Should muslims be allowed a sharia legal court system in the US?

[Liberty]

If I agree to be arbitrated by a court with some specific form of rules, that's my business, not the governments. The government has no right to intrude on these private affairs.

A communist gov't would have the right.

 

[Liberty]

It really does seem like libertarians believe in the stupidest fucking shit around.

Like the U S Constitution.

A lot of us know how much you hate it.

 

[Timshel]

The only one running in circles is you. We already have civil laws that are equitable. We do not need to introduce unjust, and therefore unconstitutional, religious laws into the mix where families and individuals can be prejudiced against.

The Uk have already experienced the unjust and contrariness sharia' civil law and why in the fuck would we want to follow suit???

Oh yeah 'cause a dunder-headed idjit thinks it makes sense to~~~zzzzzzzzz

No, you are still running in circles.

Again, a party to a marriage may agree to a less than equitable distribution of communal property for whatever reason they choose, NOW... TODAY... THIS VERY INSTANT. They are not forced to go into a government court to settle a divorce. They could let their preacher decide how to split it up, if they wished. There is nothing to stop them and nothing that should stop them.

Further, they can settle the divorce through arbitration, now. They can sign legally binding pre-nuptial agreements that specifies how a divorce will be settled. I am not even advocating a pre-nup agreement here but only that they be free to choose a method settlement at the time of dispute.

Nowhere, in the history of our laws have we said that two people cannot settle their non criminal disputes as they see fit. To do so based solely on your bias against Islam is nothing but a bigoted attempt to deny them the right to practice their religion.

The fact that you have found some bigots that are upset about sharia in the UK does not prove that it cannot work.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Like the U S Constitution.

A lot of us know how much you hate it.

I love the constitution.

Protectionism is constitutional. It's globalist zealotry to believe government cannot control trade policy.

 

[Good Luck]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? You say they can use their religious leaders to arbitrate a dispute and then say they cannot. Which is it?

Apparently, you do not know what a civil dispute is. It is a disagreement between parties that does not involve a crime.

Apparently you need to go back to 3rd grade (maybe 2nd) and get a remedial course on reading comprehension. There is a difference between arbitrating a civil disagreement, and arbitrating in a way that violates the law. (hint: not all laws are criminal laws.) An arbitrator cannot violate the law, no matter who they are. Therefore, for a Muslim cleric to base his decision on Sharia law, they would have to be certain that section of Sharia law does not conflict with U.S. or local civil laws. In short, YES, they can arbitrate the dispute. NO, they can NOT violate our laws when arbitrating. (Nor can any other arbitrator. The term "binding arbitration" is not absolute if a the person appealing can show the contract violated the law.)

The fact is that no, you are NOT completely free to make up ANY contract between yourself and another person. This may insult your libertarian sensibilities, but it is a fact of civil law. Contracts are limited by civil laws. For instance, no matter how you word it, you cannot enforce a contract that violates a person's civil rights even if they are stupid enough to agree to it. Period. The reason being, if a dispute arises from said contract, it is ILLEGAL for the courts to uphold any illegal provision in the contract. Contrary to your hypothetical example, there are few prenuptial agreements upheld that limit one party to nothing at all in a divorce. The purpose of prenups is to limit to a specific pre-settled amount, but if they try to make that amount zero, it is usually tossed out in court, in which case standard law is applied, usually to the extreme detriment of the party that tried to cornhole their former partner. The only exception to that I know of is when the zero-sum clause is attached to some performance clause, like infidelity. Additionally, no contract, prenuptial or otherwise can be enforced if it violates family laws. Contracts that predispose of child custody rarely survive the courts if they are too one sided.

A specific example of another type: here in Montana landlord tenant law states that rental properties must meet certain conditions. Now a landlord with scummy property cannot bypass that law by creating a lease wherein the tenant agrees to forego those requirements. It is an illegal contract, and cannot be enforced against the tenant whether they willingly signed it or not. If the contract included binding arbitration, and the arbitrator upheld the landlord, the tenant could still take it to court, and the court would overturn the arbitration.

Now, when it comes to Muslims allowing Sharia clerics to solve their disputes according to Sharia law, the arbitrating cleric is bound by U.S. civil code first. Therefore, establishing a SHARIA court cannot be legal in its face. Civil laws predominate, and religious codes are not legally binding in the stead of civil law.

 

[DamnYankee]

Right.



According to you, I hate women because I believe in allowing them to practice whatever religion they choose and do not believe they should be gang raped and locked up against their will.

