DescentBB

I'm going to have to side with Will here. Denying Sharia in its entirety is currently nothing more than a symbolic gesture, but it is a perfectly acceptable symbolic gesture. Choosing to reject Sharia because of the extreme practices it is associated with should be an acceptable option. Sharia promotes things that are illegal and immoral, so there is no reason to make people who wish to practice it feel comfortable in our home.

The "Well it has good parts too that are still legal." argument really begs a "So what?" response. The "good parts" are redundant and already covered by other options in our legal system, Sharia is unnecessary and comes with too much baggage. Totalitarian dictatorships and slavery have their good parts too, does that mean we should accept them in our way of life also?

Krom wrote:Denying Sharia in its entirety is currently nothing more than a symbolic gesture, but it is a perfectly acceptable symbolic gesture. Choosing to reject Sharia because of the extreme practices it is associated with should be an acceptable option.

Acceptable, absolutely yes! (I'd even say from an ethical standpoint we have a duty to reject/fight it.)

Whether the resistance is symbolic or not depends on what you are talking about. Statements, articles, raising awareness, pointing out abuses, etc. is what we ought to be doing. Passing legislation to bar arbitration (like Oklahoma did, and Will is arguing for, unless I misunderstand) is not.

Krom wrote: Sharia promotes things that are illegal and immoral, so there is no reason to make people who wish to practice it feel comfortable in our home.

Agreed. But again, arbitration is not in place to "make them feel comfortable" or "cater" to sharia followers. It has been there for ages, and removing it does nothing whatsoever to hinder illegal actions. (And in fact, as I pointed out before, disallowing arbitration involving international code only hurts people trying to work out things like adoptions.)

Arbitration is still available even if you ban the use of Sharia in it.

Not if you do it the way states are trying to (by eliminating all consideration of international code or precedent).

How could/would you eliminate sharia while still allowing other arbitration involving international law? Specifically by name?

Arbitration can already ignore consideration for international code or precedent and rule arbitrarily if the arbiter so chooses. Granted they can't completely ignore the law; like they cant require someone to do something illegal in their local jurisdiction. Arbitration is a legal system for dispute resolution between two parties, it is not a court system that tests the law.

Exactly!

Arbitrators can choose to ignore international code (like sharia), and even if they decide to follow it, they are also ultimately required to conform to U.S. law.

An arbitrator can be a follower of sharia, or the Bible, or the principles of Harry Potter. The only thing that matters in any legal sense is whether the arbitration follows our law.

Sharia codes have zero legal authority here; there is no way to legislatively block something that is not part of our legal system in the first place.

----------

Ask me to stand up, speak out, take action against sharia.... I'll tell you, "Hell, yes."

Ask me to resist sharia by supporting U.S. legislation to limit international arbitration... I'll tell you, "Why the hell would I do that? It does nothing to limit sharia; it's already legally powerless here."

Which is why I say it is a symbolic gesture and a perfectly good example of speaking out against Sharia. It sends the message without actually upsetting the balance of anything. If you want to simply make a statement and the only instrument you have is something as blunt as legislation, this is pretty much the best way to do it.

Krom wrote:Which is why I say it is a symbolic gesture and a perfectly good example of speaking out against Sharia. It sends the message without actually upsetting the balance of anything. If you want to simply make a statement and the only instrument you have is something as blunt as legislation, this is pretty much the best way to do it.

Exactly, and it is my wish that we should make the gesture as a part of a unified front set up to define, and/or reclaim, what it means to live in America as an American. You can talk about anything you want here and you can pray with all the racist intent you want in private etc. but you must adopt the Bill of Rights, Constitution and representative form of government where all men/women are equal and are the source of the authority you answer to. If you are not comfortable letting go of evil standards as determined by your new host then you should be very uncomfortable not catered to or leave.
Yea I know Sharia isn't 100% evil...and a bag of poison snakes with a few apples in it isn't 100% bad to take a bite out of either but don't bring that sack to my house and tell me we should keep it around to get fruit from once in awhile! We have plenty of fresh fruit here.

