- 2,710
- 30
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
uhhh, yes. Part of it might be political...but a huge part of this plays in to hatred towards other religions.Originally Posted by DimesLikeHefner
Originally Posted by i just got lucky
Christians
Uhh NO.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
uhhh, yes. Part of it might be political...but a huge part of this plays in to hatred towards other religions.Originally Posted by DimesLikeHefner
Originally Posted by i just got lucky
Christians
Uhh NO.
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Originally Posted by paliplaya2010
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.
For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.
"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife ânot guiltyâ
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Originally Posted by paliplaya2010
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.
For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.
"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife ânot guiltyâ
rashi wrote:
We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?
Exactly, International and religious laws should only be used to SOME extent. They shouldn't fully overrule the whole Constitution.
rashi wrote:
We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?
Exactly, International and religious laws should only be used to SOME extent. They shouldn't fully overrule the whole Constitution.
Essential1 wrote:
That's nothing... Arizona is going to ban Sharia Law... And KARMA... Good thing they will ban it, so they don't get paid back for it.
That State is a a giant garbage dump, literally and figuratively. It is the political playground of racists, sadists and dimwits and it is the destination for California meth addicts who relocated, the cost of living in Central San Bern County was just too high.
Essential1 wrote:
That's nothing... Arizona is going to ban Sharia Law... And KARMA... Good thing they will ban it, so they don't get paid back for it.
That State is a a giant garbage dump, literally and figuratively. It is the political playground of racists, sadists and dimwits and it is the destination for California meth addicts who relocated, the cost of living in Central San Bern County was just too high.
We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?
[h1]Article VI[/h1]
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Show me where it says anything about using International Law in this "Supremacy Clause". Believe me, I'm no fan of the Constitution either.
We already use International Law to some extent in the Supreme Court, so what's the difference?
[h1]Article VI[/h1]
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Show me where it says anything about using International Law in this "Supremacy Clause". Believe me, I'm no fan of the Constitution either.
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Originally Posted by paliplaya2010
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.
For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.
"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife ânot guiltyâ
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Originally Posted by paliplaya2010
Originally Posted by Raymo24TX
Obviously they aren't gonna throw people in jail for not eating shellfish and staying sober. It's about not using Sharia Law in court. The US Constitution would not allow Sharia law to supersede existing laws.
For example in cases such as domestic abuse or rape.
"In an infamous New Jersey decision overturned earlier this year, Judge Joseph Charles found a Moroccan-born man who had raped his ex-wife ânot guiltyâ
The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular. The threat from terorrism has documented to exist outside our national borders and within the homeland.
What a joke. The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular?? Really?? Since when?
This country we call America is crap. Yeah I said it.
The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular. The threat from terorrism has documented to exist outside our national borders and within the homeland.
What a joke. The threat from terrorism continues to plague the United States and Tennesee in particular?? Really?? Since when?
This country we call America is crap. Yeah I said it.
Originally Posted by LLCoolMichael
Nashville, TN resident checking in/
Originally Posted by LLCoolMichael
Nashville, TN resident checking in/