The Muslim Boogieman is gonna get ya.

[Very_Bad_Man]

Is Newt Gingrich becoming the Joe McCarthy of our era along with the GOP.

Newt wants a federal law that would prohibit judges from using or considering other countries laws especially targeting Sharia Law.

Why would this even be necessary? Judges can only consider statutory laws passed by our legislators and decisions based upon them. So why is such a law required?

The GOP loony scare tactics are getting to be a bit much.

 

[Liar]

Yes, no, maybe?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...s-freedom-vs--americans-with-disabilities-act

 

[TexasWife25]

Yes, no, maybe?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...s-freedom-vs--americans-with-disabilities-act

I Jon Stewart

 

[GracefullyYours]

Is Newt Gingrich becoming the Joe McCarthy of our era along with the GOP.

Newt wants a federal law that would prohibit judges from using or considering other countries laws especially targeting Sharia Law.

Why would this even be necessary? Judges can only consider statutory laws passed by our legislators and decisions based upon them. So why is such a law required?

The GOP loony scare tactics are getting to be a bit much.

My understanding is that Sharia Law could potentially be relevant in the US because of international contracts with businesses and corporations in foreign countries. If a contract (this includes some investments, marriages, and divorces) is signed, executed, and enacted under Sharia Law....that could be addressed in the US if a litigant moves to the United States and comes under US jurisdiction.

Gingrich opponents say this could hurt business relations and is discriminatory against other religions.

I think it's irrelevant because applying Sharia law would violate the establishment clause...and the equal protection clause would prevent courts from taking unfair action against women in the case of a Sharia Law marriage/divorce.

 

[off2bed]

...still waiting to see all those moderate Muslims out protesting against violent jihad and honor killings.

 

[cjh]

Is Newt Gingrich becoming the Joe McCarthy of our era along with the GOP.

Newt wants a federal law that would prohibit judges from using or considering other countries laws especially targeting Sharia Law.

Why would this even be necessary? Judges can only consider statutory laws passed by our legislators and decisions based upon them. So why is such a law required?

The GOP loony scare tactics are getting to be a bit much.

federal and state courts tend to honor agreements between parties on how they will resolve disputes between them.

choice-of-law provisions tend to be honored. if you contract with a company in england, you will probably have a provision that states whether english law or an american state's law applies.

arbitration clauses tend to be honored.

likewise, some people agree to rely upon religious laws to decide domestic disputes. orthodox jews often agree to submit disputes to beth din, and civil courts usually but not always respect that decision: http://matzav.com/beis-din-decisions-in-secular-courts

the question you want to ask is why sharia is singled out for outrage?

 

[RobDownSouth]

My understanding is that Sharia Law could potentially be relevant in the US because of international contracts with businesses and corporations in foreign countries. If a contract (this includes some investments, marriages, and divorces) is signed, executed, and enacted under Sharia Law....that could be addressed in the US if a litigant moves to the United States and comes under US jurisdiction.

Gingrich opponents say this could hurt business relations and is discriminatory against other religions.

I think it's irrelevant because applying Sharia law would violate the establishment clause...and the equal protection clause would prevent courts from taking unfair action against women in the case of a Sharia Law marriage/divorce.

Bingo.

There was a discussion here a few months back about how Sharia law could theoretically apply in civil cases in US court if and only if both parties agreed to be bound under it beforehand.

-RobRandomBoldDownSouth

 

[GracefullyYours]

Bingo.

There was a discussion here a few months back about how Sharia law could theoretically apply in civil cases in US court if and only if both parties agreed to be bound under it beforehand.

-RobRandomBoldDownSouth

I think that could occur if there was an arbitration clause in a contract.... In theory, a US court would be forced to honor Sharia and make a ruling.

Now THAT I disagree with.

 

[oggbashan]

What is Sharia Law?

"Sharia Law" is a generic term for a whole mess of laws that might or might not be reasonable. There is no single version of "Sharia Law".

If, for example, parties to a contract agree that it should be subject to the laws of England, or Scotland, then there is a clear definition of what laws are appropriate, even if lawyers can argue at length about interpretation of particulars.

But there is no clear definition of "Sharia Law". Is it the laws as applied in Iran? Or Iraq? Or Egypt?

