Do you support religious arbitration courts? (Irving TX controversy)

[Yorktown]

(A preamble: the debate can be tainted by irrelevant and nasty political posturing
- some GOP politicians will stoke the fire of xenophobia to rally a gawd-help-us base
- some activists will side Islam reflexively in the name of protecting minorities)

The case as presented by UK's The Independent:

Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne has become a hero for conservatives after backing a state law that stipulated that foreign laws do not apply in US courts.

Clearly, she's dishonest as she doesn't mention religion (her Christian electorate might balk at seeing religion taken to tasks as such, might create a precedent)

My take on it: whatever that particular Mayor's real motivations, I'd say a non-binding 'Islam consultative chamber' would be admissible, but that Shariah islamic courts should be outlawed. Because in normal parlance, 'courts' arte vested with authority. If you are an impressionable 15yo girl and a 'court' tells you it's OK to get married, you might give in. If you are a depressive middle aged woman being divorced by the 3 times repetition of 'I divorce thee' by her husband, you might end up accepting whatever rights the Shariah 'court' grants you.

Anyway, I marvelled at the very disingenuous answer of the militant religious opposing the proposed bill. The Independent:

Senior members of the Muslim community said the law is unnecessary as US courts are already obliged not to follow laws that infringe upon American law. However, they believe if the bill is passed, it could stop US courts upholding contracts – including wedding or adoption agreements – based on religious law.

The gall! Of course, I hope any contract based on religious law to be invalid.

Let people make misguided deals on the basis of their beliefs if they will, but 'religious law' should be proscribed from being invoked as a basis in any transaction document legally binding two parties. Legal = State = separated from Church (religions).

To be noted the wonderful submissiveness of The Independent's title, hinting that PC-ness should push people to take side with religion to avoid causing believers 'anguish'

Shariah law: Texas sparks anguish with legislation that Muslims say stokes Islamophobia

The Independent article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shariah-law-texas-sparks-anguish-with-legislation-that-muslims-say-stokes-islamophobia-10130549.html

In local Texas paper: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/northwest-dallas-county/headlines/20150319-national-islamic-furor-focuses-on-irving-vote-tonight.ece

[TexasTowelie]

1. Background information in chronological order from the Texas Group:

Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas; Attorney Claims ‘It’s Voluntary’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/107823117

Irving “not supportive” of Islamic group, mayor tells Glenn Beck.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/107823508

National Islamic furor focuses on Irving vote tonight
http://www.democraticunderground.com/107824004

Despite Irving's Anti-Muslim Resolution, the Suburb's Immigrant Population Thrives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/107824088

Dispute over Islam lands Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne on national stage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/107824115

Irving Muslims join voter rolls in record numbers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/107825345

[Yorktown]

2. Thanks for the links. Worrisome.

This passage is problematic:

El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

That means that -according to him- the 'religious community' (who? the most observant?) gives precedence to religious law over civil law. That means he proudly says his 'religious community' doesn't buy the Constitution that stipulates separation of Church and State.

As fundamentalist Christian Texans don't buy the Constitution that stipulates separation of Church and State when they manage to squeeze in compulsory religious study by distorting the text of a bill initially saying that public schools may offer the literary study of religious texts.

[safeinOhio]

3. Strange those that fear a foreign law

are the same Dominionest that push for Mosaic law to be the law of the land.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[Yorktown]

6. It would be hell on wheels if Mosaic law was applied

Mosaic Law is as bad as Shariah. (invented it, in fact)

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Orthodox Jews have used rabinical courts for a long time here.

They do not replace civil courts and cannot enforce their laws as they are entirely voluntary. Of course these courts depend on community peer pressure for enforcement, and that can in fact be very effective.

Similarly Mormons have disciplinary councils.

The Roman Catholic Church still runs ecclesiastical courts, and they continue to act as if they have a say in whether a marriage is still in force or not, despite civil divorces.

[Yorktown]

5. Religion is granted far too much leeway

Courts, circumcision of infants, inhumane slaughter of livestock, sod all that.

[trotsky]

7. Proceed with caution.

Under no circumstances can they be allowed to replace the US legal system for criminal or civil cases. Are there a few areas - personal disputes, family issues - where they could be allowed to operate? Probably, but every decision should be subject to review by a civil authority just to be sure.

[cbayer]

8. This bit of Texas bigotry occurred in March.

Here is an article that will explicitly show how abhorrent this entire anti-islamic move is, if you can stand to read it.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/theres-a-new-sheriff-in-town-the-constitutional-sheriff/

A few facts. There are organizations that assist american muslims in legal matters by providing mediation. The use of these services is entirely voluntary. Agreements reached through mediation are then taken to courts for finalization.

The laws already prohibit any possibility that non-american laws would ever override US laws.

This was nothing but an attempt to openly discriminate against muslims who were using these mediation services by saying that the agreements they reached would be invalid.

It was also an attempt to spread a false fear that there are muslims in this country trying to impose sharia law.

This is the kind of thing the Ms. Geller stands behind and it has no business being promoted here.

