Guest Peeves

Sharia law? Vetoed in 3 minutes.

92 posts in this topic

Is it discrimination? Seems there's both positions taken by USA states. See link.

"After Deliberating For Three Minutes, Florida Senate Panel Approves Anti-Sharia Bill"

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/02/29/434658/florida-anti-sharia-bill/?mobile=nc

he proposed legislation, which would ban the use of “foreign law,” is drawing ire not only because it’s been used as a way to attack Muslims in this country, but also because it could have a number of unintended consequences. As the Orlando Sun-Sentinel notes, many Jewish groups are calling the legislation discriminatory against them as well:

Andrew Rosenkranz, regional director for the Anti Defamation League, said that the decisions of Jewish tribunals called Bet Dins, which often handle divorce proceedings, are often converted into civil divorce decrees by the courts. But under the Senate bill, and another ready for a vote by the entire House, an observant Orthodox couple would “effectively be barred from following their faith and using a Jewish tribunal to dissolve their marriage,” he said.

“The alleged threat of Islamic, other religious or foreign law to Florida’s court system is completely illusory, and the Senate’s consideration of this measure is an unwise use of resources,” Rosenkranz said, adding that both the Florida and U.S. constitutions “already prohibit the unconstitutional application of foreign law in the courts.”

Ruled unconstitutional elsewhere.

In 2011, Florida Republicans tried to pass an anti-Sharia bill, but it failed to gain approval. Proponents are hopeful they will gain enough support this year.

Last month, a similar Sharia ban in Oklahoma was ruled unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, a number of states like Florida are pushing forward. Just two months into 2012, 22 states have introduced anti-Sharia bills.

To learn more about what Sharia law actually is (and is not), read this Center for American Progress primer. Also check out CAP’s report Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America to read about the players behind state anti-Sharia bills.

I'm definitely against any form of law other than existing secular laws. Sharia has no place in the West.

You of course may have a differing opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap. I was looking forward to stoning adultresses next visit to Disney World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why they are banning Sharia law...the U.S has its own laws and it only abides by those laws

so why are they banning laws that are not the laws of the U.S? It seems like a waste of time to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's political grandstanding and feel-goodism on the usual scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am against any religious law having legal force in our Country.

As for existing Jewish religious 'courts' handling divorces, I don't see what's the problem! We have always had religion and law separate at a wedding. The licence comes from the state, the minister does the religious rites and as a matter of courtesy makes sure that all and both sets of documents are in order.

Why could that not be done with divorce? Could a Jewish couple not be divorced by the laws of the land and appeal to their church to be divorced in its eyes?

Actually, is that not the way it is already in the Catholic faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, it's not a "Anti-Sharia Bill" - but a bill banning any religion or foreign law as part of a legal decision or contract. According to this article - Senate panel rams through bill Muslims and Jews call discriminatory - both Muslims and Jews are objecting - saying it would prohibit them from freely practicing their religion

Edited by American Woman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am against any religious law having legal force in our Country.

As for existing Jewish religious 'courts' handling divorces, I don't see what's the problem!

This was a big political hot potato when Ontario tried to introduce religious arbitration for couples separation. Many insisted that Muslim women would face discrimination under such an setup, even if they voluntarily agreed to the proceedings.

We have always had religion and law separate at a wedding. The licence comes from the state, the minister does the religious rites and as a matter of courtesy makes sure that all and both sets of documents are in order.

It's the divvying up of the assets, and child visitation rights that are most contentious I think.

In any case, what is a religious law ? All of our laws come from the ten commandments, and as long as it complies with the constitution, any government can pass or repeal any law it can get through the legislatures. So even this law could be repealed easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm definitely against any form of law other than existing secular laws. Sharia has no place in the West.

You of course may have a differing opinion.

Funny how you only notice it when it comes to Muslims, but Jews and various sects of Christians have had this "luxury" for decades. They go to arbitration, guided by their religious values, then the course sign off on the decision. I don't see a problem with it, so long as the decisions rendered by the arbitrators does not violate the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If they do, our courts ought to and can refuse to recognize the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's political grandstanding and feel-goodism on the usual scale.

