If states are going to ban Sharia law, they might as well ban snipe hunting and unobtanium

As many as 14 states are considering or have approved bans on Sharia law, snipe hunting and importation of the fictional mineral unobtanium, featured in the movie Avatar.

Supporters contend these legislative moves are the only way to prevent the nation’s tiny Islamic minority from stepping on the Constitution, as well as keep kids from being left in the wild by their uncles and stop James Cameron from making another blockbuster film with a pro-environment message.

(continued)

http://www.thechicagodope.com/2011/02/14/states-seek-ban-on-sharia-snipe-hunts-and-unobtanium/

It sure has a lot of oppression against women.

...by the framers of the Constitution?

but it was cleared up via constitutional amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

instill hate and division. Like I said in a prior post, the end game is to start to chip away at Canada's great system of social programs, Health care, etc....
It is now the propaganda here. I would like to see the source for this particular garbage.

What do you think happened in Canada that led to this?

Humanists and Others Oppose "Sharia Courts" in Ontario
Submitted by Gogineni on 19 August, 2004 - 15:55

35 Representatives of The International Campaign Against Sharia Courts in Canada participated on 11 August in an Ontario Government Consultation on the Ontario 1991 Arbitration Act which applies to civil and business disputes.

This consultation with Ms. Marion Boyd - appointed by Ontario's Attorney General - became necessary following widespread outcry at the proposal by the little known Canadian Institute of Civil Justice & Muslim Court of Arbitration to create Sharia Arbitration Courts for settlement of disputes in the Muslim community, invoking Ontario's 1991 Arbitration Act.

snip...

While described as entirely voluntary and subject to Canadian law, and to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proposal to have Sharia Arbitration Courts could mean deprivation of their rights for many Muslim women who are generally home bound, male dominated, and with little freedom as understood in modern times. President of the Humanist Association of Canada Dr. Robert Buckman wrote to the review committee of his concerns about Sharia law: "Within this particular system, the rights of women are substantially less than those we expect in Canada. There is considerable concern that a woman may not even be aware of her own rights under Canadian law and may participate in the Shari'a law arbitration process, apparently abrogating her own Canadian rights voluntarily ... we would ask at the outset what mechanisms will be in place to monitor, supervise and if at all possible prevent coercion from occurring".

http://www.iheu.org/node/128

Anyway, I just wondered if there was something I had missed.

Because the states most likely to ban Sharia law are those most at risk of Xian law being imposed.

i would definitely take Islamic-Banking over the alternative...

I came across the paper linked below when I was looking into the Okla ballot on Sharia law passed in November.

I have no idea at all who the "American Public Policy Alliance" might be, and I don't vouch anything on their behalf.

However, I did find that they published the only legal research I could find reviewing civil law cases where Sharia law was referenced in U.S court proceedings.

See http://publicpolicyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Shariah_Cases_11states_11-08-2010.pdf

It was one of the few resources I could find on the topic. I'd welcome any other citations anyone might offer.

The group's website is here: http://publicpolicyalliance.org/

Did I miss it?

'model' law proposed by the alliance. Pipes is terribly anti-Islamic.

I found the article quite interesting, and I do have questions about the application of Sharia or any other religious law in secular court proceedings.

Having read a bit, I also have surprised myself by questioning for the first time (for me) the wisdom of using publicly-funded judicial and court litigation services, for example, to resolve disputes over foods processed according to some prescribed religious custom. (e.g. Kosher or Halal foods.)

Anyway, I think the whole matter of the proper role, if any, for religious laws in secular courts, is a worthwhile discussion.

What would be good would be if people who aren't crazy and racist (like us here!) could have this discussion in a civilized and respectful way.

inside laws.

because the only thing sacred to this country is usury

with usura, sin against nature,/is thy bread ever more of stale rags/is thy bread dry as paper,/with no mountain wheat, no strong flour

with usura is no clear demarcation/and no man can find site for his dwelling/Stone cutter is kept from his stone/weaver is kept from his loom

There are plenty of faiths that have intra-faith courts, councils, and laws. Mormons, Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox Jews, the Byzantines...

This is all a reaction to what is essentially just the Islamic version of a rabbinical court or an ecclesiastical court. They serve the exact same function, and none of them carry any legal weight in terms of enforcing religious dogma. If someone breaks a religious rule that is not ALSO a civil law, then civil law isn't involved at all, and does not recognize the actions of the religious court. However, there are times when family courts or juvenile courts will take the actions and decisions of these religious courts into consideration--for example, if a Muslim teenager commits a felony, the Sharia court might testify about the punishments that he's receiving from THEIR end.

