As you like to say, pay attention.
I suppose, as a moron, I might have misunderstood, despite paying attention.
You're against a law proscribing actions you find abhorrent because you think the law's proponents are merely virtue-signalling. Right?
Someone I've known for 50 years is a federal prosecutor in another state.
I asked him,
Here in Maine there was a bill in the legislature to criminalize Female Genital Mutilation.
Democrats killed it.
One of their justifications for voting it down is that the practice is already a violation of federal law.
What's your opinion of that justification?
My reaction is that by that reasoning, all other criminal statutes which parallel federal law should be expunged (e.g., drug laws). But they are not, since the state is a sovereign entitled to enforce its own laws and protect its own residents, rather than depend on the federal government to do it for the state.
I would say that is an answer, that pretty much follows conservative thought,Fed. bad states good etc .
Sorry, Matt, I must have confused you with your bestest buddy Jasper.
I need to keep you guys straight. We're praying for Jasper.
You, we're just praying that you get a date.
Is it not possible to prosecute mutilators under current law?
And while we’re at it, do you think American citizenship and Islam are compatible?
It's possible to prosecute anyone for almost anything under current law. The first child abuse case in New York was prosecuted under a humane treatment of animals statute.
Of course Islam - insofar as I understand it - is compatible with American citizenship.
That’s not really a rational answer. Do we need to pass a law forbidding parents from putting out cigarettes on kids’ arms? Or is it enough that it’s certainly child abuse, and so can be prosecuted as such?
Hey, if a specific law needs to be passed, for some reason, then sure, I would support it. But you’ll have to forgive me for my cynicism when Rs decide to make this a crusade, literally
. When the sponsor of a bill contacts ACT for America—a group that thinks Islam and US citizenship is incompatible—for assistance, it’s pretty clear that “protecting children” may not be the primary motive for the action. So I’m not looking to jump on that xenophobic bandwagon.
Making it a state law allows more law enforcement options, especially under different types of situations. It's why there are both federal and state laws against murder.
The main reason lefties are against the law is because they think objecting to it will be a finger in the eye of Christians.
And lefties hate Christians more than anything.
Even more than protecting children.
And lefties hate faux-Christians like Tom C more than anything. There, fixed it for ya.
Matt - You asked "Is it not possible to prosecute mutilators under current law?"
I gave you not only a rational answer, but a truthfully precise one. Some forms of abuse are "certainly" child abuse, and others not so much. That's why there's a body of statute and precedent serving to clarify child abuse. For instance, for some forms of abuse, it might be helpful explictly to obviate a defense based on religious grounds. If you believe that FGM is an abhorrent crime (e.g. "If someone cuts their daughter like that, they should go to jail.") then why are you so doubtful that law proscribing the practice would be useful for prosecution?
Let's try again: You're against a law proscribing actions you find abhorrent because you think the law's proponents are merely virtue-signalling. Right?
Good luck, E. One case is a clear example of inflicting abuse/torture, and there can be no "it's our culture and/or religion" response to attempt to rationalize it.
The case at hand falls exactly into that category: cultural and religious based "traditions." Sort of like the honor killing thing.
You know, multi-culturalism and all that nice "feel good" reaction.
Tap the brakes....
When the sponsor of a bill contacts ACT for America—a group that thinks Islam and US citizenship is incompatible—for assistance, it’s pretty clear that “protecting children” may not be the primary motive for the action. So I’m not looking to jump on that xenophobic bandwagon.
It is my understanding that one of the sponsors of the bill you reference responded to an email sent by someone connected to that group, not the way you portrayed things.
Jasper, I'm a real Christian.
Who but a real Christian would wear his knees out praying for you?
Pretty sure you wear your knees out, but not from praying.
As usual, history has the answer:
Charles Napier, a 19th century official of the British Empire in India, well understood the limits of cross-cultural tolerance. When told by Hindu leaders that it would be inappropriate for him to interfere with the "national custom" of burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre, he responded:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
Yes, let’s try again. Because i think the folks pushing for the law are trying to score points, and because the rhetoric surrounding it contributes to anti-Muslim sentiment, and because the abhorrent act can already be prosecuted under federal law, specifically, and state law more generally, I am not interested in supporting it. If you (or anyone) can prove to me that a law is absolutely necessary to prosecute, then I will support it, despite the fact that it’s champions are blowing their dog whistles.
Comments like Udall’s don’t help the cause. Do we need a law against “honor killings”?
Of course, Udall is a racist, so generally speaking, he’s not that bright. I probably shouldn’t expect him to grasp any form of nuance.
Just praying for you more, Jasper.
Odd that Matt's supposed "anti-Muslim" sentiment results in demanding laws against genital mutilation.
While anti-Christian sentiment works hard to block those laws.
If you (or anyone) can prove to me that a law is absolutely necessary to prosecute, then I will support it, despite the fact that it’s champions are blowing their dog whistles.
This is a slam dunk for you. Of course, no one can "prove" to you that a law against FGM is "absolutely necessary." For that matter, state laws proscribing murder or bank robbery are not "absolutely necessary" either. I share your wish to restrain legislatures from passing unnecessary laws but, in this case, I think you're being excessively precious. Just my opinion.
So you get to paste the law's supporters as racist while protesting your (unbiased) outrage against FGM.
It is my opinion that Sharia law is not compatible with the laws that govern the United States. As always, the people who would undermine our western culture would have you believe that their efforts are for some noble cause. It is my opinion that this is just another camel's nose under the tent flap to introduce these foreign concepts into our society.
Few remember that Christianity once had Ecclesiastical Courts, in England and elsewhere. In England, if you were not in the Church of England you were considered disloyal, since the King (or Queen) is the head of the C-of-E. You could not vote, you could not sue in the courts, you could not run for office, you could not be an officer in the military. A second class citizen in every way. One of the things many who were not in the Church of England came to these shores to avoid.
It is not a good idea to allow any alternate legal system. I'm not just talking about Sharia - I think the pseudo-legal systems in Academia are unconstitutional as well. Not to mention unjust.
The precedent method has diluted the legal system. It's time to judge cases based on the law and not someone's interpretation.
Of course we'd need far fewer lawyers. I call that a very agreeable unintended consequence.
I agree. The law should be interpreted before enacted not after.
If no one knows what it addresses /intent and purpose we have no right to be using it.