Pages: 1 2

 

2013-05-27 10:15:18
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

In the U.S. it was ruled that if both sides agreed a lawsuit case could be tried using Sharia law. Should this be okay?

I'm not sure. I'm not worried about Eurabia or something but I'm a hostile to religion seeping into law even if it is just civil suits. At the same time the Libertarian, self made man, academic, and yacht clubber in me feels that it is okay if both people agree to it. I am worried that people may be pressured from their communities to accept Sharia being used to try their disputes.

So convince me one way or another.
2013-05-27 10:39:50
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England
no
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 10:43:56
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,745|7123|Cinncinatti
what makes you think we'll convince you either way
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2013-05-27 10:44:36
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

wishful thinking
2013-05-27 10:46:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England
If it's just for civil suits, who cares? No different from going before an arbitrator to settle a dispute. Definite no when it comes to criminal courts.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 10:49:36
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4640
they already exist as extra-legal/ultra vires forms of local community enforcement and free-choice. that's all fine and according to democratic principles: they're not applying any laws or punishments that are not, in a sense, quasi-consensual. as a form of arbitration and conflict resolution within the muslim community, it often offers a cheaper and easier solution to 'problems' than the official court structure. so long as no human rights are being contravened, or no harm is being done to the individual, i don't see much problem with this - i.e. solving family disputes, marriage problems, personal disagreements and feuds, etc. it's basically just civil lawsuit arbitration done under a different name, with a different set of cultural and social mores in mind (it's all relative, anyway).

however shariah courts should never be recognized as 'official' legal authority. there should only be one legal authority with actual power and the ability to curtail individual freedom, and that should be a central legal power with the full approval of the people.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-27 10:50:18)

2013-05-27 10:49:56
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Jay wrote:

If it's just for civil suits, who cares? No different from going before an arbitrator to settle a dispute. Definite no when it comes to criminal courts.
But what about people being pressured into taking a case into Sharia courts? The local imam and community ostracizing someone and their family for not taking the Sharia route. This is the biggest problem with multiculturalism.
2013-05-27 10:50:07
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7076|Tampa Bay Florida
From the sound of it a lot of lowing - esque conservatives in the US would love nothing more than to live with Sharia law.  Eye for an eye, cutting off hands, etc. etc.  Not one single tax dollar goes to keeping lowlives alive while in prison!
2013-05-27 10:50:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

they already exist as extra-legal/ultra vires forms of local community enforcement and free-choice. that's all fine and according to democratic principles: they're not applying any laws or punishments that are not, in a sense, quasi-consensual. as a form of arbitration and conflict resolution within the muslim community, it often offers a cheaper and easier solution to 'problems' than the official court structure. so long as no human rights are being contravened, or no harm is being done to the individual, i don't see much problem with this - i.e. solving family disputes, marriage problems, personal disagreements and feuds, etc. it's basically just civil lawsuit arbitration done under a different name, with a different set of cultural and social mores in mind (it's all relative, anyway).

however shariah courts should never be recognized as 'official' legal authority. there should only be one legal authority with actual power and the ability to curtail individual freedom, and that should be a central legal power with the full approval of the people.
This.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 10:53:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

If it's just for civil suits, who cares? No different from going before an arbitrator to settle a dispute. Definite no when it comes to criminal courts.
But what about people being pressured into taking a case into Sharia courts? The local imam and community ostracizing someone and their family for not taking the Sharia route. This is the biggest problem with multiculturalism.
If you want to be included in the group, you have to play by their rules. This isn't unique to muslims or any other ethnic group, the same thing happens among friends (you'd know if you had any). No one is forced to live in a muslim community in this country, you have the freedom to move anywhere you want (unless you're a Scientologist).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 10:58:43
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

If it's just for civil suits, who cares? No different from going before an arbitrator to settle a dispute. Definite no when it comes to criminal courts.
But what about people being pressured into taking a case into Sharia courts? The local imam and community ostracizing someone and their family for not taking the Sharia route. This is the biggest problem with multiculturalism.
If you want to be included in the group, you have to play by their rules. This isn't unique to muslims or any other ethnic group, the same thing happens among friends (you'd know if you had any). No one is forced to live in a muslim community in this country, you have the freedom to move anywhere you want (unless you're a Scientologist).
No. It doesn't work that way. Social anchoring goes beyond just who your friends are. It affects your work and quality of life. You seem to think it is easy to just move some place and get a new job or enter a new community. It is a difficult process and impossible for many people especially immigrants. People shouldn't have to put up with that. This is a huge problem with multiculturalism. Group rights overtake individual.

