Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Tennyson]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats. In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims. Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting. No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans? To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?

Dear Sneekin
My point exactly!

The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
where the whole compels the individual to comply.

The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.

So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
consent and authority of the people.

Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
(which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).

Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
these political beliefs, because
A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.

I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
but TRULY what they believe. If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.

Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.

What I think we really need is a
TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.

once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
each other's beliefs,
maybe we can map out
how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.

What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.

That's where I think this conversation
and this country
are heading. We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.

Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

 

[emilynghiem]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Dear Tennyson

If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.

 

[Sneekin]

Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times? What if I don't like the term Civil Unions? Can I call it Fried Cauliflower? Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other. Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony. Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different. If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married, you aren't legally married. So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent). I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group. Check the Loving case and educate yourself. You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional). Are you willing to personally fund this? Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently. Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights. You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk. We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.

You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.

Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers. I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack. Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal" Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending. Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000. She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny? I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine. You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning. Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence? Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase. I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word. Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally. He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address ALL religious or cult abuse (or domestic and relationship abuse)
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.

Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.

The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband. The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law, In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts. The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats. In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims. Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting. No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans? To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?

Dear Sneekin
My point exactly!

The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
where the whole compels the individual to comply.

The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.

So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
consent and authority of the people.

Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
(which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).

Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
these political beliefs, because
A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.

I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
but TRULY what they believe. If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.

Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.

What I think we really need is a
TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.

once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
each other's beliefs,
maybe we can map out
how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.

What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.

That's where I think this conversation
and this country
are heading. We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.

Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.

Dear Tennyson To some people, this is like teaching the Bible comes from God and applies to all people by nature. that the Law represented by "the Lord" governs all people under Jesus as Justice.

Some people do NOT believe in the social contract theory.
This isn't just ignorance or being propagandized into a cultlike belief against this,
as some people TRULY do NOT believe in a personified God
and aren't just rebelling against theists and Christianity for personal or political reasons.

Some people really DO have such beliefs
other than how you and I see and teach it based on history.

Christians believe they are teaching history also, when using the Bible, and not a belief system.

But even where people agree to use the Bible as an authority,
some believers, some Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses only follow
the Bible and Jesus teachings as Natural Law
and don't relate to the Divine Law or Divinity of God incarnated in Jesus Christ.

And same with Constitutional laws,
Some only believe and follow the letter where if the court or president issues a "decree"
then since that official was elected or appointed, that makes it "law."
Whatever Congress or states pass, that is automatically "law" by majority rule.

If that is where their BELIEFS are,
and some are inherent and cannot change
while perhaps some CAN change just like people CAN adopt Christian faith if they decide to,
then this happens by FREE CHOICE
and can't be forced on people by govt.

However Tennyson, as my question to Boss
What if these secularists DO believe that Govt has the right to dictate secular beliefs for them?
Then if they AGREE govt has authority to establish beliefs,
don't these citizens have the right to choose to be imposed upon?

It may be against your and my beliefs as Constitutionalists.
But if they AGREE that this godlike Govt has the divine right to rule over them,
why not give them what they ask?

 

[Sneekin]

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

Actually, Freedom from religion is the same as freedom OF religion - they both fall under the free exercise clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times? What if I don't like the term Civil Unions? Can I call it Fried Cauliflower? Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other. Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony. Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different. If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married, you aren't legally married. So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent). I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group. Check the Loving case and educate yourself. You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional). Are you willing to personally fund this? Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently. Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights. You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk. We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.

You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.

Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers. I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack. Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal" Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending. Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000. She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny? I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine. You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning. Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence? Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase. I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word. Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally. He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address ALL religious or cult abuse (or domestic and relationship abuse)
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.

Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.

The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband. The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law, In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts. The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.

Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts. But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.

I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.

In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.

I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.

 

[Sneekin]

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Really? You mean our founding fathers and the Supreme Court were wrong? Please provide the portion of the constitution that requires a person to belong to a religion- and remember, as has been stated by Atheists for years, Atheism is NOT a religion. Proof - put up, or shut up. Once again, you don't know what you are speaking about.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

Actually, Freedom from religion is the same as freedom OF religion - they both fall under the free exercise clause.

Dear Sneekin Yes and No
"neither establishing or prohibiting" are two different things.
so technically it's "freedom of or from religion"
if you want to make it one thing.

What's funny is some people combine
"right to assemble and to petition" as one thing
but I see three things:
right to assemble peaceably, which I also interpret loosely as right to security,
right to petition for redress of grievances (where I don't believe in abusing laws to obstruct justice
and prevent someone from resolving their grievance, or that's violating civil rights by my standards)
or both together as right to assemble and to petition as collectively negotiating.

 

[Sneekin]

Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.

That's a big crock of BS. It's used all the time in NY divorce courts. Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law. It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods. It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc. Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc. Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly. Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger). These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill. We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X". i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of. New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law. In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.

I believe using google for a law degee has confused you.

