Idiot Bishop: Sharia Law unavoidable

There was a L&O episode about precisely that. A woman who's husband wouldn't grant her the Get murdered him.

And was acquitted.

I would've acquitted her too.

I'm astonished that you can't see the flaw in that. I'm curious: on what grounds can a woman sue successfully for divorce in a religious court?

Says who? What if she chooses to ignore the religious restriction--as is and always should be her right--and finds a Muslem man who also chooses to ignore it?

If you have two systems in place for law, people will play one against the other. If they can't get what they want in one system, they'll seek it in the other. Tensions between the two systems, from overlapping and contradictory areas of authority, are inevitable.

I'm convinced that establishing a second legal system within a country for a particular group will result in that second system gaining more and more authority until it is finally so entrenched that, when it seeks to go farther than ever imagined by the tolerant folks who allowed it in the beginning, the alternatives will be to allow a repugnant social order or to risk civil strife.

It will create civil strife. People like like Linda will wake up one day and say, "whoa this is going to far." The people who want Sharia law (or any other religious law) are going to put up a fight because they are not going to want to give it up.

So I'm not alone in thinking this could happen.

It seems to me like the answer is both simple and obvious here.

1) People should be free to impose on themselves, voluntarily, in a given setting, whatever law they want, provided that law does not require or allow them to do anything illegal according to national law. It's what we're doing here on WordForge, for example: We submit to various rules (no flaming in the Help Desk, no pornography in the Red Room...) and that "law" is in addition to the national laws that are imposed on each of us in the countries where we live. In the same way, if Muslims want to accept Sharia law as additional restraints on themselves, they have the right to. Zombie mentioned Catholics saying women can't have abortions; well, why not? It is not illegal to refrain from an abortion, so the woman is not doing anything illegal by that, and if she wants to submit to that law, why shouldn't she be able to? When orthodox Jews refuse to eat pork, they are applying an additional law, and a religious one at that, to themselves. But who are they hurting by doing so?

2) The state should make no official notice of such laws. It is not their place. If the state recognizes them as having any validitiy whatsoever, then they become a de facto part of national law, which is unacceptable. IOW, this should be an entirely private matter between consenting parties, without the state giving any credibility to those laws. As far as national law is concerned, such "private" laws do not exist.

There really shouldn't be any more to it than that.

There is a difference between a woman restraining herself from abortion because of her own beliefs and a group of people forcing her to follow a religious law that would prevent her from getting abortions.

The same applies to Linda's marriage example above. Needing permission from a religious court to divorce? Needing permission from a religious court to marry another individual? No. Not acceptable.

The problem is Muslims want Sharia law for all Muslims whether those individuals want it or not.

The government should give notice to these laws. It should notice the public at large that these laws are unacceptable to the rest of the country and all people will follow the laws of the country and not laws they want to impose not just on themselves but onto others.

You can not even give an inch on this subject. If you allow a group to establish even the tiniest bit of religious law they will keep working to build up to the bigger heavier laws.

No group of people can make its own laws, civil or criminal, seperate from the country they live in. There is one set of laws for everyone and thats it. If you want to apply your religion to yourself then go ahead but the instant you try to apply it to someone else regardless of who they are or how they are related to you then you need to be stopped cold.

We all know how voluntary can quickly become mandatory for people. Not necessarily through the state but from the community itself applying pressure.

They shouldn't be below either. They shouldn't exist. If you don't want to eat pork because of your religion that is a personal choice. At no time should you be allowed to call it a law nor should you ever be in a position where you could apply that belief to a community at large. You could advocate it for people who are the same faith as you but thats as far as it should go.

Religion has no business being involved with law anymore for any reason. Got a dispute? Arbitration. Not religious arbitration but arbitration based on the laws of the country you reside in with a arbitrator who is secular and will not follow some religious teaching to render a decision.

And to further expound, Muslims demands everyone be Muslim, so following Sharia Law would never be a conflict. Those who aren't Muslim would be subjugated and treated like shit, as per Sharia Law.

Sorry but in a public setting, there should be one set of laws/rules.
Funny fact - when I joined the Air Force there was a dude (not in my unit) who got kicked out because he wouldn't salute female officers, because having a man in charge of a woman was against his religion.

Another guy got kicked out because he wouldn't roll his sleeves up, once again because his religion forbade showing excessive flesh.

If you notice carefully, I more than once used the word "voluntary."

