Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses

[Town Heretic]

All of sharia law is Islamic.

Sorry about the confusion, I'd read your response to another and was combining.

Here's a clearer version of my question then: as there are other purely religious courts allowed in this country is your objection applicable to all of them or only to Muslim religious courts?

 

[glassjester]

I'll put in a good word for ya.

How many points is that worth?

 

[Tambora]

This is the crux of it

The crux is that I speak out against it, and you don't.
You actually try to SUPPORT it.

You seem to think it is A OK for you to not like my beliefs, but it's hateful for me to not like yours.
Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet?

 

[glassjester]

is your objection applicable to all of them or only to Muslim religious courts?

I would guess the objection is to any religious law system that promotes honor killings...

 

[Town Heretic]

I would guess the objection is to any religious law system that promotes honor killings...

Sharia law can be entirely on the civil end of things, devoid of criminal application, much like the other courts noted.

Or are you (or Tam) suggesting that your objection is purely on the criminal side of things (a thing few Western Muslims are interested in seeing) and you'd be okay with its application in the settling of purely non-criminal findings?

So would there be any objection to a limited Sharia application along the lines of Halakha courts and others?

 

[gcthomas]

The crux is that I speak out against it, and you don't.
You actually try to SUPPORT it.

You seem to think it is A OK for you to not like my beliefs, but it's hateful for me to not like yours.
Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet?

I couldn't care less whether you just disliked someone else's beliefs or not. Really

But you are not just limiting yourself to disliking something, you are agitating to have that simmering banned. And you are spreading libels about a whole class of people who, like most groups, are generally nice and good to have as neighbours.

Unlike you, I accept that different people have different values, and as a principle I don't want to ban everything that I don't like.

 

[glassjester]

Sharia law can be entirely on the civil end of things, devoid of criminal application, much like the other courts noted.

Or are you (or Tam) suggesting that your objection is purely on the criminal side of things (a thing few Western Muslims are interested in seeing) and you'd be okay with its application in the settling of purely non-criminal findings?

So would there be any objection to a limited Sharia application along the lines of Halakha courts and others?

Are the civil and criminal applications of it so easy to separate?

If Catholic Canon Law, on paper, allowed for the execution of a spouse following an annulment, would you really want people following that system in our country?

Of course, the tribunals would say, "We just do the annulment, but not the killing part. It's just that every so often, an adherent of Canon Law just happens to do the execution, too, of his own accord. It has nothing to do with Canon Law. We swear!"

Would you believe them?

 

[Tambora]

I couldn't care less whether you disliked someone rises beliefs or not. Really
But you are not just limiting yourself to disliking something, you are agitating to have that simmering banned.

Yes, I am trying to get it banned.
But it's not me doing the agitating.
It's them.

Unlike you, I accept that different people have different values, so I don't want to ban everything I don't like.

Then don't try to ban anything you don't like.
Peace to all!

That's just a goofy way to live, and not practical at all.

 

[Town Heretic]

Are the civil and criminal applications of it so easy to separate?

I don't know about easy, but I know possible. Sure. As simple as allowing it in Orthodox Jewish courts, relating to disputes on property and the like. There are no stonings, etc. allowed by Jewish courts and it's been done in other countries among Muslims without criminal implications. I believe there are permitted Sharia councils restricted to purely religious matters in the UK.

Here's a link to a map of Muslim countries where Sharia plays no to various roles. It's excluded altogether in a surprising number, limited to personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody in others, and fully implemented in still others. So it's not only possible, it's been happening for a fairly long while in non-Western countries.

So, that given do you object only to Muslim Sharia or are you against the Halakha and other courts as well?

OR

Again, would there be any objection to a limited Sharia application along the lines of Halakha courts and others?

 

[gcthomas]

That's just a goofy way to live, and not practical at all.

I like to see banned things that are objectively harmful, not just un-American (or rather un-British). You think Muslims are barbaric, even though almost all of your experience of them from TV news of foreigners, not of Muslim Americans. You have seriously misrepresented the civil Sharia courts that are proposed to comply with US legal codes, and as such you have got scared over something that is not harmful and have gone on to get all hot and bothered about it.

Calm down, and read up on it, and try not to stick to the same alt-right Conservative-Christian news bubble. Really, what is wrong with the proposed Sharia mediation systems that would keep minor issues out of the civil courts? Over here, the courts routinely require people to try arbitration before they are allowed into certain types of court. It is normal.