I'm surprised Mr. Libertarian is all of in favor of group rights over individual.
2013-05-27 10:59:44
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Then again just moving and leaving your community isn't a big deal in your world. The same way a African in a village somewhere in Nigeria could move to the big city and live like us in your fantasy reality.
2013-05-27 11:04:29
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


But what about people being pressured into taking a case into Sharia courts? The local imam and community ostracizing someone and their family for not taking the Sharia route. This is the biggest problem with multiculturalism.
If you want to be included in the group, you have to play by their rules. This isn't unique to muslims or any other ethnic group, the same thing happens among friends (you'd know if you had any). No one is forced to live in a muslim community in this country, you have the freedom to move anywhere you want (unless you're a Scientologist).
No. It doesn't work that way. Social anchoring goes beyond just who your friends are. It affects your work and quality of life. You seem to think it is easy to just move some place and get a new job or enter a new community. It is a difficult process and impossible for many people especially immigrants. People shouldn't have to put up with that. This is a huge problem with multiculturalism. Group rights overtake individual.

I'm surprised Mr. Libertarian is all of in favor of group rights over individual.
How is it any different from fundamentalist Christians forcing their adult children to go to gay conversion camps? Do those people have to subject themselves to that bullshit? No, San Francisco is a road trip away. Yes, it's a big ordeal. Yes, it is permanently life changing. But their options are either hide their gayness and stay within the community, be shunned forever, or move away. Is it right? No, of course not. They're bigoted assholes, but they have the right to freedom of association, and to live under any sort of rules they want as long as they don't violate local, state or federal law.

If you don't want to be subjected to the rules of a group, don't join the group. If you were born into it, tough luck.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 11:12:41
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4640
i tend to agree with jay here, macbeth. the important thing is that individual freedom and choice exists - whether or not it is an easy matter, or whether or not 'life is fair', is not something the state can ever help with. the state can only help to a certain extent with someone who is born into a prohibitive or religious family. many people are born in weird cults or sects and have to leave - with great emotional anguish and difficulty involved. but what can the state realistically do about this? you can't legislate against people's right to organize into groups and have their own socio-cultural standards. every group identity does, by its very definition, have certain inclusionary and exclusionary principles that 'declare' the boundaries of that group, and cement its identity. what's important is that if someone is born a muslim and doesn't want to live as a practicing muslim, that they are able to leave and lead the life they want. for people who do wish to live the life of a faith-obeying muslim, it's equally important the state doesn't disallow them the right to sort civil disputes as they wish.
2013-05-27 11:16:18
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

If you want to be included in the group, you have to play by their rules. This isn't unique to muslims or any other ethnic group, the same thing happens among friends (you'd know if you had any). No one is forced to live in a muslim community in this country, you have the freedom to move anywhere you want (unless you're a Scientologist).
No. It doesn't work that way. Social anchoring goes beyond just who your friends are. It affects your work and quality of life. You seem to think it is easy to just move some place and get a new job or enter a new community. It is a difficult process and impossible for many people especially immigrants. People shouldn't have to put up with that. This is a huge problem with multiculturalism. Group rights overtake individual.

I'm surprised Mr. Libertarian is all of in favor of group rights over individual.
How is it any different from fundamentalist Christians forcing their adult children to go to gay conversion camps? Do those people have to subject themselves to that bullshit? No, San Francisco is a road trip away. Yes, it's a big ordeal. Yes, it is permanently life changing. But their options are either hide their gayness and stay within the community, be shunned forever, or move away. Is it right? No, of course not. They're bigoted assholes, but they have the right to freedom of association, and to live under any sort of rules they want as long as they don't violate local, state or federal law.

