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... |
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. |
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 |
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:
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:
|
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 |
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.. |
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 |
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 |
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.. |
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.:p
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.