Don't forget Islamophobia.

Anyways, there are always limits on religious rights/freedoms. If my religion said that molesting babies was part of a ceremony, you can bet it wouldn't be allowed. Same with honour killings etc. You should be able to practice your religion, as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights and laws of the lands, particularly those in our constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget Islamophobia.

What does "Islamophobia" have to do with this issue?

Anyways, there are always limits on religious rights/freedoms. If my religion said that molesting babies was part of a ceremony, you can bet it wouldn't be allowed. Same with honour killings etc. You should be able to practice your religion, as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights and laws of the lands, particularly those in our constitution.

If the limits already existed by law, ie: were carried out by the law, why are there Muslims and Jews who are upset by the law?

Obviously there are some aspects of the religious beliefs that have no place in legal contracts and/or decisions, and the purpose of the law, as I understand it, is to ensure than they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a big political hot potato when Ontario tried to introduce religious arbitration for couples separation. Many insisted that Muslim women would face discrimination under such an setup, even if they voluntarily agreed to the proceedings.

It's the divvying up of the assets, and child visitation rights that are most contentious I think.

In any case, what is a religious law ? All of our laws come from the ten commandments, and as long as it complies with the constitution, any government can pass or repeal any law it can get through the legislatures. So even this law could be repealed easily.

Well, it could certainly add a few more layers for lawyers to take fees! And what if a real court repealed a religous court's decision? Would that not be like igniting a barrel of fireworks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it could certainly add a few more layers for lawyers to take fees! And what if a real court repealed a religous court's decision? Would that not be like igniting a barrel of fireworks?

You sign away your rights at the beginning, and agree to accept the decision of whatever cleric presides over your case. There may not even be lawyers involved for all I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sign away your rights at the beginning, and agree to accept the decision of whatever cleric presides over your case. There may not even be lawyers involved for all I know.

I dont have a problem with that. They are entering into voluntarily into binding arbitration agreement. All parts of it still have to be legal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sign away your rights at the beginning, and agree to accept the decision of whatever cleric presides over your case. There may not even be lawyers involved for all I know.

Yes Michael, but with some cultures there will always be suspicion that some, particularly women, are forced to abide by a religious court that has what we consider to be demeaning ideas about women's rights.

Wouldn't this be extremely difficult to identify? Women are killed every day for less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "Islamophobia" have to do with this issue?

Well, here;s one take on it, linked within the OP article: My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how you only notice it when it comes to Muslims, but Jews and various sects of Christians have had this "luxury" for decades. They go to arbitration, guided by their religious values, then the course sign off on the decision. I don't see a problem with it, so long as the decisions rendered by the arbitrators does not violate the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If they do, our courts ought to and can refuse to recognize the decision.

Funny how you only notice it when someone posts the truth.

Face it. Islam is different in fact and in practice than other religions. Islam is a political theocracy.

BTW I posted something today on LDS as well. You only notice as an apologist for Islam, anything critical in truth about Islam.

If you chose to continually fault me rather than disputing the factual matters of my post, you show your colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Michael, but with some cultures there will always be suspicion that some, particularly women, are forced to abide by a religious court that has what we consider to be demeaning ideas about women's rights.

Wouldn't this be extremely difficult to identify? Women are killed every day for less!

Well, you expressed support for the idea in the thread above. I'm confused here, have you changed your mind or are you just working through the idea in your posts ? I don't have a strong opinion on it, myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Michael, but with some cultures there will always be suspicion that some, particularly women, are forced to abide by a religious court that has what we consider to be demeaning ideas about women's rights.

Wouldn't this be extremely difficult to identify? Women are killed every day for less!

I once read and heard discussed on the radio, that, " a Muslim under sharia need only say 3X I divorce you, and it's fini so far as the women's rights are concerned.