A lot of BBSs want to apply their "laws" (calling them "rules" is merely a matter of semantics) to all their members. Is that a problem? If you don't like it, you can withdraw.

Are you then saying that the government should make it illegal for BBSs to have rules? That scouts should no longer have the scout law (which applies to all scouts; if you don't want to follow it, you can't become a scout)? That any group that has by-laws should be illegal?

I think your intolerance here has pushed you into extremist territory without you realizing the implication of your position.

Well, that would seem to answer my previous question. But it is an even greater restriction of liberty than such laws, since a person is free by national law to withdraw from any group that wants to impose an additonal law on them with which they don't agree, but with your stance, no one can "withdraw" from the prohibition of being part of a group that has its own bylaws. Sorry, I find that unacceptable.

With that, I agree 100%. But I don't see how it has anything to do with the position I laid out.

And what happens when the "voluntary" person at the center of a case is a minor? Does the state insist on the primacy of its courts, overruling any objection by the religious courts, family, etc.? What then?

The first time some headline case gets resolved in civil court over the objections of an Islamic court, there will be angry protests about the "insult to Islam."

This is doing nothing but breeding separatists. It is the opposite of assimilation.

Give an example of what you are talking about. A Jewish kid suing his parents for not letting him eat pork? A 14-year-old who posts on a bulletin board and doesn't think the no-flaming rules should apply to him because they are not the law of the whole country? A scout who made his oath but doesn't want to follow the scout law any more?

If there is conflict between the laws, yes. Of course. The state has only its own laws, period. In the cases I cited, the state's rulings would be as follows:
- It is not illegal to refrain from eating pork, and your parents have the right according to our laws to tell you what you can and can't eat.
- If you don't like the BBS's rules, don't post there any more.
- Give up scouting.

I really fail to see what the problem is.

I am not willing to make any laws on the basis of what is or is not an "insult to Islam." Therefore I find that argument irrelevant.

We are not Borg. The goal is not assimilation. I think people should have the right to be different. That's why I'm more libertarian than conservative.

Disagree.

Within the limitations of other people's rights. You can decide how to raise your children, but you cannot abuse, neglect, or endanger them no matter what your religion demands. And you sure as fuck cannot attempt to impose binding religious law on your neighbor, even if you live in a narrow ethnic pocket within a larger community and had assumed your neighbor shared your beliefs. People should be free to choose for themselves, as individuals which religious "laws" they'll adhere to, and they should be just as free to abandon those "laws" without facing any kind of binding punishment. No beatings, no mutilations, no harassment, no forced attendance of religious tribunals, nothing.

Say, a girl in an Islamic family, ordered by a religious court to go through with an arranged marriage, appeals to a civil court to prevent it.

If the civil court upholds the decision, it is clearly in violation of the girl's rights. If it strikes down the decision, it is clearly an insult to Islam.

There will always be conflict because the civil courts have very different standards for what is lawful.

Whenever someone doesn't like the outcome in the religious court, they can either ignore its ruling--by what power can a religious court enforce its decisions?--or appeal to a civil court. If the civil court will not hear their case, they're ignoring the rights of a citizen. If they do, they will have a tough time upholding a religious court's decision, so they will insult the religious court by overruling it.

You're right: you fail to see it.

Which is 100% opposed to the philosophy of the religious court, which will bear no insult to Islam. That's why the two systems will be constantly in conflict.

Don't think for a moment that the civil courts won't be brought into "purely Islamic" matters. When people don't like a court's verdict, they seek an appeal. The inevitable result will be the Islamic court being CONSTANTLY overruled (at least, I would hope so).

If I were a Muslem traditionalist, that wouldn't sit too well with me. I'd be liable to see the permission to use sharia courts in limited cases as making Muslems "half-oppressed" rather than "half-free."

Allowed to be different? Certainly. Allowed to define legal boundaries for other citizens? Absolutely not.

According to the two principles I spelled out, the civil ruling would be very clear: The girl is under no compulsion to go through with the marriage. Since the civil court should recognize only national laws, that would be the end of it.

Note that I said very clearly that people should be able to have whatever additional, voluntary laws they want as long as those laws do not allow or require them to violate national laws. That last clause was not included just to make the post longer. I'm pretty sure that in most Western countries, it is illegal for parents to force their children to marry someone they don't want.

I'm still not seeing the big deal here.

No disagreement on that, either. But if I want to be part of a group that has a law requiring us to always wear something red, never ride in a car on Tuesdays, and keep a fried egg in our pocket at all times, that's my business. And I don't care that it isn't "assimilation" to the rest of the culture that (rightly, I must admit) considers all that weird and stupid.