And it's just that we don't make those kind of statements often enough and that we have too many people wanting to trample the important stuff for their own little power plays and their posturing which leads to too many bad things becoming part of the norm that the gesture has real value. There was a time when it really wouldn't have been necessary but the political machine has made too many inroads into our character.
You see Chinatown and understand how it is an insulated semi-autonomous region inside some cities simply because of language barriers and customs carried over, well it isn't so bad...sure makes the Chinese immigrant feel warm and fuzzy right?
Now imagine Islamo-fascist town...not good at all..not even close to being worth the warm fuzzyness it could bring some totally friendly, peaceful, Muslim immigrants.
Sometimes discrimination isn't illegal and it is life sustaining instead.

Foil wrote:Not if you do it the way states are trying to (by eliminating all consideration of international code or precedent).

I think it's tremendously important to direct US courts not to consider any international code or precedent when determining precedent for American law. American law should trace its origins back through American legislators and voters. It's OK if our laws come from ancient religious laws or international law or whatever, as long as they don't skip over the American people and our elected representatives on the way.

When dealing with arbitration, it's perfectly reasonable for two people who agree on a set of guiding principles to request arbitration based on those principles. I don't care if it's Sharia or Harry Potter, if they agree on it, go for it. Of course, to be legally binding and enforceable by American law enforcement or courts, it must not be in direct conflict with American law, and of course it has to not result in actual criminal behavior, but that leaves a lot of room for a lot of different possible arbitration systems. IMO, the most important symbolic gesture we could make would be to reinforce that it's OK to use religious law in arbitration! This "OMG stop Sharia" stuff is misguided. Stop "honor killings", sure, but don't try to stop an entire religious community from using their own agreed-upon set of guiding principles to settle disputes in general.

Lothar wrote:..
When dealing with arbitration, it's perfectly reasonable for two people who agree on a set of guiding principles to request arbitration based on those principles. I don't care if it's Sharia or Harry Potter, if they agree on it, go for it. Of course, to be legally binding and enforceable by American law enforcement or courts, it must not be in direct conflict with American law, and of course it has to not result in actual criminal behavior, but that leaves a lot of room for a lot of different possible arbitration systems. IMO, the most important symbolic gesture we could make would be to reinforce that it's OK to use religious law in arbitration! This "OMG stop Sharia" stuff is misguided. Stop "honor killings", sure, but don't try to stop an entire religious community from using their own agreed-upon set of guiding principles to settle disputes in general.

You know this makes perfect sense in principle. And it does live up to the whole religious freedom aspect of american life. And because of that I'd be willing to change my mind but one thing gives me pause which is it seems to be an unnecessary association between religion and U.S. law.

What agreement between two members of a religious group needs U.S. courts/arbitration to be the ultimate authority from a religious perspective?
If the agreement is based on some principle held by the religion why not go to the Cleric or Priest to get your decision? The U.S. law is the ultimate authority for citizens with no consideration for their race or religion or any other status. Blindfolded Lady Justice and all that jazz.

If the components of the agreement aren't covered by a component of U.S. law then there is no jurisdiction, you have to turn to the church/mosque,etc....if the participants in the agreement won't listen to the church/mosque AND in breaking the agreement participants have crossed the line of a U.S. law then U.S. law is in effect, has control and the religion has lost it's place as the authority. The system to solve the dispute already exists with no need of religious connection and will be the determining authority regardless of how the decision may conflict with any religion.

It seems to me you can have your agreement that, for example says, one person will teach lessons on the Koran in exchange for some compensation by the mosque. The mosque representative claims the lessons are not up to Sharia standards and refuses to pay...law suit threatened but since arbitration is part of contract an arbitrator has to determine if lessons were up to Sharia standards...hearings are held, expert witnesses can provide the arbiter any analysis of the lessons that were taught, how they would rank in tasty chewy Sharia goodness content, or not, and decision is rendered based on U.S. contract law and the whole while the U.S. law was never seen to be co-mingled with religious law.

