Great Britain or Little Iran?

[LadyShea]

And just why, in all six cases, do you suppose those women dropped the charges? And having done so, would they then subject themselves to this charade of arbitration?

Could religious intimidation have anything to do with it?

American women drop or refuse to press domestic abuse charges all the time (though in some jurisdictions the Prosecutors will not drop charges even if the victim wants to). In many cases the offenders are ordered to take anger management classes and enter counseling in lieu of jail time etc.

Since most Americans are Christian do you think that's also due to religious intimidation? Do you think that judges ordering anger management is less of a sham than an arbitrator doing so?

I understand the reaction of "Sharia Law! Scary death!" because I have it too. It doesn't seem, though, that the UK is allowing these Sharia courts free rein.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

"Atheist law?" Huh?

That was sarcasm, for anyone who missed it. Atheists have no positive ideology that binds them together, so I figure the accused atheist wife beater would be at a particular disadvantage.

This is why I think delusions about a god don't really belong in a rational legal system.

Me either.

But as far as establishment clause concerns, 10 C's monuments in courthouses isn't in the same universe with courts accommodating themselves to every little screwball cult that demands to be legitimized.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

American women drop or refuse to press domestic abuse charges all the time (though in some jurisdictions the Prosecutors will not drop charges even if the victim wants to). In many cases the offenders are ordered to take anger management classes and enter counseling in lieu of jail time etc.

Since most Americans are Christian do you think that's also due to religious intimidation?

As a general proposition, I don't see evidence for it. There's no Christian counterpart to Sharia law that I'm aware of.

Do you think that judges ordering anger management is less of a sham than an arbitrator doing so?

On the one hand, I think anger management classes are pretty much a sham. On the other, I think lighter penalties are more likely to be given on the basis of fairness in our system.

I understand the reaction of "Sharia Law! Scary death!" because I have it too. It doesn't seem, though, that the UK is allowing these Sharia courts free rein.

Give it time. The Brits have catered to the insanity in these people, and thus encouraged them to be even more demanding in the future.

[Crumb]

In my opinion it would be religious discrimination if agreeable parties were not allowed to have arbitration from any particular religious persuasion. As long as they meet the professional requirements as any other arbitrator there would be no reason to see the resulting agreements any different than any other kind of arbitration; with the same powers and limits.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

It doesn't say the rules must explicitly state they are meant to be followed by YOU in order to be laws, nor does it state they must actually be obeyed by YOU to be laws.

What a coincidence. Neither did I.

Only the facts that they are recognized as binding by some controlling authority or another, and the fact that it is a rule.

Leviticus isn't a rule. It's account of what the rules were for a certain people at a certain time.

This statement in particular:

is simply ridiculous. You're parsing semantics to the bone, and your still wrong.

That isn't parsing anything, it's just pointing out that you misrepresented me.

You gotta read the whole thing, man, not just the first line. You also need to know what you're talking about. Leviticus IS PART OF THE TANAKH.

Well then I guess it isn't THE TANAKH then, is it?

Dingbat.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

....intimidation?

As a general proposition, I don't see evidence for it.

But you don't move in those circles, so why would you expect to see evidence of it?

There's no Christian counterpart to Sharia law that I'm aware of.

But you're not aware of very much at all on this topic, so that's hardly a ringing declaration of a thorough investigation, is it?

It doesn't seem, though, that the UK is allowing these Sharia courts free rein.

Give it time. The Brits have catered to the insanity in these people, and thus encouraged them to be even more demanding in the future.

Circular appeal to your original troll-post? Is that the best you can do?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

Leviticus isn't a rule. It's account of what the rules were for a certain people at a certain time.

So says ygod, who doesn't seem to be too familiar with what the OT says anyhow.......there is nothing in Leviticus that says the laws were for "a certain time".

Swell. When the book of Leviticus becomes the Tanakh, get back to me.

You gotta read the whole thing, man, not just the first line. You also need to know what you're talking about. Leviticus IS PART OF THE TANAKH.

Well then I guess it isn't THE TANAKH then, is it?

What a fucking idiot.

1. The entire OT is the TANAKH. You obviously confused Torah with TANAKH.
2. Lev. is part of the Torah - the "T" in TANAKH.
3. "When Leviticus becomes the TANAKH get back to me" gets you no traction at all, since you obviously confused Torah with TANAKH.
4. Finally, appealing to the entire OT isn't going to help your argument either, since the remainder of the OT - the other two parts of the TANAKH (Nevi'im and Ketuvi'im) - all point to the Torah law as being both (a) compulsory and (b) non-temporal.

[Watser?]

Here's an interesting development in this story:

TWO-THIRDS of UK Muslims do not want Sharia law, a think-tank said yesterday.

Muslim community leaders warned that any parallel legal system would be a “disaster”, especially for Muslims.

Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, which carried out the research, said: “For non-Muslim authorities to propose the introduction of Sharia as a legal standard for Muslims in any non-Muslim land is not only absurdly patronising and discriminatory, but also violates the canons of traditional Sharia law.

“Sharia has always held that Muslims emigrating to non-Muslim lands are obliged to accept the laws and customs of their new homes.”

The centre estimated 65 per cent of people “brusquely repudiated the imposition of Sharia in Britain”.

Daily Express | UK News :: UK Muslims reject Sharia

Of course this think-tank is only guessing, but I would like to know what the figures really are.

[Adam]

Just for shits & grins, here's the first time we discussed this.

[Watser?]

Yeah, I know, I was debating whether to post it in that thread or in this one...

I will post it in that one too, just because I can.

[mickthinks]

Here's a further interesting development in this story:

Man sentenced over Shia flogging

A devout Shia Muslim has been given a suspended prison sentence for forcing two boys to beat themselves during a religious ceremony. A jury at Manchester Crown Court found Syed Mustafa Zaidi, 44, guilty of two counts of child cruelty last month. [...]

Judge Robert Atherton, at Manchester Crown Court, said: "I reject the suggestion that they were forced to participate, although I consider it likely that the fervour of events is also likely to have affected their wish to participate."

The boys both received multiple lacerations to their backs, mainly superficial, with several deeper cuts caused by the bladed whip. They admitted they wanted to beat themselves, but not under duress and not using Zaidi's zanjeer.

Zaidi also flogged himself during the Ashura ceremony, which commemorates the death of Husayn - a central figure in the Shia faith - in January this year. He admitted he allowed the boys to use the bladed whip, but denied his actions were wrong, saying: "This is a part of our religion."

Judge Atherton said that the jury's verdict was "not a comment" on the Ashura ceremony.

"No-one should misinterpret it as being such," he said.

"You must realise that the law recognises that children and young persons may wish to take part in some activities which it considers they should not. It is sometimes expressed as protecting themselves from themselves.

"Your wrongful act was providing the means by which they were able to participate."

BBC NEWS | Man sentenced over Shia flogging