Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do you think that the courts made the right decision(s) for their respective cases?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152992567818170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Texas law that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram exam and to listen to a physician's detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16496002

A federal court of appeals upheld a district judge's decision to block the implementation of the amendment.

The ban on Islamic law was approved by 70% of voters in a referendum in 2010.

But it was challenged by a Muslim community leader who said the amendment violated his constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Yes to both.

I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

Not so sure about the first one.

The second one... I still don't fully understand "banning" Sharia law. What effect does that have? I mean, aren't the things Sharia allows that are objectionable already illegal? IE, honor killings are covered by murder, having more than one wife is covered by polygamy laws? It sounds redundant. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

Its hard to knock out "thou shalt not murder," and "thou shalt not steal" from criminal law.
Not sure what other commandments you're referring to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:Not so sure about the first one. If not I don't have a clue which may be why it was overturned.

The second one... I still don't fully understand "banning" Sharia law. What effect does that have? I mean, aren't the things Sharia allows that are objectionable already illegal? IE, honor killings are covered by murder, having more than one wife is covered by polygamy laws? It sounds redundant. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

I thiiiink its referring to Sharia law as court precedent.

Frankly no non US law or precedent should be used (except maybe Louisiana, which of course is a foreign country anyway). The use of such is treasonous. After all what do you think the "A" stands for, France?

I'm not convinced the Texas law is actually constitutional under Casey. I think that the Sharia law is bad law, but the decision was incorrect.

Another good one is Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC. The court basically found that the ADA (either the enforcement or anti-retaliation provisions) doesn't apply to religious ministers.

See if you can guess how the court voted.

edit: ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. A teacher who taught religious studies was fired for having narcolepsy and not being able to work for a time.

Took me the longest time to figure out that they weren't related cases.

Anyways, the first one is stupid. It's a guilt trip plain and simple. If a mother wants to abort, let her.

As for the second one, it irks me that only 70% of voters approved the ban on islamic law. Actually, I'm going to need help on understanding it, was islamic law blocked or was the notion to block it refused?

Frazzled wrote:Not sure what other commandments you're referring to.

Was referring to the people who want to post the ten commandments (especially carvings thereof) at the front of every courthouse.

biccat wrote:I'm not convinced the Texas law is actually constitutional under [i]Casey.[/url] I think that the Sharia law is bad law, but the decision was incorrect.

Another good one is Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC. The court basically found that the ADA (either the enforcement or anti-retaliation provisions) doesn't apply to religious ministers.

See if you can guess how the court voted.

Yep. Thats a good ruling there.

Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep. Thats a good ruling there.

Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Its scary how often I agree with you these days.

Frazzled wrote:Not sure if the Texas one is constitutional though either, but the argument can be made that doctors can be ordered to provide medical informaiton in other circumstances. Totally bs of course.

Sure, appropriate medical advice should be given at all times. However, the law as described above is like forcing a car salesman to get you to watch some kind of death by dangerous driving video before you buy a car, or a fast food worker showing you exactly where your "food" comes from before they sell it to you or what the arteries of someone who eats lots of junk food look like with graphic surgical movies. Or perhaps more approrpaitely, the drug store clerk showing you a movie about how you are going to hell and all the tortures you will endure forever because of the pack of condoms you have just put down on the counter with the intention of purchasing them...

I'm quite surprised that such a potentially psychologically damaging practice as the one outlined in the OP is not only legal, but required. Abortions are hard enough on many women without this additional trauma.

The first one is fine, certain medical professionals notably to my mind retail pharmacists are required to counsel patients in detail on their medications and procedures. Removing the right to wave that counseling and requiring it be more in depth for abortion is acceptable as the freedom to choose to continue with the abortion remains, I also assume the same standards do not apply to Plan B, but that assumption could be faulty. It's kind of like getting the full run down on someone you're about to take of life support.
Win.
Striking down and unconstitutional law preemptively banning a set of laws that any reasonable person would also see as unconstitutional...seems like a no brainer.
Win.

That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

I agree. Im christian. And i support abortion(more on the lines of i have no right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body)
But also someone who studies sociology and gender studies. This is wrong. The women who get abortion are rarely the selfish type who just wish to have no responsibility. For most it is a hard choice that is riddled wiith guilt and cannot support the child. It is not them just not wanting to have strech marks

Dont care about point 1, but sharia law is BS and every woman who willfully follows it in a non-islamic country is a self hating douchebag.

VanHammer wrote:Dont care about point 1, but sharia law is BS and every woman who willfully follows it in a non-islamic country is a self hating douchebag.

There he is!

The Bigot, everybody!

Everyone is so PC these days its pathetic. Im sooo sorry if I offend people who think women should have less rights and be second class citizens. Yep. Shame on me.

VanHammer wrote:Everyone is so PC these days its pathetic. Im sooo sorry if I offend people who think women should have less rights and be second class citizens. Yep. Shame on me.

