I've always liked those Aussies...

[Foil]

@ Will:

Who said anything about "giving respect" or "pandering" or "serving" sharia law?

[Edit: Don't misconstrue what I said. I was responding to the claim that arbitration agreements can be legal authority undermining U.S. law.]

...why are some states trying to pass laws against Sharia?

Why are states having to pass bills to stop something that 'can't happen'?

In the case of Oklahoma, there was no need for the bill! And per a discussion with an attorney there, it's much more likely to just cause hassles in international cases (e.g. adoptions, custody situations).

It was proposed and passed by what I can only describe as fear-advertising. From what I've heard from people there, it's pretty clear that many people didn't really even know what the bill entailed, but voted for it because it was "against sharia".

[Jeff250]

I don’t believe the soul is in some other dimension. (JFTR) And yes, people also use the term Consciousness to define what I’m calling the soul…but I like to use the word soul, because it irks the science types.

An observation…

It seems to me, you don’t want to even try to understand what I’m thinking or trying to say, you just want to build a wall of rejection, to this kind of thought. And that’s ok, because I’m very proud of thinking outside of the box, in this case outside of your wall.

I appreciate the clarification, but, an observation... don't intentionally use misleading terms like "soul" and "spiritual world" to irk people into thinking you're referring to something supernatural, or at least don't be surprised when they misinterpret what you're saying!

[Will Robinson]

@ Will:

Who said anything about "giving respect" or "pandering" or "serving" sharia law?

[Edit: Don't misconstrue what I said. I was responding to the claim that arbitration agreements can be legal authority undermining U.S. law.]

If it isn't pandering to let Sharia law be the deciding factor as long as it passes constitutional muster, then, as I asked...who does it serve? Why the exception to the standard of not introducing any kind religious preference into U.S. Government operations?
If U.S. law doesn't cover it then the government has no authority to rule on it so there is no vacuum in our law that only Sharia can fill. So what's the goal of making the exception?!?

...why are some states trying to pass laws against Sharia?

Why are states having to pass bills to stop something that 'can't happen'?

In the case of Oklahoma, there was no need for the bill! And per a discussion with an attorney there, it's much more likely to just cause hassles in international cases (e.g. adoptions, custody situations).

It was proposed and passed by what I can only describe as fear-advertising. From what I've heard from people there, it's pretty clear that many people didn't really even know what the bill entailed, but voted for it because it was "against sharia".

As I said earlier, the States are starting to pass legislation to force the fed to respond to issues that are being ignored by the Fed for what appears to be political reasons. Example: The Fed letting smugglers control parts of the U.S. within Arizona instead of running them out by force because of the political ramifications of appearing to be on the wrong side of the immigration debate.
It might be an unnecessary law and have a fear mongering component but it also has a failure of the national leadership component to it. The lack of the balls to say what the Australian guy said is as much to blame as the fear mongering.

[Foil]

If U.S. law doesn't cover it then the government has no authority to rule on it so there is no vacuum in our law that only Sharia can fill. So what's the goal of making the exception?!?

Huh? What "exception"?

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that some exception is being made for a particular group, or that there's some arena "not covered by U.S. law". Arbitration decisions have been used as a mechanism for dispute resolution among religious groups for ages, and must always line up with U.S. law.

The lack of the balls to say what the Australian guy said...

The Australian statement (basically "sharia law has no authority here") matches perfectly with the U.S. system.

Are you seeing a difference in policy, or just complaining that a similar statement isn't coming from the Oval Office?

[flip]

Yeah I see a difference. A bold, outright statement declaring : "The lack of the balls to say what the Australian guy said..."

[Foil]

Hm. Perhaps with all the misinformation about this issue, it would be good to have the President make a statement affirming the authority of our legal system above religious systems.

[null0010]

I worry that would be needlessly inflammatory.

[Spidey]

Jeff…

Yea, fair enough, but I did say “or anything you want to call it” when I used the word soul. I don’t believe in the supernatural…but, I do believe in body and mind…one being physical and the other being spiritual*.

I agree the word spiritual has connotations, but I don’t really know any terms that do a better job.

To me “spiritual” are those things that are not physical, but still exist in the real world, but are not “supernatural”.

*1. of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things (dictionary)

………………………….

