Posted on 02/04/2015 5:10:11 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Dallas Morning News is as bad as the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express. Texas has no major city paper that doesn’t take the Leftist point of view on every issue.
Man, red the the comments. The Texans ain’t none too happy about this idiot author.
Don’t mess with Texas, or the USA you damn promoters of Mad Mo. Piss be upon your head.
Y e s .
So has there been a Texas family court decision where the judge based his ruling on any religious law, Sharia or otherwise? If so, how did that escape being appealed?
No. No law applies other than the law made by the governments that have direct jurisdiction over the court in question.
First would be the homo beheadings, but would they be televised?
You’re right. And in time what they do is their level best to turn America into a replica of whatever backward craphole they came from. Make no mistake, despite any outward appearance of being glad to be here, deep down they hate us because they can’t like as we do in the places they left. They’ve never lived in freedom, they don’t understand the real concept of it, and want only freedom for themselves here as evidenced by their constant ‘’offensive’’ at their prophet being ridiculed or some institution and or persons or whatever is doing something they find ‘’offensive’’ and demand it be changed or it’s freedom of whatever curtailed or eliminated. Illegal aliens are of this same bent, particularly Mexicans and I’m way past fed up with it.
[ Does that mean I can choose what law I want to operate under? Or is that a Muslim only thing? ]
Can I start a “Church of the Constitution”? please gubermint, pretty please....
[ prohibit family court rulings based on foreign legal codes
Isn’t that kind of a no-brainer? If they want muslim law so much why did they leave it? If they want to live under oppressive laws they have lots of countries to choose from; pick one and go. ]
They passed a law in OK that was overturned because it specifically mentioned Sharia, they should have worded it more broadly to include ANY foreign law or the generic term “Religious law”
Hey Rodger, when your 13 year old daughter converts to Islam and marries some Saudi immigrant who beats her, do you want Sharia Court determining if the beating was bad enough to allow her to divorce him? Silly question — beatings are never grounds for divorce under Sharia law.
These laws should not be at all necessary because the 14 Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No judge worthy of the name would ever consider using any law to decide a case or a punishment other than duly enacted laws of the United States or of the state in which he sits. If he does he or she should be immediately removed from the bench and disbarred.
The article’s comments are very much against the author.
Except for one liberal troll that claims that an anti-Sharia law would be an attack on “contractual law”.
Isn’t that where the term “rule of thumb” came from?
Sharia law in Texas? What is that? Can it get my wife to fetch me a beer when I snap my fingers? She been getting real uppity on me lately, if you can believe it lately she been refusing to pick up my dirty clothes and underwear from the floor and I think these damn liberals with this feminist stuff is getting to her. Hell I took her out to a Olive Garden last November and it cost me $32.29 and she still bitch at me cause I go out with my buddies every night to Lucilles the strip bar, as if SHE would be interested in that. I tell you, I’m getting really sick of womens lib and stuff
14th century? Try rolling that back another 500 years. Even our Renaissance types had more couth than that. At least they had mead and the women wore push-up bodices.
The case is simply this: he is presenting Shari'a law as being some sort of voluntary addition to the Constitution when it is not; it is and proudly proclaims itself supreme. This isn't a case of bigotry or misinterpretation, I'm simply repeating what the imams and the Koran say about the matter. The author is interpreting it as voluntary because it suits his liberal worldview to do so, not because it's the truth. And he views its detractors because it suits his liberal worldview to do so, not because it's the truth. My evidence? Get this:
Fabulously interesting how Jews and evangelical Christians buddy up on these things.
Yes, fabulously interesting. Everybody knows that Jews and evangelical Christians are uniformly bigots, right? That's the liberal worldview I'm talking about. And where it leads is that if the thing ever comes to violence he will absolve himself of any guilt and hide behind his betters, cursing them again when it becomes safe to do so.
Sorry - “views its detractors” should be “views its detractors as bigots”. Poor editing.
Liberals are the biggest a$$holes in the world. It’s impossible to have a reasonable talk with them. Their world view is completely distorted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.