
May 13, 2012, 4:14:21 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> islamic-law
>>
>> [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
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> islamic-law
>>
>> [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.
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?
>
> 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?
No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
> 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?
Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
Baptists feel about it.
2966 Dead
May 13, 2012, 4:16:12 PM5/13/12
to
MattB
May 13, 2012, 4:40:14 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
Are we agreeing on something again. Do I see icicles in hell :-)
Matt
May 13, 2012, 4:51:35 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 2:40 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com>
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?
Matt
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
> >>>>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> >>>> islamic-law
>
> >>>> [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.
>
> >>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
> >>>>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> >>>> islamic-law
>
> >>>> [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 :-)
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?
Matt
2966 Dead
May 13, 2012, 5:52:23 PM5/13/12
to
pointless law?
MattB
May 13, 2012, 6:12:57 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:52:23 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
Congress on both sides no doubt passes pointless laws. I think it
was Kansas that having sex with your wife in anything other that the
missionary position was sodomy. Politicians are not rational people
many times.
Think of al the money both sides have wasted proposing laws that they
knew would be passed. All for politics. Then think of the laws
passed they knew would not pass the courts. That to is a waste.
So to answer your question. Beats me.
was Kansas that having sex with your wife in anything other that the
missionary position was sodomy. Politicians are not rational people
many times.
Think of al the money both sides have wasted proposing laws that they
knew would be passed. All for politics. Then think of the laws
passed they knew would not pass the courts. That to is a waste.
So to answer your question. Beats me.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
MattB
May 13, 2012, 10:16:17 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:09:45 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>another.
>
>"We" don't have that problem
>
>>
>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>another.
>
>
>This is a CIVIL society
>
>Religious belief is not incorporated into our law.
Then Sharia law can't be used here. EVER. Good We agree
MattB
May 13, 2012, 10:19:20 PM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>wrote:
>
>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>
>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
What I won't owe you. LOL
Sorry I have no problem with gays so will just say not interested
Gary R. R. You will need to look elsewhere.
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>wrote:
>
>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
>>Baptists feel about it.
>
>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
>>Baptists feel about it.
>
>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>
>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
What I won't owe you. LOL
Sorry I have no problem with gays so will just say not interested
Gary R. R. You will need to look elsewhere.
Mitchell Holman
May 13, 2012, 10:28:54 PM5/13/12
to
MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in
news:bmq0r7l7i6089saos...@4ax.com:
How about a totally secular government that
makes reference to NO religion?
Wouldn't that be dandy?
news:bmq0r7l7i6089saos...@4ax.com:
makes reference to NO religion?
Wouldn't that be dandy?
MattB
May 13, 2012, 10:50:00 PM5/13/12
to
>
> Wouldn't that be dandy?
Sure as long as that same "secular government " did not interfere in
> Wouldn't that be dandy?
my beliefs. Well as long they caused no harm.
I'm Christian and see nowhere that we are to force our beliefs on
others. There is a town in Florida mostly wicca liked this verse I
think went something like this Do what you will if it harm none.
>
>
>
Dänk 42Ø
May 14, 2012, 12:43:50 AM5/14/12
to
bill that would ensure that courts would be prohibited from considering
Sharia in their rulings.
Dänk 42Ø
May 14, 2012, 1:11:00 AM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>>> islamic-law
>>>
>>> [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. What you
are advocating is the recognition of a *FOREIGN* legal system that
criminalizes actions that are perfectly legal under U.S. law.
Your attempt to compare Sharia to Jewish law doesn't work, since Jewish
law only applies to Jews, and no case of the death penalty for violating
it has been recorded in centuries. A Jew who eats pork may be
stigmatized, but not killed. A Muslim who insults the "prophet" Mohammed
*IS* killed, and a non-Muslim who insults the "prophet" Mohammed is also
killed. I could write "Moses was a pork-eating pedophile" and not worry
about being killed for it, and most Jews would not even care, much less
put a bounty on my head.
As I am planning a major world trip in the next year or two, I have read
about some bizarre foreign laws. One involves an American citizen of
Thai descent who insulted the King of Thailand from his U.S. ISP. Then
he traveled to Thailand and was immediately arrested and imprisoned. No
comparison, since Thai law was not considered by a U.S. court. There may
be some similar cases where an American "blasphemed" a religion, only to
be imprisoned upon traveling to a country where that religion is
protected by law. But there is no precedent for an American to be
imprisoned for "blaspheming" a religion under U.S. law. What is illegal
in Thailand or Saudi Arabia is perfectly legal here, and to suggest that
foreign standards be used to judge the "blasphemer" is unconstitutional
and downright un-American.
>> 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?
>
> No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
> Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
> Baptists feel about it.
You have argued that any attempt to prohibit judges from considering
Sharia "law" in their decisions is "racist." Now you try to compare
Sharia to Baptists, though of course you are unable to cite any court
ruling based on Baptist "law." Your hatred of white Southerners is well
established, leading me to wonder whether your support for 7th-century
Muslim culture is not really a reaction to 19th-century Southern American
culture. If slavery is the real issue, consider that modern-day Islam
still practices slavery. Get your priorities right, already.
