Welp the people who have final say over how the Constitution is interpreted have upheld that opinion, sooooooo....
- Status
Welp the people who have final say over how the Constitution is interpreted have upheld that opinion, sooooooo....
As are many other mainstream religions.
Again, what about cultural defenses that are used much more often than Sharia Law? Unlike Sharia Law, many of them have not been overturned (and in some cases, not even challenged).
As for doing business globally, I assume that most here have no experience in that.
I've said it many times in many places. I do not believe that Sharia Law or other cultural defenses should be used in Oklahoma Courts. However, I cannot support State Question 755 in its current form.
Those who wrote 755 were more concerned with international laws being applied in okla. Do we really need the world court in the Hag to set what laws Okla should use ? As in if a foreigner kills someone in Okla the Hag law would say we can not try him as he is not our citizen .
Actually, if a foreigner killed someone in OKLA, he would be subject to OKLA's law.
Do you really see no difference between Islamic intolerance and the "intolerance" of other religions? Atrocities have been committed in the name of all religions but are aberrations except for Islam where they are promoted by Islamic scriptures.
You may well be correct on the other points but to me they are dwarfed by the aggressive threat posed by Islam. Perhaps I'm being narrow sighted, but I see resisting the spread of Islam as being of prime importance.
How many of those other religions are killing people today in the name of their religion?
Yes Sir, I have to say you're right.
In the United States in recent years, its generally been confined to bombing abortion centers and murdering abortion doctors. In other countries, namely Ireland, motives are more varied.
One other thought on this issue:
The reason that I felt a moral obligation to not vote for something that is unconstitutional is the "Do unto others...." principle. This is precisely what the ******* hoplophobe gun banner types do (politicians and their supporters) - they pass all manner of gun bans that come down the pike, with nary a thought for the 2nd amendment and constitutionality of it all. And it's wrong and unprincipled (perhaps) to do that.
HOWEVER, there's one huge difference between the two things. There's a tremendous difference in the quantity of 1A vs. 2A jurisprudence, because there has always been (for some odd reason) a tremendous difference in the willingness of the SCOTUS to grant cert on 1A vs. 2A issues and make decisions protecting the right and fleshing out their outer limits.
In short, the SCOTUS has abdicated its duty to address 2A issues, and strike hundreds and hundreds of unconstitutional laws over the years, for more than 65 years continuously, until Heller and McDonald. In light of this, it is particularly egregious and bad to pass any kind of gun restriction, constitutional (arguably) or not, because once passed, the courts just frankly WON'T address it (at least Pre-Heller). The 1A is completely different. There are anywhere from a handful to dozens of SCOTUS and circuit court and state supreme court decisions every year which address the establishment clause issues and the many other 1A issues - it's extremely common in the courts, and thus we have a huge body of caselaw on it.
In light of this glaring discrepancy, maybe it makes sense to vote for something in the 1A area that you think is a good idea, even if you think it may be or even probably is unconstitutional, and let the courts decide the constitutional issues, as intended by the framers. But in gun cases, where there's an abdication of duty by the courts, very different.
That is all.
I suppose I'll just abstain on this one.
P.S. Wikipedia entries vary greatly in their quality/accuracy. That one on the establishment clause is rather paltry and tending toward the weak/incomplete side, at first glance, even a bit misleading/erroneous perhaps - so don't put too much stock in that without reading some more - good starting point though.
The reason that I felt a moral obligation to not vote for something that is unconstitutional is the "Do unto others...." principle. This is precisely what the ******* hoplophobe gun banner types do (politicians and their supporters) - they pass all manner of gun bans that come down the pike, with nary a thought for the 2nd amendment and constitutionality of it all. And it's wrong and unprincipled (perhaps) to do that.
HOWEVER, there's one huge difference between the two things. There's a tremendous difference in the quantity of 1A vs. 2A jurisprudence, because there has always been (for some odd reason) a tremendous difference in the willingness of the SCOTUS to grant cert on 1A vs. 2A issues and make decisions protecting the right and fleshing out their outer limits.
In short, the SCOTUS has abdicated its duty to address 2A issues, and strike hundreds and hundreds of unconstitutional laws over the years, for more than 65 years continuously, until Heller and McDonald. In light of this, it is particularly egregious and bad to pass any kind of gun restriction, constitutional (arguably) or not, because once passed, the courts just frankly WON'T address it (at least Pre-Heller). The 1A is completely different. There are anywhere from a handful to dozens of SCOTUS and circuit court and state supreme court decisions every year which address the establishment clause issues and the many other 1A issues - it's extremely common in the courts, and thus we have a huge body of caselaw on it.
In light of this glaring discrepancy, maybe it makes sense to vote for something in the 1A area that you think is a good idea, even if you think it may be or even probably is unconstitutional, and let the courts decide the constitutional issues, as intended by the framers. But in gun cases, where there's an abdication of duty by the courts, very different.
That is all.
I suppose I'll just abstain on this one.
P.S. Wikipedia entries vary greatly in their quality/accuracy. That one on the establishment clause is rather paltry and tending toward the weak/incomplete side, at first glance, even a bit misleading/erroneous perhaps - so don't put too much stock in that without reading some more - good starting point though.
- Status
Similar threads
