Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 23rd, 2011, 12:05 PM   #1
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 24,909
Hmmmm, maybe ole' Moammar wasn't so bad after all.





BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Libya's transitional leader declared his country's liberation on Sunday, three days after the hated dictator Moammar Gadhafi was captured and killed.

He called on Libyans to show "patience, honesty and tolerance" and eschew hatred as they embark on rebuilding the country at the end of an 8-month civil war.

The transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil set out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying that Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in the country and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great. He then stepped aside and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.



http://news.yahoo.com/libyas-transit...155513082.html
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 23rd, 2011, 12:19 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
When Gadhafi took power in 1973 he declared that Sharia would be the basis for the law, although he later undermined and overruled those courts.



Even if you think Sharia is a bad thing (and it ain't necessarily so), isn't having an independent judiciary a good thing?
skrekk is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2011, 12:29 PM   #3
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 24,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
When Gadhafi took power in 1973 he declared that Sharia would be the basis for the law, although he later undermined and overruled those courts.



Even if you think Sharia is a bad thing (and it ain't necessarily so), isn't having an independent judiciary a good thing?
I thought you didn't cotton much to Sharia law?
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2011, 03:22 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319401190' post='363465

When Gadhafi took power in 1973 he declared that Sharia would be the basis for the law, although he later undermined and overruled those courts.



Even if you think Sharia is a bad thing (and it ain't necessarily so), isn't having an independent judiciary a good thing?
I thought you didn't cotton much to Sharia law?
I don't at all, but I also respect the rights of sovereign nations to choose their own destiny. I do think that absent a constitution (LIbya hasn't really had one since 1969) that Sharia is a valid place to start an independent judiciary, at least for an overwhelmingly Muslim society like Libya. It's a better short-term solution than judicial anarchy or judgement by executive decree. And note that even when LIbya had a constitution, Islam was the state religion and Sharia law was part of its dual court system - so if they simply return to what things were like before the 1969 coup Sharia will still be part of the law. Certainly that's not a system I'd want to live under.



In certain realms like family law, Sharia law really isn't that different from Jewish Halacha law. I think it's less productive in criminal law, but it's very similar there to what the American colonies practiced. Also note that what Sharia law actually is varies a lot from place to place since it's not part of the Koran.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2011, 03:48 PM   #5
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 24,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman' timestamp='1319401786' post='363477

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319401190' post='363465']

When Gadhafi took power in 1973 he declared that Sharia would be the basis for the law, although he later undermined and overruled those courts.



Even if you think Sharia is a bad thing (and it ain't necessarily so), isn't having an independent judiciary a good thing?
I thought you didn't cotton much to Sharia law?
I don't at all, but I also respect the rights of sovereign nations to choose their own destiny. I do think that absent a constitution (LIbya hasn't really had one since 1969) that Sharia is a valid place to start an independent judiciary, at least for an overwhelmingly Muslim society like Libya. It's a better short-term solution than judicial anarchy or judgement by executive decree. And note that even when LIbya had a constitution, Islam was the state religion and Sharia law was part of its dual court system - so if they simply return to what things were like before the 1969 coup Sharia will still be part of the law. Certainly that's not a system I'd want to live under.



In certain realms like family law, Sharia law really isn't that different from Jewish Halacha law. I think it's less productive in criminal law, but it's very similar there to what the American colonies practiced. Also note that what Sharia law actually is varies a lot from place to place since it's not part of the Koran.

[/quote]

OK Skrekk, good post.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2011, 06:12 PM   #6
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman' timestamp='1319401786' post='363477

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319401190' post='363465']

When Gadhafi took power in 1973 he declared that Sharia would be the basis for the law, although he later undermined and overruled those courts.