Truly a symbolic and semantic distinction really but it is the appearance of the peoples law deferring to religious law that I want to avoid. I understand that underneath it all it really isn't that way, that U.S. law holds the trump card but perception is going to be otherwise. After all, since U.S. law rules supreme isn't it just a perception that the whole premise of having a religious authority decide the case is selling? And it is the perception that the U.S. has a place/use for Sharia law that I think is ultimately detrimental to our society for reasons I have already discussed.
Isn't the perception that U.S. legal system takes religious considerations into account a problem on the whole and the very reason we stopped having the witness sworn in with a hand on the bible in the courtroom as well as removing numerous other symbolic religious tentacles?

It seems to me this is one of the places where the line of separation between church and state can be spotted.

The only way to satisfy your desire not have arbitration using sharia is not to have arbitration at all.

fliptw wrote:The only way to satisfy your desire not have arbitration using sharia is not to have arbitration at all.

Not have arbitration at all or not have arbitration that has rulings that coincide with Sharia law at times?
I don't care if they can both reach the same net result in the actual ruling on occasion as long as the authority advertised as the arbiter is the U.S. law and not a foreign law authority who's mandates often include outrageous offenses victimizing people based on religious or racial or gender divisions.

I think the way I laid it out in my last post is quite workable with very little change to the status quo. It is, for the most part, just a face lift performed without apology.

Any law banning a specific type of religious arbitration would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

null0010 wrote:Any law banning a specific type of religious arbitration would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I already solved that problem a few posts back...

There is only two good ways to deal with sharia and contract disputes, either give the people the choice of either using the courts or via arbitration, or forcing everyone to use the courts.

If you are barring sharia, then why not CYA and bar it all?

fliptw wrote:There is only two good ways to deal with sharia and contract disputes, either give the people the choice of either using the courts or via arbitration, or forcing everyone to use the courts.

If you are barring sharia, then why not CYA and bar it all?

I'm thinking we don't need to bar Sharia we just don't need religion in our legal system. You can go Sharia crazy in your own house (well... until we find out you threw the Jew down the well or cut off your daughters head for dancing like Lady GaGa in the shower).
The US has authority over contract disputes, it has no authority over religion so if anyone has a Sharia problem they should take it up with an imam and if they have a problem with a contract they can use our legal system.

Sharia is a bit like the old democracy analogy where you have 4 men and a 1 woman voting on making rape legal. In this case the the 4 men approve the rape and then find the woman guilty of being a whore and stone her to death. The muslim men who want Sharia so much are always free to move to a country that openly embrace's it but if their wives and daughters are American, they should not be forced to move with him.

What four men are you talking about?

Will Robinson wrote: I'm thinking we don't need to bar Sharia we just don't need religion in our legal system.

Im not seeing why you would think contracts magically become part of legal code of the land.

fliptw wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: I'm thinking we don't need to bar Sharia we just don't need religion in our legal system.

Im not seeing why you would think contracts magically become part of legal code of the land.

I don't think I implied they become part of the code. I said I don't want there to be a religious authority's solution delivered by our legal system. If you go to arbitration the arbiter has to make his decision based on something...I want that decision to be U.S. contract law.
If you want the enforcement capability of the Justice System (which most arbitration ruling have as their enforcement mechanism) to be the teeth behind the solution you can't use a religious rule book you have to use U.S. law.

If, for example, the product to be delivered to fulfill one side of the contract was a prayer, the arbiter can decide if the prayer was delivered. He can call an expert (an imam or cleric) to get an opinion on the quality of the prayer and then render a decision as to whether either party failed to live up to a contract under U.S. contract law. If this produces the same net result as having that same expert act as the arbiter that's fine with me. But I don't want the religious expert to have the title or role as arbiter. He can not be a member of the authority in any way.
The arbiter is the representative of U.S. law usually with a knowledge of the nature of the type of business involved, where religion is involved there has to be an arms length separation though. If you want a strictly religious contract and ruling then go to the mosque or church and live with their inability to enforce because in America the mosque or church has no legal authority. THAT is the distinction that needs to be made and preserved.

Argument has now turn to defending the use of Islamic (Sharia) law in arbitration which which is US law where Islamic (Sharia) Law didn't exist in the US Law at the beginning of this thread.

