Hope this catches on in the UK too

[rubato]

I don't think there is an exactly valid comparison between Sharia courts and the Jewish/Catholic tribunals (or whatever they are). The latter deal with interior group membership of a religious body (do they not?). Sharia courts extend jurisdiction out in to the community in general. A Jewish tribunal or a Catholic (or Protestant) church does not seek to interfere with non-members of a specific congregation.
... "

They are identical in that they only have jurisdiction over those who agree to submit to their jurisdiction. Sharia courts have no jurisdiction unless you agree to submit to them just as the Amish tribunals (or whatever they are called) only have jurisdiction over those who submit to Amish judgements.

When the orthodox Jewish community of Palo Alto tried to extend their control over the city as a whole and put up an Eruv they discovered that they had to submit to (secular) civil government for approval:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2007 ... ight-years


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

the thing is , what if you agree to submit to sharia law then decide to become an atheist. sharia won t allow that unless you are first stoned to death. wish you hadn t submitted, but you did, so tough tittie

off with their heads!!!!

[Big RR]

Generally, consent is for a single matter (or a series of related matters, like multiple disputes relating to a single contract), not for everything, and jurisdiction is generally limited to civil disputes allowing the alternative court to award monetary damages and sometimes penalties. No nation (unless it declared sharia as the rule of law as some ME countries have) would allow an alternative court to hear criminal cases, nor to award punishments like you suggest.

[wesw]

yes, that is how we see it. sharia law sees it differently, it does not agree to our case by case application.

you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave-eagles

[Big RR]

Well, if civil law cedes its jurisdiction entirely to the religious courts, then we're all in trouble (no matter what religion) because, as the statement goes, no one will be left to speak up for us. If it does not, and it should not, then what the proponents of Sharia law think doesn't really matter because civil law ultimately trumps it if the courts exceed their jurisdiction. However, allowing people to voluntarily select how they will settle a civil dispute is part of the US and UK legal systems, and I see no reason to curtail it at this point.

[MajGenl.Meade]

We cannot play ostrich. Democracy just cannot flourish amid fear. Liberty cannot bloom amid hate. Justice cannot take root amid rage. America must get to work. In the chill climate in which we live, we must go against the prevailing wind. We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand

[Joe Guy]

[Gob]

They are identical in that they only have jurisdiction over those who agree to submit to their jurisdiction.

Like those women who wholeheartedly agree to all the other impositions of Islam...

[Big RR]

Choices are made for a variety of reasons, some we may agree with and others we don't. the point is, we do not have the authority to make the choice for someone else just because we disagree with it, because that same standard can then be applied to us. If a woman chooses to embrace the dictates of islam, absent any force or threats of force being applied, that is her choice, not yours or mine. Somehow I doubt they're waiting to be saved from themselves by us.

[MajGenl.Meade]

If a woman chooses to embrace the dictates of islam

I (man insert woman's name here) do solemnly agree to be stoned to death.

_______________
Her mark

[Gob]

If a woman chooses to embrace the dictates of islam, absent any force or threats of force being applied, that is her choice, not yours or mine.

So a young girl growing up in the UK as a Muslim, in a strict Muslim family, should not be accorded the choices given to all other girls her age there?

[Big RR]

Gob--

So a young girl growing up in the UK as a Muslim, in a strict Muslim family, should not be accorded the choices given to all other girls her age there

I specifically limited my post to women, not children, specifically for situations like this. Of course children should have the same rights and choices as she is too young to make those choices for herself.


meade--please; I have said MANY times in this thread that allowing clerical courts to settle disputes between people who voluntarily consented to that jurisdiction should not be an excuse to act criminally. By all means such an agreement would be thrown out as contrary to public policy, and anyone seeking to stone someone for any reason whatsoever would be a violation of the criminal law here and punishable under the criminal law. So let's stop the silliness.

[rubato]

If a woman chooses to embrace the dictates of islam, absent any force or threats of force being applied, that is her choice, not yours or mine.

So a young girl growing up in the UK as a Muslim, in a strict Muslim family, should not be accorded the choices given to all other girls her age there?