Even if you think Sharia is a bad thing (and it ain't necessarily so), isn't having an independent judiciary a good thing?
I thought you didn't cotton much to Sharia law?
I don't at all, but I also respect the rights of sovereign nations to choose their own destiny. I do think that absent a constitution (LIbya hasn't really had one since 1969) that Sharia is a valid place to start an independent judiciary, at least for an overwhelmingly Muslim society like Libya. It's a better short-term solution than judicial anarchy or judgement by executive decree. And note that even when LIbya had a constitution, Islam was the state religion and Sharia law was part of its dual court system - so if they simply return to what things were like before the 1969 coup Sharia will still be part of the law. Certainly that's not a system I'd want to live under.



In certain realms like family law, Sharia law really isn't that different from Jewish Halacha law. I think it's less productive in criminal law, but it's very similar there to what the American colonies practiced. Also note that what Sharia law actually is varies a lot from place to place since it's not part of the Koran.

[/quote]





I didn't realise the American colonies chopped off the hands of thieves and carried out summary executions at football grounds
garysher is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2011, 09:54 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
I didn't realise the American colonies chopped off the hands of thieves and carried out summary executions at football grounds
Just like Britain the colonies did cut off the hands, ears or head for a wide variety of offenses. But since they hadn't invented football yet, dullard, there were no football stadiums......so they just burned their witches in the public square (after drowning the innocent to determine which of the accused were actually witches).



Much like Gary and the Taliban, the colonial theocracies didn't tolerate people who violated their Sharia laws. In fact, they were exactly like Gary - obsessed with the private sex lives of other people, and gleeful to see odd corporal punishments applied to everything from sodomy to masturbation - anything which went outside the very narrow margins of what they considered moral sex. And in accord with their violent imaginary friend and their bizarre biblical principles, for bestiality they not only killed the rapist but the rape victim as well (maybe that explains why Gary's imaginary friend murdered all the first-born farm animals of Egypt).



No surprise that's the theocratic world Gary and the Taliban would like to live in.



skrekk is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 04:48 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
So you justify the use of Sharia Law today based upon the actions of a select set of folks who inhabited the North American continent 400 years ago? Just asking here.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 07:23 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
So you justify the use of Sharia Law today based upon the actions of a select set of folks who inhabited the North American continent 400 years ago? Just asking here.
Not at all, but since you're new here you're not aware of my view of the sort of theocracy Gary advocates - he thinks his personal religious views should control your life and mine through our common secular law. What people like Gary want is a return to the Christian sharia law practices of 400 years ago.



In the US I'm opposed to lower-case "sharia laws" no matter whether they come from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.......but I'm also not naive enough to think that my views about the US are relevant to Libya. My general point about Libya is that Sharia law is the natural cultural fallback position to maintain order, given the current lack of a constitution and lack of a dictator. They're winging it right now and no one can foresee the outcome.



I also think that most wingnuts in the US are completely clueless about what Islamic Sharia law is, but it's a dog whistle to them (like "states rights"). Without knowing anything about it they think they know it's a bad thing if for no other reason than they think everything Muslim is bad.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 07:32 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319460508' post='363587

So you justify the use of Sharia Law today based upon the actions of a select set of folks who inhabited the North American continent 400 years ago? Just asking here.
Not at all, but since you're new here you're not aware of my view of the sort of theocracy Gary advocates - he thinks his personal religious views should control your life and mine through our common secular law. What people like Gary want is a return to the Christian sharia law practices of 400 years ago.



In the US I'm opposed to lower-case "sharia laws" no matter whether they come from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.......but I'm also not naive enough to think that my views about the US are relevant to Libya. My general point about Libya is that Sharia law is the natural cultural fallback position to maintain order, given the current lack of a constitution and lack of a dictator. They're winging it right now and no one can foresee the outcome.



I also think that most wingnuts in the US are completely clueless about what Islamic Sharia law is, but it's a dog whistle to them (like "states rights"). Without knowing anything about it they think they know it's a bad thing if for no other reason than they think everything Muslim is bad.