If Muslims want to live by Sharia law, why don't they move to a place that is run by Sharia law?

Because there is more than one way to wage a war and some are more insidious than others.

That would be the end of the case (probably). Probably not the end of the hard feelings on it, however.

I hear you. But voluntary law is no law because people are free to ignore it.

I'm not sure traditionalists will be satisfied with "You can have your own courts, but they won't have any authority because compliance with their rulings is voluntary."

As it should be...but aren't we being intolerant by forcing that view on traditionalist Muslems?

It seems to me there are only two possibilities here (a setup for a charge of false dichotomy, I know): either the Islamic courts will have authority or they won't. I think I'm saying that those who want--demand!--them will not be satisfied with impotence. And if they have authority, they will be in constant conflict with civil law.

True, but no one can be hauled before a court on account of those things. Even if you were, you'd have benefit of counsel, the presumption of innocence, power to subpeona witnesses, protections against self-incrimination, the right to appeal, etc.

Now, imagine you're a person in a Muslem enclave where a large majority of the people have demanded a sharia court. The court has the power to make a charge against you, you have few (if any) of the protections I mentioned, and, whether you choose to respond to the charge or accept the outcome, the court can rule on your case and label you a religious criminal. And the large majority of people will accept that ruling as law. I think you would find that there would be intense pressure on you to accept the court's legitimacy, no matter how "voluntary" it is.

Voluntary my ass.

Just use some common sense.

Why would these Muslims (men, I suspect) want a religious court of Sharia law? Why?

Because they know women have the right to go divorce their ass if they beat, rape or abuse them like they believe is their right. A Sharia court would never agree to grant a woman a divorce...it's against their religion. They are trying to find a way to be able to strip Muslim British women of their rights.

A symbolic, unenforceable religious court that was merely symbolic would be useless to them and a waste of time to install.

To them, maybe, but it's the only kind the law should allow.

In other contexts, it works fine. The Honor Court is a very useful part of scouting, for example.

If the Muslims want more than that, well, there are plenty of countries where they can have it. But not here.

Er, no. Sharia courts grant divorces to women all the time. Particularly in Iran, for some reason... I saw a great documentary about one a while ago. One young woman was granted a divorce because her husband wouldn't let her go to university.

On, and the women I was referring to in my earlier post are women who wouldn't feel divorced unless the Sharia court agreed. I'm not saying they're not divorced, I'm reporting how many of them feel. The Sharia court would just be an adjunct to our civil court, not a replacement. Just like the Beth Din.

Never took you for a poster who posted silly arguements.

You're wrong. The reason? Your taking the word law too far. We are talking law as in laws of government. Criminal and civil. Society at large. Not private organizations.

The Boy Scouts can have by-laws until freezes over for all I care. But if they try to take those bylaws and use them in place of the laws passed by government then they are wrong and they need to be stopped.

That is what is being attempted with Sharia law. People who support Sharia law are trying to maneuver it into a position where it takes the place of current law.

See the above answer.

Which is exactly what I said. So what are you disagreeing with?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...tart=0&edition=2&ttl=20080209075300#paginator

If these comments are representative of the average Briton then I don't think we need worry that they are sticking their heads in the sand...

Seems a number of British people are quite against any introduction of Sharia.

Muslims would have no case for an argument if we didn't have similar rules already in place for other faiths. Either accomodate all faiths or none at all.

We had the black Muslim guy from Detroit in my unit that got kicked out because one fine day he talked so some imam decided his religion demanded he grow a fucking beard.

The best part was when he tried to sue for an honorable discharge instead of a dishoneroable and he wanted VA bennies, the judge actually laughed him out of the courtroom, I'm told.

Judge Judy can't sentence people to death.

Which is really too bad. If she could, it'd do wonders for the gene pool.

It would do wonders for the gene pool if Judge Judy could go back in time and commit suicide before she propagated. She's a truly disgusting human being. When I was doing an internship at the New York City Law Department she gave a talk--she used to work for the Law Department, and she comes back every year to give a talk to the interns. One story she told was about how, when she was a Family Court judge she held three children in custody for as long as she could, refusing their release, because she knew that there was no evidence sufficient to convict them and they'd go without punishment otherwise. There's not a more vile and despicable thing a judge could do than taking it upon herself to dole out justice in violation of the law, and she's proud of doing it. I wish there were a hell for her to rot in.