She should have all the choices that a girl growing up in a strict Orthodox Jewish family or a strict Mormon family or a strict Roman Catholic family will have.

In all of these they have the choice to conform to their family, community and their religion or to break away from them. Either choice has its costs but that is the nature of autonomy.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Actually, that's a fair comment. However, I still oppose any form or religious suppression of kids.

[Big RR]

Gob--I generally agree with you, but religion is inherently oppressive--from suppressing sex drives ("don't do it until..."), to requiring adherents to act differently, to requiring adherents to dress differently, etc. A line has to be drawn, but in a pluralistic society some leeway has to be given for those who are apart from the crowd, lest the government decide for everyone what's best for him or her. In a nonreligious context, I often think of the kids growing up in old hippie communes, kids who are more open to public nudity and less restraints on their sex drives. If they are not being taken advantage of or abused, when does the government step in and say "you've gone too far"? Because that is indeed the problem when you set up arbiters regarding how far outside the mainstream people can be without incurring the wrath of the government.


Would those who oppose the hijab still allow orthodox jews or amish children to be raised with their religion's ideas of dress?

[MajGenl.Meade]

meade--please; I have said MANY times in this thread that allowing clerical courts to settle disputes between people who voluntarily consented to that jurisdiction should not be an excuse to act criminally

I don't think you get that Sharia law is different. It says it is the only law. It is God's law for all Muslims, and it's the duty of all Moslems to force it on all Moslems.

Now, your cozy local Moslem mosque might be full of jolly Americans who'd like to sort-of do a little Sharia where it doesn't conflict with US law. Why can't we all just get along? That's very nice.

But liberals here blithely ignore the reality of immigrant life in Moslem enclaves in major European cities. Within those enclaves, young (and not so young) Moslem men create a climate in which compliance with sharia law is not a choice made by others but an imposition from without. It is absolutely farcical to compare Roman excommunications or some Jewish tribunals with sharia law. They are not at all the same kind of beast.

The difference between the Bible (stonings for adultery let's say) and sharia law is that the former contains its own superseding "new" covenant and laws. The latter does not - it really means it about the stonings. Of course, your local cozy mosque isn't going to stone anyone. Yet.

I'm not saying the US government should ban sharia law in the USA. All I'm saying is that it should be recognized for what it is - a maniac holding a gun

[Gob]

Would those who oppose the hijab still allow orthodox jews or amish children to be raised with their religion's ideas of dress?

Well those of us who oppose all religion may. I live in hope that the world will some day grow up, and religion will become the quaint curiosity it deserves to be.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It will for you, young grasshopper!

[Gob]

Superstition is like a magnet. It pulls you in the direction of your belief. -Master Po

[Big RR]

I'm saying is that it should be recognized for what it is - a maniac holding a gun

Personally I think any religious court/tribunal which attempts to settle civil disputes is just that; but either we have freedom of religion or we don't. If we have a paternalistic government that makes decisions based along the lines that you have outlined--that we have to look at, inter alia the pressure people feel and save them from the folly of their own decisions, then nothing will ultimately be safe. Freedom at the sufferance of an authority (even a benevolent one) which can make unilateral decisions on the scope of that freedom is no freedom at all; and the same government that can curtail sharia courts will have the power to curtail whatever form of free exercise of religion it finds inconvenient.

Don't think it can happen? I grew up in an America which I believed did not have political prisoners, one in which all persons had access to the courts and the rule of law. One need only to look at the people imprisoned without charge or trial (or even a hearing), even for more than a decade, in Gitmo and elsewhere to see where that went. I grew up in an America in which government surveillance was curtailed, in which an abuse like the burglarizing of Daniel Ellsburg's psychiatirst's office had people screaming in the streets against the abuse. Now when someone sheds light on the abuses of government in screening/bugging our calls, the biggest hue and cry is to hang the bastard who published the information. Yes it is different, but I don't want to see religious freedom go the same way as our rights to privacy and right to a fair and speedy trial.


Sure, there is a risk, but IMHO defense of freedom and civil rights is worth that risk. Otherwise, the US we bequeath to our children and grandchildren will be very different from the one we grew up and lived in. And we'll deserve it, not them.