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>>> islamic-law
>>>
>>> [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?
are advocating is the recognition of a *FOREIGN* legal system that
criminalizes actions that are perfectly legal under U.S. law.
Your attempt to compare Sharia to Jewish law doesn't work, since Jewish
law only applies to Jews, and no case of the death penalty for violating
it has been recorded in centuries. A Jew who eats pork may be
stigmatized, but not killed. A Muslim who insults the "prophet" Mohammed
*IS* killed, and a non-Muslim who insults the "prophet" Mohammed is also
killed. I could write "Moses was a pork-eating pedophile" and not worry
about being killed for it, and most Jews would not even care, much less
put a bounty on my head.
As I am planning a major world trip in the next year or two, I have read
about some bizarre foreign laws. One involves an American citizen of
Thai descent who insulted the King of Thailand from his U.S. ISP. Then
he traveled to Thailand and was immediately arrested and imprisoned. No
comparison, since Thai law was not considered by a U.S. court. There may
be some similar cases where an American "blasphemed" a religion, only to
be imprisoned upon traveling to a country where that religion is
protected by law. But there is no precedent for an American to be
imprisoned for "blaspheming" a religion under U.S. law. What is illegal
in Thailand or Saudi Arabia is perfectly legal here, and to suggest that
foreign standards be used to judge the "blasphemer" is unconstitutional
and downright un-American.
>> 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?
>
> No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
> Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
> Baptists feel about it.
Sharia "law" in their decisions is "racist." Now you try to compare
Sharia to Baptists, though of course you are unable to cite any court
ruling based on Baptist "law." Your hatred of white Southerners is well
established, leading me to wonder whether your support for 7th-century
Muslim culture is not really a reaction to 19th-century Southern American
culture. If slavery is the real issue, consider that modern-day Islam
still practices slavery. Get your priorities right, already.
Dänk 42Ø
May 14, 2012, 1:28:18 AM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>>
>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
>>>Baptists feel about it.
>>
>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an ultrasound
>>wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to Baptist beliefs
>>of marriage and religion
>>
>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>
> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
> What I won't owe you. LOL
Zepp doesn't answer anyone who poses a question or factoid he can't
>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
>>>Baptists feel about it.
>>
>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an ultrasound
>>wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to Baptist beliefs
>>of marriage and religion
>>
>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>
> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
> What I won't owe you. LOL
refute.
If you're lucky, he will just ignore you. If you push too many buttons,
he will accuse you of forging every webpage you cite. He still accuses
me of having forged an imaginary history of currency devaluation and
hyperinflation in Mexico in the 1980s, and every citation to support my
claim has been met with deafening silence. At some point you realize you
are dealing with a raving lunatic who lives in his own little fantasy
bubble universe, and you quit trying to convince him of anything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/
msg/9d5a6301e3732dc5?dmode=source
"Still, this is a guy who rewrote a Wikipedia page to prop up a fantasy
that the Mexicon [sic] peso collapsed to 1/1,000th of it's value about ten
years ago."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/m/mxn-mexican-peso.asp
"Following a period of hyperinflation and currency devaluation in the
1980s that occurred after Mexico defaulted on it external debt as a
result of the 1970s oil crisis, the government of Mexico created a new
peso, or 'nuevo peso,' to replace the original peso in 1993. The new peso
replaced the old peso at a rate of 1:1000."
NoBody
May 14, 2012, 5:56:14 AM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>islamic-law
>
>[Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>
>Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>
>By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
>
>13 May 12
>
>
>
>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.
>
Your headline is dishonest (there's a shock...). The story states
that law must be judged based on state law only not something outside
of it.
wrote:
>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>islamic-law
>
>[Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>
>Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>
>By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
>
>13 May 12
>
>
>
>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.
>
that law must be judged based on state law only not something outside
of it.
NoBody
May 14, 2012, 5:58:23 AM5/14/12
to
law that is not already a state or federal law.
NoBody
May 14, 2012, 6:00:40 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:18 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <da...@purpleurkle.org>
hiding when challenged to provide evidence of his claim.
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>
>>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
>>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
>>>>Baptists feel about it.
>>>
>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an ultrasound
>>>wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to Baptist beliefs
>>>of marriage and religion
>>>
>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>
>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>> What I won't owe you. LOL
>
>Zepp doesn't answer anyone who poses a question or factoid he can't
>refute.
Can't say I've ever seen Zippo refute anything ever....
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>
>>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing circumstances.
>>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how the
>>>>Baptists feel about it.
>>>
>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an ultrasound
>>>wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to Baptist beliefs
>>>of marriage and religion
>>>
>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>
>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>> What I won't owe you. LOL
>
>Zepp doesn't answer anyone who poses a question or factoid he can't
>refute.
