Post Number: 661
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 2:54 pm: || |
"I think all of this is only a issue because the Muslim is the American boogey man of today."
Makes sense. I pull out a similar card when someone criticizes the Jewish state. I call them an anti-semite.
It sure makes discussing an issue easier. You can never lose.
Post Number: 394
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:09 pm: || |
Did the past cultures of slavery and the holocaust have something to do with Christianity?
No, Hitler was into eugenics and Darwinism, exact opposite of Christianity. And no, Christianity was not the basis for slavery either, it was the basis for ending it though...
Post Number: 149
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:12 pm: || |
It's unfortunate that the perfect gentlemen of the world have turned Judge Paruk's arguments into a xenophobic rant against Islamic culture and Sharia law, because he has a very valid point. Assuming that, as he has said, he consistently considers the faces of witnesses when making a decision, he should not be expected to make a fair decision in this case without access to resources he generally employs. If he feels he cannot decide a case fairly under the circumstances, he should dismiss it, and I would expect the same of any judge in such a situation. It has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with an impartial legal system that treats everyone fairly and consistently.
Post Number: 643
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:15 pm: || |
Hitler was catholic he used eugenics and Darwinism to support his position that whites were of a master aryan race.
Good you admit Christianity wasn't the basis of slavery you admit that there is a difference between the religion and the culture of those who practice it. So how is Islam the basis of terrorism or all of those other human right violations you listed earlier? Or are you going to admit also that it isn't?
Post Number: 768
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:22 pm: || |
The Fourth Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions. It is inapplicable to to the case at issue in this thread. As I've suggested earlier, there are other principles of our common law that support Judge Paruk's ruling. Ms. Muhummad is not entitled to wear the veil when testifying in court.
Post Number: 5707
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:23 pm: || |
The the Muslims wear their veils in public American courts. Who are we in the this Christian ideological nation to judge people based upon foreign cultures? Did Jesus say " judge not lest ye be judged."
Post Number: 327
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:47 pm: || |
Danny, I suppose we should let Mormons practice polygamy again. And I guess if your religious doctrines are interpreted to say it's just to gouge the eye out of a man who looks at your wife, we should allow that as well.
In this country, the people make the laws, not God. If the people decide they want to allow citizens to take legal action against one another without even showing their face, that would be one thing. But you cannot do whatever you want here because your God said so. This is not intolerance or Xenophobia. Those playing the race/culture card here simply cannot find any other way to support their arguments. I don't care who you are, follow the laws.
"Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye."
Looks to me like Jesus was saying "don't be a hypocrite", not "don't judge people." Well, I'm not being a hypocrite. I DO abide by the laws of my country. Let others do the same.
Post Number: 769
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:48 pm: || |
Well said, bearinabox.
Post Number: 1268
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:55 pm: || |
If he feels he cannot decide a case fairly under the circumstances, he should dismiss it, and I would expect the same of any judge in such a situation
I thought if a judge feels biased they are supposed to assign the case to someone else not throw it out.
Post Number: 6
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 4:54 pm: || |
Perfectgentlemen you may find me naive but I would like to know what are the sources of your information. There is a reason I am asking, is it your own interpretation or did you watch Pat robertson's 700 club. You sir can belive what you like. You sir should go back and reread my post slowly to understand what I was saying. Islam is a religion people misrepresent and manipulate the quran. There is a reason I am saying this. Obviously the Quran was written before PC times. I sir am not violent, nor do I or many of us believe that women are subserviant. There is a reason I am asking you and if you haven't read between the lines maybe you are the one who is naive. How believers interpret their religious teachings is the problem. So please if you would like to reply I encourage that action. Islam is not the problem! Muslims are not evil people. Much of what the media has been focusing on is propaganda. Much like the info you are feeding the readers of this thread. There are lunatics who practice there lunacy supposed ly in the name of Islam, but they are misrepresenting the religion and its teachings. I have met fanatic born again christians that are in my opinion off their rocker, but I don't blame their religion I blame their interpretation of what they have been taught. So please do not assume I am naive I think you are focusing on the extremist idiots and forming your opinions. Leaders often use manipulative tactics to accomplish the goals on there agenda.
Post Number: 150
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 6:05 pm: || |
Pam, that depends if looking at the witness's face is typical court procedure or specific to Judge Paruk. I don't know the answer to this, but I think Paruk's point stands either way.
Post Number: 4290
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 7:05 pm: || |
This woman did bring the initial case and I think that makes a difference. Defendants do have a right to face their accuser.
If she wins it could create an interesting precendent. Klansmen for instance could wear their hoods in court if they claim it is part of their Christian Identity "faith". And God knows what Scientologists could do with this kind of ruling.
I'm usually supportive of Muslim rights to wear veils et all in public, in schools, etc but when it comes to driver license photographs, appearing in court, etc I think the veil needs to come off.
Now that said, the Judge could have handled this better as well. Clear the courtroom of everyone but the Judge, jury, court reporter, lawyers, and defendant.
Post Number: 250
|Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 11:21 pm: || |
Why not keep it simple? What are the laws that address this situation. It seems to me that the judge has the power, within the law to make this demand. Therefore, the person in question must comply or be held in contempt. It is the persons' choice to comply, or accept the consequences of not doing so which is in violation of the law (in this case, in contempt of court). Make your choice and accept the consequences. All of the other debate pertaining to racism, etc, is irrelevant.
Post Number: 419
|Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 12:27 am: || |
Who on earth taught your history class? You obviously didn't pay much attention. Hitler was raised Catholic, yes, but he was in no way one that used Catholic doctrine in his life, quite the opposite. In fact he and his party were quite disdainful of Catholics. I have a picture of a Nazi propoganda poster condemning Catholics if you would like.
Back on topic. I don't know why people can get so offended by religious customs. It's the same thing as those damn PC nazis. . If someone can find the verse where Allah says that women must be veiled, please let me know. I'm sure the Imman who made that law either had a really hot or ugly wife that he didn't want his boys to see and lust after. Until then grow some thicker skin and realize not everyone can accomodate your every wish.
Post Number: 61
|Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 12:58 am: || |
Quote: ""Therefore, the person in question must comply or be held in contempt.""
And I think (more opinion ) thats the key to this whole thing. She was not violating any law or purposely disrupting the proceedings, so contempt was out.
The Judge opted to just dismiss the case and deprived her right to have her complaint heard before the court.
Just have to wait and see how it's decided.
Post Number: 258
|Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 10:46 pm: || |
Simpler still, A judge has the authority to make certain demands in his/her courtroom. Disobeying those demands is grounds for being in contempt of court (by definition of the term). So, yes, it is contempt.
Illustration, a judge can demand that someone in his/her court remove their hat, use respectful language, even shower if they feel the persons hygiene is offensive and disrespectful of the court. So long as the demand does not violate that person's rights (which is another point of debate here) and isn't so absurd as to call the competence of the judge into question, the wise thing to do is to comply, or be ready to accept the consequences (of being held in contempt).
(Message edited by ccbatson on April 02, 2007)
Post Number: 767
|Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 9:46 am: || |
Ccbatson is correct. As I said, I saw Judge Avern Cohn have a couple removed from his court by bailiffs because they refused to take off their political tee shirts. He said he would hold them in contempt of court and have them arrested if they attempted to wear them in the courthouse again.