Bee…

I never said morality needs a “god“ so lets just make sure we have that straight.

[Bet51987]

.

[Spidey]

Well, I can’t find my definition in that list. But # 1 would have to be the closest…I guess.

Number 7 is in the ballpark as well, and was part of what I was trying to get at.

But I’m not really finding any of those definitions satisfactory.

[Will Robinson]

If U.S. law doesn't cover it then the government has no authority to rule on it so there is no vacuum in our law that only Sharia can fill. So what's the goal of making the exception?!?

Huh? What "exception"?

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that some exception is being made for a particular group, or that there's some arena "not covered by U.S. law". Arbitration decisions have been used as a mechanism for dispute resolution among religious groups for ages, and must always line up with U.S. law.

Ok, exception is the wrong word because there are other religions that have been accommodated. It is a deviation from the standards we hold if we allow Sharia law to become part of the way we administer law. Why would we want to make something so contrary to our very foundation of rights any part of our court system? Is that better?

Do any of the other religions that are used to settle cases have laws within them that allow for the cruel and inhumane treatment of citizens? That support racism? Etc.?
That is a difference that makes me want to single out Sharia law from the others to say we have no tolerance for an authority that promotes so much that is totally against our laws. If the other religions also cross that line then there should be no place for them either.

For example do the Jews in Israel allow you to stone a woman for her part in being raped? As in she was too friendly so she brought the attacker to a state of mind that caused her rape? If so lets remove 'Judaism' from any arbitration or legal process in America.

I think taking that step would be the right thing to do, it would promote assimilation and work against pockets of anti-american culture living here. I think making room for Sharia in any way is the wrong thing to do. It has proven to be a very bad way to incorporate Muslim immigrants from the middle east into European countries. We shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge and learn from that disaster.
At some point, if you are going to operate a secular society you are going to have to draw the line that pisses off any religious authority and if we can't draw the line between us and Sharia law then what exactly would we reject?!?

[Heretic]

Two men go to arbitration in Islamic court to dispute a contract. Islamic law is use to settle the case. US courts uphold the settlement. Wow Islamic law or sharia in the US how hard is that to understand?

[Will Robinson]

Two men go to arbitration in an Islamic country to dispute a contract. Islamic law is use to settle the case.
Two men go to arbitration in the United States to dispute a contract. U.S. law is used to settle the case.

Is anything wrong with that? I know it sends the message to the Muslims that Sharia law is somehow inferior to U.S. law or Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion we allow to play a part in arbitration..right?

Well guess what? IT IS INFERIOR by U.S.standards!
Actually it is worse than inferior, some parts are illegal and full of hate crimes as defined by our legal system!
And we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't just so people of that faith don't have to be faced with the differences. We say we're all about celebrating the differences aren't we. Well some of the differences are not to be celebrated and those differences, if you support them, should bring you great discomfort, not pandering politicians saying we have to let them use the not so bad bits as long as they don't try to cut off their daughters heads for smiling at the highschool quarterback.

A Christian woman and a Muslim man go to arbitration in an Islamic country and Islamic law is used to send the woman to her death for challenging a man.

The same two go to court in the U.S. and U.S. law is used to settle the case...suddenly justice and equal rights have sway over the invisible Allah and his sword wielding spokesmen.

Therefore, for us, U.S. law is superior. sometimes you just have to acknowledge reality even if it makes someone else uncomfortable.
So, if someone lives here as one of us, let them join in the use our laws and leave the backwards traditions outside the borders because there is no good to come from the introduction of those backwards practices to our system. Or is there some good I haven't considered?

[null0010]

Two men go to arbitration in Islamic court to dispute a contract. Islamic law is use to settle the case. US courts uphold the settlement. Wow Islamic law or sharia in the US how hard is that to understand?

This would not happen.

Will, quit with the false for/against Sharia dichotomy. Just because I or someone else doesn't think it necessary to "ban" Sharia law doesn't mean we love Sharia so very much that we want to stone rape victims to death in our spare time.

[Will Robinson]

...

Will, quit with the false for/against Sharia dichotomy. Just because I or someone else doesn't think it necessary to "ban" Sharia law doesn't mean we love Sharia so very much that we want to stone rape victims to death in our spare time.

