States fight against Sharia Law

I found out about this on The Colbert Report. There seems to be a movement brewing to get all "Halal food" out of ____ state. I don't know what baffles and saddens me more: the hate or the stupid.

Yeah, I'll go with both.

Heh, since Kosher is quite similar to Halal in the methods (not necessarily the motivation) ... The difference is, mainly, as I understand it that something can be kosher even if it comes from a prohibited source. Ie gelatin can come from a prohibited source and still be allowed in kosher foods.

ETA: Which means that if you put a schecti (?) shochet and a moslem butcher in the same room in front of an animal, after they do basically the same procedure to kill the animal, the one that mentions Allah instead of G-d, goes to jail.

A prohibited source would mean that the substance is treife - and if used with kosher food would contaminate it and it would no longer be kosher. That is if gelatin came from a pig it would not be kosher (obviously) or if it came from another animal that had not been slaughtered in accordance with shechita then it would not be kosher.

The man who does the slaughtering in Judaism is called a Shochet.

Isn't it interesting that the state with the largest population of Muslims in it isn't being this irrational? Nice to know Michigan isn't completely warped sometimes.

Shadow Dragon said:

It's good to see people fighting back against the Islamic take over of America. When it comes to fighting Sharia Law, I say, "Yes we can." [/sarcasm]

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what the sarcasm is intended for on this one. Seems like SC is trying to stop stories like this:

"Earlier this year, for example, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state court judge's refusal to issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who forced his wife to engage in sexual intercourse. The judge found that the man did not intend to rape his wife because he believed his religion permitted him to have sex with her whenever he desired."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-09-shariaban09_ST_N.htm

third person said:

I don't know what baffles and saddens me more: the hate or the stupid.

Yeah, I'll go with both.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd go with both too. I bet many of these lawmakers are the same ones crying about government spending and waste.

What exactly do they mean by 'banning Sharia law'? Surely US law is the only law that matters in the US?
As for halal, I would gladly see both it and kosher meat banned. Some interviews with experienced slaughtermen on the cruelty behind this slaughter method.

megoblocks said:

I'm not really sure what the sarcasm is intended for on this one. Seems like SC is trying to stop stories like this:

"Earlier this year, for example, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state court judge's refusal to issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who forced his wife to engage in sexual intercourse. The judge found that the man did not intend to rape his wife because he believed his religion permitted him to have sex with her whenever he desired."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-09-shariaban09_ST_N.htm

Click to expand...

Yes, we've been over this incredibly vanishingly isolated incident before on P&CE. It was clearly a wrong decision and was swiftly overturned by the appeals court.

There's absolutely no way to prevent people from making private legal agreements between themselves. If people want to set up shari'a courts and abide by their judgments, we can hardly stop them, any more than we can stop any other ecclesiastical court system. Jewish rabbinical 'courts' have, I believe, been operating in the US and the UK for a long time; I guess the people wetting the bed about shari'a law are just more scared of the Muslims than they are of the Jews.

And obviously, the law of the land as it stands trumps any illegal private contract. If some mullah decrees that rape is OK, or that someone needs to be physically harmed or mutilated as a punishment, they are committing a crime and they ought to go to jail. It's no defence to say their actions are acceptable under shari'a. Why do we need the government to make more laws to regulate this stuff?

Torgo said:

And obviously, the law of the land as it stands trumps any illegal private contract.

Click to expand...

And that's all they're doing, just reaffirming said concept.

Shakesbear said:

A prohibited source would mean that the substance is treife - and if used with kosher food would contaminate it and it would no longer be kosher. That is if gelatin came from a pig it would not be kosher (obviously) or if it came from another animal that had not been slaughtered in accordance with shechita then it would not be kosher.

The man who does the slaughtering in Judaism is called a Shochet.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was more thinking about enzymes and stuff in dairy products like yogurt and stuff, but of course I'm not very well versed, and my info comes from the internet.

Mego said:

And that's all they're doing, just reaffirming said concept.

Click to expand...

They're reaffirming their own xenophobia.

