|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 26, 2011 12:24:58 GMT -5
Everytime I think "this has GOT to be the bottom of the barrel" some legislator proves that NO bottom is enough if you're prepared to just keep digging. www.tennessean.com/article/20110222/NEWS02/110222081Think they've really thought this one through? Since, for example, I'm not a practicing homosexual, am I following the legal code known as Shariah law? Could anyone, just to keep with the example, not regularly engaging in homosexual acts be slapped in gaol for 15 years if this law were passed? Hey, rape and murder are contrary to Shariah too, does that mean anyone who isn't a murderer or rapist is going to get 15 years? (Yes, I know such a law would never survive the first legal challenge, yet the unwitting dumbfuckery of its mere proposal simply floors me) I really thought the "investigating all miscarriages for evidence of artifice" law was the absolute bottom, but now this. Just what the fuck will these retards come up with next? Here's a fun game, just for shits and giggles, I defy anyone to come up with a more ridiculous law proposal. Go ahead. Can it be done? Must have some semblence of appeal to some suitably vocal group to count. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Feb 26, 2011 12:38:06 GMT -5
I can think of another example... Islamic law does not allow eating pork. Does that mean everyone who does not eat pork (for any reason) is following Sharia law.
But yeah, this would fall flat the first time a practicing Muslim was arrested for practicing their religion in their home. Which could be as simple as kneeling towards Mecca to pray.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Feb 26, 2011 13:31:54 GMT -5
Here's a fun game, just for shits and giggles, I defy anyone to come up with a more ridiculous law proposal. Go ahead. Can it be done? Must have some semblence of appeal to some suitably vocal group to count. 1)You must own a minimum of 3500 sq/ft of property in order to be a classified as a resident and therefore elegible to vote. This minimum is per individual; in the case of spousal joint ownership of property that fails to meet the minimum square footage needed for both parties to qualify, the husband will be considered the resident. Am I getting close? |
|
|
|
Post by clubmed on Feb 26, 2011 13:56:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Feb 26, 2011 14:08:53 GMT -5
I can think of another example... Islamic law does not allow eating pork. Does that mean everyone who does not eat pork (for any reason) is following Sharia law. But yeah, this would fall flat the first time a practicing Muslim was arrested for practicing their religion in their home. Which could be as simple as kneeling towards Mecca to pray. Can I get a medical exception? Pork gives me the shits. Granted, if it's a little diarrhea or jail.... |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Feb 26, 2011 14:27:10 GMT -5
Here's a fun game, just for shits and giggles, I defy anyone to come up with a more ridiculous law proposal. Go ahead. Can it be done? Must have some semblence of appeal to some suitably vocal group to count. 1)You must own a minimum of 3500 sq/ft of property in order to be a classified as a resident and therefore elegible to vote. This minimum is per individual; in the case of spousal joint ownership of property that fails to meet the minimum square footage needed for both parties to qualify, the husband will be considered the resident. Am I getting close? Not especially. michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote |
|
|
|
Post by katz on Feb 26, 2011 16:10:55 GMT -5
I can think of another example... Islamic law does not allow eating pork. Does that mean everyone who does not eat pork (for any reason) is following Sharia law. Pretty much this. There's gonna be a lot of pissed off Jews/vegetarians/pet pig owners in the wake of this. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Feb 26, 2011 16:15:13 GMT -5
Wow...is this moron aware that aspects of our legal code are based on Sharia law? Oh wait no he doesn't.
Ironbite-CAUSE HE'S RETARDED!
|
|
|
|
Post by tiado on Feb 26, 2011 17:12:37 GMT -5
So in an effort to fight against Sharia law, state lawmakers want to impose restrictive draconian laws that penalize peoples' beliefs. I can think of a LOT of people who abstain from eating pork, would they be subject to penalties because of their beliefs? This is no more than a direct attack on the Muslim population in that state.
I do not agree with Islam, but the Establishment clause states that the government cannot pass a law restricting the free practice of any religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Feb 26, 2011 17:14:37 GMT -5
First Amendment. Bitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Feb 26, 2011 17:49:02 GMT -5
There are some people in the comments section in the link that justify this by saying that the Constitution only says the federal government can't make laws concerning religion, so states are free to make any kind of religious laws they please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Feb 26, 2011 17:52:33 GMT -5
There are some people in the comments section in the link that justify this by saying that the Constitution only says the federal government can't make laws concerning religion, so states are free to make any kind of religious laws they please. And guess what? They're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Feb 26, 2011 19:06:36 GMT -5
I guess it's time my poor Muslim uncle was hauled off for not eating pork. The traitor.
Another note: Can the subject of the message be in the subject of the title? It would make it easier to see what news stories have been posted so there are no repeats.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 26, 2011 19:21:20 GMT -5
Here's a fun game, just for shits and giggles, I defy anyone to come up with a more ridiculous law proposal. Go ahead. Can it be done? Must have some semblence of appeal to some suitably vocal group to count. 1)You must own a minimum of 3500 sq/ft of property in order to be a classified as a resident and therefore elegible to vote. This minimum is per individual; in the case of spousal joint ownership of property that fails to meet the minimum square footage needed for both parties to qualify, the husband will be considered the resident. Am I getting close? Nice try, but I can sort of see the thought process underlying that... e.g. land owners are more likely to be employed, thinking people with a stake in the game, thus more likely to vote in sensible fashion. I mean, its pretty silly, yes, but as silly as the OP? |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Feb 26, 2011 19:39:36 GMT -5
Agh....the stupid it burns..
|
|
