Tennyson
Senior Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 310
- 12
- 51
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.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.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.
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.
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.
That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.
The case is S.D. v. M.J.R. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.