|
|
| Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome (941928) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (941928) | |
Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012 NY Times |
|
|
| (941929) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue May 15 23:39:47 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. This was front page of the AlM Times last Thursday and I almost posted it but then I'd have to deal with Mitch, Sarge, WMATASOMETHING, |
|
|
| (941982) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed May 16 05:23:01 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. A ban on secular enforcement of religious law shouldn't be necessary but, unfortunately, there are some soft-headed judges in this country. |
|
|
| (941984) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 16 05:26:48 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. Knew you were a Nazi. |
|
|
| (941987) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed May 16 05:35:51 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 16 05:26:48 2012. LOL!your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (941993) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed May 16 06:07:11 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. More proof that the NY Times is a slime paper. It has always been the policy of the press NEVER to publish the names of victims of sex crimes, especially MINOR victims yet the Slimes prints the name of the victim's father, which is pretty much the same as printing HIS name. |
|
|
| (941998) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 06:16:47 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed May 16 06:07:11 2012. The man obviously consented to his name being printed. |
|
|
| (941999) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed May 16 06:18:29 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. REPOST |
|
|
| (942001) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended consequences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 06:19:03 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 16 05:26:48 2012. No, you didn't. You've always called me a Marxist. Make up what little mind you have. |
|
|
| (942016) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Wed May 16 07:58:28 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. All of those 'ultra' orthodox in the big KC. You see them at every Royals game. |
|
|
| (942027) | |
Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 16 08:59:17 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by LuchAAA on Tue May 15 23:39:47 2012. Sorry, but I completely agree that religious law, of any religion, should not be used in secular law decisions. |
|
|
| (942028) | |
Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed May 16 09:00:55 2012, in response to Why the "unintended conseqences" of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue May 15 23:35:05 2012. Yet this has nothing to do with Sharia Law Bans or any similar recognition of religious law.A community shunning someone for breaking an internal code is not the same as a court honoring religious law. IOW, lots worse things happen to someone in a Mafia family who rats someone out, but there is no religious component. |
|
|
| (942030) | |
Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 16 09:07:06 2012, in response to Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome), posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 16 08:59:17 2012. It never has been, whether rabbinical law or sharia. It is only used for the purposes of arbitration in civil disputes when agreed to by both parties. |
|
|
| (942031) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Wed May 16 09:13:59 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 06:16:47 2012. IAWTP |
|
|
| (942033) | |
Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 09:16:38 2012, in response to Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by SLRT on Wed May 16 09:00:55 2012. I read the whole thing. The article did talk about how victims are encouraged to go before a rabbinical court instead. |
|
|
| (942048) | |
Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 16 10:17:18 2012, in response to Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 09:16:38 2012. No different from participants in a civil dispute (say, neighbors in a condo) being urged to take their dispute to binding arbitration rather than the courts.The social pressure to take a dispute to arbitration rather than the courts cannot be prevented by any kind of law. |
|
|
| (942055) | |
Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 10:57:02 2012, in response to Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by AlM on Wed May 16 10:17:18 2012. These aren't civil disputes, they are crimes. |
|
|
| (942060) | |
Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed May 16 11:30:49 2012, in response to Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 09:16:38 2012. I read the whole thing. The article did talk about how victims are encouraged to go before a rabbinical court instead.One victim was urged to go to a bet din instead of a secular court. Reading the supporting documents, it becomes clearer that Rabbi Hager's "rabbinical court" was code for buying the victim off for $20,000. The documents also contain rulings from other batei din ordering victims to report abuse to proper secular authorities. |
|
|
| (942063) | |
Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 16 11:41:35 2012, in response to Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 10:57:02 2012. Agreed. But the community pressure is: "Ignore the criminal aspect and treat it as a civil dispute only." That community pressure will always exist in any closely knit community. you can't legislate it away. |
|
|
| (942066) | |
Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 16 11:48:33 2012, in response to Re: Non-sequitar: Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by AlM on Wed May 16 11:41:35 2012. I should add that the law can help in one way. It should be a criminal offense (obstruction of justice) in all states to discourage, by the use of any monetary inducement, the victim of a crime from reporting the crime to the police.I think that is a crime in most states, though I'm not sure how effective those laws are. |
|
|
| (942106) | |
Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 16 13:47:49 2012, in response to Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome), posted by AlM on Wed May 16 09:07:06 2012. Correct, and that is how it should be. |
|
|
| (942121) | |
Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 14:03:32 2012, in response to Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome), posted by AlM on Wed May 16 09:07:06 2012. It shouldn't be allowed even then. |
|
|
| (942125) | |
Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 16 14:11:33 2012, in response to Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome), posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 14:03:32 2012. I would think that would be an unconstitutional interference with private contracts. You think I should be allowed to cross the street while texting but you don't think I should be able to specify a rabbinical court as an arbitrator in a private contract? That's an odd notion of liberty.Where would you draw the line? If I can't specify a rabbinical court, presumably I can't specify a Roman Catholic tribunal either. How about an individual rabbi or priest? How about Mr. John Smith who lives down the street? How about arbitration rules as specified in your brokerage contract? ow about an individual selected on application to the American Arbitration Association? |
|
|
| (942127) | |
Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 14:13:58 2012, in response to Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome), posted by AlM on Wed May 16 14:11:33 2012. The problem is that many people may be intimidated into being forced into arbitration they don't want. As this article demonstrates, these communities are capable of such intimidation and it is hard to prove. |
|
|
| (942129) | |
Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed May 16 14:19:03 2012, in response to Re: Wrong (Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome), posted by Spider-Pig on Wed May 16 14:13:58 2012. The problem is that many people may be intimidated into being forced into arbitration they don't want.True. But many people are intimidated into all sorts of contracts that aren't in their best interests. That's best handled not by outlawing those types of contracts, but by stating that those types of contracts are only enforceable if entered into willingly and with full knowledge of the consequences. It's a very tough area of the law, not just when it comes to religious sects. Are you entering into a brokerage arbitration contract willingly if your only other choice is to not buy stocks? |
|
|
| (942162) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed May 16 16:23:12 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by TERRapin station on Wed May 16 09:13:59 2012. I would also AWTP if the father was the victm, not his minor son. |
|
|
| (942169) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Wed May 16 16:37:51 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 16 05:26:48 2012. Knew you were a jackass. |
|
|
| (942174) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 16 16:55:37 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Rockparkman on Wed May 16 16:37:51 2012. What, you wanna prove yourself to be more of a Nazi? You just did it by equating Orthodox behavior with Shari'a. Now go polish those jackboots, rocKKKparKKKadolf. |
|
|
| (942193) | |
Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Wed May 16 17:55:27 2012, in response to Re: Why the ''unintended conseqences'' of Sharia Law bans should be welcome, posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 16 16:55:37 2012. Your boots have 4-inch stiletto heels. |
|
|