[quote]orion wrote:
All of this is blown way out of proportion.
In the cases where Sharia is alowed to be part of a contract in Europe it is about private settlements of contratct violations.
You can agree to any set of rules when it comes to private contracts, including laws of other nations, UN trade law or you can simply ake up some rules.
Doesnt change that they still go to jail if they rape, pillage or murder.[/quote]
I cannot believe this was upheld!! where is the ACLU…where is our leader right now…oh yeah…he’s in traveling to India and Indonesia… kissing their ass.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ok, the ruling to stop the implementation of sharia was put on hold. In other words, one of our judges thinks Sharia should be heard as a method of law.[/quote]
There was no need to rephrase what you said, it was easy to understand you the first time.
I know the fuck buddies over at Fox do a great job of passing stories around, so it’s not surprising there isn’t a shred of credible evidence to support this. But seriously man, you can’t believe everything you watch on the television. Sharia Law becoming part of the justice system? That’s absurd! The link you provided didn’t even seem to create a clear picture of what’s going on. This is all just a big fucking joke, and the punch line is that millions of Americans fall for stories like this every day.
New Question for thread: Why are Americans losing there minds?
[/quote]
look what’s happening in Europe. There are enough stupid judges that would consider taking Sharia law in to account during a case, whether they should or not.
If anything it shows that hes a terrible judge and should be removed. Non of this “banning Sharia Law” nonsense lol[/quote]
Don’t ban it. Just fire anyone that uses it? What kind of logic is that?
[/quote]
Why on earth would any Sane judge in the U.S. us SHaria law in court?[/quote]
Okay. I totally understand where the judge was coming from. Using a MUCH milder case in point, smoking is illegal in public buildings in IL. We had some Koreans who smoked in their bathrooms because it was “private” as opposed to the actual hotel room which is “public”. They concluded that it is okay to smoke in the bathroom even though it’s in a public building, it is a “private” space. They did not understand that all parts of a public building are considered public. We explained this to them and they ended up paying the $250 cleaning fee (2 times because we caught them twice smoking). Now, if this man was new to America and did not understand that non-consensual sex even with your wife equals rape, I could understand the judge deciding how he did. Should he have decided that way? No, but I understand his thinking. The man did not know he was committing rape according to OUR laws. According to HIS laws he was exercising his husbandly rights. America isn’t that too far gone from thinking the same way.
[quote]orion wrote:
All of this is blown way out of proportion.
In the cases where Sharia is alowed to be part of a contract in Europe it is about private settlements of contratct violations.
You can agree to any set of rules when it comes to private contracts, including laws of other nations, UN trade law or you can simply ake up some rules.
Doesnt change that they still go to jail if they rape, pillage or murder.[/quote]
Case in point…
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense.
Private arbitration of conflicts is a must in some cases and practically every law system I know of has an “ordre publique” clause to prevent outcomes that are alien to a set of laws.
Why would it matter to anyone if two Muslim businessmen decide to draw up their contracts on the basis of shari-a?
Also, England also has similar Jewish courts and I can imagine the headlines if they tried to close those.
[quote]orion wrote:
All of this is blown way out of proportion.
In the cases where Sharia is alowed to be part of a contract in Europe it is about private settlements of contratct violations.
You can agree to any set of rules when it comes to private contracts, including laws of other nations, UN trade law or you can simply ake up some rules.
Doesnt change that they still go to jail if they rape, pillage or murder.[/quote]
Case in point…
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense.
Private arbitration of conflicts is a must in some cases and practically every law system I know of has an “ordre publique” clause to prevent outcomes that are alien to a set of laws.
Why would it matter to anyone if two Muslim businessmen decide to draw up their contracts on the basis of shari-a?
Also, England also has similar Jewish courts and I can imagine the headlines if they tried to close those.
[/quote]
Allowing religious laws to permeate the laws of the land is a very dangerous slippery slope. As an atheist, I am surprised you would tolerate religious laws at any level of government. As a theist, I am dead set against it.
Allowing religious laws to permeate the laws of the land is a very dangerous slippery slope. [/quote]
Thank you. Examples across Europe show what happens. They will be demanding Sharia law as their population grows. It’s a simple fact. Islam is a political movement and ideology for society and laws. Much more than just a religion
Allowing religious laws to permeate the laws of the land is a very dangerous slippery slope. [/quote]
Thank you. Examples across Europe show what happens. They will be demanding Sharia law as their population grows. It’s a simple fact. Islam is a political movement and ideology for society and laws. Much more than just a religion[/quote]
I agree. The amendment did not go far enough - it should have included Canon Law, Hebrew Law, Buddhist Law (if there is one) and whatever other religious code might be out there.
