Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Religion & Politics

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-27-2011, 12:20 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Religious Arbitration

I'm trying to figure this out. This concept of Sharia law existence becoming a threat to our existing legal system..

Can the voluntary abitration of CIVIL issues in a religious setting (mosque, temple, church) according to biblical law become a threat to our legal underpinnings?

Certainly, people can agree to arbitration terms of their choosing for CIVIL matters. It's only if the complaint is actionable under CRIMINAL penalty that the state can charge any of the parties involved. That's my understanding. So if the imam says you can beat your wife and give her a time-out in the garage and she AGREES to that arbitration, the state COULD charge the husband, but might not if the political pressures (in Dearbornistan, Mich) or (Brooklyn, NY for jews) were too severe.

Is this about it? Or is there more that I'm missing? Goes to the post by Hillbilly this morning about Sharia law and all the fuss about approving Mosque building...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-27-2011, 12:41 PM
noonereal noonereal is offline
Abby Normal
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
I did some Google and can't get a straight answer.

My guess is that when someone claims to be following Sharia law when beating there wife it is automatically a felony if this passes. Or did it pass?

I think the law is Tennessee's way of saying you are "not welcome here", straight up harassment.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:25 PM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Here is a month old CNN report on the law.

With shame, I note that Oklahoma has passed such a law - and apparently Missouri is considering one too.

The proponents refer to a case in New Jersey in which a trial court gave a husband a pass on beating his wife because his religion allowed him to do so. What the proponents don't mention is that the trial judge's decision was reversed by the court of appeals.

Here is the text of the bill. I would be interested in knowing the source of the first several pages of allegations that are used to support the bill. Looking at it quickly, I didn't see anything about wife-beating.

BTW, I will give research lessons for the paltry sum of $500 per person.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:30 AM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Thanks guys..

I'm not usually that lazy about starting a thread. But we've been dodging tornado sirens and taking the computers up and down a lot lately... Particularly for D-Ray and that text of the Tenn legislation which is CERTAINLY nothing for me to support or be proud of..

I'm rapidly getting a stronger opinion here. Seems like Canada went out of the their in the early 90's to clear the way for Muslim religious arbitration and then recently backed all that down in light of "public opinion"..

http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Sharia_11.2.pdf
Quote:

Nevertheless, Boyd overlooked that the verdicts
of an entire community of Islamic Sheiks could neither
be answerable nor accountable to anyone. During
Boyd’s ground research, the NDP was ousted by a more
conservative government that ignored the issue for
years. It was the current premier of Ontario, Dalton
McGuinty, who recognized the growing controversy.
McGuinty acknowledged the overriding political
circumstances of recognizing Sharia in Canada. In
a smart political decision, Premier Dalton refused
recognition of Muslim arbitration. He affirmed that
one law would apply to all. In denying Sharia, Dalton
needed to reject recognition of the ecclesiastical law
of other denominations. Among these were Jews,
Catholics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.7 The decisions
of private religious courts would no longer gain the
blessings of state enforcement. These groups could
however still pursue private arbitration in quiet.
Dalton’s decision would not allow the registration of any
decision under the Arbitration Act. Hence, it became
a matter of conscious decision of whether individuals
choosing to arbitrate under ecclesiastical law adhered
to the verdict. If the losing party does not wish to
recognize the decision, the state could not enforce the
verdict. Up until McGuinty’s decision, only the Jewish
and Catholic communities were actively pursuing
private arbitration. The Islamic community merely had
a request.
Evidently, the act of the state RECOGNIZING these religious verdicts and assisting in their ENFORCEMENT, was waaay too far.. I'll agree to that. Which leaves religious arbitration virtually unenforceable unless the parties just submit to the ruling.

However, that's not at all what the current flurry of legislation in the US is about.. It is (as NoOneReal said) clear and intense persecution.. And no amount of public opinion is gonna get me to support that. It SEEMS like all that is needed is a clear legal statement that the state will not RECOGNIZE or ENFORCE the verdicts of any of these religious courts be they Jewish, Catholic or Muslim.

Here's a Muslim perspective...

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam...ration_courts/
Quote:
As an American Muslim I would be opposed to any suggestion that Sharia replace our American legal system for American Muslims or any other Americans, and I would be the first to fight any such possibility.

However, the inclusion of Sharia arbitration or alternative dispute resolution that might be utilized by Muslims who so choose after signing a binding arbitration agreement (signed by both parties in a dispute), or that might file an amicus brief with the court is not an alarming new idea. In fact, it is an existing option for religious communities. Any decision rendered by a tribunal or a panel of mediators is subject to appeal to the courts and must be consistent with American law and our Constitution.

Georgia state rep. Mike Jacobs told reporters that he couldn’t think of any instances of Sharia being forced on the good people of his state—but just to be sure, he introduced the “American Laws for Georgia Courts Act” earlier this week to block foreign or religious laws from being cited in state courts. A total of 16 states have passed or introduced anti-Sharia legislation since last February.