You are responsible for that interpretation if that's what you get from it.
I haven't told you what you believe or stand for, I've told you what I believe and what I think Sharia stands for. I've mentioned examples of the horrors of Sharia law, unless you happen to be some ayatollah or Taliban I don't see how I'm characterizing where your heart and mind lies.

The only thing I'm putting on you or anyone who thinks there is no problem is I think you/they should find enough wrong with Sharia law to be comfortable in singling it out as something we don't encourage or accommodate in any official capacity.
How you take that and spin it into my suggesting you want to stone rape victims is your own problem.

[null0010]

Right.

[Foil]

Two men go to arbitration in Islamic court to dispute a contract. Islamic law is use to settle the case. US courts uphold the settlement. Wow Islamic law or sharia in the US how hard is that to understand?

That is a case of an arbitration agreement under U.S. law. (see comments below)

Two men go to arbitration in the United States to dispute a contract. U.S. law is used to settle the case.

That is exactly what happens.

----------

Guys, whether the arbitrator calls the dispute resolution 'sharia' or 'the glorious rules of planet Gorgon', the solution's legal status is determined entirely and solely by U.S. law. Period.

----------

To follow the crowd, here are the examples I'd use for the crucial point:

A. Two Muslims go to arbitration. They praise sharia for providing a solution, which is reasonable and legal by U.S. law. US courts uphold the settlement.

B. Two Muslims go to arbitration. They praise sharia for providing a solution, which is evil and criminal by U.S. law. US courts strike down the settlement (and possibly file criminal charges where applicable).

So, if someone lives here as one of us, let them join in the use our laws...

Agreed. And if they don't comply with our laws, they'll be charged for it, whether they cite their own system or not.

Again, their system holds zero legal status beside our own.

[Foil]

The only thing I'm putting on you or anyone who thinks there is no problem is I think you/they should find enough wrong with Sharia law to be comfortable in singling it out as something we don't encourage or accommodate in any official capacity.

Okay, that's reasonable.

I'm certainly comfortable singling out sharia as something we don't encourage or accomodate in any official capacity.

[Note: The arbitration process does not constitute encouraging or accomodating sharia in any official capacity, for legal reasons I believe I've already made quite clear.]

[callmeslick]

I believe morality is based on humanism which does not have it's roots based in the supernatural. A humanist, or a society based on humanism, does not need a God to be good. However, the same can't be said the other way around. A religious person needs humanism to be good.

Bee

well put. On that note, I'm going fishing for a week down at the Shore house. In case tomorrow is actually the end of the world, it has been a pleasure to have gotten to know you all a bit. Otherwise, I'll be back for Memorial Day weekend and be my usual agreeable self.

[Will Robinson]

The only thing I'm putting on you or anyone who thinks there is no problem is I think you/they should find enough wrong with Sharia law to be comfortable in singling it out as something we don't encourage or accommodate in any official capacity.

Okay, that's reasonable.

I'm certainly comfortable singling out sharia as something we don't encourage or accomodate in any official capacity.

[Note: The arbitration process does not constitute encouraging or accomodating sharia in any official capacity, for legal reasons I believe I've already made quite clear.]

No, if sharia law is the deciding factor in an arbitration hearing that is under the jurisdiction of U.S. law and therefore it is accomodating sharia law! If my children have to leave "under god" out of the pledge because the federal government pays less than 10% of the funding for the school therefore it is a government operation then the arbitration process within our legal system is a government operation and we should leave Sharia out of it. If you doubt that then try to disobey the arbitration ruling and see which uniform the guys wear that come to punish you for failing to follow the decision...

To make the distinction that Sharia is not tolerated is the goal of my proposal, not that I think Sharia can't have components that deliver justice that is compatible with our law. Sharia law is the root of the islamo-facsists advance on the world, it is the rule they want to force all of the world to live under and for that reason alone we should refuse to make any use of it...even the benign parts. Feelings be damned.

[null0010]

Will, I honestly believe you either: a) do not understand the US legal system, or b) are being deliberately obtuse.

If a portion of Sharia just happens to match with the United States legal system, then that's just peachy. That particular bit of it would hold up under legal scrutiny. But the bits about stoning people to death and rape being justifiable do not, have not, and will never match with the United States legal system. Worrying about that becoming a problem here is like worrying about the sun rising in the west and setting in the east, or gravity reversing itself.

