Right-Wing Republicans and Defunding Planned Parenthood

Post Reply New Topic

There are so many court cases in new jersey. Which would you be referring too?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/ad ... es-ruling/

Thankfully this nut of a judge ended up getting overruled by a higher court.

Really? Again, the case was overturned on appeal so once again you show that sharia law is not encroaching on America. This also does nothing to support an argument that Christians in Dearborn are being discriminated against. The nativity scene case? I am interested in what case you where referring to.

Also if anything this shows that judges need to be explicitly told where sharia law stands in public court.(which is nowhere) Although you would think the judge would be qualified for this already.

EDIT: Meaning the judge was being a thickheaded fool, misunderstanding key components of America principles.

@ ikorack

You can take it either way, that people are trying to get Sharia law into the US, or that Judges are simply being idiots.

I disagree with you, and believe it is more than simple stupidity.

Judge not judges singular.



Her surprise is shows experience with the judge, lawyers often work with and become familiar with judges over the year. I would trust her word over, your claims with no backing. Also what evidence is there of the judge wanting sharia law in America? One case, which a lawyer has called an obvious mistake, a misunderstanding out of an intention to be respectful?

It is judges plural, because a Judge in Oklahoma essentially blocked a measure to keep Sharia Law from being used in judgements for court cases.

It was in response to the Judge in New Jersey.

Links, not necessarily because I don't believe you, but I can't argue against vague statements which might not even have any backing. Its getting annoying having every other post asking for sources. And I would still like to know what nativity scene case you where talking about.

Oklahoma Judge
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-29/us/o ... w?_s=PM:US

Michigan Judge
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/fede ... stitution/
http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/ ... sharia-law

And the Nativity Scene:

Governor Chris Gregoire lit a Menorah in a celebration at the state Capitol on Monday, and at the same celebration, accepted the gift of a Menorah for her home. The Menorah that was lit during the ceremony is displayed in the Capitol rotunda with a Christmas tree. However, when a local resident asked for a Nativity scene to be displayed with the Menorah and the tree, the Governor refused. This morning, at the request of a local resident, Liberty Counsel faxed a letter to Governor Gregoire along with our Legal Memorandum on the constitutionality of displaying religious symbols during the December holiday celebrations. The letter explains that the state cannot show preference for one faith over another by allowing a Menorah while refusing a Nativity scene.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1758423/posts

It's about time.

if i were a woman, i'd want PP in my corner, and would be terrified at the loss of such a useful public resource, and VERY angry at the hypocritical bluenoses who were responsible for said loss.

The judge has worries that it will interfere with the first amendment, which is an argument which can stand on its own(aka can the state make a law censoring a specific religion, should the law not ban all religious practice from judicial consideration), if you don't have any evidence of Islamic associations you have no reason to consider his actions an invitation for sharia law.



These are a bit worrying, but the case is in appeal now and we will see if the funding is overturned, but once again you have no proof that the judge him/herself is pushing a sharia agenda. As for why the funding is happening in the first place, that can be explained by the Islamic influence in the field of oil.



http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/2 ... pitol.html

And the nativity scene is now allowed, seriously why do you keep using invalid examples? They are either already fixed or on their way, show long term harm, show a judgment which has been accepted as genuine and has actually had an affect if you wish to show discrimination against Christians exists so badly.

EDIT: For the record it took me about 2 minutes to find the correction for the nativity scene.

@ ikorack

I know each of the instances save the one in Oklahoma has had either a higher court hearing the appeal, or politicians backing down due to public uproar. I will note that it can be argued that these attempts on their part haven't been successful, not that the attempt isn't being made.

The initial argument was that Christians are being discriminated against which is what I was concerned with. You have failed to support this point. That you feel sharia is encroaching on American law(even though you have shown that there have been no successful attempts so far) is really not something I'm interested in arguing about.

Actually I did prove the discrimination, the fact it ended up not getting very far is immaterial. The attempt is still there, it is just public backlash was enough to scare politicians into backing off.

That discrimination exists for any given group in certain circumstances is a given, that this has any relevance to society as a whole is not. The discrimination you pointed out was not tolerated and it had no long term effect, so it might as well not have existed. Who suffered? No one.