NYTimes Connections
- Proclivities - Mar 19, 2024 - 5:07am
Wordle - daily game
- Proclivities - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:46am
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great"
- miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
Radio Paradise Comments
- sunybuny - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:37am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:19am
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone
- Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
Trump
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 19, 2024 - 12:27am
Israel
- R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:09pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- fractalv - Mar 18, 2024 - 9:09pm
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many
- fractalv - Mar 18, 2024 - 9:08pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:24pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
Damn Dinosaurs!
- oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:00pm
Irony 101
- oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 7:55pm
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
Great guitar faces
- skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
The Obituary Page
- kurtster - Mar 18, 2024 - 1:51pm
Despots, dictators and war criminals
- R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
Uploading Music
- dischuckin - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:55am
Media Matters
- thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- jarro - Mar 18, 2024 - 6:37am
NASA & other news from space
- miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Mar 17, 2024 - 11:43am
Basketball
- geoff_morphini - Mar 17, 2024 - 11:11am
MEALTICKET
- drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
What makes you smile?
- Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Mar 16, 2024 - 2:07pm
Apple Computer
- GeneP59 - Mar 16, 2024 - 12:02pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 11:41am
Environment
- R_P - Mar 16, 2024 - 11:18am
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Mar 16, 2024 - 10:48am
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- lsiegel - Mar 16, 2024 - 8:12am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Mar 15, 2024 - 2:47pm
Joe Biden
- black321 - Mar 15, 2024 - 2:33pm
Artificial Intelligence
- miamizsun - Mar 15, 2024 - 12:15pm
the Todd Rundgren topic
- Steely_D - Mar 15, 2024 - 11:01am
Things You Thought Today
- kurtster - Mar 15, 2024 - 10:37am
Republican Party
- islander - Mar 15, 2024 - 9:08am
How's the weather?
- miamizsun - Mar 15, 2024 - 6:53am
Radio Paradise app on Android is broken
- timmus - Mar 15, 2024 - 5:25am
Ukraine
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 14, 2024 - 10:17pm
Democratic Party
- R_P - Mar 14, 2024 - 3:04pm
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader
- thisbody - Mar 14, 2024 - 2:00pm
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum
- thisbody - Mar 14, 2024 - 1:54pm
USA! USA! USA!
- thisbody - Mar 14, 2024 - 12:31pm
China
- R_P - Mar 14, 2024 - 11:52am
Android App Problems After Update
- jarro - Mar 14, 2024 - 12:58am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 13, 2024 - 11:59am
It's the economy stupid.
- kurtster - Mar 13, 2024 - 11:22am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 13, 2024 - 10:11am
Jazz channel?
- Steely_D - Mar 13, 2024 - 9:13am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Mar 13, 2024 - 2:01am
What Makes You Laugh?
- miamizsun - Mar 12, 2024 - 11:17am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- ScopPics - Mar 12, 2024 - 7:20am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- Beaker - Mar 11, 2024 - 12:37am
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •
- Red_Dragon - Mar 10, 2024 - 11:02am
female vocalists
- Steely_D - Mar 10, 2024 - 9:13am
New Music
- whatshisname - Mar 9, 2024 - 4:27pm
Other Medical Stuff
- Coaxial - Mar 9, 2024 - 1:09pm
Outstanding Covers
- skyguy - Mar 9, 2024 - 9:23am
Ridiculous or Funny Spam
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 9, 2024 - 8:31am
Oh dear god, BEES!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 9, 2024 - 8:24am
Maybe it's just the beer talking...
- Proclivities - Mar 8, 2024 - 12:04pm
History - lather, rinse, repeat.
- R_P - Mar 8, 2024 - 10:12am
Big Pharma
- black321 - Mar 8, 2024 - 9:33am
Can't find Radio 2050 in my Ocean Digital Tuner
- sjagminas1 - Mar 8, 2024 - 7:57am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Mar 7, 2024 - 6:50pm
Music Videos
- Red_Dragon - Mar 7, 2024 - 6:21pm
Climate Change
- Manbird - Mar 7, 2024 - 2:58pm
what else do you listen to? (RP alternatives)
- haresfur - Mar 7, 2024 - 1:43pm
~ Have a good joke you can post? ~
- black321 - Mar 7, 2024 - 12:17pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- oldviolin - Mar 7, 2024 - 11:56am
Did the punishment fit the Crime?
- oldviolin - Mar 7, 2024 - 11:43am
The US of A telling Russia not to invade Ukraine is like...
- GeneP59 - Mar 7, 2024 - 8:42am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Derplahoma and Other Points of Interest
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 76, 77, 78 Next |
islander
Location: Seattle Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 30, 2010 - 4:40pm |
|
kurtster wrote:
No, definitely not good for our country either. Besides, I love women.
Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that. That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.
But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution. I'm not quite sure which components you are referring to, but the first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". It rightly says that Congress (the State in this case) doesn't support or interfere with any religion directly. People can gather up under any peaceful cause they want and complain to their representatives without interference. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Sharia, like many other sets of "God's laws" has many different interpretations depending on if the followers are modernist, fundamentalist, evangelical...
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 30, 2010 - 12:55pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote:What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 30, 2010 - 12:50pm |
|
Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for: Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations. WTF ? This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 10:52am |
|
kurtster wrote:We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties. I know of no example. Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country. The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life. All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.
The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights. Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State.
