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:
Nevertheless, Boyd overlooked that the verdicts
of an entire community of Islamic Sheiks could neither
be answerable nor accountable to anyone. During
Boyd’s ground research, the NDP was ousted by a more
conservative government that ignored the issue for
years. It was the current premier of Ontario, Dalton
McGuinty, who recognized the growing controversy.
McGuinty acknowledged the overriding political
circumstances of recognizing Sharia in Canada. In
a smart political decision, Premier Dalton refused
recognition of Muslim arbitration. He affirmed that
one law would apply to all. In denying Sharia, Dalton
needed to reject recognition of the ecclesiastical law
of other denominations. Among these were Jews,
Catholics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.7 The decisions
of private religious courts would no longer gain the
blessings of state enforcement. These groups could
however still pursue private arbitration in quiet.
Dalton’s decision would not allow the registration of any
decision under the Arbitration Act. Hence, it became
a matter of conscious decision of whether individuals
choosing to arbitrate under ecclesiastical law adhered
to the verdict. If the losing party does not wish to
recognize the decision, the state could not enforce the
verdict. Up until McGuinty’s decision, only the Jewish
and Catholic communities were actively pursuing
private arbitration. The Islamic community merely had
a request.
|
Evidently, the act of the state RECOGNIZING these religious verdicts and assisting in their ENFORCEMENT, was waaay too far.. I'll agree to that. Which leaves religious arbitration virtually unenforceable unless the parties just submit to the ruling.
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:
As an American Muslim I would be opposed to any suggestion that Sharia replace our American legal system for American Muslims or any other Americans, and I would be the first to fight any such possibility.
However, the inclusion of Sharia arbitration or alternative dispute resolution that might be utilized by Muslims who so choose after signing a binding arbitration agreement (signed by both parties in a dispute), or that might file an amicus brief with the court is not an alarming new idea. In fact, it is an existing option for religious communities. Any decision rendered by a tribunal or a panel of mediators is subject to appeal to the courts and must be consistent with American law and our Constitution.
Georgia state rep. Mike Jacobs told reporters that he couldn’t think of any instances of Sharia being forced on the good people of his state—but just to be sure, he introduced the “American Laws for Georgia Courts Act” earlier this week to block foreign or religious laws from being cited in state courts. A total of 16 states have passed or introduced anti-Sharia legislation since last February.
Wyoming State Rep. Gerald Gay (R-Casper), sponsor of a resolution in the Wyoming legislature which would, if passed, amend the state’s constitution to “forbid courts from using international law or sharia law when deciding cases.” Gay said “Americans need to pull their heads out of the sand and realize the threat, because “pretty soon you have the camel’s nose under the tent.”
Former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo argued that Muslim immigrants won’t assimilate because their goal is to implement Islamic law: “What do you do with people coming for the purpose of advancing sharia law, which is not compatible in any way with the constitution of the United States? How do you deal with that? That’s another very scary thing because demographically the numbers are on their side.”
Rep. Phil Jensen who introduced an anti-Sharia bill in South Dakota has backed down. Tim Murphy notes that this may have had something to do with the unintended consequences of such bills. He notes
According to Roger Baron, a professor of family law at the University of South Dakota, the ammendment’s prohibition on foreign laws would remove the state from a number of agreements concerning child custody and child abduction. Because those agreements hinge on reciprocity, “foreign countries will not enforce our custody decrees,” he warned in a letter to policymakers in Pierre, which he provided to Mother Jones. “The result will be that a disappointed custody litigant will have every motivation to improperly take the child to a foreign country and remain beyond the reach of international law.”
In other words, the Sharia ban would replace a non-existent problem (in testimony this week, proponents of a Sharia ban could not produce a single South Dakota case in which Islamic law had been a problem) with a bunch of very real ones.
|
Generally, I'd give him what he's asking for if there wasn't the phrase, "subject to appeal in the courts". Meaning that the state would have to recognize the verdict and the proceedings in the first place.. Other than that -- the political posturing and faulty "public opinion" can't dissuade me from supporting the choice of voluntarily submitting to religious arbitration -- EVEN IF -- those proceedings offend the sensibilities of some or are decided contrary to the law of the state...