91 replies to this topic

[Peeves]

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.

[DogOnPorch]

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

[olpfan1]

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

[Michael Hardner]

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

[Wild Bill]

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?

[American Woman]

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, 01 March 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[cybercoma]

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.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

[American Woman]

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.

[Wild Bill]

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?

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[dre]

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.

[Wild Bill]

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!

[Moonlight Graham]

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

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