Wyoming State Rep. Gerald Gay (R-Casper), sponsor of a resolution in the Wyoming legislature which would, if passed, amend the state’s constitution to “forbid courts from using international law or sharia law when deciding cases.” Gay said “Americans need to pull their heads out of the sand and realize the threat, because “pretty soon you have the camel’s nose under the tent.”

Former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo argued that Muslim immigrants won’t assimilate because their goal is to implement Islamic law: “What do you do with people coming for the purpose of advancing sharia law, which is not compatible in any way with the constitution of the United States? How do you deal with that? That’s another very scary thing because demographically the numbers are on their side.”

Rep. Phil Jensen who introduced an anti-Sharia bill in South Dakota has backed down. Tim Murphy notes that this may have had something to do with the unintended consequences of such bills. He notes

According to Roger Baron, a professor of family law at the University of South Dakota, the ammendment’s prohibition on foreign laws would remove the state from a number of agreements concerning child custody and child abduction. Because those agreements hinge on reciprocity, “foreign countries will not enforce our custody decrees,” he warned in a letter to policymakers in Pierre, which he provided to Mother Jones. “The result will be that a disappointed custody litigant will have every motivation to improperly take the child to a foreign country and remain beyond the reach of international law.”

In other words, the Sharia ban would replace a non-existent problem (in testimony this week, proponents of a Sharia ban could not produce a single South Dakota case in which Islamic law had been a problem) with a bunch of very real ones.
Generally, I'd give him what he's asking for if there wasn't the phrase, "subject to appeal in the courts". Meaning that the state would have to recognize the verdict and the proceedings in the first place.. Other than that -- the political posturing and faulty "public opinion" can't dissuade me from supporting the choice of voluntarily submitting to religious arbitration -- EVEN IF -- those proceedings offend the sensibilities of some or are decided contrary to the law of the state...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:51 AM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Good points sir.

As I see it, religious institutions have their own means of enforcement, within the context of the religious institution. A Catholic can be excommunicated for violation of the church laws. Some conservative Catholic churches deny communion to one who has divorced. I have heard of people from protestant churches being expelled for conduct not in keeping with the mores of the church.

The membership in a church and adherence to its principles is a voluntary exercise and should remain so in the eyes of the civil authorities. There would be serious constitutional problems should civil courts be called upon to enforce religious edicts. I would think the church authorities would have greater concern with the possibility that a court could review and rule upon a decision made according to religious principles - a significant interference by the state in religious doctrine.

WRT the Tenn law - if there is a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts against the state, that alone is a sufficient basis for prosecution. When the law addresses the religious nature of any organization, that is where it goes astray. In particular, I found the preamble to the legislation to be offensive.

P.S. Glad to see that you've made it through the storms.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:04 AM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
Yup...

That preamble was offensive. Kinda like the opening round of New Crusades..

I'd give those hotheads the chance to just reiterate the law as it is. And that is that state has no interest to authorize, recognize, sanction, or support religious arbitration..

Those crazy Europeans and Canadians created all this blowback by trying to be toooo tolerant and accomodating...
Now my local hotheads to point to all the ridiculous side-effects of their actions and make a credible case for public panic..

Last edited by flacaltenn; 04-29-2011 at 11:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:20 AM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
What I don't get is, if I sign a contract to abide by the decision of my church, and the decision isn't illegal in itself (stoning women etc), why is that contract void?

This is beyond me btw, excuse my ignorance

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:23 AM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
I think the U.S. is unique in the extent to which it's constitution prevents excessive entanglement between the church authorities and the state authorities. The European tradition has been to have a much more integrated line of authority in church and state: the divine right of kings, the Holy Roman Empire, the Church of England, etc. That is why I would not be concerned that we would become involved in the operation of religious arbitration the way has occurred in Europe (or Canada, which is still a commonwealth). In my view, excessive entanglement and religious bigotry are equally as dangerous.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:29 AM
flacaltenn's Avatar
flacaltenn flacaltenn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
ITPete:

I'm agreeing to the part of it where you agree to personally abide by religious arbitration. Where it gets nasty is if the STATE recognizes and sanctions that arbitration. In fact, (and D-ray nails this in the last post), all the historical damage that has been done by religion in the past (the Crusades, the Inquisition, ect) could only have been accomplished WITH THE HELP of State Power and sanction. Religion itself, is pretty much a neutered authority without some outside help..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:33 AM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
Note that said NDP government in Ontario lost the election; a) because they were a bunch of doofusses, and b) that was not their only dumb move. Ontario had been blue for so long I think that was the only reason the NDP got in in the first place. BTW the colours are reversed in Canada, Red is liberal, Blue is conservative, NDP was green I think, damed if I can remember what colour Social Credit was - nut brown probably.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.