Oklahoma Shariah Ban Is Blocked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

You have a problem with people voting for politicians who want to pass laws? Or only laws that you disapprove of? If you're complaining about politicians who want to legislate morality, either conservatives passing laws about who you can marry or sleep with, or leftists ('liberal' hardly seems appropriate in this context) passing nanny state legislation* then I'm against either but I don't regard them as any less of a legitimate outcome of the democratic process than any other policy I might happen to disagree with.

---

Just because something is democratic doesn't mean we can't disapprove of it..

Quote:

---

* though many people like to try and conflate laws passed to stop people harming themselves with laws passed to stop them harming other people, e.g. laws about smoking in public and drink driving laws. You have the right to endanger your own life and well being as you see fit, you have none to endanger the lives of people around you - some of our posters e.g. oldmunchkin and to a lesser extent Cain seem to have a problem with this distinction.

---

You also have the "right" to give up half your income, the "right" to pay higher prices for foreign products (i.e. due to tariffs), the "right" to pay higher prices for domestic products (i.e. due to minimum wage laws and numerous overly burdensome regulations), the "right" to give up a chunk of your income to people who can't be bothered to work, the "right" to pay more for foods that are unhealthy, the "right" to be bullied into joining a union, the "right" to be bullied into hiring unionized workers, and the "right" to have your savings lose half their value because of the government deciding to give money to everyone and their dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Just because something is democratic doesn't mean we can't disapprove of it..

---

Right, so we both agree that we don't like laws to be passed that we don't like, and we've even found a subcategory of laws that we both agree that we disagree with. What does this have to do with elitists, again?

Quote:

---

You also have the "right" to give up half your income, the "right" to pay higher prices for foreign products (i.e. due to tariffs), the "right" to pay higher prices for domestic products (i.e. due to minimum wage laws and numerous overly burdensome regulations), the "right" to give up a chunk of your income to people who can't be bothered to work, the "right" to pay more for foods that are unhealthy, the "right" to be bullied into joining a union, the "right" to be bullied into hiring unionized workers, and the "right" to have your savings lose half their value because of the government deciding to give money to everyone and their dog.

---

Does this paragraph even have a point?

Because elitists want laws passed that not only affect every part of other people's lives, but also significantly limit the options available to those people. I don't see why that's better than a dumb person who votes for the government to leave them alone.

I don't think we're actually talking about "elitists" here at all, are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I don't think we're actually talking about "elitists" here at all, are we?

---

Those are the elitists Lewk was referring to...don't see why we should change the definition.

It's Lewkowski and yourself who are trying to change the definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Because elitists want laws passed that not only affect every part of other people's lives, but also significantly limit the options available to those people. I don't see why that's better than a dumb person who votes for the government to leave them alone.

---

Excuse me? Where are these people that vote against 'elitists' in order for government to leave them alone? Very often the very same people who want the government to bud out of their wallet and gun rack, are the same people who want to inject the very same government into the bedroom and at the switches in hospitals. Never mind desiring bans on flag burnings or the like. Seems to me that it's only 'elitist' when it's the other side of the aile speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think the problem with "elitists" is that often times they're just as ignorant as the people they feel superior to, the only difference being that the elitists are the "elite" in some unrelated field (i.e. someone's a good artist, therefore they think they're superior to uneducated people when it comes to political beliefs).

---

When obviously we should all defer to political scientists, right? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I think I'm superior to some dumbass who can't even identify the relevant issues or the position of his candidates/party on those issues, or somebody who gets manipulated by transparent push polls or dirty politics. I'm superior to an asshole who can mouth pieties about being a "freedom voter" while denying the right of any two consenting and loving adults to marry and raise a family. I look down on hopelessly naive and ignorant voting based on a knee jerk stoked by some unscrupulous politician. I also look down on the educated people jerking their knees about this issue and that, because they're too fracking lazy to actually do some research and think hard about the complexities of an issue, in spite of having the blessing of brains to do so. Yes, here I'm looking at my well educated and intelligent mother, who has never been able to abide the least criticism of Israel "because of the Holocaust."

But let's be clear: I don't look down on such donkeys because of their ignorance. I look down on them because they a) they are either too dumb, too gullible, or too lazy (or all three) to do the due dilligence, but b) will still trumpet their beliefs to the high heavens and parade around with offensive banners deemed clever by their dim little minds, spattering their neighbors with spittle as they scream slogans whose impacts they don't understand. Their ignorance is not their offense. Their offense is that they consider their opinions born of plain old ignorance to be worthy of public airing, and that they willfully inflict said opinions at the ballot box. There's a profound arrogance in that.