[Will Robinson]

Will, I honestly believe you either: a) do not understand the US legal system, or b) are being deliberately obtuse.

If a portion of Sharia just happens to match with the United States legal system, then that's just peachy. That particular bit of it would hold up under legal scrutiny. But the bits about stoning people to death and rape being justifiable do not, have not, and will never match with the United States legal system. Worrying about that becoming a problem here is like worrying about the sun rising in the west and setting in the east, or gravity reversing itself.

No...you have missed the numerous times I explained it wasn't that I think Sharia is incompatible, I myself noted that parts of it are and parts are not. Nor is it that it is sure to spread, it is not certain that it will but it certainly makes it easier to do so by an order of magnitude squared by giving it any toehold versus banning it...so it seems wise to ask is there a real need for it considering the stated goal of our enemies is to institute it and make us follow it.

I explained that, even with those tenuous assurances of the Constitution in mind (funny how the constitution is carved in stone one day and 'mere guidelines' another), it is the line we draw between our culture and the culture of Sharia law. It is symbolic. It is a needed reminder of the dangerous differences between us. I've pointed to that aspect of it numerous times and in numerous ways. So the onus is upon you to understand...
This thread is about the symbolic statement quoted in the original post by TB. It is that theme I'm touching on.

Just humor me, go back to my original question. If there is no hole in our law that only Sharia can fill then what or who does it serve to make it a part of our legal process? The answer to that is the light at the end of the tunnel you don't want to see.

[null0010]

Will, I've never said (and I'm sure no one else in this thread has said) that Sharia law should in any way be a "part" of the United States legal system. What I'm saying is that any announcement, resolution, strongly worded statement, or drunken shouting about how horrible and evil and morally bankrupt and smelly Sharia law is would be a totally pointless and empty gesture. It's so fundamentally basic and obvious to any person with firing neurons that bothering to point it out is literally a waste of time.

[Will Robinson]

Will, I've never said (and I'm sure no one else in this thread has said) that Sharia law should in any way be a "part" of the United States legal system.

Now who is being obtuse?!? I explained why it is. I never said you or anyone here thought it should be.

When you refuse to comply with an arbitration decision, whether it is based on U.S. law or Sharia law, in the U.S. you become in default and are subject to the punishment that is determined and delivered by the U.S. legal system. That pretty much clears up any doubt as to whether a ruling by way of Sharia law in our civil courts is 'part' of the U.S. legal system!

now, about that question I asked...

[null0010]

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 that the courts have the ability to intervene where the decision of an arbitrator is in fundamental disaccord with the applicable principles of law or the contract.

[Krom]

It's so fundamentally basic and obvious to any person with firing neurons that bothering to point it out is literally a waste of time.

You have made the critical error of assuming most people have actual firing neurons. Remember that once you bring a group of people together all neural activity in every individual ceases until some time after you separate them again.

[Will Robinson]

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 that the courts have the ability to intervene where the decision of an arbitrator is in fundamental disaccord with the applicable principles of law or the contract.

You keep telling us what we already know and have acknowledged....and you keep ignoring the question.

[null0010]

Your question is based on a flawed premise.

[Will Robinson]

Your question is based on a flawed premise.

Can a person request a ruling based on Sharia law in an arbitration in a US civil case?
If so my premise is based in fact.

[null0010]

So, you're saying that anything called Sharia, even if clearly compatible with United States law, or even if it matched it exactly, should never be allowed.

[Will Robinson]

So, you're saying that anything called Sharia, even if clearly compatible with United States law, or even if it matched it exactly, should never be allowed.

I asked if there is no hole in the law we already used for arbitration that only Sharia law can fill why do we need to make a mechanism to introduce it into our civil law?

[null0010]

So, you're saying that anything called Sharia, even if clearly compatible with United States law, or even if it matched it exactly, should never be allowed.

I asked if there is no hole in the law we already used for arbitration that only Sharia law can fill why do we need to make a mechanism to introduce it into our civil law?

For the same reason that the United States allows any other form of arbitration. We allow Jewish law, Native American courts, contractual rulings, and any other form of arbitration. 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. There is no threat. This is the way it's been done for hundreds of years. There is no "mechanism" that must be made to allow it; it is already allowed. It has always been allowed.

