Quote from Wallet:
If the VAST majority of people in Oklahoma want to adopt a law prohibiting other countries laws into their courts, why can't they? The idea that it's never going to happen, therefore it's not a legal issue is bullshit. I don't fear it, and I don't want to try to understand it's archaic repressive background. It's in contrast to our laws. Furthermore I can see banning Sharia Law in a positive light, it makes a statement regarding the violation of Womens rights, possibly even preventing violence.... we have already seen Sharia type violence being carried out on women here.
If you don't like it, don't move to Oklahoma.
OK, I'll buy into some of that. The old argument against 'majority rules' is that, hypothetically, if, hopefully long long ago, there was a vote to say that all people of color, should not be allowed to vote. Or if the majority ruled that anyone over 40 should be put away, or was it 30? An old movie about that, they put LSD in the water in Hawaii or Florida or somewhere like that. Or, to go really back, the Star Trek episode had animosities stemming from people with striped colored faces, only to find that on side was white on the left, and other side was white on the right, so they fought and hated each other for generations.
Most like to think, IMO, that we would never go for a simple majority when it came voting for something immoral or hateful. Not saying that is where you're coming from at all, just making the point that a majority maybe shouldn't always be allowed to make the rules.
Thus a 'Republic' vs. a true Democracy, if I remember my civics classe correctly.
c