For the most part that's true—international treaties have only indirect effects on people's behavior within a state*. Which makes the OK proposition both pointless and in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution. *One of the few areas where state law gets involved with treaties is in regard to extradition, tho usually the impact is the other way around—the state law can interfere with exercising a treaty.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 10:35am |
|
kurtster wrote: We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties. I know of no example. Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country. The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life. All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.
The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights. Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State.
I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution. To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable. If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers. There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems. Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way. A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them. To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the ERA Amendment.
I don't know of any specific examples, but I'm confident that there are any number of commerce treaties that have significant impact on businesses and individuals here in the US. If we sign a treaty that says we won't impose the death penalty, that would preclude any state from imposing the death penalty. If we sign a treaty that says we will no longer manufacture lead-based paint, then none of the states get to give any of their pet manufacturers a pass on the Pb. A treaty specifying we will sell stealth technology only to our NATO allies means companies that manufacture stealth components have some pretty significant restrictions on their sales and marketing. Again, I'm not in favor of Sharia law or any kind of "separate but equal" justice system in the US. We all need to be held to the same standards. I'm saying that the existing separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution already covers that. I'm saying that we don't need to keep proliferating laws to cover situations already covered under existing law. And I'm saying that logically if you're going to pass a law excluding one specific set of religious traditions from our judicial system, you need to exclude them all or it's discriminatory. You can't say "your religious traditions are unacceptable for our system of justice, but mine are okay". So instead of saying "Sharia law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Buddhist law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Jedi law is not to be used for judicial decisions", it's easier and fairer to stick with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I don't see how adding redundancy to the already burdensome body of law in this country is going to maximize my rights.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 10:14am |
|
winter wrote: My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own.
And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out.
I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties. I know of no example. Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country. The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life. All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution. The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights. Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution. To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable. If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers. There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems. Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way. A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them. To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the proposed ERA Amendment.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 9:19am |
|
winter wrote:I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already. Yes, it was. However, George did make exception to his principle concerning temporary alliances in time of war - as distinct from long-term alliances like say, NATO or the UN.
|
|
(former member)
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 9:17am |
|
buzz wrote: The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary. Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law? There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions.
I'd prefer my daughter live in country with laws based on logic, reason and equality not any religion. Too bad Vulcan is a made up place. Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time. Christianity, while its current practitioners are not as blatant about it, is just as misogynistic as Islam. Ever been a girl in a christian community? Its not a very equal place to be. That is one of the reasons I reject organized religion. I got tired of being told I was lesser because I had a uterus. At least I think I have one, I've never actually tested the theory. When was the last time you voted for someone who did as promised? I've always referred to elections as choosing the least of the evils. I wish we could execute reform guaranteeing us the right to a lobbyist free government; politicians who do as they are asked to by those they represent; justices who rule based on law and reason instead of their own personal agendas. It's bizarre that we even have to vote on this in any state. Why wouldn't ruling be based on our own laws? But then again, how many rulings are based on deals, agendas, personal views and political alliances? I know, I know. I 'm a dreamer.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 9:15am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?) You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 9:13am |
|
winter wrote:Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment. Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth. What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 9:09am |
|
buzz wrote: The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary. Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law? There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions.
My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own. And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out. I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.
|
|
buzz
Location: up the boohai
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 8:54am |
|
winter wrote:Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma? And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory. The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws. The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary. Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law? There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 8:45am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: Never did care much for article 6.
Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment. Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 8:34am |
|
winter wrote:Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma? And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory. The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws. Never did care much for article 6.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 8:09am |
|
kurtster wrote:Good for Oklahoma. This should be the United States' next Constitutional Amendment. The Oklahoma International Law Amendment will appear on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings. <1><2> Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma? And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory. The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws.
|
|
HazzeSwede
Location: Hammerdal Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 20, 2010 - 5:53am |
|
Manbird wrote: That depends on what the stone-throwers consume to provide their bodies energy to throw the stones. And how did they get to the stone-throwing site? Walk? Ride donkeys? Drive a 1969 Ford Galaxy 500? Are the stones man-made? Were they transported there or do they occur naturally in the immediate area?
See,these are the words from a thinking man ! Manbird for President and Chief of UN !
|
|
Manbird
Location: ? ? ? Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010 - 6:34pm |
|
kurtster wrote: You know, you are quite right about that. It is carbon neutral. Perhaps, I was too hasty. That depends on what the stone-throwers consume to provide their bodies energy to throw the stones. And how did they get to the stone-throwing site? Walk? Ride donkeys? Drive a 1969 Ford Galaxy 500? Are the stones man-made? Were they transported there or do they occur naturally in the immediate area?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010 - 6:18pm |
|
buzz wrote: cant we just make one little exception for honor killings? and maybe just one more so we can stone people to death. it is way more green than electrocution.
You know, you are quite right about that. It is carbon neutral. Perhaps, I was too hasty.
|
|
buzz
Location: up the boohai
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010 - 6:14pm |
|
kurtster wrote:
No, definitely not good for our country either. Besides, I love women.
Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that. That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.
But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution. cant we just make one little exception for honor killings? and maybe just one more so we can stone people to death. it is way more green than electrocution.
|
|
katzendogs
Location: Pasadena ,Texas Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010 - 6:14pm |
|
kurtster wrote:
No, definitely not good for our country either. Besides, I love women.
Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that. That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.
But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.
NFL
|
|
|