>
>If you're lucky, he will just ignore you. If you push too many buttons,
>he will accuse you of forging every webpage you cite. He still accuses
>me of having forged an imaginary history of currency devaluation and
>hyperinflation in Mexico in the 1980s, and every citation to support my
>claim has been met with deafening silence. At some point you realize you
>are dealing with a raving lunatic who lives in his own little fantasy
>bubble universe, and you quit trying to convince him of anything.
You forgot that he'll accuse you of being Steve and then running and
>If you're lucky, he will just ignore you. If you push too many buttons,
>he will accuse you of forging every webpage you cite. He still accuses
>me of having forged an imaginary history of currency devaluation and
>hyperinflation in Mexico in the 1980s, and every citation to support my
>claim has been met with deafening silence. At some point you realize you
>are dealing with a raving lunatic who lives in his own little fantasy
>bubble universe, and you quit trying to convince him of anything.
hiding when challenged to provide evidence of his claim.
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 9:04:01 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:11:00 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>
>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-
bans-
>>>> islamic-law
>>>>
>>>> [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
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>
>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-
bans-
>>>> islamic-law
>>>>
>>>> [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.
have passed without realizing it; a document recognizing a law only if it
is unique to America.
US Law also prohibits granting secular authority to churches. That
didn't seem to stop the Kansas morons, did it?
What you
> are advocating is the recognition of a *FOREIGN* legal system that
> criminalizes actions that are perfectly legal under U.S. law.
>
> Your attempt to compare Sharia to Jewish law doesn't work, since Jewish
> law only applies to Jews, and no case of the death penalty for violating
> it has been recorded in centuries.
World War II. And Jewish law applies to Jews only, and like Sharia Law
in America, has no legal standing.
A Jew who eats pork may be
> stigmatized, but not killed. A Muslim who insults the "prophet"
> Mohammed *IS* killed, and a non-Muslim who insults the "prophet"
> Mohammed is also killed. I could write "Moses was a pork-eating
> pedophile" and not worry about being killed for it, and most Jews would
> not even care, much less put a bounty on my head.
punish you for it.
>
> As I am planning a major world trip in the next year or two,
[snip stupid crap. Go play your sad little game somewhere else]
> As I am planning a major world trip in the next year or two,
Mitchell Holman
May 14, 2012, 9:10:04 AM5/14/12
to
MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in
news:d6s0r7942k86baf17...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:28:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in
>>news:bmq0r7l7i6089saos...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:09:45 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB
>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>>>>another.
>>>>
>>>>"We" don't have that problem
>>>>
>>>>This is a CIVIL society
>>>>
>>>>Religious belief is not incorporated into our law.
>>>
>>> Then Sharia law can't be used here. EVER. Good We agree
>>
>>
>> How about a totally secular government that
>>makes reference to NO religion?
>
> I'd be fine with that.
We shall see.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be dandy?
>
> Sure as long as that same "secular government " did not interfere in
> my beliefs.
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?
> Well as long they caused no harm.
>
> I'm Christian and see nowhere that we are to force our beliefs on
> others.
Except for the last line of the required Pledge
of Allegiance, mandating God on our money, tax money
going to churches, etc.
news:d6s0r7942k86baf17...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:28:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>MattB <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote in
>>news:bmq0r7l7i6089saos...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:09:45 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB
>>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>>>>another.
>>>>
>>>>"We" don't have that problem
>>>>
>>>>This is a CIVIL society
>>>>
>>>>Religious belief is not incorporated into our law.
>>>
>>> Then Sharia law can't be used here. EVER. Good We agree
>>
>>
>> How about a totally secular government that
>>makes reference to NO religion?
>
> I'd be fine with that.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be dandy?
>
> Sure as long as that same "secular government " did not interfere in
> my beliefs.
Mormons be able to practice polygamy? Should Christian
Scientists be able to deny medical care to their children?
> Well as long they caused no harm.
>
> I'm Christian and see nowhere that we are to force our beliefs on
> others.
of Allegiance, mandating God on our money, tax money
going to churches, etc.
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 9:22:19 AM5/14/12
to
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
> 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?
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.
Thanks.
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 9:39:09 AM5/14/12
to
On 05/13/2012 12:33 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> islamic-law
>
> [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
> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> islamic-law
>
> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>
> Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>
> By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
>
> 13 May 12
>
>
>
> 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
> decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the
> state.
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.
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 9:42:06 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:18 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>
>>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
>>>>circumstances.
>>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how
>>>>the Baptists feel about it.
>>>
>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>>>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>>>
>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>
>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>> What I won't owe you. LOL
My answer is directly above, bubbles. You getting blind or something?
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>
>>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
>>>>circumstances.
>>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how
>>>>the Baptists feel about it.
>>>
>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>>>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>>>
>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>
>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>> What I won't owe you. LOL
I said: "No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
circumstances. Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no
matter how the Baptists feel about it."
>
matter how the Baptists feel about it."
>
> Zepp doesn't answer anyone who poses a question or factoid he can't
> refute.
Fuck off, Danky. Don't you have a trip to Antarctica or something you're
> refute.
pretending to go on?