Alternatively of course if you happen to be the problematic first wife there's always the canal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a bunch of anti-Muslim hysteria. It's basically a bunch of anti-Muslim propaganda. We don't have sharia law in the US. The problem in the US is that we have all these right-wing Christians who are interfering with other people's lives, or trying to, and in fact they are trying to impose their right-wing Christianity on the rest of us through various laws. The Muslims don't have much influence in the US, but the right-wing born-again Christians do. The danger to the US is not the Muslims, it's these Christian religious fanatics trying to impose their hypocritical "morality" on the rest of us.

I myself have no problems with Christian moderates. Many Christian moderates are also sick and tired of the fanatical Christians trying to impose their will on everybody else.

Edited by Wolf Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a bunch of anti-Muslim hysteria. It's basically a bunch of anti-Muslim propaganda. We don't have sharia law in the US. The problem in the US is that we have all these right-wing Christians who are interfering with other people's lives, or trying to, and in fact they are trying to impose their right-wing Christianity on the rest of us through various laws. The Muslims don't have much influence in the US, but the right-wing born-again Christians do. The danger to the US is not the Muslims, it's these Christian religious fanatics trying to impose their hypocritical "morality" on the rest of us.

I myself have no problems with Christian moderates. Many Christian moderates are also sick and tired of the fanatical Christians trying to impose their will on everybody else.

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/articles.html#sharia

Fine, if so, please elaborate as to what the propaganda is exactly. The Muslim Canadian Congress is very vocal in their position against sharia law. Is that, FROM CANADIAN MUSLIMS propaganda too? Sharia law is unfair to women. Most really of us have no idea as to what sharia laws are. The object of fundamental Islam, and according to Muslims there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam", is to impose sharia in every country in the world.See Wahhabism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm

I have no problem with Muslim moderates either. The difference between being a Christian 'fanatics' and Islamic 'fanatics' is that the Islamic fanatics will kill, murder, bomb, and terrorize over their fanaticism , for burning a book, picturing Mohammad, naming a bear etc.

Christian extremists, fanatics on the other hand don't.

They may act like the Phelps clan, but there's a vast difference.

Edited by Peeves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/articles.html#sharia

Fine, if so, please elaborate as to what the propaganda is exactly. The Muslim Canadian Congress is very vocal in their position against sharia law. Is that, FROM CANADIAN MUSLIMS propaganda too? Sharia law is unfair to women. Most really of us have no idea as to what sharia laws are. The object of fundamental Islam, and according to Muslims there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam", is to impose sharia in every country in the world.See Wahhabism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm

I have no problem with Muslim moderates either. The difference between being a Christian 'fanatics' and Islamic 'fanatics' is that the Islamic fanatics will kill, murder, bomb, and terrorize over their fanaticism , for burning a book, picturing Mohammad, naming a bear etc.

Christian extremists, fanatics on the other hand don't.

They may act like the Phelps clan, but there's a vast difference.

I would't waste your time with him. He's just a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has already been pointed out in the past. The Muslim Canadian Congress does not speak for Muslims in Canada and in fact has been heavily criticised. Nearly the entire board resigned, due to the anti-Muslim direction the MCC was taking. The MCC no longer speaks for Muslims in Canada and hasn't since 2006 when that mass resignation took place. They formed the Canadian Muslim Union following the split. This is the statement about their resignations. The board members that resigned indicated that the MCC was no longer a voice for Muslim Canadians, but a voice against Muslim Canadians. They wrote, "the public face of the MCC has deviated from its stated priorities. The message that MCC has been giving out is 'not addressed to Muslims, it is aimed at making Muslim haters feel secure in their thinking'." The CMU is certainly against Sharia Law in Canada and Sharia banking, but the MCC is not a credible source to point to as the voice of Muslims in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would't waste your time with him. He's just a troll.

Indeed. Justify that name calling or you will face me at 20 paces varlet.

Accusations and ad hominen pejoratives are easier for the fool than a thoughtful response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Justify that name calling or you will face me at 20 paces varlet.

Accusations and ad hominen pejoratives are easier for the fool than a thoughtful response.

He basically posts the same type of response in every thread. Usually cutting and pasting from his website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap. I was looking forward to stoning adultresses next visit to Disney World.

How about just throwing them off the cliff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now