It's this kind of progressive garbage that is ruining Canada for the rest of uh...you.

Canada is awesome I dont know what you are talking about.

...I might argue against that particular point, mostly out of nationalism of my own, but what I said above was obviously not serious.

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

/cosign

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

/cosign

The bill stated that no religious/foreign law would have overridden the Constitution and made the practice of those laws illegal. This bill would have done just that. Its called the "sharia law ban" only because it specifically picked out sharia as an example, and because all the cool kids are doing it.

Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway? I'm sure it sucks and I don't want to live under it, but does anyone honestly think that the 1%, possibly 2% at most, population that is American Muslim would somehow impose this on us? And thats assuming the US muslim population is of one mind on sharia, and its interpretation/implementation( they aren't, they are as fractured as the muslim population at large) so that 1% becomes even less. You can probably count with one hand the number of majority muslim nations that practice sharia, but they'll somehow establish it here in the increasingly antireligious US?

Yep, we better start building some minarets for our muslim overlords and get used to no more bacon and beer.

Also, don't give anyone any ideas about banning the commandments, please. I like having weekends off, and if "keeping holy the sabbath" is frowned upon, a big chunk of my free time and soul will be gobbled up by the bottomless vortex that is the corporate greed monster.

NELS1031 wrote:
Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway?

There's a number of possible rationalizations, but I imagine its mostly something along the lines of "Muslims are really evil, and they scare me."

dogma wrote:

NELS1031 wrote:
Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway?

There's a number of possible rationalizations, but I imagine its mostly something along the lines of "Muslims are really evil, and they scare me."

Or, of course, I don't think women should be stoned for being "unchaste". If that makes someone a bigot, then I suppose most civilized people are guilty of bigotry .

Living in Oklahoma and dealing with that state question I will give my thoughts on it. The argument for the State Question was that "a court in Texas ruled on a divorce based on Shiria law, Muslims are taking over our laws and Government! We must stup them!"

To begin with it ignored the fact that the "court ruling based on Shiria law" was actually an arbitration case, not a real "court". Two consenting adults agreed going into the divorce that it would be handled under the law of the religion they both follow. Which is different than "courts are using Shiria instead of US law!"

The State Question also made it illegal to use "international law" in any decisions by the couts. So worst case scenario was for our courts to throw out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any international treaty signed by the US, etc etc etc...

The law specifically singled out Sharia law, even though none of the authors could give any example of a law that they objected to, or a single case where it was ever used in a court decision in Oklahoma, let alone a single case where anybody was hurt by it.

Getting this thing passed was basically a campaign of "If we don't do this, the courts will shred the US and Oklahoma Constitution while ruling under Shiria Law while Muslims will burn the American Flag!" Good old fear mongering and pandering to a conservative and bigoted base basically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

NELS1031 wrote:
Whats the psychology behind sharia fear anyway?

There's a number of possible rationalizations, but I imagine its mostly something along the lines of "Muslims are really evil, and they scare me."

Or, of course, I don't think women should be stoned for being "unchaste". If that makes someone a bigot, then I suppose most civilized people are guilty of bigotry .

Because unless we pass a law that says "courts in Oklahoma cannot use Shiria law", the courts in Oklahoma are going to ignore the Constitution and traditional laws already on the books and rule that a woman should be stoned to death for being unchaste...

I just think its funny that some people wail, and gnash their teeth over Sharia, but a mostly distinct set of people wail and gnash their teeth over Leviticus.

Melissia wrote:That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

So, informing somebody of a medical procedure and exactly what is going to happen during it is unnecessary?

When doctors perform surgery, they do this same thing. They see what they are going in to do and then tell you exactly what they are going to do and what it looks like in there. They give a very detailed description so you know what will be going on inside of your body. You are not okay with that?

Dreadwinter wrote:

Melissia wrote:That's not a consultation. It's forcing someone to take an additional, unnecessary medical procedure before they undertake the intended one.

So, informing somebody of a medical procedure and exactly what is going to happen during it is unnecessary?

When doctors perform surgery, they do this same thing. They see what they are going in to do and then tell you exactly what they are going to do and what it looks like in there. They give a very detailed description so you know what will be going on inside of your body. You are not okay with that?

The amount of medical professionals when it comes to abortion is always amazing...

Monster Rain wrote:Or, of course, I don't think women should be stoned for being "unchaste". If that makes someone a bigot, then I suppose most civilized people are guilty of bigotry .

So American Muslims need to have their belief system restricted and regulated by the government because you think they'll start stoning sluts at will? I absolutely agree stoning is barbaric, but its practiced by an unpopular extremist minority in a few muslim countries and isn't indicative of mainstream Islam as far as I'm aware. Torah/Old Testament also call for stoning for what its worth.

NELS1031 wrote:
So American Muslims need to have their belief system restricted and regulated by the government because you think they'll start stoning sluts at will?

Why the word "sluts?"