Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Newt Gingrich demands federal law outlawing any use of Sharia in US. Also asks for a ban on trans-warp drive, holodecks, Pax gas, and anything else that won't ever exist   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, PAX, Newt Gingrich, Islamic law, Values Voter Summit, advice and consents, political powers, federal law, law of the land  
•       •       •

1137 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2010 at 5:49 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



171 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-09-18 1:59:48 PM  
Okay there, Newt. Brilliant.

On the bright side, something like this could serve as a new beginning... a precedent to outlaw the use of any religion in the US. Now *that*?... I'm on board.
 
2010-09-18 2:03:42 PM  
There already is such a law - it's called the First Amendment.
 
2010-09-18 2:26:56 PM  
 
2010-09-18 3:51:22 PM  
What Newt's truck may look like:

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2010-09-18 4:14:54 PM  
I was just reading at TPM: The results of the Values Voters Summit for their dream ticket of 2012: Pence/Palin.
 
2010-09-18 4:33:19 PM  
Wasn't there a big hubbub last month about a family court judge citing Sharia law in a case? or was the made up? I haven't checked snopes
New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law (new window)
 
2010-09-18 4:43:27 PM  
Opponents of Islamic building projects in New York City, Tennessee and Temecula, California and Florence, Kentucky have often raised fears that the goal of Muslims seeking to build new houses of worship is to slowly make America comfortable with Shariah before using political power to allow it to become the law of the land.

Woah, that is some major conspiracy nutjobery going on there.
 
2010-09-18 4:45:34 PM  
Oh now Newt is against religious rule in the US? Because just yesterday he was biatching about the 'secular elitist left' or some other bullshiat like that and demanding we return to God. I guess religious rule is only scary when Muslims do it?

Christian Theocracies are just as bad as Muslim Theocracies.
 
2010-09-18 4:53:56 PM  
Subby have you ever been to PAX? Plenty of gas there, PLEN-TY. Gabe even tweets about it.
 
2010-09-18 5:21:09 PM  
 
2010-09-18 5:36:15 PM  
Amendment, so that's taken care of.

Now if only Newt and the Theocratic Right would just respect it and stop trying to impose their "Christian" religious beliefs on the rest of us through our own government.
 
2010-09-18 5:37:17 PM  
So the filters take out "1st" if it is the first part of a post?
 
2010-09-18 5:39:38 PM  
time I tried that it may or may not have taken out 1st
 
2010-09-18 5:53:10 PM  
Doesn't Sharia law state that women must keep their bodies covered, so any law that dictates that any part of a woman's body must be covered would be Sharia.

Cool we could have boobies in the streets.
 
2010-09-18 5:56:44 PM  
THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

 
2010-09-18 5:57:20 PM  

BackAssward: Opponents of Islamic building projects in New York City, Tennessee and Temecula, California and Florence, Kentucky have often raised fears that the goal of Muslims seeking to build new houses of worship is to slowly make America comfortable with Shariah before using political power to allow it to become the law of the land.

Woah, that is some major conspiracy nutjobery going on there.


Totally, it's never happened before.
 
2010-09-18 5:57:22 PM  
newt's just afraid that he'd have to pay the 2.5% "poor tax".
 
2010-09-18 5:59:35 PM  
What's all this about outlawing "My Sharona"?
 
2010-09-18 6:00:42 PM  

GAT_00: Oh now Newt is against religious rule in the US? Because just yesterday he was biatching about the 'secular elitist left' or some other bullshiat like that and demanding we return to God. I guess religious rule is only scary when Muslims do it?

Christian Theocracies are just as bad as Muslim Theocracies.


You mean here:


Newt Gingrich: Radical secularists won't allow a cross in the desert (new window)

He is against private religious prayer on private property if they bother people but christian symbols on government land, if they piss you of. FU!
 
2010-09-18 6:00:47 PM  

Phaid: Totally, it's never happened before.


So you would prevent Muslims from building mosques in the United States?
 
2010-09-18 6:00:52 PM  
"I'll tell you, I just came back from the Middle East, and it was refreshing. With all that is going on, it was refreshing not to be constantly bombarded with smut all the time."

-Christine O'Donnell, Republican candidate for Delaware's senate race.
 
2010-09-18 6:01:59 PM  

Phaid: Totally


Oh, look. Arbitration. In civil cases. In England.
Everybody (yawn) panic.
 
2010-09-18 6:02:50 PM  

Max Bell: What's all this about outlawing "My Sharona"?


NO MY-EYE-EYE-EYE-EYE-WHOO! ZERO MOSQUE.
 