Heretic wrote:Argument has now turn to defending the use of Islamic (Sharia) law in arbitration which which is US law where Islamic (Sharia) Law didn't exist in the US Law at the beginning of this thread.

Sharia has always been legal in arbitration when it doesn't conflict with US Law.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think I implied they become part of the code. I said I don't want there to be a religious authority's solution delivered by our legal system.
...I don't want the religious expert to have the title or role as arbiter. He can not be a member of the authority in any way.

I disagree with the idea that we need a blanket removal of all religion in arbitration, but let me just ask: How would you even enforce that?

Let's say an arbitration is arrived at between an atheist and a Buddhist by an agnostic arbitrator. The Buddhist says it is based on the teachings of the Buddha, the atheist says it's just common sense, and the arbitrator says it came from blending their ideas into a common solution. What do you do with that?

Heretic wrote:Argument has now turn to defending the use of Islamic (Sharia) law in arbitration which which is US law where Islamic (Sharia) Law didn't exist in the US Law at the beginning of this thread.

No one said sharia doesn't "exist". I said that it has zero legal authority, and that it is not U.S. law.

An arbitrator using sharia does not mean sharia is part of U.S. law, any more than an arbitrator using words of Confucius means U.S. law applies Chinese philosophy.

woodchip wrote:The muslim men who want Sharia so much are always free to move to a country that openly embrace's it but if their wives and daughters are American, they should not be forced to move with him.

Where did you get the idea that any Americans could/would be forced to move?

----------------------------

IMPO, what it all boils down to is that our legal system doesn't make distinctions regarding how a contract or arb decision was made (sharia, Confucianism, principles of Harry Potter, the Bible, or dumb luck). Whether it is allowed under foreign code makes no difference. The only issue that matters is whether or not it is valid under U.S. law.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think I implied they become part of the code. I said I don't want there to be a religious authority's solution delivered by our legal system.
...I don't want the religious expert to have the title or role as arbiter. He can not be a member of the authority in any way.

I disagree with the idea that we need a blanket removal of all religion in arbitration, but let me just ask: How would you even enforce that?

Let's say an arbitration is arrived at between an atheist and a Buddhist by an agnostic arbitrator. The Buddhist says it is based on the teachings of the Buddha, the atheist says it's just common sense, and the arbitrator says it came from blending their ideas into a common solution. What do you do with that? ...

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying an agreement between an atheist and a Buddhist is in dispute and the arbiter renders a decision which is interpreted by the two parties as coming from common sense and Buddha respectively? If so that is no problem because neither party was able to request an arbiter that has an affiliation with a religion.
It is a minor tweak that I'm asking for, like I said before it requires little change. An expert on religion can be consulted. The arbiter can not be priest, cleric, etc.

I don't want, just as one specific example, a Muslim immigrant to come here and be able to request an Islamic religious authority be an arbiter. I don't want a contract to be legal and honored by U.S. law if it requires a religious representative to handle the dispute as the ultimate authority. The contract must be based on U.S. contract law. If those components happen to also mirror Sharia law that is no problem but any dispute will be settled by an authority in U.S. law. There should be no religious experts/clerics/priests/grand poohbahs/etc. working as arbiters. And we shouldn't be making it appear that you can have a religious arbiter handle your disputes. Instead I want to boldly and bluntly send the message that you CAN NOT have that.

I would even be willing to let the contract specify the dispute can be presented to your imam for his opinion and he must submit his opinion to the court/arbiter for the courts approval and rendering of a decision if that would make them feel better.

The underlying principle is, in America, the law of man trumps the law of your god and your god has no operatives inside the legal system. You must conform your personal beliefs to respect that reality in any way that you interact with other people. Even in the privacy of your own home, just because your god says you can beat your wife doesn't mean you can do it legally. I want people that move here to understand they are giving up any connection between their faith and their government and their neighbors are completely free to behave as infidels or heretics etc. as long as they don't break U.S. law.
Assimilation isn't completely mandatory but resistance is futile is the message.