If you don't want to be subjected to the rules of a group, don't join the group. If you were born into it, tough luck.
Oh yeah someone should be forced to choose between being homeless or going to gay camp because Jay think that the rights of the group overrule he rights of a person. No one is taking away someones freedom to associate by banning Sharia courts. They are just not promoting group rights and treating people as individuals instead of as a community. It protects the members of the community.

Tough luck Muslim girl who doesn't want to marry her cousin. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights bitch.
Tough luck gay teenager who doesn't want to go to gay bootcamp. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights fag.
Tough luck black guy who doesn't to go to a nation of Islam school. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights nigger.
2013-05-27 11:19:26
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4640
there is absolutely nothing a state can do to help a girl who is born into a family planning an arranged-marriage anyway. whether or not the state allows/promotes or disallows/bans shariah courts or the like. a girl who is born into that situation has a personal-familial issue that the state cannot do anything about. if arranged marriage is a tradition in your community/religion, the state cannot interfere. it would be wrong to ban arranged marriages and curtail that group's freedom, and it is evidently (according to you) wrong to allow them to exist. it is totally not the state's problem.
2013-05-27 11:20:19
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i tend to agree with jay here, macbeth. the important thing is that individual freedom and choice exists - whether or not it is an easy matter, or whether or not 'life is fair', is not something the state can ever help with. the state can only help to a certain extent with someone who is born into a prohibitive or religious family. many people are born in weird cults or sects and have to leave - with great emotional anguish and difficulty involved. but what can the state realistically do about this? you can't legislate against people's right to organize into groups and have their own socio-cultural standards. every group identity does, by its very definition, have certain inclusionary and exclusionary principles that 'declare' the boundaries of that group, and cement its identity. what's important is that if someone is born a muslim and doesn't want to live as a practicing muslim, that they are able to leave and lead the life they want. for people who do wish to live the life of a faith-obeying muslim, it's equally important the state doesn't disallow them the right to sort civil disputes as they wish.
This isn't about taking someone's right to associate. It is about the government promoting group rights and helping cement people into groups. Usually at the cost of the weakest members of the group. The government shouldn't be helping groups maintain cohesion and ignoring individual rights.
2013-05-27 11:21:27
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4640
how does the government 'promote' shariah courts by simply not legislating against them? that's a strange definition of 'promoting' something. and what do you think happens in countries that have large muslim populations that ban shariah courts? the muslim community adopts a secular legal system, like a duck to water? lol okay. the same 'oppression' of the weakest members of the group will proceed whether the shariah courts are allowed or not. arranged marriage as an institution won't disappear because a modern state declares it so. it's going to happen anyway.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-27 11:23:15)

2013-05-27 11:23:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


No. It doesn't work that way. Social anchoring goes beyond just who your friends are. It affects your work and quality of life. You seem to think it is easy to just move some place and get a new job or enter a new community. It is a difficult process and impossible for many people especially immigrants. People shouldn't have to put up with that. This is a huge problem with multiculturalism. Group rights overtake individual.

I'm surprised Mr. Libertarian is all of in favor of group rights over individual.
How is it any different from fundamentalist Christians forcing their adult children to go to gay conversion camps? Do those people have to subject themselves to that bullshit? No, San Francisco is a road trip away. Yes, it's a big ordeal. Yes, it is permanently life changing. But their options are either hide their gayness and stay within the community, be shunned forever, or move away. Is it right? No, of course not. They're bigoted assholes, but they have the right to freedom of association, and to live under any sort of rules they want as long as they don't violate local, state or federal law.

If you don't want to be subjected to the rules of a group, don't join the group. If you were born into it, tough luck.
Oh yeah someone should be forced to choose between being homeless or going to gay camp because Jay think that the rights of the group overrule he rights of a person. No one is taking away someones freedom to associate by banning Sharia courts. They are just not promoting group rights and treating people as individuals instead of as a community. It protects the members of the community.

