Explosions at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Fatalities confirmed

[T.Lex]

If this is such a straw man, then please explain why certain persons in tandem with the ACLU felt the need to go to federal court to defend the use of sharia in court, and succeeded in having Oklahoma's state law and also a state constitutional amendment duly ratified by referendum tossed out. I doubt they would go to so much trouble without the intent of making use of this ruling in the future.

I'm not sure what court case and legislation you're referring to, but as a matter of contract law, USians are free to adopt whatever contractual obligations (with certain exceptions) that they want. Because freedom.

If I sign a contract saying that I'll only serve halal/kosher food, that becomes a legally binding obligation. If I don't, then I can be sued. That there are religious texts that make those designations important don't really matter.

I am familiar with a case once involving a Protestant denomination arguing about who had the rights to certain real estate. The operating agreement they signed incorporated a byzantine (pun intended) set of rules on how issues were resolved within a congregation. The courts had to figure out how to interpret the religious document within the context of a legal contractual dispute.

As for legislation - any legislation that favors one religion over another is likely to be unconstitutional.

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure what court case and legislation you're referring to, but as a matter of contract law, USians are free to adopt whatever contractual obligations (with certain exceptions) that they want. Because freedom.

If I sign a contract saying that I'll only serve halal/kosher food, that becomes a legally binding obligation. If I don't, then I can be sued. That there are religious texts that make those designations important don't really matter.

I am familiar with a case once involving a Protestant denomination arguing about who had the rights to certain real estate. The operating agreement they signed incorporated a byzantine (pun intended) set of rules on how issues were resolved within a congregation. The courts had to figure out how to interpret the religious document within the context of a legal contractual dispute.

As for legislation - any legislation that favors one religion over another is likely to be unconstitutional.

I'd like to see a link for the Oklahoma case. If it were a matter of contract, I see no problem with a Muslim community imposing "sharia" on its own members who have accepted the deal, as long as it does not violate US or state laws, ie, no throwing gays off of rooftops, and no cutting thieves hands off. Actual crimes still need prosecuted through our legal system. But if the story is about the ACLU getting a newly enacted state law preventing Muslim communities from imposing sharia on people who haven't agreed to that, then that's a problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'd like to see a link for the Oklahoma case.

Ask and you shall receive!

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/awad_v_ziriax_--_order.pdf

The state law and amendment both prohibited both international law and sharia (please recall that Islam doesn't recognize separation of religion and state and sharia is as close to secular law as Islam recognizes) from being used in Oklahoma courts.

I would suggest that a contract containing terms derived from sharia would not be sharia per se so far as our courts are concerned but rather specific agreed terms just like any other contract. That said, to the best of my knowledge, two parties cannot contractually agree to disregard the law or substitute some other code of law, like for example, agreeing to maintain a contract according to, say, French law.

Most important, I will again point out that there would be no reason for this to have gone to court unless some people, like the CAIR flunkies in this case, intend to try to shove sharia into our courts.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess some people aren't familiar with the honor codes implemented at a number of non-secular universities.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I guess some people aren't familiar with the honor codes implemented at a number of non-secular universities.

I would say that this is irrelevant assuming you refer to use or nonuse of sharia in court. Such codes generally deal with specific prescribed or proscribed actions and not the adoption of a foreign or religious code of law. You can quite easily prohibit carnal relations with billy goats without using the book of Leviticus in a state court when dealing with the application of the rules of your university.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Well first of all I'm no Bible expert.

I do know about the KJV and have one that I brought back from the States.
I've read it both in English and French but I haven't really compared the two versions.
The French version is translated directly from previous versions of the Bible especially in Latin (one of the first French version in 1528, so before the KJV of 1611).
I'm not sure if you can find a KJV translated into French ... well after a quick Google search it turns out you can (paralel version in both French and English) but I'm not sure those are very common.
I'm not sure what is the most used and considered "true" translation used in French.
Obviously the majority of people in France don't read the KJV which is in English.