2010-09-18 6:03:09 PM  

Phaid: Totally, it's never happened before.


"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

What's the problem there? If two people in a civil case both willingly accept a particular judgment, whether that be sharia, arbitration, or who can beat Battletoads stage three, there's really no reason they shouldn't be allowed to settle disputes however they choose, provided both parties agree to accept the judgment.
 
2010-09-18 6:04:45 PM  
US Courts have upheld Shariah principles in divorce court. Look it up.
 
2010-09-18 6:05:20 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Phaid: Totally, it's never happened before.

"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

What's the problem there? If two people in a civil case both willingly accept a particular judgment, whether that be sharia, arbitration, or who can beat Battletoads stage three, there's really no reason they shouldn't be allowed to settle disputes however they choose, provided both parties agree to accept the judgment.


Binding arbitration. Same thing the republicans were fighting for in order to allow KBR employees to commit rape.
 
2010-09-18 6:05:29 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Phaid: Totally

Oh, look. Arbitration. In civil cases. In England.
Everybody (yawn) panic.

"Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts."


Oh look, the government legitimizing a legal system which is systematically biased against women. But we don't care about that I because OMG THEIR CULTURE!!
 
2010-09-18 6:05:51 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Phaid: Totally

Oh, look. Arbitration. In civil cases. In England.
Everybody (yawn) panic.


This. Much as I don't like Islam, or any other religion, these are arbitration tribunals, not courts, and we allow Jewish ones, nobody gets their knickers in a twist about them
 
2010-09-18 6:08:41 PM  
Neither Sharia nor Christianity should have any place in US law, or any other religion. Change the wording to that and you can sign me up.

Get rid of the Jewish courts while we are at it.
 
2010-09-18 6:10:03 PM  
well to be fair, Newt comes from Georgia, a state that has this law on the books.
 
2010-09-18 6:12:48 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: What's the problem there? If two people in a civil case both willingly accept a particular judgment, whether that be sharia, arbitration, or who can beat Battletoads stage three, there's really no reason they shouldn't be allowed to settle disputes however they choose, provided both parties agree to accept the judgment.


So you would support Baptist or Pentecostal churches in small rural American towns having civil courts whose decisions are based on their religious beliefs and are legally binding?
 
2010-09-18 6:12:52 PM  
Is this the thread where some 'tard posts a bunch of Koran verses, and then someone else posts a bunch of Bible verses that say the exact same thing, and then the 'tard proclaims that they're not the same thing, but doesn't explain why?

And then the 'tard does the same thing in the next thread?
 
2010-09-18 6:13:52 PM  

Phaid: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Phaid: Totally

Oh, look. Arbitration. In civil cases. In England.
Everybody (yawn) panic.

"Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts."

Oh look, the government legitimizing a legal system which is systematically biased against women. But we don't care about that I because OMG THEIR CULTURE!!


You know, they all have to accept the terms of the arbitration. Which means the women were perfectly okay with it.
 
2010-09-18 6:15:55 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Phaid: Totally, it's never happened before.

"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

What's the problem there? If two people in a civil case both willingly accept a particular judgment, whether that be sharia, arbitration, or who can beat Battletoads stage three, there's really no reason they shouldn't be allowed to settle disputes however they choose, provided both parties agree to accept the judgment.


Ahem...
You mean like this? (new window)
 
2010-09-18 6:16:40 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: And then the 'tard does the same thing in the next thread?


Except everybody's pretty much yawning.
 
2010-09-18 6:16:41 PM  

Phaid: Sum Dum Gai: What's the problem there? If two people in a civil case both willingly accept a particular judgment, whether that be sharia, arbitration, or who can beat Battletoads stage three, there's really no reason they shouldn't be allowed to settle disputes however they choose, provided both parties agree to accept the judgment.

So you would support Baptist or Pentecostal churches in small rural American towns having civil courts whose decisions are based on their religious beliefs and are legally binding?


You can have anyone arbitrate for you based off anything you want.

If both parties agree, then its fine, even if its arbitration by Ouija board.
 
2010-09-18 6:17:34 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: some 'tard posts a bunch of Koran verses


The correct term is, "islamic scholer."

/yes, i know.
 
2010-09-18 6:23:23 PM  
they never attack specific tenets of Sharia law, it's always just "SHAIRA LAW IS BAD CUZ ITS MUSILN FARTBONGO DERP"

I wonder which of the four main schools of jurisprudence Newt is referring to?

/religious studies grad
//frustrated when arrogant people don't know snakes from dildos about islam (or any other religion)
 
2010-09-18 6:24:19 PM  
Those damn greasy taupe unicorns. Something needs to be done about those little bastids, too.