I think maybe I will let Gary speak for himself. Something tells me that he would not necessarily agree with your appraisal of his opinions, at least not 100%.



You speak of 'common secular law.' What do you mean by that?
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 08:03 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
I think maybe I will let Gary speak for himself. Something tells me that he would not necessarily agree with your appraisal of his opinions, at least not 100%.



You speak of 'common secular law.' What do you mean by that?
"Common secular law" is what we in the US call our constitution and laws, which apply to everyone under US jurisdiction. That's in contrast to things like the Mormon prohibition on caffeine and alcohol, the Jewish & Muslim ban on the consumption of pork, or Gary's religious view of homosexuality......which he wants enforced through our common secular law.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 08:18 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Where does 'common secular law' derive its authority? Why do you say 'secular?' I understand what you offer in contrast, but contrast does not define, only demonstrates difference.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 08:59 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Where does 'common secular law' derive its authority? Why do you say 'secular?' I understand what you offer in contrast, but contrast does not define, only demonstrates difference.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. US law is secular, and any laws which lack a secular primary purpose are unconstitutional.



The laws of your bizarre cult should control your life, not mine.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 09:48 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Just asking, Mr. Shrekk. I like to know with whom I am dealing and under what definitions they operate.



Now the establishment clause only prevents the United States Congress from enacting laws establishing a nationwide religion. That clause does not prevent the states from enacting laws concerning, alcohol, gay rights, gay marriage, etc. as you seem to say. I do not see a connection.



And the establishment clause also does not prevent states, if the so decide, to establish religions within their boundaries. In fact, all 13 original states maintained laws which established religious requirements on office holders well into the period that began with the ratification of the Constitution. The last of those laws was in effect almost eighty years after the Constitution was ratified, until 1877, in New Hampshire. If you would like a reference for that, please see http://undergod.proc...p?resourceID=69 . The states originated their respective establishment clauses on their own authority. And they obviously did not cede to the federal government oversight authority to be used to regulate religious requirements within their borders under the Constitution. Those establishment statutes existed for decades into the Constitution period. And the states rescinded the laws in question under their own authority, not on any authority from imposed by the federal government. So I'm not sure by what authority you claim, 'any laws which have primarily a religious purpose are unconstitutional.' Would you please cite for me the documentary evidence that supports that each of the states comprising the United States of America handed to our federal government the authority to regulate the enactment of laws respecting religion within their respective boundaries? Because unless you can, then I am trying to understand how you can possibly be correct.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 10:29 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Now the establishment clause only prevents the United States Congress from enacting laws establishing a nationwide religion. That clause does not prevent the states from enacting laws concerning, alcohol, gay rights, gay marriage, etc. as you seem to say. I do not see a connection.



And the establishment clause also does not prevent states, if the so decide, to establish religions within their boundaries. In fact, all 13 original states maintained laws which established religious requirements on office holders well into the period that began with the ratification of the Constitution. The last of those laws was in effect almost eighty years after the Constitution was ratified, until 1877, in New Hampshire. If you would like a reference for that, please see http://undergod.proc...p?resourceID=69 . The states originated their respective establishment clauses on their own authority. And they obviously did not cede to the federal government oversight authority to be used to regulate religious requirements within their borders under the Constitution. Those establishment statutes existed for decades into the Constitution period. And the states rescinded the laws in question under their own authority, not on any authority from imposed by the federal government. So I'm not sure by what authority you claim, 'any laws which have primarily a religious purpose are unconstitutional.' Would you please cite for me the documentary evidence that supports that each of the states comprising the United States of America handed to our federal government the authority to regulate the enactment of laws respecting religion within their respective boundaries? Because unless you can, then I am trying to understand how you can possibly be correct.
I linked above to the Lemon Test, but you might want to learn about the Incorporation Doctrine, as well as the 1947 Everson v Board of Ed case. While you're right that initially the states could continue to remain theocracies, that hasn't technically been true since the civil war. The 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states and the Everson ruling was an inevitable consequence of that - a variety of SCOTUS rulings since that time has cemented the fact that the establishment clause in the federal constitution applies to the states, not just Congress.