As an aside, the amendment’s ban on using international law is problematic. “International law” doesn’t mean “let’s look at what they do in Iran or some other country.” International law is a system designed to govern conduct among nations, albeit with no means of enforcement. It is accepted as being part of U.S. law. Then again, any dispute involving international law would most likely be brought in a federal, rather than a state, court, so I guess it doesn’t matter.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Okay. I totally understand where the judge was coming from. Using a MUCH milder case in point, smoking is illegal in public buildings in IL. We had some Koreans who smoked in their bathrooms because it was “private” as opposed to the actual hotel room which is “public”. They concluded that it is okay to smoke in the bathroom even though it’s in a public building, it is a “private” space. They did not understand that all parts of a public building are considered public. We explained this to them and they ended up paying the $250 cleaning fee (2 times because we caught them twice smoking). Now, if this man was new to America and did not understand that non-consensual sex even with your wife equals rape, I could understand the judge deciding how he did. Should he have decided that way? No, but I understand his thinking. The man did not know he was committing rape according to OUR laws. According to HIS laws he was exercising his husbandly rights. America isn’t that too far gone from thinking the same way.
Fact Sheet: Wife Rape This is from 2000, so I’m sure the laws have changed.
[/quote]
That is bullshit logic greeneyes. When you are in another country, that country’s laws are the ones that apply to everyone living there. You don’t bring your laws with you from whereever you happen to originate. You adopt the laws of the country you live in. Best case scenario is this man is made an example of, so the rest of the muslim population that thinks “raping their property” is ok, will know that shit doesn’t fly here.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Okay. I totally understand where the judge was coming from. Using a MUCH milder case in point, smoking is illegal in public buildings in IL. We had some Koreans who smoked in their bathrooms because it was “private” as opposed to the actual hotel room which is “public”. They concluded that it is okay to smoke in the bathroom even though it’s in a public building, it is a “private” space. They did not understand that all parts of a public building are considered public. We explained this to them and they ended up paying the $250 cleaning fee (2 times because we caught them twice smoking). Now, if this man was new to America and did not understand that non-consensual sex even with your wife equals rape, I could understand the judge deciding how he did. Should he have decided that way? No, but I understand his thinking. The man did not know he was committing rape according to OUR laws. According to HIS laws he was exercising his husbandly rights. America isn’t that too far gone from thinking the same way.
Fact Sheet: Wife Rape This is from 2000, so I’m sure the laws have changed.
[/quote]
That is bullshit logic greeneyes. When you are in another country, that country’s laws are the ones that apply to everyone living there. You don’t bring your laws with you from whereever you happen to originate. You adopt the laws of the country you live in. Best case scenario is this man is made an example of, so the rest of the muslim population that thinks “raping their property” is ok, will know that shit doesn’t fly here.[/quote]
But Sharia law is religious law. If you’re used to religious law = country’s law, I understand. It’s not excusable, he definitely should have known our laws, but I understand the thinking and I think that we have no right to cast stones because our laws were the same about 20-30 years ago. Wedding vows used to be “honor and obey” for the woman. People can even use the Bible to justify that “obeying” means allowing your husband sex even if you don’t want it. The Western world is only a couple of centuries away from the same kind of thinking. Religion has fallen way down on the importance totem pole in the Western world. In Asia, especially the Arabian peninsula area, religion is life, life is religion; law is religion, religion is law.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
But Sharia law is religious law. If you’re used to religious law = country’s law, I understand. It’s not excusable, he definitely should have known our laws, but I understand the thinking and I think that we have no right to cast stones because our laws were the same about 20-30 years ago. Wedding vows used to be “honor and obey” for the woman. People can even use the Bible to justify that “obeying” means allowing your husband sex even if you don’t want it. The Western world is only a couple of centuries away from the same kind of thinking. Religion has fallen way down on the importance totem pole in the Western world. In Asia, especially the Arabian peninsula area, religion is life, life is religion; law is religion, religion is law.
[/quote]
Regardless of what one is used to or not, that isn’t how things work here.
I don’t care how law=religion=life in the Arabic Asia.
This is an inch that can’t be given.
If you’re so fond of this way of life, go live in Arabic Asia.
This is really surpising that you as a women would be siding with the inferior intellect of this man.
Would you prefer the rest of North America(I’m Canadian), turn the clock back and start making our women “obey”?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
But Sharia law is religious law. If you’re used to religious law = country’s law, I understand. It’s not excusable, he definitely should have known our laws, but I understand the thinking and I think that we have no right to cast stones because our laws were the same about 20-30 years ago. Wedding vows used to be “honor and obey” for the woman. People can even use the Bible to justify that “obeying” means allowing your husband sex even if you don’t want it. The Western world is only a couple of centuries away from the same kind of thinking. Religion has fallen way down on the importance totem pole in the Western world. In Asia, especially the Arabian peninsula area, religion is life, life is religion; law is religion, religion is law.
[/quote]
Regardless of what one is used to or not, that isn’t how things work here.
I don’t care how law=religion=life in the Arabic Asia.
This is an inch that can’t be given.
If you’re so fond of this way of life, go live in Arabic Asia.
This is really surpising that you as a women would be siding with the inferior intellect of this man.