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 9:45:30 AM5/14/12
to
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 9:46:43 AM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:22:19 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> 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?
I don't believe the government should interfere with polygamy. As for
> 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?
children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore afforded
protection under the law.
Mitchell Holman
May 14, 2012, 9:51:13 AM5/14/12
to
David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
news:YfednYsxuPWRmizS...@giganews.com:
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
news:YfednYsxuPWRmizS...@giganews.com:
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
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 9:54:16 AM5/14/12
to
On 05/14/2012 08:46 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:22:19 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> I don't believe the government should interfere with polygamy. As for
> children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore afforded
> protection under the law.
We seem to have had a plethora of blue moons recently, once again I find
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:22:19 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> I don't believe the government should interfere with polygamy. As for
> children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore afforded
> protection under the law.
myself in agreement with you. :)
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 9:55:09 AM5/14/12
to
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 10:04:59 AM5/14/12
to
[...]
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.
[...]
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 10:11:59 AM5/14/12
to
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 11:35:29 AM5/14/12
to
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?”
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
MattB
May 14, 2012, 1:36:13 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:54:16 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:
Yes myself as well. Scary.
wrote:
MattB
May 14, 2012, 1:44:07 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:10:04 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Well not sure on this one. I personally have no problem with it. Not
with Gay marriage either. Then again what we saw in Texas that time I
would.
>Should Christian
>Scientists be able to deny medical care to their children?
Well here you come up with my problem with believing what you will
while doing no harm. This seems to cause harm so no. They are
underage so no. Difficult this one.
JW also do something similar as they won't allow Blood transfusions.
I don't like the voucher programs.
>
>
>
>
>
with Gay marriage either. Then again what we saw in Texas that time I
would.
>Should Christian
>Scientists be able to deny medical care to their children?
while doing no harm. This seems to cause harm so no. They are
underage so no. Difficult this one.
JW also do something similar as they won't allow Blood transfusions.
>
>
>
>> Well as long they caused no harm.
>>
>> I'm Christian and see nowhere that we are to force our beliefs on
>> others.
>
>
> Except for the last line of the required Pledge
>of Allegiance, mandating God on our money, tax money
>going to churches, etc.
I would prefer the original Pledge.
>
>
>> Well as long they caused no harm.
>>
>> I'm Christian and see nowhere that we are to force our beliefs on
>> others.
>
>
> Except for the last line of the required Pledge
>of Allegiance, mandating God on our money, tax money
>going to churches, etc.
I don't like the voucher programs.
>
>
>
>
>
MattB
May 14, 2012, 1:47:09 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:00:07 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:16:17 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:09:45 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB
>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>>>another.
>>>
>>>"We" don't have that problem
>>>
>>>This is a CIVIL society
>>>
>>>Religious belief is not incorporated into our law.
>>
>> 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.
>
>A law passed (more government) where no problem existed, and couldn't
Well they may not have agreed. Sharia Law is sickening. IMO
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:16:17 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:09:45 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB
>>><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>>>>another.
>>>
>>>"We" don't have that problem
>>>
>>>This is a CIVIL society
>>>
>>>Religious belief is not incorporated into our law.
>>
>> Then Sharia law can't be used here. EVER. Good We agree
>
>blocks
I should care about pissing them off why? Right or wrong is not
based on Political affiliation.
>
>A law passed (more government) where no problem existed, and couldn't
Well they may not have agreed. Sharia Law is sickening. IMO
MattB
May 14, 2012, 1:54:20 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:59:08 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>>>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>>>
>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>
>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>>What I won't owe you. LOL
>
>I making fun of you
OK Your a Black Bully. Yes I have seen them Which one are you.
http://youtu.be/k1jjiW6_WrY
>
>That's my fun
Is this your type of fun
http://youtu.be/-9mL5DKjnkY
>
>IDIOT
>On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>>>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>>>
>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>
>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>>What I won't owe you. LOL
>
OK Your a Black Bully. Yes I have seen them Which one are you.
http://youtu.be/k1jjiW6_WrY
>
>That's my fun
Is this your type of fun
http://youtu.be/-9mL5DKjnkY
>
>IDIOT
Dänk 42Ø
May 14, 2012, 2:09:57 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:42:06 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:18 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>>
>>>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
>>>>>circumstances.
>>>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how
>>>>>the Baptists feel about it.
>>>>
>>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>>>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>>>>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>>>>
>>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>>
>>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>>> What I won't owe you. LOL
>
> My answer is directly above, bubbles. You getting blind or something?
>
> I said: "No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
> circumstances. Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no
> matter how the Baptists feel about it."
And yet your original post criticizes Kansas' attempt to prohibit judges
from considering Sharia law. Do you even think about what you are
posting before you hit the send button?
>> Zepp doesn't answer anyone who poses a question or factoid he can't
>> refute.
>
> Fuck off, Danky. Don't you have a trip to Antarctica or something
> you're pretending to go on?