As I said, the sharia laws of your bizarre cult are your business - not mine, and not the government's.

I'm not surprised that members of the American Taliban and other Christofascists don't like that.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 02:45 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319478531' post='363647

Now the establishment clause only prevents the United States Congress from enacting laws establishing a nationwide religion. That clause does not prevent the states from enacting laws concerning, alcohol, gay rights, gay marriage, etc. as you seem to say. I do not see a connection.



And the establishment clause also does not prevent states, if the so decide, to establish religions within their boundaries. In fact, all 13 original states maintained laws which established religious requirements on office holders well into the period that began with the ratification of the Constitution. The last of those laws was in effect almost eighty years after the Constitution was ratified, until 1877, in New Hampshire. If you would like a reference for that, please see http://undergod.proc...p?resourceID=69 . The states originated their respective establishment clauses on their own authority. And they obviously did not cede to the federal government oversight authority to be used to regulate religious requirements within their borders under the Constitution. Those establishment statutes existed for decades into the Constitution period. And the states rescinded the laws in question under their own authority, not on any authority from imposed by the federal government. So I'm not sure by what authority you claim, 'any laws which have primarily a religious purpose are unconstitutional.' Would you please cite for me the documentary evidence that supports that each of the states comprising the United States of America handed to our federal government the authority to regulate the enactment of laws respecting religion within their respective boundaries? Because unless you can, then I am trying to understand how you can possibly be correct.
I linked above to the Lemon Test, but you might want to learn about the Incorporation Doctrine, as well as the 1947 Everson v Board of Ed case. While you're right that initially the states could continue to remain theocracies, that hasn't technically been true since the civil war. The 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states and the Everson ruling was an inevitable consequence of that - a variety of SCOTUS rulings since that time has cemented the fact that the establishment clause in the federal constitution applies to the states, not just Congress.



As I said, the sharia laws of your bizarre cult are your business - not mine, and not the government's.

I'm not surprised that members of the American Taliban and other Christofascists don't like that.


You make a reasonable point, and that is that at any particular time, the federal judiciary or the Supreme Court can make the Constitution mean anything that it wants it to mean. And we are bound to live with that. And that is how various private and public agendas become law. And the 14th Amendment is vague enough as to allow the Supreme Court promulgate a doctrine of Separate but Equal for almost 60 years, but then turn on a dime and claim that that doctrine was incorrect. So if we are going to argue various court decisions, rather than the facts as they exist, then we can demonstrate anything we might like to demonstrate.



But I asked you when the states authorized the federal government to regulate the enactment of laws respecting religion within their respective boundaries. I asked for a fact. Your answer is an opinion of the meaning of the 14th Amendment. OK, fine. That is as good of an answer as I can expect.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 24th, 2011, 04:04 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
But I asked you when the states authorized the federal government to regulate the enactment of laws respecting religion within their respective boundaries. I asked for a fact. Your answer is an opinion of the meaning of the 14th Amendment. OK, fine. That is as good of an answer as I can expect.
They did that through the supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment, specifically the following section of the 14th Amendment:

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
As SCOTUS has gradually changed its interpretation of the scope of those "privileges or immunities" to incorporate most of the bill of rights (the Incorporation Doctrine), the states have necessarily been obligated to respect those rights.



Otherwise a state could criminalize Judaism or deny you your right to free speech.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 04:15 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Shrekk,



I do not argue for or against opinions of various court cases. The history of the republic demonstrates that the courts are every bit political institutions as they are institutions of justice. I expect that you may even agree with me on that, to a certain extent. I argue the intent of the state legislatures who ratified the 14th Amendment in1868. When they ratified the 14th Amendment, the legislatures of the states did not intend to give up the state's rights guaranteed and retained under the 10th Amendment. And whatever the legislatures intended the 14th Amendment to mean, is the meaning imparted to that amendment, and is therefore what it means today. Meaning is imparted at inception, not by others, who have their own personal preferences on the matter, later.