And these days it is the GOP that excels at using this tactic. In a previous time it was the Democrats, which is why I, a child of the 70s, ardently opposed them earlier in my life. But the modern GOP has sold its soul to the devil by banking on this widespread American trait that I abhor. Example: they campaign on lower taxes, smaller government and balanced budgets, while they as a party have practically single-handedly created our massive debt. The GOP has attacked Obama for being a deficit builder while at the same time insisting that the grossly irresponsible Bush tax cuts be made permanent.

No, I don't blame the ignorant out there for being ignorant. But I do blame people who can't see through the thinnest veil of smoke. It's like some dumbass is watching a magician who is openly holding a coin in one hand, then openly places it in the other. The people I look down on are the ones who gasp in amazement at the magic trick of making a coin appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Excuse me? Where are these people that vote against 'elitists' in order for government to leave them alone? Very often the very same people who want the government to bud out of their wallet and gun rack, are the same people who want to inject the very same government into the bedroom and at the switches in hospitals. Never mind desiring bans on flag burnings or the like. Seems to me that it's only 'elitist' when it's the other side of the aile speaking.

---

Like I said there are some conservative elitists too. (These tend to be moral elitists as opposed to "intellectual" elitist but either way don't force people to conform - sure try to convince them but don't do it at the point of a gun) For the freedom folks out there both parties have their big brother nonsense. The Democrats IMO are worse since they are more all encompassing, money is a great medium for freedom because you can do so much with it, if you have less of it your options are choices become extremely limited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Like I said there are some conservative elitists too. (These tend to be moral elitists as opposed to "intellectual" elitist but either way don't force people to conform - sure try to convince them but don't do it at the point of a gun) For the freedom folks out there both parties have their big brother nonsense. The Democrats IMO are worse since they are more all encompassing, money is a great medium for freedom because you can do so much with it, if you have less of it your options are choices become extremely limited.

---

Then you are a conservative elitist? Because you want to see people thrown in jail, or shot, as a deterrent to crime.

Yeah, those with less money (or economic freeeedom) might do stupid desperate things. Like lifting a tube of $2 toothpaste.

You just have the notion of a Good Big Brother threatening jail, or Good Guns threatening harm or death.

Did I hear somebody whisper "less money, less freedom" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Did I hear somebody whisper "less money, less freedom" ?

---

Freedom has to be earned, freedom has a price?

Speaking of Shari'a: http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/20/civilised-v-savage/

Count the number of Muslim-majority states in the "No" or "Abstain" categories. You can do the same for the number of African states.

Not having read the thread beyond post #6:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

What does it say about the voter when this kind of a measure can get ~70% of the vote? I blame voters for being idiots, and the education system (and media) for contributing to that stupidity. Politicians are just doing what politicians do: taking advantage of a situation for their own gain.

---

If the First Amendment didn't exist, I'd want to create it.

I have no objection with the Shariah part of the measure (besides the fact its redundant, the First Amendment prevents Shariah Law anyway while also IMO preventing this). The irony isn't that 70% voted for this, its how many of that 70% do want Christian law in the courts.

The courts are a place for civil law, not religious law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not having read the thread beyond post #6:
If the First Amendment didn't exist, I'd want to create it.

I have no objection with the Shariah part of the measure (besides the fact its redundant, the First Amendment prevents Shariah Law anyway while also IMO preventing this). The irony isn't that 70% voted for this, its how many of that 70% do want Christian law in the courts.

The courts are a place for civil law, not religious law.

---

The measure also bans consideration of international law and laws of other countries, which happens to be unconstitutional. :noob:

By the way, it's pretty clear this passed because Oklahomans are fearful of Muslims/Islam, not because they want a separation of state and church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The measure also bans consideration of international law and laws of other countries, which happens to be unconstitutional. :noob:

By the way, it's pretty clear this passed because Oklahomans are fearful of Muslims/Islam, not because they want a separation of state and church.

---

Hence why I wrote "Shariah part of the measure".

I think my second sentance said much the same thing as yours.

Good to know the sound mind of the Oklahoma voters. Muslims make up slightly under 1% of the population there. A real threat indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Elitist.

---

Yeah, I've got elitist for you.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...Picture2-3.png

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...Picture3-1.png