Notice how Zepp still refuses to acknowledge his error on Mexican
hyperinflation. As usual, he changes the subject and resorts to a
personal attack, this time accusing me of having invented imaginary trips
to Europe and Asia, with photographs of my passport stamps and archived
Google posts with traceable IP addresses unable to convince him. He
projects his own lack of a life on others, and this combined with his
refusal to concede he is wrong about anything suggests a person who is
seriously disturbed.
My imaginary passport stamps and forged Internet posts:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/quack01.jpg/
And an imaginary out of season stock photo:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3116/quack10.jpg
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:18 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:19:20 -0700, MattB wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:11:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>>
>>>>>No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
>>>>>circumstances.
>>>>>Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no matter how
>>>>>the Baptists feel about it.
>>>>
>>>>However, a few states now can prosecute women for refusing an
>>>>ultrasound wand stuck up their vagina, or craft laws to conform to
>>>>Baptist beliefs of marriage and religion
>>>>
>>>>All the while Matt-B-Loon dances a little jig.
>>>
>>> Sorry Zepp wasn't answering me on this. Do I have a stalker now?
>>> What I won't owe you. LOL
>
> My answer is directly above, bubbles. You getting blind or something?
>
> I said: "No, the judge may not consider Sharia law under existing
> circumstances. Nor can he have someone tried for dancing on Sundays, no
> matter how the Baptists feel about it."
from considering Sharia law. Do you even think about what you are
posting before you hit the send button?
>> Zepp doesn't answer anyone who poses a question or factoid he can't
>> refute.
>
> Fuck off, Danky. Don't you have a trip to Antarctica or something
> you're pretending to go on?
hyperinflation. As usual, he changes the subject and resorts to a
personal attack, this time accusing me of having invented imaginary trips
to Europe and Asia, with photographs of my passport stamps and archived
Google posts with traceable IP addresses unable to convince him. He
projects his own lack of a life on others, and this combined with his
refusal to concede he is wrong about anything suggests a person who is
seriously disturbed.
My imaginary passport stamps and forged Internet posts:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/quack01.jpg/
And an imaginary out of season stock photo:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3116/quack10.jpg
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
MattB
May 14, 2012, 3:08:41 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:58:22 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:36:13 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't believe the government should interfere with polygamy. As for
>>>> children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore afforded
>>>> protection under the law.
>>>
>>>We seem to have had a plethora of blue moons recently, once again I find
>>>myself in agreement with you. :)
>>
>> Yes myself as well. Scary.
>
>Multiple wives does contain a "compelling state interest" because of
>any number of things--including legal ramifications of passing down
>property and wealth, to simply good social policy.
>
>The Mormon Church recognized that fact a long time ago---and
>dissidents like rumney''s grandfather left here to evade the stigma
>and our laws.
OK SO??????
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:36:13 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't believe the government should interfere with polygamy. As for
>>>> children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore afforded
>>>> protection under the law.
>>>
>>>We seem to have had a plethora of blue moons recently, once again I find
>>>myself in agreement with you. :)
>>
>> Yes myself as well. Scary.
>
>any number of things--including legal ramifications of passing down
>property and wealth, to simply good social policy.
>
>The Mormon Church recognized that fact a long time ago---and
>dissidents like rumney''s grandfather left here to evade the stigma
>and our laws.
OK SO??????
MattB
May 14, 2012, 3:10:15 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:55:35 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:47:09 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@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
>government larger than necessary and was, in fact, agreed on.
Well I consider Islamist to be lowlife pigs that eat dog.
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:47:09 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@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.
>
>
>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
>>>A law passed (more government) where no problem existed, and couldn't
>>
>> Well they may not have agreed.
>
>government larger than necessary and was, in fact, agreed on.
Well I consider Islamist to be lowlife pigs that eat dog.
MattB
May 14, 2012, 3:20:51 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:53:09 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:54:20 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I making fun of you
>>
>> OK Your a Black Bully. Yes I have seen them Which one are you.
>
>You do understand that "black bullies" have been, and are now
>outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
Seattle Bus Attack
http://youtu.be/UzBEmL7gp4I
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:54:20 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I making fun of you
>>
>> OK Your a Black Bully. Yes I have seen them Which one are you.
>
>outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
Seattle Bus Attack
http://youtu.be/UzBEmL7gp4I
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 3:24:09 PM5/14/12
to
On 05/14/2012 02:20 PM, MattB wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:53:09 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:54:20 -0700, MattB
>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I making fun of you
>>>
>>> OK Your a Black Bully. Yes I have seen them Which one are you.
>>
>> You do understand that "black bullies" have been, and are now
>> outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
I would be interested in seeing you support this assertion.
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:53:09 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:54:20 -0700, MattB
>> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I making fun of you
>>>
>>> OK Your a Black Bully. Yes I have seen them Which one are you.
>>
>> You do understand that "black bullies" have been, and are now
>> outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
Phlip
May 14, 2012, 3:43:22 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 6:39 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> 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.