And before someone tries to play the 'religion card' on me... The fact that U.S. law and custom was built on Christian rules is just the way it worked out, we don't need to now correct that or come up with affirmative action for other faiths etc. U.S. law is what it is and that is that. You can't retroactively go back and reconstruct it to be purely secular in it's history or foundation.

The process of arbitration itself has no presence in the judicial system - the only time it would be involved is to force fulfillment of the findings of the arbiters.

The nature of arbitration allows more flexibility in resolving a dispute - you can have doctors arbitrate a contract between a surgeon and hospital, engineers for a construction contract - you can have experts in the field apply their expertise.

To disallow priests would violate the tenet that all are equal in front of the law - to exclude one specific faith's even more egregious.

Confucius say: Binding arbitration hurt after a few day.

fliptw wrote:The process of arbitration itself has no presence in the judicial system - the only time it would be involved is to force fulfillment of the findings of the arbiters.

You just contradicted yourself. If it had no presence there would be no punishment dished out by the justice system for failing to comply...

fliptw wrote:The nature of arbitration allows more flexibility in resolving a dispute - you can have doctors arbitrate a contract between a surgeon and hospital, engineers for a construction contract - you can have experts in the field apply their expertise.

To disallow priests would violate the tenet that all are equal in front of the law - to exclude one specific faith's even more egregious.

1. I don't propose removing the opinion of experts in the field of religion, just requiring an arms length relationship. Considering all the separation issues that isn't unprecedented or unwise...

2. I already conceded earlier in the thread that to pass constitutional muster this would have to apply to ALL religions. I used Sharia in an example in my last post but clearly I said it was an example and specified ALL faiths would be treated equally.
Also earlier in the thread I mentioned that we never really had a problem in the past with, for example, Rabbinical or Christan authorities acting as arbiters etc. because those religions don't sustain rules that are horrendous violations of our civil and criminal codes...so, yes I was personally OK with just singling out the Sharia component but I'm not Muslim and for Muslims to feel they are free from other religions influence and not feel singled out when they have legal issues here we must remove ALL religious influence from the position of authority. From the position of authority not from any consideration of the mechanics of a contract involving a religious bent, a particular religion's expert can be consulted by the courts authority before they make a ruling but that authority should not be a clergy/imam or even a spaghetti monster acolyte. In any other case there is no need to provide a specific faiths representative into the process since it is Man's law that matters in our courts, not Gods law. I know that rubs people raw but it is what it is. It is what we are. We are one nation, some under God but all under Man's law.

We shouldn't be selling the notion that 'you can get a fair shake because we let your priest/cleric/whatever decide.' that is bull★■◆● anyway since the decision can go against the religious rules if it runs counter to U.S. law..right? and where does that leave you when you enter court instead of arbitration? Should you believe that's when you get screwed because your particular religions representative isn't the judge?!?
So we need to sell the fundamental notion that 'you can get a fair shake no matter your race creed of color because this is america' that is no bull★■◆●, that is what it is all about!

Like I said before, it is a minor tweak, a symbolic value as much as it is a correction in maintaining the separation of church and state.

If I contradicted myself in my previous post, then simple accusation is conviction.

And how do arbitrators get this "authority" you are worried over?

fliptw wrote:If I contradicted myself in my previous post, then simple accusation is conviction.

And how do arbitrators get this "authority" you are worried over?

Ultimately from the State or Fed depending on the nature of the law that it operates under. For example if you want to dispute your stock brokers handling of your investment portfolio your arbiter is sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission which is under federal law.

That makes him or her a financial, not a legal, authority.

null0010 wrote:That makes him or her a financial, not a legal, authority.

it makes him have the authority to have your assets seized and have you arrested if you are in contempt of his ruling....but you can call him whatever you want...

maybe you are confusing mediation with arbitration.

I'm pretty sure you'd have to get a judge involved in order to have a warrant issued for arrest, Will.

null0010 wrote:I'm pretty sure you'd have to get a judge involved in order to have a warrant issued for arrest, Will.