I'm not sure how good of translation it is when it has been translated from Hebrew to Latin to English and finally to French.It would be interested to compare to one translated from Hebrew directly into French.

I'm not sure I have even answered your question.

You answered better than my poor question deserved and thank you!

For much of my childhood, my family owned a "Bible Bookstore" in our small town. I worked there a lot and consequently was exposed to lots of very passionate and differing views on Christianity and different versions of the bible. The area I grew up in was fairly rural and most of the families in the area had come over from Scotland, England, Ireland, France, or Germany, with the bulk being from the British Isles.

Within this group of people, the KJV has many serious supporters who insist that it is the inspired word of God and the "official version" of the Bible. Reflecting on that made me wonder how the KJV was received by Christians from other countries, or if the KJV is even known beyond the USA and Britain.

 

[oldpink]

Sharia?
Oh, all that talk about clitorectomy must be all myth, right?

 

[T.Lex]

Ask and you shall receive!

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/awad_v_ziriax_--_order.pdf

The state law and amendment both prohibited both international law and sharia (please recall that Islam doesn't recognize separation of religion and state and sharia is as close to secular law as Islam recognizes) from being used in Oklahoma courts.

I would suggest that a contract containing terms derived from sharia would not be sharia per se so far as our courts are concerned but rather specific agreed terms just like any other contract. That said, to the best of my knowledge, two parties cannot contractually agree to disregard the law or substitute some other code of law, like for example, agreeing to maintain a contract according to, say, French law.

Most important, I will again point out that there would be no reason for this to have gone to court unless some people, like the CAIR flunkies in this case, intend to try to shove sharia into our courts.

First, thanks for the link and rep inbound.

Second, though, there's a couple basic legal things to establish:
1) Constitutionally, treaties have the force of law (the federalism aspect has gotten blurred in the last 200 years). So, states can't pass a law abrogating that any more than they can pass a law saying federal marijuana laws don't apply in their state.

2) It is absolutely true that parties can stipulate to disregard certain kinds of laws or substitute foreign laws by contract. Of course, there are some constitutional exceptions - you can't contract to be a slave (for real, not like the 50 shades thing). But, in certain kinds of contracts, it is common to say that the law of Ireland (for example) will apply. In investments (something I'm actually familiar with), applying Irish or Bermudan or whatever law makes sense for tax purposes or the investment itself. Venue can be proper in the US, but the court (usually federal) will apply the foreign law. And that requires experts, but it is done. A huge example of that is going on with parts of the BP oil spill litigation, where they are applying UK law (specifically insurance law, I believe) in a Texas court.

So, that's a long way around to say that it looks like the Oklahoma legislature ran afoul of a couple different aspects of the constitution: treaties and establishment of a religion.

Honestly, IMHO that's why US courts exist. To be a check on tyranny by the majority.

 

[oldpink]

[...]

Honestly, IMHO that's why US courts exist. To be a check on tyranny by the majority.

Your idealism, while admirable, is misplaced.
The courts have transmogrified into an adjunct of leftism, and since federal judges have lifetime appointments, there is no recourse to their decrees.
Just look at the Heller decision, with four out of five SCOTUS justices who openly wanted the Second Amendment repealed strictly on their say-so because they didn't like the 2A.
And to think that if the famously mercurial Anthony Kennedy had gotten up on the left side of his bed instead of the right side, those four traitors in black robes would have been joined by a fifth.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Your idealism, while admirable, is misplaced.
The courts have transmogrified into an adjunct of leftism, and since federal judges have lifetime appointments, there is no recourse to their decrees.
Just look at the Heller decision, with four out of five SCOTUS justices who openly wanted the Second Amendment repealed strictly on their say-so because they didn't like the 2A.
And to think that if the famously mercurial Anthony Kennedy had gotten up on the left side of his bed instead of the right side, those four traitors in black robes would have been joined by a fifth.

Come now, we can't be too pessimistic. For once you've lost the courts, you've lost the country.

Surely that hasn't happened yet.

 

[oldpink]

Come now, we can't be too pessimistic. For once you've lost the courts, you've lost the country.