Would you prefer the rest of North America(I’m Canadian), turn the clock back and start making our women “obey”?[/quote]
I, too, am shocked I’m defending the judge. I’m not defending his actions, because I think he was wrong, but I understand his thinking. I understand the husband’s thinking. I’m also very glad the woman knew enough of OUR laws to know she could report him and had the strength to do so.
The women’s movement isn’t over, you know. And if men try to take this country or any other Western country back to the early 1900s or 1800s or even earlier, they’re going to have a fight on their hands. If men had really wanted women that subservient, I’m pretty sure they could have shut us down fast and hard.
[quote]orion wrote:
All of this is blown way out of proportion.
In the cases where Sharia is alowed to be part of a contract in Europe it is about private settlements of contratct violations.
You can agree to any set of rules when it comes to private contracts, including laws of other nations, UN trade law or you can simply ake up some rules.
Doesnt change that they still go to jail if they rape, pillage or murder.[/quote]
Case in point…
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense.
Private arbitration of conflicts is a must in some cases and practically every law system I know of has an “ordre publique” clause to prevent outcomes that are alien to a set of laws.
Why would it matter to anyone if two Muslim businessmen decide to draw up their contracts on the basis of shari-a?
Also, England also has similar Jewish courts and I can imagine the headlines if they tried to close those.
[/quote]
Allowing religious laws to permeate the laws of the land is a very dangerous slippery slope. As an atheist, I am surprised you would tolerate religious laws at any level of government. As a theist, I am dead set against it. [/quote]
I do not care what set of rules people agree to.
It is their private thing.
Also, if you abolished all laws with a religious origin you would have little left, as afar as real laws go.
[quote]orion wrote:
Why would it matter to anyone if two Muslim businessmen decide to draw up their contracts on the basis of shari-a?
[/quote]
What happens in the case of a contract dispute? How and by whom is it resolved?
I don’t know the Sharia punishments for things like embezzling, fraud, etc., but do we allow them to be carried out, since they are an implied aspect of the contract? [/quote]
It will be resolved by the judge they agree on beforehand.
Embezzling and fraud are criminal and not civil cases and this is where it would go too far in my opinion.
And finally, it would be enforced by the normal authorities, because the method of arbitration is simply part of the contract and therefore binding for anyone signing it willingly.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Okay. I totally understand where the judge was coming from. Using a MUCH milder case in point, smoking is illegal in public buildings in IL. We had some Koreans who smoked in their bathrooms because it was “private” as opposed to the actual hotel room which is “public”. They concluded that it is okay to smoke in the bathroom even though it’s in a public building, it is a “private” space. They did not understand that all parts of a public building are considered public. We explained this to them and they ended up paying the $250 cleaning fee (2 times because we caught them twice smoking). Now, if this man was new to America and did not understand that non-consensual sex even with your wife equals rape, I could understand the judge deciding how he did. Should he have decided that way? No, but I understand his thinking. The man did not know he was committing rape according to OUR laws. According to HIS laws he was exercising his husbandly rights. America isn’t that too far gone from thinking the same way.
Fact Sheet: Wife Rape This is from 2000, so I’m sure the laws have changed.
[/quote]
That is bullshit logic greeneyes. When you are in another country, that country’s laws are the ones that apply to everyone living there. You don’t bring your laws with you from whereever you happen to originate. You adopt the laws of the country you live in. Best case scenario is this man is made an example of, so the rest of the muslim population that thinks “raping their property” is ok, will know that shit doesn’t fly here.[/quote]
You already have private arbitration in the US, right there on you tv, or what to you think “Judge Judy” is?
That inch already has been given and that is a good thing.
I’m not going to try and defend or attack the Judge because I’m not equipped to do so, although after looking at the court files myself it seems like the man was in fact convicted of assault but not rape because the plaintiff could not prove criminal intent. In other words it seems like what the Judge was possibly suggesting was that the woman did not object strongly enough to the mans advances and that the man simply assumed that it was normal for a woman to dislike sexual intercourse.
Look man, this has nothing to do with Sharia law becoming part of the U.S. Justice system or any other religious practices overriding U.S. law for that matter. Ultimately you have absolutely zero reasons to fear sharia law being allowed in America because it directly conflicts with our system of justice. This decision is being reviewed anyway for christsake. You are an absurd little man with irrational fears of Muslims and it shows in a big way.
the more i learn about the US legal system the less i understand it.
the more i learn about it, the more i feel that it may not be well equiped to face some of the biggest issues of the 21st century.
when i first posted in this topic, i was pretty sure that this sharia law thing was just another symptom of american schizo-paranoia.
now, it seems that it’s not the case. and i’m… flabbergasted.
in France, we have an “hardcore” version of secularism and the separation of Church and State, and this story would be absolutely inconceivable.
in our legal system, we are not banning the Sharia law, we are actually banning the Burqa.
it seems that your country will someday have to choose between being an explicitly Christian state, or becoming a “real” secular state.