According to Sharia law women have to have several male witnesses of the rape, so you must like to have women raped. Dick.

 

[Canceled2]

No, you are still running in circles.

Again, a party to a marriage may agree to a less than equitable distribution of communal property for whatever reason they choose, NOW... TODAY... THIS VERY INSTANT. They are not forced to go into a government court to settle a divorce. They could let their preacher decide how to split it up, if they wished. There is nothing to stop them and nothing that should stop them.

Further, they can settle the divorce through arbitration, now. They can sign legally binding pre-nuptial agreements that specifies how a divorce will be settled. I am not even advocating a pre-nup agreement here but only that they be free to choose a method settlement at the time of dispute.

Nowhere, in the history of our laws have we said that two people cannot settle their non criminal disputes as they see fit. To do so based solely on your bias against Islam is nothing but a bigoted attempt to deny them the right to practice their religion.

The fact that you have found some bigots that are upset about sharia in the UK does not prove that it cannot work.

You are such a fucking dip-shit. People can agree to a settlement of their choosing. THAT is not what is in question here. We are talking about validating civil fucking laws dealing with families that ARE ALWAYS unequitable for women!!! WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS that are equitable!!!

The people concerened with the abuse of women are now bigots? You really have smoked too much dope and have proven you are yet another stupid dunder-head.

 

[Timshel]

An arbitrator cannot violate the law,

What law are they violating by agreeing to a dispute settlement?

The fact is that no, you are NOT completely free to make up ANY contract between yourself and another person.

Of course not. Straw man.

Additionally, no contract, prenuptial or otherwise can be enforced if it violates family laws. Contracts that predispose of child custody rarely survive the courts if they are too one sided.

I already conceded that the state has an interest in any custody hearing.

This would not be a pre-nuptial agreement.

 

[DamnYankee]

Dick, now wonder you're still single. Dick.

 

[Timshel]

You are such a fucking dip-shit. People can agree to a settlement of their choosing. THAT is not what is in question here. We are talking about validating civil fucking laws dealing with families that ARE ALWAYS unequitable for women!!! WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS that are equitable!!!

The people concerened with the abuse of women are now bigots? You really have smoked too much dope and have proven you are yet another stupid dunder-head.

Again, they are agreeing to a settlement of their choosing. So long as no one is forcing them to go to a sharia court it's voluntary.

Do you not know that in other religions fundamentalist women submit to a subservient role? If that's what they believe as part of their religion then who's to stop them?

 

[Good Luck]

What law are they violating by agreeing to a dispute settlement?

You still don't get it, do you? You keep pulling this strawman, and then accuse us of strawman arguments.

It is NOT about WHO is the arbiter you fracking illiterate moron. Not once have we written anything in objection about WHO does the arbitration. They can have the fracking Ayatolla arbitrate if they want to. It IS about what civil code they use to settle a dispute. That is the object of this entire thread, which you'd see if you had even minimal reading comprehension skills.

If the arbiter uses Sharia law to settle the dispute, and if that particular section of Sharia law were to conflict with U.S. or local civil law, then the arbiter would be in violation of U.S. civil law, and in doing so, by using religious code to force the settlement, would be a violation of the 1st Amendment for forcing a religious settlement on a civil dispute, would be violating the 14th amendment for unequal application of our laws, and would be violating article 3 of the Constitution by claiming authority above our courts system. Is it really that complicated? Or are you just plain stupid?

The fact is that no, you are NOT completely free to make up ANY contract between yourself and another person.

Of course not. Straw man.

Really? From your earlier posts:

I don't know where you are getting your incorrect information. But parties to a contract are allowed to settle disputes based on whatever thing they want.

You are bound by the criminal laws of the US. You can settle your civil disputes, how ever you want.

If you agree to follow the laws of a church as part of a contract then you are bound by them.

There, four time (there were more if you want them referenced) where you claim people can contract and settle disputes any way the want. No, they cannot. Both contracts and arbiotration of disputes around contracts must follow civil law. If the laws of the church conflict with civil law, any contract based on church laws is void. If an arbiter follows a religious doctrine which is in conflict with the law, the arbitration is void.

You made the claims, I disputed it with the facts of law, you agree and call my response strawman. Just shows you're an idiot. You toss around the term strawman like liberals toss around taxes.

 

[Good Luck]

Again, they are agreeing to a settlement of their choosing. So long as no one is forcing them to go to a sharia court it's voluntary.