Surely that hasn't happened yet.

The fact remains that we were one justice away from having the 2A unilaterally upended, all without any legislative action to pass an amendment that would have in and of itself had dubious legitimacy because it's a very open debate whether any part of the BoR can be amended away.
We dodged a bullet this time with the appointment of Gorsuch, but just watch should Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or Gorsuch kick the bucket or otherwise exit under a Democrat president.
They'll concoct a case that allows them to revisit Heller so fast that it'll make our heads spin.

 

[churchmouse]

Come now, we can't be too pessimistic. For once you've lost the courts, you've lost the country.

Surely that hasn't happened yet.

Have you been watching lately. It is closer than people think.

 

[jamil]

Come now, we can't be too pessimistic. For once you've lost the courts, you've lost the country.

Surely that hasn't happened yet.

This is really the reason I held my nose and voted for Trump. A Trump victory, no matter how unlikely and no matter how problematic in other areas, was the likeliest way to stop or slow the leftist progression, particularly in the courts. The risk, of course, was that Trump would be so horrible that the masses would rather put up with Democrats than trust another Republican. Thankfully, Democrats have their heads up their asses. But with the media cameras up there too, most news watchers can't see what's in the background.

 

[Expat]

This is really the reason I held my nose and voted for Trump. A Trump victory, no matter how unlikely and no matter how problematic in other areas, was the likeliest way to stop or slow the leftist progression, particularly in the courts. The risk, of course, was that Trump would be so horrible that the masses would rather put up with Democrats than trust another Republican. Thankfully, Democrats have their heads up their asses. But with the media cameras up there too, most news watchers can't see what's in the background.

We could be on the brink still though. The Today Show led its news with the typo twitter post overnight and the risk to the Republic this could represent.

 

[jamil]

We could be on the brink still though. The Today Show led its news with the typo twitter post overnight and the risk to the Republic this could represent.

OMG! He tweeted #covfefe! It's a alt right curse on humanity! We'll all be turned into frogs! Does this thing turn up to 12?

 

[Kutnupe14]

OMG! He tweeted #covfefe! It's a alt right curse on humanity! We'll all be turned into frogs! Does this thing turn up to 12?

He's going to learn not to leak Illuminati code words. "Covfefe" has put lots of people in the ground. But only if you say it 3 times.... after 9pm but before 11:12pm

 

[Expat]

They had to throw to Carson Daily just now for further coverage of the #covfefe debacle.

 

[T.Lex]

Your idealism, while admirable, is misplaced.
The courts have transmogrified into an adjunct of leftism, and since federal judges have lifetime appointments, there is no recourse to their decrees.
Just look at the Heller decision, with four out of five SCOTUS justices who openly wanted the Second Amendment repealed strictly on their say-so because they didn't like the 2A.
And to think that if the famously mercurial Anthony Kennedy had gotten up on the left side of his bed instead of the right side, those four traitors in black robes would have been joined by a fifth.

[Bonus points for the Calvin and Hobbes reference.]

First, the judicial system (much more than SCOTUS itself) has not swung to the left - legislatures and our culture have. While I will readily concede the 9th Circuit, I would also tender the 7th Circuit (that includes Indiana). There is some variety, but the courts of appeals IMHO tend to follow the law and precedent.

Second, Heller is a good example. The court didn't pass the anti-2A law. People did. Legislators elected by people. Look at the total BS Illinois anti-2A laws. Courts didn't pass those. The greater "we" did. Same goes for the LGBTQRSTLMNOP agenda. Courts aren't creating that - people are.

It is easy to blame courts. It is much more difficult to blame ourselves and our countrymen.

 

[Denny347]

PUT...THE...TWITTER...AWAY!!!!!!! Ugh

OMG! He tweeted #covfefe! It's a alt right curse on humanity! We'll all be turned into frogs! Does this thing turn up to 12?

 

[Expat]

PUT...THE...TWITTER...AWAY!!!!!!! Ugh

Exactly. The reporter even pointed out that Melania had pointed out the terror that Donald's twitter machine could unleash on the country.