Yes, and under the same circumstances a policeman would have to do the same wouldn't he? Now, do you want to tell me a policeman isn't a legal authority as well?!?

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:That makes him or her a financial, not a legal, authority.

it makes him have the authority to have your assets seized and have you arrested if you are in contempt of his ruling....but you can call him whatever you want...

maybe you are confusing mediation with arbitration.

Actually that’s incorrect, the process would then require the other party suing you. You would then have to be held in breach of contract, and only when you disobey a direct order from a legal court, would you face arrest.

Also, all rulings in arbitration can be appealed in a higher court, something to keep in mind.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:I'm pretty sure you'd have to get a judge involved in order to have a warrant issued for arrest, Will.

Yes, and under the same circumstances a policeman would have to do the same wouldn't he? Now, do you want to tell me a policeman isn't a legal authority as well?!?

What does this have the do with the original premise of a financial expert somehow gaining legal authority?

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:I'm pretty sure you'd have to get a judge involved in order to have a warrant issued for arrest, Will.

Yes, and under the same circumstances a policeman would have to do the same wouldn't he? Now, do you want to tell me a policeman isn't a legal authority as well?!?

What does this have the do with the original premise of a financial expert somehow gaining legal authority?

It was addressing your false premise that the arbitration is performed with no legal authority.

Spidey wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:That makes him or her a financial, not a legal, authority.

it makes him have the authority to have your assets seized and have you arrested if you are in contempt of his ruling....but you can call him whatever you want...

maybe you are confusing mediation with arbitration.

Actually that’s incorrect, the process would then require the other party suing you. You would then have to be held in breach of contract, and only when you disobey a direct order from a legal court, would you face arrest.

Also, all rulings in arbitration can be appealed in a higher court, something to keep in mind.

Not so. At least not in all cases or States anyway. In some cases you can get a judgement from a magistrate and they send the sheriff out if the defendant doesn't comply, no law suit necessary.
Also, in the case of a stock broker that doesn't comply his licensing can be suspended. Assets can be frozen pending a ruling, etc. I've seen that personally.
The ability to cause government to take action against someone based on their failure to comply with an arbiters decision is proof that there is a government authority at work. If it didn't have that power it would simply be mediation...

Here:

When mediation fails, then the litigation or conflict may be placed under arbitration. This process is fully directed by a person or authority empowered as arbitrator who has in fact the same powers of a judge but limited to the conflict in question. ...

From here


Regardless of the mechanics that connect the players between the arbiter who works with pen and paper and the branch of government that freezes your accounts or suspends your license all the way down to the guy who drives up with handcuffs on his belt, the point that null is trying to refute is an arbiter has the weight of the court behind him. An arbiter's ruling, if ignored, results in the government taking action against someone based on that arbiters direction.
Putting that trigger in the hand of priest or rabbi or imam is what I've been proposing we stop.
Null is looking for a technicality to dismiss the discussion. He's tried to make it unconstitutional...problem solved. Now he's tossing out red herrings.

And although any lower court decision or an arbitration can be appealed on constitutional grounds, you will find in most arbitration contracts the provision that you can not appeal to a higher court for any other reason. Most states seem to have similar language in the law governing arbitration. The reason is arbitration is supposed to be a fast track to remedy.

So, to put it in the context of why I'm opposed to religions having representatives wielding the power, I don't think it is any consolation that a party 'could' appeal on constitutional grounds if instead they can also accept the ruling because the imam/arbiter said it was perfectly acceptable to fire the Muslim girl for flirting with her eyes while she worked the ticket booth at the theater.
We don't need pockets of culture like that accommodated in the U.S.
I'd much rather an arbiter hear the imams 'opinion' that firing her was within the law and then informing the parties involved that in america it is OK to smile at the customer.
That will lead to a more healthy pocket of culture.

Lol I predict another vanishing act .

I’m pretty sure I understand the fact that arbitration is legally binding, but that is the case with all contract law, in this context. Maybe where we see things differently is where the right to take action stems from.

Yea, I agree there are some cases where the law suit wouldn’t be necessary, but you still need further action.

Ok, Im done splitting hairs...