Tough luck Muslim girl who doesn't want to marry her cousin. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights bitch.
Tough luck gay teenager who doesn't want to go to gay bootcamp. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights fag.
Tough luck black guy who doesn't to go to a nation of Islam school. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights nigger.
Umm, at no point did I say that the rights of the group overrule the rights of the individual. All I said is that groups are, and always will be, allowed to exist and to make their own rules. As long as no one is forced to stay in a group against their will, it's a voluntary arrangement and people subject to that groups rules do so completely voluntarily. Sure, life might be difficult outside of that group, but it's no different from a teenage kid rebelling against his/her parents, deciding that their parents rules are unbearable, and moving out. Not everyone ends up homeless you know, very few people do in fact. There are almost always outreach programs for people leaving any group that work to help people make the transition.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 11:23:35
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

It is certainly the state's problem. The state has a obligation to make sure people aren't forced into situations they don't want and that their rights aren't violated. Banning arranged marriages helps women and doesn't unfairly promote a culture.A right to practice your culture doesn't supersede a woman's right to choose partners.
2013-05-27 11:25:35
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4640
i'd say roughly half of the muslim people i know - mostly from university - are 'non-practicing', and their life isn't exactly hell. it's a choice you make which may estrange you from your more conservative peers or hardcore relatives, but it's not a life-ruiner. opting out of shariah courts and that side of the muslim community is evidently easy enough here in the UK for many people to do it, and think nothing of it. none of the non-practicing muslims i have met have been 'troubled' by their status, or in some sort of personal quandary. it's just a choice. they opt out. for people who opt in, our state is not going to prohibit them from practicing as they wish - within the basic frameworks of the actual law and human rights bill, of course. this is starting to sound a lot like a very old 'positive versus negative definitions of freedom' argument...

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-27 11:26:26)

2013-05-27 11:30:43
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:


How is it any different from fundamentalist Christians forcing their adult children to go to gay conversion camps? Do those people have to subject themselves to that bullshit? No, San Francisco is a road trip away. Yes, it's a big ordeal. Yes, it is permanently life changing. But their options are either hide their gayness and stay within the community, be shunned forever, or move away. Is it right? No, of course not. They're bigoted assholes, but they have the right to freedom of association, and to live under any sort of rules they want as long as they don't violate local, state or federal law.

If you don't want to be subjected to the rules of a group, don't join the group. If you were born into it, tough luck.
Oh yeah someone should be forced to choose between being homeless or going to gay camp because Jay think that the rights of the group overrule he rights of a person. No one is taking away someones freedom to associate by banning Sharia courts. They are just not promoting group rights and treating people as individuals instead of as a community. It protects the members of the community.

Tough luck Muslim girl who doesn't want to marry her cousin. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights bitch.
Tough luck gay teenager who doesn't want to go to gay bootcamp. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights fag.
Tough luck black guy who doesn't to go to a nation of Islam school. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights nigger.
Umm, at no point did I say that the rights of the group overrule the rights of the individual. All I said is that groups are, and always will be, allowed to exist and to make their own rules. As long as no one is forced to stay in a group against their will, it's a voluntary arrangement and people subject to that groups rules do so completely voluntarily. Sure, life might be difficult outside of that group, but it's no different from a teenage kid rebelling against his/her parents, deciding that their parents rules are unbearable, and moving out. Not everyone ends up homeless you know, very few people do in fact. There are almost always outreach programs for people leaving any group that work to help people make the transition.
3.5 million Americans are homeless at any given time. You are promoting group rights and undermining individual when you think harmful or unfair practices should be allowed to be forced onto someone because one group's culture has to be respected. Everyone should be treated fairly and evenly and no group should be allowed to promote harmful practices under their freedom to associate.
2013-05-27 11:34:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


Oh yeah someone should be forced to choose between being homeless or going to gay camp because Jay think that the rights of the group overrule he rights of a person. No one is taking away someones freedom to associate by banning Sharia courts. They are just not promoting group rights and treating people as individuals instead of as a community. It protects the members of the community.

