Well Eric I think you need to go back and research your source of putting the Torah and Sharia Law into the same pot, isn't there, you need to do some more study.
Jerry -----Original Message----- From: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com [mailto:missourilibertycoalit...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Vought Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:02 PM To: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [MoLiCo] Oklahoma Calls Ban on Islamic Law a 'Preemptive Strike' On Jun 17, 2010, at 6:15 AM, Jerry Blevins wrote: > Are you nuts!!!!!! Perhaps, but I am also quite serious. Do you believe that the Constitution only applies when you want it to? Do you believe that it is meant to stop liberals from implementing bad ideas they think are 'justified' by their ideology but that 'conservatives' are not bound by it and don't have terrible ideas they also think are 'justified'? How can you possibly consider outlawing the use of Sharia, which is itself based on Torah, and not think it will affect Christians and Jews? Law is always a two-edged sword. Many atheists want strict separation of church and state because they see religious doctrine as 'creeping insidiously' into public life. By barring it completely, religious nuts won't be able to force their irrational Christian beliefs on free-thinking atheists. This the EXACT SAME twisted logic 'Christians' are using here against Muslims and it leads to the same place. "But that's different!" is the battle cry of a liberal. > -----Original Message----- > From: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com > [mailto:missourilibertycoalit...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric > Vought > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:23 PM > To: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [MoLiCo] Oklahoma Calls Ban on Islamic Law a 'Preemptive > Strike' > > > On Jun 16, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Fred B. Ellison wrote (quoting ABC > news): > [snip] >> Oklahoma Law May Not Be Constitutional >> Legal experts contacted by ABC News said they did not know of one >> instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a >> decision. >> >> "Cases of first impression are rare," said Jim Cohen, a professor at >> the Fordham University School of Law in New York City, adding, "I >> have never heard of a case" involving sharia. >> Cohen added that he questions whether the proposed amendment would >> pass constitutional muster. > [snip] > > Why would we oppose an Unconstitutional takeover of GM or our > Healthcare and SUPPORT an Unconstitutional strong-arming of the > courts? > > The problem with this idea is that if it is right to pass this, then > it is right to pass a lot of other things. The Constitution is meant > to help save us from our own good intentions--- good intentions that > often have bad consequences. > > First of all, cases of first impression ARE rare and are also > therefore unusual. This means that, in order for a judge to reach that > far for insight, they need to have some reason to do so (and relying > on external precedent opens up their decision to appeal, so they are > already reluctant to do it). Additionally is the problem that many > LIBERTY-ORIENTED GROUPS are working on local arbitration systems to > keep small and local business from having to take disputes into the > courts. That means that these locals may be consensually relying on, > say, arbitration by local pastors under Old Testament Law/Torah. > Passing and relying on a banning of the use of Sharia law in these > cases might set a precedent for not allowing precedents from Torah > (which is itself the precedent for Sharia) to influence rulings EVEN > THOUGH THE PARTIES MAY HAVE CONSENSUALLY AGREED TO IT BEFORE HAND > before arbitration failed and they ended up in the courts. That sounds > to me like 'a law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging > the free exercise thereof'. > > Now, as an additional problem, forbidding the use of international > precedent also likewise has potential bad consequences in the rare > case (and cases of first impression are unusual themselves) when a > local company is interacting with a foreign company or one affiliated > with a foreign company. Again, certain international precedents might > have been agreed between the parties before they ended up in court. I > have personally seen this kind of thing with IT clients doing offshore > development (often through a locally incorporated US agent) or > foreign companies contracting US work. Disallowing that comes down to > forbidding their right to contract, which I believe, comes ahead of > your right to be paranoid about an international religious conspiracy > in a country with nominal freedom of religion. > > Now, I will agree that Oklahoma's law against illegal aliens has > worked fairly well for them, and that is one reason I am warming up to > Arizona's new law. > > Sincerely, > > Eric Vought > "Faith does not absolve us from trying to understand our world and > make moral distinctions with the eyes and brain given us. Religion is > as much responsibility as direction: Duty not Distinction." > > -- > This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no > responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its > members. > If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, > ignore it or > leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do > not, you > will be here forever. > > -- > This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no > responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its > members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to > trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for > yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever. Sincerely, Eric Vought "Faith does not absolve us from trying to understand our world and make moral distinctions with the eyes and brain given us. Religion is as much responsibility as direction: Duty not Distinction." -- This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever. -- This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever.