Sometimes church courts will have offenders serving out punishments before the civil case is even done. If a judge who was going to sentence a youth to 6 months of community service finds out that the kid has already started his community service at the behest of his religious authorities, how is it "wrong" to take that fact into consideration? This happens all the time with Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic religious authorities. It's really not unusual at all for a family court judge to say, "Well young man, it looks like your pastoral council has had you serving dinner to the homeless and picking up highway trash for the past six months. That's about the same as the punishment I'd have given you, so I'll let you go with probation and my STRONG suggestion to behave more responsibly in the future." Why punish someone twice for what's probably a minor offense, after all? The laws attempting to "ban" Sharia courts from having any effect on civil cases are looking to prohibit EXACTLY this, though--and ONLY for Muslims. Judges will still be free to come to these compromises with the religious authorities of other faiths.

The end result is that Muslim offenders will be doubly punished--once by the Sharia court, and again by the civil court, since neither can take account of the others' actions. It's utterly stupid. It's not like the courts are enforcing religious dogma. No civil judge is going to give legal weight to a rabbinical council's punishment for eating meat and cheese together, or a Sharia court's punishment for a man who commits adultery. Those are not civil crimes, after all. And no criminal judge is going to let a religious court's punishment for murder, rape, robbery, etc. stand in the way of civil punishment. Those are major crimes, and the situation is completely different than someone who spray-painted graffiti on a building or got caught consuming alcohol underage. But there's nothing wrong with a judge using common sense and discretion when religious courts and civil courts happen to agree on the punishment for a minor offense. It saves us time, money, and prosecution resources, without any danger to civil rights or liberty.

Sharia courts can't be "banned"--these laws are just xenophobic dramatics in which crazy people get to legally tell Muslims how much they hate them.

To be fair, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it except that it deliberately singles out Sharia courts and ignores the other religious authorities. If these laws banned ALL religious court/council/leadership actions from being considered during a secular legal case, it would be different. It would still be an overreaction and a nuisance, and it would certainly cost us a lot of money, but at least it would be fair. This is just ludicrous.

well said.

If anyone freely chooses to subject themselves or their behaviour or their property rights to a court of religious judges or peers, then that is their choice and their business. providing everyone is a willing party, I have no dog in that hunt.

What can be of concern to any citizen in a secular state, however, is a) the use of any "religious laws" in pleadings or judgments of secular courts, and/or b) the use of secular courts and services to adjudicate disputes associated with "religious laws", and/or c) the use of secular law enforcement services to enforce "religious laws".

Can state consumer agencies prosecute vendors of falsely labeled Kosher products, in your view?

Or, can I market anything as Kosher and say, "It's a religious thing, so the state cannot go after me for false labeling".

Can state consumer agencies prosecute vendors of falsely labeled Kosher products, in your view?

Or, can I market anything as Kosher and say, "It's a religious thing, so the state cannot go after me for false labeling".

I don't see why a secular state should get involved in certifying or adjudicating the veracity of claims by anyone that they are adhering to religious laws in producing foods.

Why can't we just leave it to members of the effected religious groups who believe in religiously-prescribed food processing practices to monitor and police these kind of claims as they wish?

Surely the consumer marketplace of those who adhere to that religion can sort out religious claims in the marketplace without requiring enforcement or adjudication from the secular state? And if not, why not?

Edited to add: In case it isn't clear, my stated position above may well be interim, pending debate and discussion. This is a topic I haven't read much about until recently. So far, my conclusion is as above: that secular states have no business adjudicating or enforcing religious claims regarding food preparation.

You've got your work cut out for you:

http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/ko/kohome.html

After the State of Israel, New York is the world’s largest manufacturer and consumer of kosher foods. With more than 82,000 different Kosher certified products on market shelves, the Department continues to be vigilant in assuring consumers that food products offered for sale as Kosher, are indeed Kosher. In 2002, the Department conducted 7,500 inspections in New York State.

I recognize there is indeed a big "legacy" problem here.

Question:

Do you know who pays for this public enforcement of a religious law?

Is there a charge-back so that the public cost of these inspections are paid for by the people who sell (and buy) religiously-certified foods?

My guess would be that the size of the market is large enough that the net economic benefit to the state is positive, even without an explicit funding stream for kosher enforcement. That would be a guess, though.

It stayeth the young man's courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom

CONTRA NATURAM

They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet

at behest of usura.

For example, their Christian-based opposition to gay rights