Some UK residents who are Muslim use a financial system for loans that complies with some Muslim doctrine on interest payments. What they use is clearly set out in the loan agreement and that agreement is valid in English Law because the parties were well aware of the conditions. They are sometimes called "Sharia loans". They aren't. They are loans with conditions that are different from traditional mortgages designed to comply with religious sensibilities on payment of interest.

Before banning Sharia, legislators need to be clear what Sharia is, or is not, and in what respects Sharia is incompatible with the country's legislation.

Many unpleasant aspects of "Sharia" aren't Sharia at all but antiquated medieval laws that are not acceptable in a democratic society.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I think that could occur if there was an arbitration clause in a contract.... In theory, a US court would be forced to honor Sharia and make a ruling.

Now THAT I disagree with.

If the parties agreed to arbitration, the court would only be involved to the extent needed to enforce the provision. Arbitration itself is a private dispute resolution process and there isn't a court or judge involved.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

My understanding is that Sharia Law could potentially be relevant in the US because of international contracts with businesses and corporations in foreign countries. If a contract (this includes some investments, marriages, and divorces) is signed, executed, and enacted under Sharia Law....that could be addressed in the US if a litigant moves to the United States and comes under US jurisdiction.

Gingrich opponents say this could hurt business relations and is discriminatory against other religions.

I think it's irrelevant because applying Sharia law would violate the establishment clause...and the equal protection clause would prevent courts from taking unfair action against women in the case of a Sharia Law marriage/divorce.

It would also kind of fuck with that whole separation of church and state thing we have going on......

 

[JohnnySavage]

"Sharia Law" is a generic term for a whole mess of laws that might or might not be reasonable. There is no single version of "Sharia Law".

If, for example, parties to a contract agree that it should be subject to the laws of England, or Scotland, then there is a clear definition of what laws are appropriate, even if lawyers can argue at length about interpretation of particulars.

But there is no clear definition of "Sharia Law". Is it the laws as applied in Iran? Or Iraq? Or Egypt?

Some UK residents who are Muslim use a financial system for loans that complies with some Muslim doctrine on interest payments. What they use is clearly set out in the loan agreement and that agreement is valid in English Law because the parties were well aware of the conditions. They are sometimes called "Sharia loans". They aren't. They are loans with conditions that are different from traditional mortgages designed to comply with religious sensibilities on payment of interest.

Before banning Sharia, legislators need to be clear what Sharia is, or is not, and in what respects Sharia is incompatible with the country's legislation.

Many unpleasant aspects of "Sharia" aren't Sharia at all but antiquated medieval laws that are not acceptable in a democratic society.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia operates under Sharia and the United States (and it's citizens/businesses) seem to have one or two business dealings with them.

 

[GracefullyYours]

It would also kind of fuck with that whole separation of church and state thing we have going on......

......which is why I mentioned the establishment clause

 

[RobDownSouth]

......which is why I mentioned the establishment clause

pfft...you elitists and your fancy 4 syllable words...

 

[GracefullyYours]

pfft...you elitists and your fancy 4 syllable words...

E-jac-u-late

Fel-la-ti-o

You like those four-syllable words, though?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

......which is why I mentioned the establishment clause

Shhhsh...I am spelling it out for the mouth breathers!

 

[JohnnySavage]

Shhhsh...I am spelling it out for the mouth breathers!

More like reveling in your ignorance.

The Establishment Clause has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues in this thread.

 

[GracefullyYours]

More like reveling in your ignorance.

The Establishment Clause has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues in this thread.

It's my understanding that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause (together the first amendment) are where we get the idea of "separation of church and state."

If Sharia Law is inherently religious, some would argue that courts would be in violation of the first amendment by making a judgement regarding it.

 

[cjh]

It's my understanding that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause (together the first amendment) are where we get the idea of "separation of church and state."

If Sharia Law is inherently religious, some would argue that courts would be in violation of the first amendment by making a judgement regarding it.

courts tend to respect the parties' agreement to submit disputes to religious tribunals. it's viewed as akin to an arbitration agreement.

https://***************/viewer?a=v&...gBQDfi&sig=AHIEtbT5TF07jFr5uW90TnRseGCMIhV_Ag

 

[GracefullyYours]

courts tend to respect the parties' agreement to submit disputes to religious tribunals. it's viewed as akin to an arbitration agreement.

So then, in the context of this thread....