Three Republican freshmen in the New Hampshire state legislature are
> 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.
introducing a measure requiring that all new bills be justified by
direct quotations from the British Magna Carta of eight centuries ago.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/01/05/trio-of-kooky-legislators-demand-that-new-state-laws-be-based-on-magna-carta-of-800-years-ago/
Now; you were saying..?
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 4:49:37 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:58:22 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:36:13 -0700, MattB
> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:36:13 -0700, MattB
> <trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't believe the government should interfere with polygamy. As
>>>> for children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore
>>>> afforded protection under the law.
>>>
>>>We seem to have had a plethora of blue moons recently, once again I
>>>find myself in agreement with you. :)
>>
>> Yes myself as well. Scary.
>
>>>> for children, they are incapable of giving consent, and therefore
>>>> afforded protection under the law.
>>>
>>>We seem to have had a plethora of blue moons recently, once again I
>>>find myself in agreement with you. :)
>>
>> Yes myself as well. Scary.
>
> Multiple wives does contain a "compelling state interest" because of any
> number of things--including legal ramifications of passing down property
> and wealth, to simply good social policy.
Polygamy would entail an extension of familial rights, and it would still
> number of things--including legal ramifications of passing down property
> and wealth, to simply good social policy.
be up to individual families to determine inheritance, next-of-kin status
and the like.
The Mormons were coerced into renouncing polygamy--having fled the United
States once (to Utah) they were given the choice of accepting a Christian
imposition on secular law, or fleeing again.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
MattB
May 14, 2012, 7:39:04 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:24:09 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:
Yes it would. Just not with his normal Rhetoric BS.
He'll need to go back years and years. That is how liberals excuse
terrorist murders too.
wrote:
He'll need to go back years and years. That is how liberals excuse
terrorist murders too.
MattB
May 14, 2012, 7:51:13 PM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Matt
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 2:40 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>> >>>>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> >>>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?
>> >> 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.
>
>Matt
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 2:40 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:44:08 -0700, MattB wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>> >>>>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> >>>> islamic-law
>>
>> >>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>>
>> >>>The article says that the bill would prohibit courts from considering
>>
>> >>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>>
>> >>>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
>> >> Tell me are liberals nor going to promote one religion over
>> >> another.
>>
>> >> 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.
>
>Matt
MattB
May 14, 2012, 8:13:41 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:40:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:20:51 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>You do understand that "black bullies" have been, and are now
>>>outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
>>
>> Seattle Bus Attack
>
>Still with the anecdotal evidence?
Pure video hard to dispute so you go with "anecdotal evidence" LOL
>
>Look up the efficacy of that in a legal sense.
This is not a legal forum if so you are very guilty of perjury.
ROFL
My Stalker you have a nice day.
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:20:51 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>You do understand that "black bullies" have been, and are now
>>>outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
>>
>> Seattle Bus Attack
>
Pure video hard to dispute so you go with "anecdotal evidence" LOL
>
>Look up the efficacy of that in a legal sense.
This is not a legal forum if so you are very guilty of perjury.
ROFL
My Stalker you have a nice day.
MattB
May 14, 2012, 8:14:16 PM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Matt
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 1:44 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>> >>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> >> islamic-law
>>
>> >> [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
>
>Thank you, because that is one line I PROMSE I'm going to reprint
>over and over.
>
>Christians are not religious nor lawful. Thanks.
Where does it say that? Good job your one of those atheist that
is actually religious. I see..
No person should be required to follow Christian teaching, Muslim
teachings or wicca for that matter.
Many atheist worship a blank wall. OK.
>
>Matt
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 1:44 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>> >>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> >> islamic-law
>>
>> >> [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
>
>over and over.
>
>Christians are not religious nor lawful. Thanks.
Where does it say that? Good job your one of those atheist that
is actually religious. I see..
No person should be required to follow Christian teaching, Muslim
teachings or wicca for that matter.
Many atheist worship a blank wall. OK.
>
>Matt
MattB
May 14, 2012, 8:24:51 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:31:28 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:10:15 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A "Conservative foundational block" is a fundamental
>>>"PRINCIPLE"---which conservatives rest their ideological beliefs
>>>on---namely---"GOVERNMENT SIZE and SCOPE"
>>
>> So Rhetoric. OK
>
>It is a statement of conservative PRINCIPLES
OK so again you claim all Conservatives are 100% alike. OK
These video show you I guess.
>
>It is referred to consistently by Conservatives
>
>Are you now claiming that conservatism's "principles" are nothing but
>Rhetoric?
Some are. The Tea Party is full of it. They and you are much
alike in method. You and Richard Steel could be brothers.
>
>Go ahead
>
>I'll let you.
Sorry no one needs your permission. Now better call Matt to defend
you. You need the help.
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:10:15 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A "Conservative foundational block" is a fundamental
>>>"PRINCIPLE"---which conservatives rest their ideological beliefs
>>>on---namely---"GOVERNMENT SIZE and SCOPE"
>>
>> So Rhetoric. OK
>
OK so again you claim all Conservatives are 100% alike. OK
These video show you I guess.
