|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
02-14-2012, 07:36 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
But only if it doesn't run afoul of the rights of minorities. If one looks at say France or the UK, one can get a sense of the profound effects of Sharia law. In the salient case here, a NJ woman sought a restraining order against her husband after being beaten and raped, the restraining order was denied because of consideration of Sharia law.
|
... and the judge's ruling was overturned.
In 2009, state Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles denied a woman a restraining order after she reported her husband repeatedly beat and sexually assaulted her. She and her husband are Muslim.
Charles asked their imam during the injunction hearing how Islamic law applies to sexual behavior. The imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, but a husband was forbidden to approach his wife "like any animal."
Charles said he denied the restraining order in part because the husband’s "desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited," according to the decision.
The New Jersey appeals court ruled July 23, 2010, that Charles was wrong. His decision contradicted U.S. and state Supreme Court precedent on conflicts between criminal law and religion, the ruling said.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/st...haria-law-nj-/
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
02-14-2012, 10:23 AM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
I would imagine that a majority of the folks advocating these laws are "small government" advocates too. I also doubt that they see the contradiction.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
02-15-2012, 06:16 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Open Border
Posts: 5,126
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
The issue I take with this law, is that I believe it to be more politically motivated than anything else.
Dave
|
I believe you hit the nail on the head.
+1.
|
02-15-2012, 09:02 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 658
|
|
True, but...............
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
That was not an example of the application of Sharia law. The Muslim community condemned the actions and the attitudes that led to them. I for one don't want to cease being a pluralistic society. Muslim faith is no more reason for exclusion than is Methodism or Agnosticism.
Regards,
D-ray
|
True up to a point. Except for a few diehards the Muslim community cannot be seen to back Sharia law; both in the U.K. and the U.S.A. some of the things it tries to justify are criminal offenses but all to often, those who condemn something in public practice it in private.
|
02-15-2012, 09:13 AM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
|
|
If the bastards want to live under Sharia law, why don't they just pack up their shit and move back to Sharia?
Chas
|
02-15-2012, 09:33 AM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles
If the bastards want to live under Sharia law, why don't they just pack up their shit and move back to Sharia?
Chas
|
Yeah, Same with the folks who Brought Catholicism and Judaism. Come to think of it, the Christians were interlopers here.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
02-29-2012, 07:10 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 658
|
|
Just a follow up
In the good old US of A (Land of the brave, Home of the Free) you've got a lot of legal rights which you fight to preserve, but which are in contradiction with each other.
Example. Some Evangelical Christian Churches claim that their faith allows them to using physical chastisement to "drive the Devil out of a child". This is a nice gray area. Religious freedom is protected under your Constitution, but does it allow child abuse in the name of religion? If so, how far does it go?
|
02-29-2012, 07:32 AM
|
|
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,580
|
|
Here in Brooklyn where Hasidics are politically significant there is some tacit agreement within the legal institutions to give some slack to the place and authority of the Rabbi.
|
02-29-2012, 07:32 AM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combwork
In the good old US of A (Land of the brave, Home of the Free) you've got a lot of legal rights which you fight to preserve, but which are in contradiction with each other.
Example. Some Evangelical Christian Churches claim that their faith allows them to using physical chastisement to "drive the Devil out of a child". This is a nice gray area. Religious freedom is protected under your Constitution, but does it allow child abuse in the name of religion? If so, how far does it go?
|
In my opinion, while the state has no jurisdiction over one's immortal soul, it does have jurisdiction to protect others from bodily harm. Therefore, to the extent that one's religion imposes bodily harm on others, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing such harm.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
02-29-2012, 07:33 AM
|
|
AKA Sister Mary JJ
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Upper East Tennessee
Posts: 5,897
|
|
Here is an interesting read on the subject.
http://www.grin.com/en/doc/233965/th...t-and-physical
It seems one man's "correction" is another man's "abuse".
In my opinion there is a big difference between beating and spanking. A smack on the bottom to reinforce parental instruction does not equate with hitting, punching, etc. The problem is what one thinks about the meaning of "harm".
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." (Mark Twain)
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.
|