God Bless Judge Roy Moore - Save the Ten Commandments

http://www.dondodd.com/zeiger/hans.html ^ | August 21, 2003 | Hans Zeiger

[strela]

In some places those who obey are called "subjects" They may think of themselves as free but their status is very different from "Citizens".

So law is bad, eh? I think you were misdirected here - the Anarchist's Forum is down the hall, two doors to the left.

[strela]

The only ad hominem I can see here is coming out of your keyboard. Do you always accuse others of doing the very behavior that you yourself engage in?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You mean you don't want to go join the great Hajj?

[strela]

Thanks for the reminder. I need to go to Home Depot and pick up some paving stones for the front walk. I almost broke my neck the other day after tripping on an uneven one.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Never get the slick ones. Always go for the cheaper stones - I like them better, and don't slide off 'em.

[f.Christian]

The non separation of state and religion is called fascism ... we see the atheist - liberal variety here !

Sharia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sharia or Shariah is the body of religious law governing the Sunni and Shia branch of Islam. Islam draws no distinction between religious and secular life, and hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals and the administration of the faith, but every aspect of day-to-day life.

History and Background

The authority of Sharia is drawn from two major and two lesser sources. The first major source is specific guidance laid down in the Qur'an, and the second source is the Sunnah, literally the 'Way', i.e. the way that Muhammad (the Prophet of Islam) lived his life. (The compilation of all what Muhammad said, did, or approved of is called the Hadith.) A lesser source of authority is Qiyas, which is the extension by analogy of existing Sharia law to new situations.

Finally Sharia law can be based on ijma, or consensus. Justification for this final approach is drawn from the Hadith where Muhammad states; "My nation cannot agree on an error." The umma, or community of Muslims, comes together with each applying his or ijtihad, or independent thought and judgement, to achieve this consensus. The role of ulema, i.e. scholars, is critical, since they are the ones who studies the Islamic law and therefore are the ones with authority to represent it.

The comprehensive nature of Sharia law is due to the belief that the law must provide all that is necessary for a person's spiritual and physical well-being. All possible actions of a Muslim are divided (in principle) into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Fundamental to the obligations of every muslim are the Five Pillars of Islam.

In theory, there is no conflict between the process as outlined by Muhammad and very progressive and consultative political movements, e.g. green parties. In fact, the latter even defined Four Pillars of the Green Party, to some degree in imitation of Islam's Five Pillars, and in admiration of the idea of a consensus-driven process of the whole community coming to some well-reasoned conclusion compatible with science and scholarship. In practice, however, there is often incredible tension between conservative, liberal or secular forces:

Practice of Sharia

Most countries of the Middle East and north Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain only religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence. Sharia is also used in Sudan, Libya and for a time in modern Afghanistan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts.

For detailed information you can consult the Sharia News Watch http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shariawatch/ , that provides a regular update of newsquotes on the Sharia (or: shari'ah, syariah, or shariat), the news items are organized per country.

In practice these have most often meant the re-introduction of spectacular and gruesome punishments (such as amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, or stoning for adultery) without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony (including the necessity of four eyewitnesses, with women's testimony counting less than that of a man). Such measures are usually introduced to gain support of local ulema who are often community leaders in rural areas. Their examples are not always humane or even reasonable. Muslim scholars tend to agree that Muhammad himself would not run courts along these lines in an otherwise secular society, nor introduce these punishments into societies rich enough to afford prisons and rehabilitation, cohesive enough to prevent those accused from being killed by outraged victims and communities.

Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law has no one, set meaning for all time and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate, even liberal. In the hands of post-Englightenment readers of philosophy, religious law is relegated to ritual (as opposed to law in a civil sense), or even to just being history. In the hands of zealots, it becomes legally enforced against all people of a faith, and even against all people that come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Boston is a very different thing than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Gaza, or Pakistan. Both are following Islamic law, yet it varies as much as individual Muslims vary. (As is true for Jews and Christians, etc.)

[muir_redwoods]

Nice thoughtful reply. I stand in awe of a mind that can recognize an anarchist simply by the way he draws the distinction between a subject and a citizen. That's a real talent you have

I'll try to use small words so you can understand. I am a citizen. I am not a subject. I do not have to live with bad law. I am one of the people who votes so I can help change the law. This is easier if the law is local. My rights are ultimately (big word, sorry)protected by my own access to force if need be. Get it?

[strela]

You WERE the one who stated that "those who obey are called 'subjects'". If you didn't want onlookers to misconstrue, maybe you shouldn't have posted it.

[Texas Eagle]

The legal reasoning is this. The First Amendment is binding on the states. Whether or not you agree is interesting but irrelevant. This has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court, which is why you have 1st Amendment rights in every state. Normally, I would expect all of us to like that.

Didn't the Almight Supreme Court once reaffirm that black people were property?

So now the STATES may not establish a religion.

So which religion is Judge Moore establishing?

Well, that would apply to state courts, would it not? They are created and funded by the states.

But Judge Moore is not establighing that anyone believe what it says on that monument. A person could flip off the monument, hiss at it, call it names, make the flugle-nose at it and outright ridicule what it says all with impunity.

Now, the legal question comes down to what "establishing" a religion is. This is where the debate can continue.

This oughta be a short debate. What religion is Judge Moore establishing?

"Establishing" has been held by the courts as "official expression for one religion over another." That's not a quote from court case. It's a paraphrase.

Paraphrase, gobbledy-gook....what's the diff?

What Judge Moore did with his monument, in the state-funded courthouse, was to pretty much blatantly promote his view about religion and law.

Oh, now he BLATANTLY promoted his view about religion AND law. My, how the worm turneth. The old bait-and-switch. "Establishing" a religion somehow becomes "promoting" a religion. That reminds me of the encounter in The Bible where Satan says to Eve, "Did God REEEEEEEEALLY say you couldn't eat of the tree?

Regardless of how correct he might be,

Yes, by all means, let's wantonly disregard correctness...

it's pretty much a blatant violation of the Constitution, or at least how it's been pretty much been construed over many decades.

That explains why just about every state in the Union acknowledges God in the Preamble to its Constitution.

That's why we're where we are at today.

Poppycock and balderdash.

[Texas Eagle]

Notice how it says 'an establishment of religion' not 'the establishment of religion'.

Oh. Which religion is Judge Moore establishing?

[muir_redwoods]

Perhaps I should just post replies to smarter people.

[strela]

Social climber, eh?

[TigersEye]

Oh. Which religion is Judge Moore establishing?

None whatsoever!

[TigersEye]

At least you're not a social Clymer. ;^)

[yoe]

"Congress shall make no law . . ." "The right of the people . . . shall not be infringed." "The right of the people . . . shall not be violated." The Bill of Rights tells us what government cannot do.

There is something very, very wrong not only in Alabama, but also throughout the country - and it doesn't pass the smell test. We can start with the ALCU, NEA, NOW, and other such organizations that would see America just another Socialist/Communist nation.

Judge Roy Moore has it right! He swore to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitution of his state - few judges show his level of honesty and integrity - few elected politicians honor their sworn oaths; they lay them aside and lie for votes. Vote them out of office next time around. The voices you don't hear are the enablers.

[muir_redwoods]

That's your best shot? Pitiful, but I have you pegged.

[strela]

I can only work with what I am given. If you want better responses, post better stuff.