>
>It is referred to consistently by Conservatives
>
>Are you now claiming that conservatism's "principles" are nothing but
>Rhetoric?
Some are. The Tea Party is full of it. They and you are much
alike in method. You and Richard Steel could be brothers.
>
>Go ahead
>
>I'll let you.
Sorry no one needs your permission. Now better call Matt to defend
you. You need the help.
David Hartung
May 14, 2012, 9:03:21 PM5/14/12
to
On 05/14/2012 05:44 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:24:09 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:24:09 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> You do understand that "black bullies" have been, and are now
>>>> outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
>>
>> I would be interested in seeing you support this assertion.
>
> Start with the number of lynchings, beatings, disfranchisement,
>>>> outnumbered millions to 1 by white bullies, don't you?
>>
>> I would be interested in seeing you support this assertion.
>
> intimidation, just in the lasy 80 years
How many is that? Specifics? Cites?
> Press on to the dogs, beatings, Tear gas, hatred shown in faces of
> thousands and thousands of Southern whites (Pettis Bridge)
Once again, sourced specifics?
> Peruse any overview of the Civil RIghts era and the massive attacks in
> congress on equality, civil rights, and the threats to the Warren USSC
> members.
Still no specifics.
> On to the present where even John AssCroft was suing to stop
> integration in his state
Once again, no source.
> and finally to the last 20 years of the Republican agenda attacking
> the Civil Rights Act, the voting rights act, and all associated things
> minorities and blacks suffer daily
Still no sourced specifics.
> Think you can do that Hartung?
It looks to me as if you are unable to support your claims, as usual.
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 9:20:00 PM5/14/12
to
You really don't know much about the American legal system, do you?
>
>
>>Matt
2966 Dead
May 14, 2012, 9:27:25 PM5/14/12
to
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?
MattB
May 14, 2012, 11:03:05 PM5/14/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 01:27:25 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
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.
The followers of Islam I knew from Florida were a good people. They
rejected the Radical Islamist teaching.
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:10:15 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:55:35 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:47:09 -0700, MattB
>>><trdel...@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
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:10:15 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:55:35 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 10:47:09 -0700, MattB
>>><trdel...@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.
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.
>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?
The followers of Islam I knew from Florida were a good people. They
rejected the Radical Islamist teaching.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
MattB
May 15, 2012, 12:18:33 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:58:14 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:39:04 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@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.
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:39:04 -0700, MattB
><trdel...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I would be interested in seeing you support this assertion.
>>
>>
>> Yes it would. Just not with his normal Rhetoric BS.
>
>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.
Mitchell Holman
May 15, 2012, 9:19:31 AM5/15/12
to
David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
news:IMGdnW0VuJwjkyzS...@giganews.com:
> On 05/14/2012 08:51 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
>> news:YfednYsxuPWRmizS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> 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.
news:IMGdnW0VuJwjkyzS...@giganews.com:
> On 05/14/2012 08:51 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
>> news:YfednYsxuPWRmizS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> 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.
Mitchell Holman
May 15, 2012, 9:28:55 AM5/15/12
to
2966 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:jor8nu$vll$2...@dont-email.me:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:04:59 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2012 08:45 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:39:09 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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 Mon, 14 May 2012 09:04:59 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2012 08:45 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:39:09 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/13/2012 12:33 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-
> bans-
>>>>> islamic-law
>>>>>
>>>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian
>>>>> law?]
>>>>>
>>>>> Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>>>> On 05/13/2012 12:33 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-
> bans-
>>>>> islamic-law
>>>>>
>>>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian
>>>>> 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?
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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"?
Message has been deleted
David Hartung
May 15, 2012, 10:16:46 AM5/15/12
to
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.
2966 Dead
May 15, 2012, 10:21:07 AM5/15/12
to
Dänk 42Ø
May 15, 2012, 2:05:59 PM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:04:01 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 00:11:00 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>> 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.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/anti-sharia-
victory-in-kansas.html
"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 Mon, 14 May 2012 00:11:00 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:14:21 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>>>>
>>>>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-
> bans-
>>>>> islamic-law
>>>>>
>>>>> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
>>>>
> bans-
>>>>> islamic-law
>>>>>
>>>>> [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,
>>>> Sharia for legal decisions. Not just Sharia, but ANY non-U.S. law.
>>>
>>> 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.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/anti-sharia-
victory-in-kansas.html
"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."
Message has been deleted
2966 Dead
May 15, 2012, 2:49:56 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:46:30 -0600, Yoorghis 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.
>
> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens to
> enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>
> It's a no brainer. THere is no evidence that religion of any kind ever
> healed anyone.
Agreed, but consenting adults have the right to refuse medical care.
> assume?
> 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.
>
>
> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>
> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens to
> enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
>
>>Faith healing is another matter, one with which I struggle.
>
> Why would you "struggle"?
>>Faith healing is another matter, one with which I struggle.
>
>
> It's a no brainer. THere is no evidence that religion of any kind ever
> healed anyone.
