Secular vs Jewish vs Sharia Law

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Ganado, Oct 19, 2015.


Tags:
  1. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    Marck and stg58 like this.
  2. mysterymet

    mysterymet Monkey+++

    Ok that is pretty disturbing.
     
    pearlselby likes this.
  3. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey

    Regardless, this is part of what separation of Church and State is all about. The ONLY law of the land is supposed to be secular, but then again that was before everybody started wiping their behinds with the Constitution. I'm so damned glad I won't live forever and see all the crap that will happen.
     
  4. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Those people of faith who push for religious privilege for their own faith tribe thinking that other faith tribes won't and just simply can't be allowed to seek to enjoy the same privileged position in US society. Undermining the secularity of the US Constitution undermines the religious freedoms of all....including those of faiths who don't seem to see past their own quest for for exclusive religious privilege for their particular brand of god.

    In my view, Sharia, Beth Din, and Christian Canon Law mechanisms that attempt to undermine and/or replace the secular laws of the land have no place in a secular, pluralistic, democratic, society, on matters that are properly the purview of secular civil, administrative, and criminal laws of the land.

    We have seen how Churches, Synagogues Temples and Mosques have dealt with paedophilia and other crimes, through internal tribunals (often in secret), conducted by both clerics and laity, as moral sins; rather than as the criminal acts that they actually are. The inclination of some mosques, synagogues, temples and churches to want to run parallel systems of law to the secular law, has often resulted in much harm to the victims, the communities, and religious institutions themselves, by tending to put the interests of the religious institution and faith confession above the interests of the congregants and the communities that they supposedly profess to serve.

    Furthermore, religious courts that rely on scriptural and traditional underpinnings, tend to have inherently unfair biases against certain classes of litigants. When scriptures prescribe that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man, and that women must be subordinate to men...it is easy to see that these inherent biases are not likely to go well for female litigants, or witnesses. Particularly when the judges making decisions...are themselves virtually exclusively men, appointed by men.

    One land: One law for all, equally...The USA, (and Australia, when I come to think of it), should make no space for religious kangaroo courts. Thus sayeth, chelloveck...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2015
  5. Gopherman

    Gopherman Sometimes I Wish I Could Go Back to Sleep Site Supporter++

    It'll Be Martial! At the point they start beheading people for a cartoon, honor killings.... it's on for me at least!
    The strong Cities Document is Scary!!!
     
    Dunerunner and chelloveck like this.
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Just in case the law review article is taken down by the publisher, here's a pdf for those interested in reading it. Yes, it is copyrighted, but fully in the public domain.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Thankyou @ghrit for posting the file as a downloadable resource. It puts the thread's responses in context.
     
  8. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    I thought the key points were 1) must have both sides consent to a tribunal 1st, 2) still have to invoke secular law for contracts and license and divorce etc. What disturbs me is that under sharia law women and children are chattel. So the logic of 'both sides consenting' doesn't work.

    The other point is that Kim Davis having an 'exception or an accommodation' based on her religion has set a precedent for ANYONE holding a public office to be able to claim 'exception in fulfilling their duties' based on their religious belief. How is that going to work when we have a Muslim County clerk claim they can't issue a marriage license unless the couple is Muslim?
     
    Dunerunner and chelloveck like this.
  9. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Monkey

    It will lead to a Muslim clerk, a Jewish clerk, a Baptist clerk, etc., etc. It is one way government grows....
     
    Ganado likes this.
  10. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Yes....and a Satanist clerk....which will have the Muslim, Jewish and Baptist clerks wondering why they hacked holes through the First Amendment in the first place, thereby allowing Satanic clerks to play, in the same space as them. :rolleyes: [reddevil]

    [​IMG]

    The devil, you say? Satanists say they're peaceful sect

    [​IMG]

    Jesus-American County Clerks Paralyzed By Gay Cooties - Wonkette
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2015
    Ganado likes this.
  11. Gopherman

    Gopherman Sometimes I Wish I Could Go Back to Sleep Site Supporter++

    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
    Ganado likes this.
  12. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    This development has been extensively discussed in a thread devoted to this subject in a separate forum on this site. Paperclips seemed to be the solution there. ;)
     
    Ganado and Gopherman like this.
  13. Gopherman

    Gopherman Sometimes I Wish I Could Go Back to Sleep Site Supporter++

    I just wonder how many times Paul Revere Yelled "The Reds Coats are Coming!"
    :rolleyes: Blue Helmets in this case!
     
    Ganado likes this.
  1. UncleMorgan
  2. BTPost
  3. lonewolf88
  4. duane
  5. Legion489
  6. Legion489
  7. IwishIwasaDog
  8. pearlselby
  9. Yard Dart
  10. stg58
  11. Ganado
  12. 10brokenpromises
  13. Yard Dart
  14. Brokor
  15. Brokor
  16. RightHand
  17. <exile>
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7