You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.

Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.

Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

While you may have graduated from Trump U or Google U, the rest of us attended real law school, and quoted real attorneys and quoting actual case law. Now pull your head out of where it's obviously at right now, I confuse nothing. Apparently you have. That's ok, little one. Maybe one of your offspring may actually have the intelligence to pass the LSAT. You, apparently, cannot even spell it, and sleep with a picture of Antonin under your pillow. Be a good boy, and let the adults talk. Everyone is sick and tired of your grandstanding and false facts. Maybe you could get out of the basement and ask your mommy if you could go and play with your friends.

No one but you has claimed Sharia is a religion but you yourself, foolish one. It is the sum total of the Sunna and Qur'an, fool, and is the religious LAW of Muslims. The fact you are so ignorant that you claim Muslims hack off hands or stone to death clearly outlines your stupidity. Sharia is deeply intertwined with Islam, and courts have ruled NUMEROUS (hint, that means many) TIMES based on Sharia Law in American courts. Call the Attorney who's name I mentioned, and ask him to explain it to you in monosyllabic terms, because it's quite apparent you lack even a modicum of intelligence when it comes to the law. Sharia is used in tandem with US law, fool, and not an intrusion. Examples given, you failed to understand, as usual. Be a good boy, and be gone. We grow weary of your continued bloviating.

Your post makes no sense, is devoid of an argument to my post, and demonstrates your are over your depth. That is par for someone trying to convince everyone on the Internet that they are an attorney.

You are definitely some random internet troll, boring, and a waste of time. Your only goal is to distrupt threads and insult. Those déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen on the Internet.

Sorry, Troll, I get paid to teach Law at a prominent school. We already knew that your déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen - on the net, AND in real life. Troll away, little boy - you are so far out of your depth it's not funny.

 

[emilynghiem]

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Really? You mean our founding fathers and the Supreme Court were wrong? Please provide the portion of the constitution that requires a person to belong to a religion- and remember, as has been stated by Atheists for years, Atheism is NOT a religion. Proof - put up, or shut up. Once again, you don't know what you are speaking about.

Yes and no Sneekin and Tennyson
some people ARE literalists and require the Govt or Constitution
to specifically state "political creed" or "secular belief" or it doesn't count to them as under "free exercise of religion"

I have run into literalists here who cannot make that leap.
I know, I know.
I can't stand that either that we don't believe the same things,
and can't "interpret the law" to already protect beliefs whether religious, political or secular.

Grieves me that we have to go through a whole process to write a law
or have a court or govt ruling to resolve this issue of interpretation.

But I ran into this wall with other liberals, who depend on govt
to spell out and interpret it that way, before they feel it is part of the law.

I keep hoping there's a short cut, like interpreting "no discrimination by creed"
to open up the interpretation to include all beliefs, and not just organized religions.

Do we REALLY have to have a federal lawsuit go all the way to the Supreme Court
before it's "okay" to interpret beliefs religions and creeds to include ALL people's???

 

[Sneekin]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats. In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims. Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting. No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans? To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?

Dear Sneekin
My point exactly!

The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
where the whole compels the individual to comply.

The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.

So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
consent and authority of the people.

Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
(which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).

Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
these political beliefs, because
A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.

I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
but TRULY what they believe. If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.

Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.

What I think we really need is a
TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.

once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
each other's beliefs,
maybe we can map out
how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.

What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.

That's where I think this conversation
and this country
are heading. We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.

Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.

Sure Tennyson I'm okay with that.
And the 10th Amendment on the rights reserved to people and states
leaves it open for people to agree to social contracts among them that the State law then reflects.

So the people to state relationship mirrors the state to federal relationship.

I have no problem with that.

Question: Do you believe the balances of power was thrown off by
* Senators getting elected by people instead of appointed by the State to balance the House Reps?
* the Pres and VP coming from the same ticket/part instead of first and second place winner of votes?

 

[emilynghiem]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

Dear Sneekin I don't think Tennyson is either a liar or a troll.
I think we are all actively engaging in sharing what we really know about history and past interpretations.

If someone is overstating their point despite flaws, that might be just how they communicate.

Nobody here is a troll that I can see, but as I defined it before,
I reserve the word troll for those who blindly post and have no intention of responding or engaging.
Clearly that's not the case here.

I see sincere people all stating what we know and believe.
But maybe we just express that in different styles of communicating.
I can live with that. I would take the worst flaws of anyone here
because the best of the content being shared is more than worth it!
Thanks!

 

[Sneekin]

Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times? What if I don't like the term Civil Unions? Can I call it Fried Cauliflower? Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other. Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony. Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different. If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married, you aren't legally married. So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent). I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group. Check the Loving case and educate yourself. You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional). Are you willing to personally fund this? Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently. Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights. You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk. We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.

You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.

Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers. I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack. Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal" Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending. Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000. She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny? I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine. You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning. Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence? Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase. I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word. Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally. He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address ALL religious or cult abuse (or domestic and relationship abuse)
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.

Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.

The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband. The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law, In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts. The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.

Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts. But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.

I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.

In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.

I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.

Emily, you are incorrect -

U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law — including Islamic law — to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute. Again, established case law. It's an actual requirement of the judicial system to incorporate it, in certain situations. And when it is applied, it must be applied correctly (ie, the original judge erroneously denied a restraining order because the husband believed something that was not a part of Shariah law, the Appellate court granted it, which is the correct way to go.

 

[Sneekin]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats. In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims. Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting. No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans? To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?

Dear Sneekin
My point exactly!

The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
where the whole compels the individual to comply.

The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.

So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
consent and authority of the people.

Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
(which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).

Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
these political beliefs, because
A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.

I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
but TRULY what they believe. If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.

Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.

What I think we really need is a
TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.

once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
each other's beliefs,
maybe we can map out
how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.

What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.

That's where I think this conversation
and this country
are heading. We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.

Even though Morris had to re-model the preamble because of New Jersey and he used a hint of Rousseau's social contract, the Constitution is a compact between the states. This is evidenced by the language in the preamble, the statements by the founders, and Article VII.

Sure Tennyson I'm okay with that.
And the 10th Amendment on the rights reserved to people and states
leaves it open for people to agree to social contracts among them that the State law then reflects.

So the people to state relationship mirrors the state to federal relationship.

I have no problem with that.

Question: Do you believe the balances of power was thrown off by
* Senators getting elected by people instead of appointed by the State to balance the House Reps?
* the Pres and VP coming from the same ticket/part instead of first and second place winner of votes?

Emily, I'd love to see the VP the second place winner of votes. I think the last 8 years would have been a lot smoother and a lot less finger pointing!

 

[Sneekin]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

Dear Sneekin I don't think Tennyson is either a liar or a troll.
I think we are all actively engaging in sharing what we really know about history and past interpretations.

If someone is overstating their point despite flaws, that might be just how they communicate.

Nobody here is a troll that I can see, but as I defined it before,
I reserve the word troll for those who blindly post and have no intention of responding or engaging.
Clearly that's not the case here.

I see sincere people all stating what we know and believe.
But maybe we just express that in different styles of communicating.
I can live with that. I would take the worst flaws of anyone here
because the best of the content being shared is more than worth it!
Thanks!

I'd like to believe you, Emily, but he's already driven a few people away. When asked simple questions, like sources, which he could have easily provided (or googled, if it actually existed, or via LexisNexis), he acts like the typical internet troll - "I know the answer, but I'm not telling". He also bullies whoever catches him in lies. Apparently that also frustrates him, because he's managed to state more and more erroneous information.

 

[emilynghiem]

You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.

Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers. I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack. Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal" Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending. Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000. She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny? I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine. You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning. Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence? Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase. I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word. Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally. He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address ALL religious or cult abuse (or domestic and relationship abuse)
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.

Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.

The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband. The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law, In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts. The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.

Hi Sneekin I don't really endorse the last part you added, having to disparage people if they are
ignorant of what Shariah means in different contexts. But the content of what you said, sure I agree with.

I don't agree with secular courts "incorporating Shariah Law" or having to use principles in Islam to check itself which is getting into the religion.
Govt is not supposed to be regulating religion, but enforcing civil and criminal laws for all citizens publicly.
The courts can use secular laws on abuse and show these are violations of civil law.

In private, sure, the local Imam or counselors could use the principles
they are committed to in order to rebuke and correct the wrongs.

I hoped you were just commenting on the side how this is consistent with Islamic principles
and not that the court really had to spell anything out using Islamic law. If the woman in her
defense explained it, that's her beliefs, but I don't think the court needed to incorporate that,
and just citing secular laws was better so they are policing those laws and not intervening and policing religion.

Emily, you are incorrect -

U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law — including Islamic law — to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute. Again, established case law. It's an actual requirement of the judicial system to incorporate it, in certain situations. And when it is applied, it must be applied correctly (ie, the original judge erroneously denied a restraining order because the husband believed something that was not a part of Shariah law, the Appellate court granted it, which is the correct way to go.

So this was an international case regarding foreign law?
In that case it is not "religious law" as in "free exercise of religion" which is private.

If you are using "Shariah" to mean the foreign law of a nation that mixes it with religion,
the mixture with religion is on their part. The tenets and principles are the "law of that nation,"
and not the global or personal "religion" which the govt does not govern.

Sorry I thought you were citing a local law involving a couple where the husband was citing
his "religious beliefs" so that's why I was WONDERING why would the US court make
ruling citing his personal religion instead of just citing secular laws that say the same thing.

Sorry and thanks for the clarification.

I'm not trying to insist on "something wrong" I am trying to find out what is "right"

 

[Tennyson]

PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!

They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s

These should be Removed or kept in private

And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares

It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

 

[Tennyson]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Dear Tennyson

If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.

Emily,

There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.