[Yorktown]

9. I can prove to you you do not understand the case and/or did not read what I posted

When you write

It was also an attempt to spread a false fear that there are muslims in this country trying to impose sharia law.

- either you did not read what I posted (in bold)
- or do not understand what Shariah is
- or both (which would be my guess)

The following passage which I highlighted in bold above shows one of the representatives of the muslim advocacy group stating in clear terms he's talking about Shariah

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.”

He's using the word tribunal, which unequivocally refers to a Shariah court.
Further, if, in his eyes, only a divorce decree by this 'tribunal' is binding in the eyes of the 'Islamic community' (in his words), it is the very definition of a Shariah court ruling = binding.

You have not read the Quran, you do not understand how Shariah works, but you still give ex cathedra pronunciamentos about "false fears that there are muslims in this country trying to impose sharia law". When the evidence is straight under your nose.

No wonder you can keep thinking all religions are OK. You just do not know about them.

[cbayer]

10. You are pushing an ugly and bigoted agenda here.

And I am going to point it out every chance I get.

Your bolding refers to the position of the bigoted republican legislators that are pushing this bill and not true.

[Yorktown]

11. You were proven wrong, and you're making two new mistakes.

Rather than have the personal integrity to acknowledge you were wrong (as I demonstrated), you sulk, promising retaliation = to paint me as pushing a bigoted agenda.

But you do that on the premise of another demonstrable mistake; you now write

Your bolding refers to the position of the bigoted republican legislators that are pushing this bill

This is false.
This sentence (highlighted by me in bold), is that of Mr El Badawi, an islamic spokseman.

Let's recap all your proven mistakes here
- you skipped my highlighting of the fact it was a Sharia court
- you claimed only paranoid types would claim some muslims wanted to introduce Sharia
- when it is pointed to you, you mistakenly claim the sentence has been told by a GOP person
- after all these mistakes, despite the Sharia case proben to you, you want to call me a bigot

You have been extensively proven wrong and you want to bite me back?
A shining example of intellectual honesty and debating integrity.

Not.

[cbayer]

12. Breitbart and Geller support you 100%

Here is a much better article on this:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20150319-dispute-on-islam-roils-irving.ece

You have decided which side of this you are on and it's not pretty.

I'm done with this thread.

[Yorktown]

13. LOL yeah, right, run away rather than concede you were wrong

You try to make it a case of the poor innocent muslims being picked upon by haters,
haters being a group in which you unceremoniously dump me.

All this with a refreshing and charming complete contempt for the facts.

- you claimed that it was not a case of muslims wanting to introduce Sharia
- I proved to you it was
- you claim my proff was a misquotation
- I proved to you my quote was exact
- Now you run away, cursing me for being on the side of the haters.

It must be comfortable being you. Always right. Even when you've been proven wrong.

[trotsky]

14. Some posters have a long history of carving out special exceptions for religion...

when it comes to activities they would normally condemn. cbayer herself stated that she is opposed to genital mutilation, but makes an exception for religion because it's "tradition."

While it's certainly true some Republicans have used this issue to rile up anti-Muslim sentiments, I believe it is a topic worth discussing, as it is a clear intersection of religion and politics/law. Thanks for posting it.

[Yorktown]

16. Some posters seem to think painting others black will change the facts.

I mean, if I am painted as a bigot with a hateful agenda, it should cancel out the fact that the representative of the muslim arbitration body himself declared it to be a religious (Sharia) tribunal (court), contrarily to what cbayer had incorrectly stated.

No wonder cbayer believes all religions are good: she erases their bad points.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. bravo bayer! when confronted with your own stunning mistakes, smear your opponent

and run away! Excellent. DWASKINAS!

[Fix The Stupid]

18. Now you will see the tried and true, used many times...

Now you will see the tried and true, used many times technique of 'forum sliding'.

Watch - there will be a flurry of new OP's in this room started by that same person or their ilk to make this one sink...

Seen 'them' do this many times...

watch for it...

[nil desperandum]

17. Nothing

in the law's actual text refers to any specific religion. The law basically outlines the concept that no aspect of foreign law or any non-legal forum can over rule current Texas or US law where such foreign law or forum would conflict with the rights stipulated in either the Texas or US legal code.

Muslims are free to be offended by this law and the concept that here in the US only the government can decide what's appropriate with respect to child custody, dissolution of a lawful marriage, or preference for a foreign law or forum as a mediation body in violation of US or Texas law.

The concept of a melting pot means some of what you were accustomed to in the shit hole you left to better yourself in the US gets melted away as you become part of that larger assimilated culture. It's true for all of us who came here, if the cultures our ancestors were leaving were so great that we need to remember them for our personal heritage we would never have left those wonderful nations. The reality is we came here because here in the US is better and there (wherever that was) sucked ass.

I have no problem with immigrants seeking a better life here, my concern is that once they're here they need to learn the reason they came isn't to carry on the oppressive realities of their homeland but to embrace the reality of living in a free society with the responsibility that comes with that benefit.