Agreed, but consenting adults have the right to refuse medical care.
>
>>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
>>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.
>
> assume?
MattB
May 15, 2012, 3:11:05 PM5/15/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:34:50 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>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
iQEVAwUBT7KqM8WS2LJiC1vxAQjY5QgAv5lrrh8Jgt/bWwj1hVpmaGm45hoDUITz
p/IlNHOAA7cK04aErY+s3rVvyDu/1F3SHvbam6BPFy5/A6D3TcpyCd9S1354pKNU
albRu8gdzc9b/2X1+dmfn5Rhn8MadbO2zxbHhpCb23gXrsW5cWckvIR9NAIvY2C5
184mdok2Y22O+eSMUA0DSw/GQh9qf2ZsEIXbXHxwOHxyWZ7yraWrF3pRN/BfzTSa
vfhaFlcb/zn5iEdEgOUkeoMQ9oYvIHbO/8w4VeKUCvRP2cP7s0L1tCddeLKJeoN8
EKncfT17DkNlnYjt+fz6LcOCi8ffA1FM6vk4hgDheU5Kzhy5f2QMAA==
=j8pr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:34:50 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>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
iQEVAwUBT7KqM8WS2LJiC1vxAQjY5QgAv5lrrh8Jgt/bWwj1hVpmaGm45hoDUITz
p/IlNHOAA7cK04aErY+s3rVvyDu/1F3SHvbam6BPFy5/A6D3TcpyCd9S1354pKNU
albRu8gdzc9b/2X1+dmfn5Rhn8MadbO2zxbHhpCb23gXrsW5cWckvIR9NAIvY2C5
184mdok2Y22O+eSMUA0DSw/GQh9qf2ZsEIXbXHxwOHxyWZ7yraWrF3pRN/BfzTSa
vfhaFlcb/zn5iEdEgOUkeoMQ9oYvIHbO/8w4VeKUCvRP2cP7s0L1tCddeLKJeoN8
EKncfT17DkNlnYjt+fz6LcOCi8ffA1FM6vk4hgDheU5Kzhy5f2QMAA==
=j8pr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Hartung
May 15, 2012, 3:22:26 PM5/15/12
to
On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
> 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.
>
>> 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
>
> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
marriage?
> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.
Phlip
May 15, 2012, 3:25:02 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 12:22 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> > Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>
> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
> marriage?
The former leads to children without a mommy AND a daddy. (Daddy's off
> > Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.
>
> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
> marriage?
boinking the next young wife.)
wy
May 15, 2012, 3:29:56 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
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 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
>
> > 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?
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?
David Hartung
May 15, 2012, 3:36:28 PM5/15/12
to
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
> 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?
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?
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?
wy
May 15, 2012, 4:43:20 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 3:36 pm, 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.
So on the one hand you say that you didn't say that same sex marriage
> 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.
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?
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.
Marriage - it's way too overrated.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
2966 Dead
May 15, 2012, 6:12:18 PM5/15/12
to
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>
> 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.
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 14:22:26 -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
>
>>>> 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?
>
> 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.
>>> 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?
>
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.
David Hartung
May 15, 2012, 8:36:32 PM5/15/12
to
On 05/15/2012 04:56 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:36:28 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
>
> 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.
> so. (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
> things they don't like)
As usual, your arguments lack any sort of sense.
> 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".
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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
>>
>>>>> 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?
>
> so. (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
> things they don't like)
As usual, your arguments lack any sort of sense.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
NoBody
May 16, 2012, 5:53:28 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:02:11 -0600, Yoor...@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 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.
>
>"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...
NoBody
May 16, 2012, 5:54:15 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:56:19 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:36:28 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>>
>
>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?
>
>>>>> 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.
>so. (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
>things they don't like)
NoBody
May 17, 2012, 5:24:55 AM5/17/12
to
Milt
May 17, 2012, 9:36:09 AM5/17/12
to
On May 13, 3:44 pm, MattB <trdell1...@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
> >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.
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29:29 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkle.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
> >>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> >> islamic-law
>
> >> [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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:33:10 +0000, 2966 Dead quacked:
>
> >>http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> >> islamic-law
>
> >> [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.
>
> >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.
Milt
May 17, 2012, 9:31:30 AM5/17/12
to
On May 13, 1:33 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> islamic-law
>
> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
Actually, they already have.
> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
> islamic-law
>
> [Zeppnote: so when are they going to ban Jewish and Christian law?]
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.
>
> Kansas Bans Islamic Law
>
> By Kevin Murphy, Reuters
>
> 13 May 12
>
> 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
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Subscribe:
> zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
2966 Dead
May 17, 2012, 10:31:27 AM5/17/12
to
court.
2966 Dead
May 17, 2012, 10:32:27 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 06:31:30 -0700, Milt wrote:
> On May 13, 1:33 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> islamic-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.
So Kansas has banned the Ten Commandments.
> On May 13, 1:33 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11405-kansas-bans-
>> islamic-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.
Cool.
0 new messages