The judge in the case you mentioned didn't base his decision on Sharia law--he based it on the man's intentions, which were influenced by the man's religion.

He was still wrong, and he was overturned. Show me the case, in any state at any time, where Sharia Law has been recognized in an American court.

It's a non-existent issue being promoted to keep people distrustful and afraid of what they perceive as "other". It's like passing a law banning Chemtrails. Sure, no harm in it, because Chemtrails would be horrible...but the very fact that it was proposed can set off a firestorm of paranoia and outrage. In the case of Sharia Law, there is a target for that outrage, and the target is human.

Not cool.

megoblocks said:

And that's all they're doing, just reaffirming said concept.

Click to expand...

So we agree the law deals with any issues around this perfectly well already and Mike Fair's just wanking away time and money?

What if this law set out to ban encroachment of Biblical laws in secular courts?

Would there be as much scoffing then, or would it turn to cries of "about time"?

megoblocks said:

And that's all they're doing, just reaffirming said concept.

Click to expand...

Because there's been such an alarming rash of states forgetting it.

Oh, wait, there hasn't been.

Just like there's no such thing as a non-Muslim-sympathetic judge in the US who thinks there's no such thing a spousal rape.

Oh, wait on that one, too. That barbaric attitude is actually still too common in the US.

Oh, well. Sharia crisis non-existent then, I guess, right?

I find it strange that people in here seem (maybe not) to be advocating allowing a shadow court system that skirts the law, abuses and discriminates against women and outsiders, does not allow for appeals, searchable records, etc. But I'll let commentary and discussions from others more wrapped up in it speak for themselves. I can't C&P tons of info onto one post, but I'll throw out a few couple quickies:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
"People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.

There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands.

"In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women. Furthermore … husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law.""


http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain.pdf (details both penal and civil aspects, lots of notes, well worth the full read)

"Fariborz Pooya, Chair of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, says: “Sharia law
is not voluntary, but rather compulsory by its very nature. To deceptively talk of
the voluntary nature of these courts is a means by which Islamic groups give
legal cover and pretence to their discrimination. For the Government to accept
this argument is akin to outsourcing the legal system to Islamic groups. This is
detrimental to, and a betrayal of, the rights of our most vulnerable citizens to
being equal before the law.”78"

Monkey said:

It's a non-existent issue being promoted to keep people distrustful and afraid of what they perceive as "other". It's like passing a law banning Chemtrails. Sure, no harm in it, because Chemtrails would be horrible...but the very fact that it was proposed can set off a firestorm of paranoia and outrage. In the case of Sharia Law, there is a target for that outrage, and the target is human.

Not cool.

Click to expand...

Except Chemtrails don't exist. Sharia law does. More than one practicer of sharia law as well wants the entire world to be under it. So, yeah, I think there's a slight flaw in your analogy.

muravyets said:

Because there's been such an alarming rash of states forgetting it.

Oh, wait, there hasn't been.

Just like there's no such thing as a non-Muslim-sympathetic judge in the US who thinks there's no such thing a spousal rape.

Oh, wait on that one, too. That barbaric attitude is actually still too common in the US.

Oh, well. Sharia crisis non-existent then, I guess, right?

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd say that, but calling it a "crisis" seems more than a little overblown, to me.

It's simple. This sharia scare has come up since 9/11 and it targets moslems, and hides itself behind a veil of legal language. I have never ever seen, even on this board, protests about the jewish courts - which often does exactly the same thing as the sharia "courts". Nor have I seen any outrage leveled against christian "courts" of similar nature where matters of divorce and such are handled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

But the outrage is palpable against moslems.

If it were up to me, there would be no religious courts - of any kind. I don't think religion should have any influence on the law. No matter what the religion. But this is just xenophobia aimed squarely at moslems - but which cowardly hides behind a rhetoric about law.