C'mon, Newt. We're counting on you.
 
2010-09-18 6:27:06 PM  

Phaid: Sum Dum Gai: What's the problem there? If two people in a civil case both willingly accept a particular judgment, whether that be sharia, arbitration, or who can beat Battletoads stage three, there's really no reason they shouldn't be allowed to settle disputes however they choose, provided both parties agree to accept the judgment.

So you would support Baptist or Pentecostal churches in small rural American towns having civil courts whose decisions are based on their religious beliefs and are legally binding?


Judge Judy is binding arbitration dressed up as a crude bench trial. If you think Judge Judy is a "civil court," I've got a bridge to sell you might be interested in...

The key is that all parties must actually consent to the arbitration. If those small churches are trying to convince people that they are the actual authorities, as I suspect they would do, then their arbitration decisions should be invalid. But if there is real consent by all parties to such an arbitration, there's no legal problem with it.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea. I would question the intelligence and sanity of any woman who consented to that kind of arbitration. But sure, it is legal, and should be allowed.
 
2010-09-18 6:27:26 PM  

meatpigeon: /religious studies grad


Aw. Yeah, ok, I'll have the fries.
 
2010-09-18 6:29:54 PM  
Britain already has Transwarp drive and holodecks.
 
2010-09-18 6:30:51 PM  

Phaid: meatpigeon: /religious studies grad

Aw. Yeah, ok, I'll have the fries.


sigh...
Would you like to super-size that?
 
2010-09-18 6:30:51 PM  
He is just feeding the trolls.
 
2010-09-18 6:31:28 PM  

Phaid: meatpigeon: /religious studies grad

Aw. Yeah, ok, I'll have the fries.


You owe me a new keyboard.....
 
2010-09-18 6:31:42 PM  

Phaid: So you would support Baptist or Pentecostal churches in small rural American towns having civil courts whose decisions are based on their religious beliefs and are legally binding?


As long as the parties involved accepted the decision in strictly civil matters, I have no problem. Whoever you want to arbitrate through whatever beliefs or practices your civil matter is fine. I mean, this is effectively Judge Judy.

Besides, the alternative is agreeing to abide by certain terms, which means a contract. All you are doing is signing a contract with the terms of another party writing the terms of your contract.
 
2010-09-18 6:33:31 PM  
Sharia law is already outlawed in the US. It's called cruel and unusual punishment and/or sexual discrimination and a variety of other things that are antithetical to Sharia law.

For all you pseudo-intellectual nitwits, radical Islamists would be more than happy to accept your kind understanding as they behead you for being an infidel. Yeah, that's right. I mean you.What a bunch of fools you are. So understanding of the poor little people that just want to kill you.

If you don't believe that evil exists in the world, then you are aiding and abetting it.
 
2010-09-18 6:35:53 PM  
Stupidest thing ever.

Let's just say he gets his way and they pass a federal law banning application of Sharia law. Then what? That doesn't do anything to prevent the adoption of Sharia law. If the government at any later point decides they want to adopt Sharia law (And it won't), all it has to do is repeal the original law. If there is enough support in the federal government to overhaul our entire justice system and adopt Sharia law, then a federal statute will be powerless to stop it.

Newt knows this.
 
2010-09-18 6:37:55 PM  

captain_heroic44: The key is that all parties must actually consent to the arbitration. If those small churches are trying to convince people that they are the actual authorities, as I suspect they would do, then their arbitration decisions should be invalid. But if there is real consent by all parties to such an arbitration, there's no legal problem with it.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea. I would question the intelligence and sanity of any woman who consented to that kind of arbitration. But sure, it is legal, and should be allowed.


There is no such thing as consent when you're dealing with religion. How can you expect a person who has been born and raised in a religion that systematically brainwashes them into believing that its leaders are authority figures speaking for some imaginary sky being, that women are inferior, etc, to make a rational decision about the fairness that religion's courts? Sorry, but this is exactly why religious decisions must never be legally binding, be they Pentecostal, Baptist, or Muslim.
 
2010-09-18 6:38:45 PM  

somedoctorguy: Sharia law is already outlawed in the US. It's called cruel and unusual punishment and/or sexual discrimination and a variety of other things that are antithetical to Sharia law.

For all you pseudo-intellectual nitwits, radical Islamists would be more than happy to accept your kind understanding as they behead you for being an infidel. Yeah, that's right. I mean you.What a bunch of fools you are. So understanding of the poor little people that just want to kill you.

If you don't believe that evil exists in the world, then you are aiding and abetting it.


Look out! There's a radical Islamist RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.