CommentsDisplaying CommonSenseIII's 10 most recent comments.

• Fed Appeals Court Rules Against Okla. Ban on Islamic Law

  January 11, 2012 at 9:30am

  In reply to love the kids.

  “No, for several reasons:
  1. Some denominations of Christianity allow gay marriage
  2. Churches’ marriage ceremonies are not sufficient for governmental recognition of marriage; you still need a marriage license.
  3. The part you quoted in this case misinterprets the statement. This amendment specifically focused on one religion, Islam, which violates the Establishment clause. If gay marriage legislation specifically mentioned not allowing Christianity or Christians to apply for marriage licenses, it would be analogous. As religion is likely not mentioned in such legislation, it wouldn’t be a similar situation.”

  Locked – I think I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree based on an element that I think many are overlooking. This proposed amendment was in no way discriminating a religion.

  Sharia is not the Islamic religion, it is the laws that Muslims feel supersede all other laws. No one is taking away their right to pray, gather, worship or try to win converts to their religion.

  More than anything this amendment was a declaration against activist judges. We have seen and will continue to see many more votes such as these come before the people simply because most voters feel that activist judges have rendered verdicts in contradiction to our laws, and have done so citing international or cultural laws to justify their ruling.

  Why should any other law than ours be used to determine a verdict in our court of law?

• Fed Appeals Court Rules Against Okla. Ban on Islamic Law

  January 11, 2012 at 9:14am

  In reply to BIGJAYINPA.

  Godfather – According to your logic, honor killings would be illegal here simply because it is against our law. The whole purpose of this vote was to make sure that no other law than this nation’s law be used in deciding cases. You can be against the fact that it used sharia law as one of it’s examples, but by your own statement it seems that you agree with the spirit of it.

  This nation has a history of having the best legal system in the world. That is simply because we are a nation ruled by laws, not by men. These laws are in place to protect your inalienable rights (those given by your Creator) and the other rights declared in our Constitution from somebody else.

  With this in mind, why would a court even consider a set of laws that is not rooted in and based on our constitution when rendering a verdict?

  It sounds like to me that the 70% that voted actually had the integrity on prestige of our Constitution in mind when they did so. Or would you rather have to think about which area of town you are in to know what laws will or will not apply?

• Dick Morris Calls Ron Paul ‘The Most Liberal, Radical Left-Wing Person to Run for President’

  December 30, 2011 at 11:58am

  Question for die hard RP supporters: Most of the reasons I have seen posted as to why RP is the only choice point to him abolishing the Fed Resrv, cutting $1T in spending his first year and balancing the budget in 3, he is the only one who will follow the Constitution, etc. If he were to follow the Constitution, how can he as 1/3 of the federal government accomplish all this?

  Or is it simply that as his follower you believe that he will push for these things to happen by trying to sway members of congress to pass legislation?

  Maybe I’m wrong, but I see a need for a conservative president with a conservative majority in both houses of the legislature. How can RP do all this alone?