Mego said:

I find it strange that people in here seem (maybe not) to be advocating allowing a shadow court system that skirts the law, abuses and discriminates against women and outsiders, does not allow for appeals, searchable records, etc. But I'll let commentary and discussions from others more wrapped up in it speak for themselves. I can't C&P tons of info onto one post, but I'll throw out a few couple quickies:

Click to expand...

As others have said, there are plenty of "courts" out there that operate similarly. But they don't have any real bearing on US law.

For example, I used to be married into a family where the patriarch was a preacher in the local Church of the Nazarene. His son was accused of raping two little boys that attended his church, so he had the boys, the parents, and everyone get together and they held court. The evidence was overwhelming, and he was forced to "convict" his own son. His sentence was excommunication from the church, amongst other things.

The law still came and arrested his son. They still put him on trial. The patriarch went to testify, and claimed that the trial was a case of "double jeopardy," since his son had already been "tried" and found guilty.

The court didn't buy it. He went to jail. End of story.

These "shadow courts" as you put it have no legal authority. They are social constructs, voluntarily entered into. So no, they don't particularly scare me.

Mego said:

Except Chemtrails don't exist. Sharia law does. More than one practicer of sharia law as well wants the entire world to be under it. So, yeah, I think there's a slight flaw in your analogy.

Click to expand...

No analogy is perfect. But you're still barking up the wrong tree (heh).

Sharia law exists...but the threat of Sharia Law overtaking the US legal system does not.

They are attempting to ban something that's not happening.

Are there people who want it to happen? Sure. There are also people who want...well, just about any stupid thing you can come up with. You know the old analogy (also imperfect): they can want in one hand and...

MattW said:

What if this law set out to ban encroachment of Biblical laws in secular courts?

Would there be as much scoffing then, or would it turn to cries of "about time"?

Click to expand...

I'm going to go with, "about time". Christianity can be demonized until the cows come home, but every excuse can be offered for the bad actors in Islam. It's funny, Christians can be lumped, but you damn well better make a distinction regarding "radical" Islam... and even then, more often than not, those are folks who have been "wronged" and thus their terrible acts justified.

Damn those states for exercising their powers. How dare they! Frankly, if people have an issue with this in their states they can vote the bums out. They can further take the issue to the courts and have the laws litigated. In this country we have protections (unlike other places in the world wherein Sharia might be the rule of law). I find the whole thing to be a waste of time as I do not see Sharia swooping in and replacing our legal system... but then government spends a lot of time pursuing nonsense.

Yes, I believe it's "about damn time" they made firmer the separation between church and state. ANY church, Christian, Muslim, or other. But if you're going to start with one, it makes sense to start with the one that's actually INFLUENCING our politics and laws, currently, right now, in real life. To find out which one this is, read the Republican party platform.

But even at that--why single out just one? Why not put it in writing that NO religion holds sway over American courts, American laws, American judges?

This singling out of Sharia Law, even when no one can point to a place where it's actually influenced the US legal system, smacks of a very ugly agenda...especially when it's so clear that Christianity is deeply enmeshed in American politics.

megoblocks said:

I'm not really sure what the sarcasm is intended for on this one. Seems like SC is trying to stop stories like this:

"Earlier this year, for example, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state court judge's refusal to issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who forced his wife to engage in sexual intercourse. The judge found that the man did not intend to rape his wife because he believed his religion permitted him to have sex with her whenever he desired."

Click to expand...

Which, while it may have been framed in connection with a specific case involving a Muslim man and wife, is nothing more than the old idea that a husband cannot be charged with raping his wife. The wife, after all, must be subjugated to the husband. That's a view that still has broad appeal in many places, and is by no means limited to highly patriarchal Muslims. I'd bet that still stands as law in some states.

blacbird said:

Which, while it may have been framed in connection with a specific case involving a Muslim man and wife, is nothing more than the old idea that a husband cannot be charged with raping his wife. The wife, after all, must be subjugated to the husband. That's a view that still has broad appeal in many places, and is by no means limited to highly patriarchal Muslims. I'd bet that still stands as law in some states.

Click to expand...

It may seem shocking, but I've even run across that attitude in the buckle of the bible belt.