Do you not know that in other religions fundamentalist women submit to a subservient role? If that's what they believe as part of their religion then who's to stop them?

If they voluntarily submit, that is fine. But we are talking about disputes - legal, civil disputes. And in that case the religiously prescribed subservience of women can NOT be enforced in our society because we have LAWS that prevent gender discrimination.

All is fine as long as the women choose to submit to the subservient role demanded of them. But as soon as there is a dispute that takes the disputing parties within the bounds of the legal system, which INCLUDES arbitration by anyone whom they pick to arbitrate, then from that point on U.S. civil code rules. Sharia law cannot be used. Nor should it be used. Just because they come from a different culture does not give them the right to ignore our laws in favor of their own codes. They want to apply their own laws, let them leave the U.S. and apply away. They want to stay in the U.S., they can abide by our laws. They sure as hell expect us to abide by their laws when we are within their countries.

 

[Liberty]

I love the constitution.

Protectionism is constitutional. It's globalist zealotry to believe government cannot control trade policy.

You're a unionist, with little to no regard for my rights.

I can't pay your way anymore, and you should get over it.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

You're a unionist, with little to no regard for my rights.

I can't pay your way anymore, and you should get over it.

Unions have nothing to do with protectionism, or refusing to trade with dictators. And additionally; individuals have a right to organize, just like corporations do.

You braindead libertarian types seem to believe that the american way = internationalist fascist traitorism.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

How do unions deny your rights, Liberty? is that just some neocon bullshit? Of course it is.

 

[Timshel]

You still don't get it, do you?

You ignored the question. What law is violated by agreeing to a dispute settlement?

You are completely wrong. You do not have to follow any law in forming a settlement or agreement. You may not violate a law (e.g., you can't agree to shoot the wife) but you don't have to follow a civil code.

Really? From your earlier posts:


There, four time (there were more if you want them referenced) where you claim people can contract and settle disputes any way the want. No, they cannot.

You failed to make your point. I said the settl disputes arising from as contract. It certainly implied that meant a legal contract. If you did not understand then I am sorry I failed to realize that you are a moron that needs things spelled out.

You can agree to many things that are not enforceable as a contract.

Both contracts and arbiotration of disputes around contracts must follow civil law. If the laws of the church conflict with civil law, any contract based on church laws is void. If an arbiter follows a religious doctrine which is in conflict with the law, the arbitration is void.

You made the claims, I disputed it with the facts of law, you agree and call my response strawman. Just shows you're an idiot. You toss around the term strawman like liberals toss around taxes.

I did not agree with you. You made a straw man argument. I am not arguing that a woman can contractually agree to being stoned to death. She does have the right to agree to a less than equitable settlement in a contractual dispute based on religion. You are wrong on that point.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

If they voluntarily submit, that is fine. But we are talking about disputes - legal, civil disputes. And in that case the religiously prescribed subservience of women can NOT be enforced in our society because we have LAWS that prevent gender discrimination.

All is fine as long as the women choose to submit to the subservient role demanded of them. But as soon as there is a dispute that takes the disputing parties within the bounds of the legal system, which INCLUDES arbitration by anyone whom they pick to arbitrate, then from that point on U.S. civil code rules. Sharia law cannot be used. Nor should it be used. Just because they come from a different culture does not give them the right to ignore our laws in favor of their own codes. They want to apply their own laws, let them leave the U.S. and apply away. They want to stay in the U.S., they can abide by our laws. They sure as hell expect us to abide by their laws when we are within their countries.

Stringfield doesn't care. He's a theocratic jew nazi who likes any brand of desert tribalism.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Stringfield: boldly defending a woman's right to agree to settle for less.

LOL. Stringfield. You're lost.

 

[DamnYankee]

How is it you're still single? Dick.

 

[Timshel]

Stringfield: boldly defending a woman's right to agree to settle for less.

How else are you ever going to get laid.

How is it you're still single? Dick.

I am married, dick.

A woman has a right to choose and practice her own religion. You guys are not concerned about women. If you were then you would be doing something about the many fundamentalist Christian women who allow themselves to be mistreated. You just hate this particular religion.

There should be plenty of safeguards. In fact, I don't see why they should not be able to appeal if they feel the ruling is unfair. But if they want to abide by sharia, be seen in public with AHZ or engage in some perverted sex life, absent of of oral, that is their choice. Weird and strange as those choices may be, women have the right to make them.

http://www.bethdin.org/