Irrespective of the fact that the failure by the southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment at the time resulted in military rule by the federal government in those states, and a federal bypassing of authority of the state legislatures in those states, and then the imposition of the reconstruction acts on those states, all which through coercion prompted the amendment's passing, it would be another eighty years before anyone would imagine that this amendment dealt with any certain states' right to legislate with respect to religion within its borders. That is certified by the fact that two states maintained their laws requiring religious tests until as late at 1877, in the full view of the federal government, and in view of all of the other states, at which time the legislatures of these states, on their own authority, reflecting the will of the people of those states, repealed those requirements.



The Founders respected a state's right to legislate according to the will of its people. That will changes over time. It is transient. But it changes from within. And never, except in the most egregious cases involving the denial of basic human rights, or a violation of a federal contract with a state, did the Founders envision a federal government to impose its will, denying the states their guaranteed sovereignty, for transient reasons. The Declaration of Independence speaks to this principle, however seemingly in reverse, allowing that the people should not revolt against governments for transient reasons. But because the authority of the federal government derives from those same people and from the states, that authority should also not be used by a federal government to revolt against a state's rights for those same transient reasons. Because in America, the federal government receives its authority from the states and from the people of those states, the states and the people are the supreme government, not the federal government. So a usurpation of state's rights by the federal government is every bit the same revolt against authority as a common revolt of the people against an established government. For this reason, the imposition of a federal government's will against the constitutional right of sovereignty of a state, ostensibly using the authority given to it by that same state, should only be used when a state's perceived violation against the rights of a citizen or citizens, has been violated to an egregious degree. Stepping in to ensure the rights of blacks to receive the very same education in government owned and operated institutions of learning, especially when federal funds are being used by that institution, are reasons for federal government intervention. That would be an egregious assault on the rights guaranteed by the equal protection clause. But simply because the citizens of one county seat within a certain state decide of their own volition to place a plaque commemorating the Ten Commandments in their local courthouse, that at best is a transient issue, one owned by the citizens of that county and state to decide, and the federal government therefore has no jurisdiction to intervene. However this court case from 1947, seemingly, has given rise to a whole system of federal powers theretofore unknown to anyone alive, certainly not the people or the states. I expect that the case in question was decided with all good intentions. Cases generally are. But I also doubt that the courts deciding this case, even themselves envisioned that this decision would carry the implications others who have come along afterward infer from it.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 08:03 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Ah yes.......states rights. That's the dog whistle I thought you were coming from.



Thanks, but I much prefer a country where blacks and whites are free to intermarry and where the states - and the feds - are no longer free to impose Jim Crow laws or sharia laws (like DOMA).
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 08:37 AM   #20
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Ah yes.......states rights. That's the dog whistle I thought you were coming from.



Thanks, but I much prefer a country where blacks and whites are free to intermarry and where the states - and the feds - are no longer free to impose Jim Crow laws or sharia laws (like DOMA).


I don't like a top-down secularocracy any more than a top-down theocracy. Secularists and theocrats have no problem with the federal government dictating to the states and the people. It's a "holy cause" to both groups.
imaginethat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa

Tags
law, libya, sharia, strict


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Embassy Security Zack Current Events 44 October 28th, 2012 09:19 AM
Top Revelations from Libya Hearing Jimmyb Current Events 21 October 12th, 2012 09:57 AM
$25 MILLION in aid on its way to Libya Dude111 Americas 2 April 22nd, 2011 02:08 PM
One more reason to Despise Sharia... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 6th, 2010 04:59 PM
Canada struggles with Islam's Sharia law Steven M Religion 3 September 8th, 2005 08:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.