[flip]

Null, If you had any idea of how things were just 25 years ago. It's amazing to me. I was saying the same stuff years ago and getting laughed at run out of the room . Now, I say it, and people are not as convinced . Things have changed dramatically in the last 30 years and you have no way of knowing that.

[null0010]

Could you elaborate on that?

[flip]

Actually I'm not sure I can. You kinda had to be there.

[null0010]

I see.

[Will Robinson]

So, you're saying that anything called Sharia, even if clearly compatible with United States law, or even if it matched it exactly, should never be allowed.

I asked if there is no hole in the law we already used for arbitration that only Sharia law can fill why do we need to make a mechanism to introduce it into our civil law?

For the same reason that the United States allows any other form of arbitration. We allow Jewish law, Native American courts, contractual rulings, and any other form of arbitration. 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. There is no threat. This is the way it's been done for hundreds of years. There is no "mechanism" that must be made to allow it; it is already allowed. It has always been allowed.

No, it hasn't always been allowed. At some point someone thought it would be a good idea to accommodate a subset of people and they created the practice. With the Jews and the Native Americans etc. they don't have a component within their traditional laws that allow the horrendous crimes that Sharia allows...in fact not just allows but calls for! That is a distinction that we shouldn't shy away from making.

Any immigrant Muslim that moves here is moving away from having Sharia law as their authority and into a new set of rules and expectations that have a strong foundation in equality.
We don't tolerate honor killings, we don't tolerate spousal abuse, we don't tolerate racism, and we don't tolerate anyone who thinks their religion gives them a right to abuse or oppress etc. and a good way to instill that is to be upfront and blunt about what we think of the horrible laws that allow and promote those terrible things!
There is no good reason to accommodate anyone who feels a need to honor or live under Sharia law here in America. I don't think there is any good reason to involve any religion in the process but since we've never been faced with Rabbinical law or Native American law etc. calling for horrible crimes against others I guess no one thought there was enough of a negative side to the practice.
Considering the way some people will bend over backwards to neuter America and the way muslim immigrants from the middle east swarm and destabilize by not assimilating this would not be an extreme measure at all. It would be a firm foundation that will support our way of life and our struggle to keep the kind of pandering and erosion you seem to have no concern for at bay.

[null0010]

In one breath you acknowledge that United States law trumps unlawful religious codes in arbitration proceedings and then in the very next you rail on about the evils of allowing the portions of a religious law system that do not violate United States law to be used in arbitration. When will you realize these fears are irrational and unfounded? You still seem to be acting as if you think continuing to allow religious law in arbitration will legalize rape and murder.

[Will Robinson]

In one breath you acknowledge that United States law trumps unlawful religious codes in arbitration proceedings and then in the very next you rail on about the evils of allowing the portions of a religious law system that do not violate United States law to be used in arbitration. When will you realize these fears are irrational and unfounded? You still seem to be acting as if you think continuing to allow religious law in arbitration will legalize rape and murder.

No, but it encourages/enables the growth of the very type of sub culture we don't want here. The events in europe have proven this out. there were people saying similar things to what I'm saying decades ago and people like you saying it was silly. Now they are all saying WTF have we done to ourselves here?!?!
I think an opportunity exists in taking a worthy stand you seem to prefer the bend over....

Who or what does it serve? You don't like the answer to that which is why you never responded to it.

[Foil]

Okay, so your contention is, (my paraphrase) "Sharia arbitration, even overseen by U.S. law, is an implicit cultural acceptance of sharia policies, which will eventually lead to legal acceptance of its evil practices." I'm sorry, that's nothing more than speculative in my book.

You've also been saying, "We should stand up against the evil sharia does and represents."

I agree! I don't think anyone in here disagrees with that statement.

Who or what does [allowing religious arbitration] serve?

As with any arbitration, as long as it conforms to U.S. law (which just to be clear again for anyone skimming, does not include rape/abuse/murder/etc.), it serves the legal system as an effective mechanism for dispute resolution.

This is not a "p.c." issue, and there's nothing legally pushing sharia. It's simple religious arbitration, which has been around in principle since King Solomon, and in legal form for nearly a century.