 

[Tambora]

I like to see banned things that are objectively harmful, not just un-American (or rather un-British). You think Muslims are barbaric, even though almost all of your experience of them from TV news of foreigners, not of Muslim Americans. You have seriously misrepresented the civil Sharia courts that are proposed to comply with US legal codes, and as such you have got scared over something that is not harmful and have gone on to get all hot and bothered about it.

Calm down, and read up on it, and try not to stick to the same alt-right Conservative-Christian news bubble. Really, what is wrong with the proposed Sharia mediation systems that would keep minor issues out of the civil courts? Over here, the courts routinely require people to try arbitration before they are allowed into certain types of court. It is normal.

If I were scared of it, I wouldn't be fighting against it.
I would be hiding with my head in the sand like you are by always wanting to say "It's not that bad".

It is BAD!
It is very BAD!
The USA needs to be scrubbed clean of it.

 

[gcthomas]

If I were scared of it, I wouldn't be fighting against it.
I would be hiding with my head in the sand like you are by always wanting to say "It's not that bad".

It is BAD!
It is very BAD!
The USA needs to be scrubbed clean of it.

What have you got against civil sharia courts doing arbitration if both sides agree?

 

[jgarden]

Send me your lazy, illiterate, free loading criminal masses, with no skills. So we can feed, house and care for them, for free

Were "patrick jane's" ancestors those paragons of virtue that embodied all these noble characteristics - ambitious, self-reliant, educated, skilled, wealthy?

If our ancestors were already considered "success stories" in their homelands, what would be their motivation to emigrate?

 

[Town Heretic]

Apparently this was a harder question to answer than I imagined for Tam and Glass. I don't mind waiting. Here it is again:

Given a purely personal, secular application without criminal authority or the ability to physically punish, would you object to a Sharia/Muslim court of the same authority permitted Halakha and other ecclesiastical courts in the U.S. or is your objection uniform in relation to any of them?

 

[glassjester]

Given a purely personal, secular application without criminal authority or the ability to physically punish, would you object to a Sharia/Muslim court of the same authority permitted Halakha and other ecclesiastical courts in the U.S. or is your objection uniform in relation to any of them?

I don't see it how it could be "banned."

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't see it how it could be "banned."

Not exactly what I asked, but I'll put it in the "not thrilled with religious courts but they're permissible so long as they aren't criminal in nature and do not violate the laws of the land otherwise."

Which I think is fair enough.

I tend to see them the way I do court sponsored mediation. My only concern with any of them, that qualification noted, is in the coercive power of communities and whether or not the person is caving under it and whether the authority is qualified or fair in wielding authority.

 

[glassjester]

My only concern with any of them, that qualification noted, is in the coercive power of communities and whether or not the person is caving under it and whether the authority is qualified or fair in wielding authority.

Is there any way to measure or (legally) control that?

 

[Tambora]

Apparently, some college educated Hillary supporters are too stupid to recognize a direct answer about sharia law.
So they keep altering and restricting the question about it, hoping to get a different answer.
They want to bend to peer pressure, lies, and threats from Islam.
And give them a foothold and support them (on our dime of course).
They think money just grows on the government welfare tree, so any unlimited number of folks can just flood on in and eat freely from the tree.
Using stupidity just to appear 'nice' is dumb.
Especially when not one of these 'nice' folks has offered their own home, groceries, TVs, phones, computer, vehicles, etc. to any of them.

DOWN WITH ISLAM.
DOWN WITH SHARIA LAW.
PERIOD.

 

[Town Heretic]

Is there any way to measure or (legally) control that?

The coercive element? I don't see how and it's one reason I'm less than enthusiastic about any of them.

 

[Town Heretic]

Apparently, some college educated Hillary supporters are too stupid to recognize a direct answer about sharia law.

I asked one question of you at the outset. I appreciate glass answering it, if after a little wrangling with qualifiers.

So they keep altering and restricting the question about it, hoping to get a different answer.

Never changed it, though I gave any additional concerns and inquiry consideration and answer.

You still haven't answered it.

The point of the question was to see if your position was one of principle regarding non secular courts or just a bigoted bit of Islamaphobic myopia. My hope was that the answer would channel toward principle.

They want to bend to peer pressure, lies, and threats from Islam. And give them a foothold and support them (on our dime of course). They think money just grows on the government welfare tree, so any unlimited number of folks can just flood on in and eat freely from the tree. Using stupidity just to appear 'nice' is dumb. Especially when not one of these 'nice' folks has offered their own home, groceries, TVs, phones, computer, vehicles, etc. to any of them.

DOWN WITH ISLAM.
DOWN WITH SHARIA LAW.
PERIOD.

The reader can figure out where you fit from that on their own, I suppose.