Is Gingrich's argument that religious tribunals shouldn't be used, or merely that judges shouldn't rule on religious law? (If it's the latter, how is that so different from things as they are?)

OP said, "Newt wants a federal law that would prohibit judges from using or considering other countries laws especially targeting Sharia Law." This would effectively eliminate the use of any tribunal, yes? If, as JS said, the court enforces arbitration, is the act of enforcing religious arbitration itself a violation of the first amendment?

 

[cjh]

So then, in the context of this thread....

Is Gingrich's argument that religious tribunals shouldn't be used, or merely that judges shouldn't rule on religious law?

OP said, "Newt wants a federal law that would prohibit judges from using or considering other countries laws especially targeting Sharia Law." This would effectively eliminate the use of any tribunal, yes?

that's where the bogeyman comes in.

gingrich is trying to capitalize on a fear that sharia will supplant state and federal law as a matter of course. no one loudly makes similar claims about the jewish equivalent--beth din--though.

there can be real conflicts between religious law and what is deemed fair and just in modern american jurisprudence. new york has enacted a statute or two addressing some of the harsher aspects of beth din and divorce, if i recall.

i am curious to see whether all the people arguing about sharia want to see state courts resolve church property disputes when a congregation splits.

 

[GracefullyYours]

that's where the bogeyman comes in.

gingrich is trying to capitalize on a fear that sharia will supplant state and federal law as a matter of course. no one loudly makes similar claims about the jewish equivalent--beth din--though.

there can be real conflicts between religious law and what is deemed fair and just in modern american jurisprudence. new york has enacted a statute or two addressing some of the harsher aspects of beth din and divorce, if i recall.

i am curious to see whether all the people arguing about sharia want to see state courts resolve church property disputes when a congregation splits.

So, hypothetically speaking....

If I'm a Muslim woman who married under/in accordance with Sharia Law, but I say "screw all that" and want a "normal" US divorce....would I have the right to have a court (as opposed to religious tribunal) decide the divorce settlement if I'm a citizen?

Not really on topic....but I see that as evidence of the corruption of churches as they "should" be....it's become a business through-and-through.

And....just in case anyone's getting the wrong idea....I think Gingrich is full of shit....I'm just interested.

 

[cjh]

So, hypothetically speaking....

If I'm a Muslim woman who married under/in accordance with Sharia Law, but I say "screw all that" and want a "normal" US divorce....would I have the right to have a court (as opposed to religious tribunal) decide the divorce settlement if I'm a citizen?

Not really on topic....but I see that as evidence of the corruption of churches as they "should" be....it's become a business through-and-through.

And....just in case anyone's getting the wrong idea....I think Gingrich is full of shit....I'm just interested.

yes, you would.

the rub, though, is that in doing so you'd be renouncing your religion and might suffer some sort of religious retribution.

think of it in terms of being catholic decades ago and seeking a secular divorce without getting a religious annulment first. the state recognizes your divorce; the church excommunicates you and you go to hell.

just because you can proceed civilly does not necessarily make it easy.

change your example just a bit. you decide to let a religious tribunal resolve alimony and support as you dissolve your marriage. under that case, you are probably bound by what they decide.

 

[GracefullyYours]

yes, you would.

the rub, though, is that in doing so you'd be renouncing your religion and might suffer some sort of religious retribution.

think of it in terms of being catholic decades ago and seeking a secular divorce without getting a religious annulment first. the state recognizes your divorce; the church excommunicates you and you go to hell.

just because you can proceed civilly does not necessarily make it easy.

change your example just a bit. you decide to let a religious tribunal resolve alimony and support as you dissolve your marriage. under that case, you are probably bound by what they decide.

So, in theory....a person has the right to "opt out" of potentially unfair religious law, but only at the possible expense of eternal damnation?

I'm thinking that it's probably not particularly female-friendly...and that females in such circumstances would be (generally) less inclined or less able to assert themselves and fight for their rights.

That bothers me.

 

[cjh]

So, in theory....a person has the right to "opt out" of potentially unfair religious law, but only at the possible expense of eternal damnation?

I'm thinking that it's probably not particularly female-friendly...and that females in such circumstances would be (generally) less inclined or less able to assert themselves and fight for their rights.

That bothers me.

There's more variation to the issue than that simply because the scope is broader than domestic law.

Your concerns are probably valid, though.