Tough luck Muslim girl who doesn't want to marry her cousin. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights bitch.
Tough luck gay teenager who doesn't want to go to gay bootcamp. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights fag.
Tough luck black guy who doesn't to go to a nation of Islam school. You were born into the wrong group. Group rights nigger.
Umm, at no point did I say that the rights of the group overrule the rights of the individual. All I said is that groups are, and always will be, allowed to exist and to make their own rules. As long as no one is forced to stay in a group against their will, it's a voluntary arrangement and people subject to that groups rules do so completely voluntarily. Sure, life might be difficult outside of that group, but it's no different from a teenage kid rebelling against his/her parents, deciding that their parents rules are unbearable, and moving out. Not everyone ends up homeless you know, very few people do in fact. There are almost always outreach programs for people leaving any group that work to help people make the transition.
3.5 million Americans are homeless at any given time. You are promoting group rights and undermining individual when you think harmful or unfair practices should be allowed to be forced onto someone because one group's culture has to be respected. Everyone should be treated fairly and evenly and no group should be allowed to promote harmful practices under their freedom to associate.
You are a child that has never gotten off his mothers tit so of course you think that everyone is completely dependent on their parents and have no recourse but to put up with their bullshit. People move out of their parents homes all the time, or move out of their communities, with no ill consequences. I haven't lived at home since I was 18. I have never been homeless. This is normal. Just because the thought of being socially ostracized by your parents, or being forced to move out of Bayonne because you feel unwelcome scares the shit out of you, it does not mean other people can't survive the transition without becoming destitute. A muslim in Bay Ridge doesn't have to remain in Bay Ridge their entire life. I know that's a novel concept for a townie, but it happens.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-05-27 11:38:32
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5971

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

Umm, at no point did I say that the rights of the group overrule the rights of the individual. All I said is that groups are, and always will be, allowed to exist and to make their own rules. As long as no one is forced to stay in a group against their will, it's a voluntary arrangement and people subject to that groups rules do so completely voluntarily. Sure, life might be difficult outside of that group, but it's no different from a teenage kid rebelling against his/her parents, deciding that their parents rules are unbearable, and moving out. Not everyone ends up homeless you know, very few people do in fact. There are almost always outreach programs for people leaving any group that work to help people make the transition.
3.5 million Americans are homeless at any given time. You are promoting group rights and undermining individual when you think harmful or unfair practices should be allowed to be forced onto someone because one group's culture has to be respected. Everyone should be treated fairly and evenly and no group should be allowed to promote harmful practices under their freedom to associate.
You are a child that has never gotten off his mothers tit so of course you think that everyone is completely dependent on their parents and have no recourse but to put up with their bullshit. People move out of their parents homes all the time, or move out of their communities, with no ill consequences. I haven't lived at home since I was 18. I have never been homeless. This is normal. Just because the thought of being socially ostracized by your parents, or being forced to move out of Bayonne because you feel unwelcome scares the shit out of you, it does not mean other people can't survive the transition without becoming destitute. A muslim in Bay Ridge doesn't have to remain in Bay Ridge their entire life. I know that's a novel concept for a townie, but it happens.
You are a person who just got off the government's tit. If you want to compare lives, I'm a few steps ahead of you when you were 23. You ran away to have the government take care of you for a few years. Who the hell are you to give a lecture on self dependence? I moved out and supported myself when I was 18 and never had to join the military. Maybe I can tell you a thing or two about being independent since you had government support most of your adult and probably all of your childhood life.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-05-27 11:42:02)

2013-05-27 11:46:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5744|London, England
Macbeth, would you say that your governor is on welfare? What about your mayor? What about the guy that works in the Department of Public Works and oversees road construction and sewer maintenance and the like in your town? Are they dependent on the government to live? No? Neither are people who volunteer for the military. It's just a job and the government happens to sign the checks.

I must say that you've gotten dumber since you discovered drugs. It's sad.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard