Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 101
Church and StatePage 5 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
^


Yes, I said we could go to court. But if we didn't want to go to court, we could go a different route. That's exactly what I said.

Two Muslims having a dispute can go to court. But they could decide between them to go to a Sharia court and that court would act as an arbitrator. Nobody is forced to go that route, and if one of the parties doesn't want to, then they go the traditional route. If they go before a Canadian judge then it would be a standard case before the courts.

Is that really so hard to understand? It's an arbitration process.


got you halftime-- when two parties go to court, generally " everyone" loses, except the lawyers who slop up to the trough for maximum fees.

most likely lawyers & their bar associations generally oppose arbitration processes including sharia for obvious reasons, not as much chance to belly up to the trough & suck some money away
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 4:40:30 PM
So, a request to show evidence that liberals support Sharia happened a while ago...

Just read your own posts.... Tis no big deal... just some arbitration. What's the harm... Screw it as long as it is against the current system? Is that the point?

:(
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 103
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 4:46:59 PM
So, a request to show evidence that lerals support Sharia happened a while ago...

Just read your own posts.... Tis no big deal... just some arbitration. What's the harm...

For crying out loud.

Are you really that f*cking stupid?

This isn't Sharia law. This is two people who decide to go to an arbitrator of their choice. If two Catholics decide to go to a priest to settle a dispute is that bringing the Inquisition into America?

Good Lord.

edit:
Lets say that a person takes you to "shariah court", you don't recognize that type of nonsense, and ignore him. He then "wins" in "shariah court"....... and comes to you for the settlement. What would you do? What if he trys to enforce his judgement, how far would you be justified in resisting him?

Go back and read where I said that two people who BOTH agree to go to an arbitrator...

These are strictly civil disputes. The police don't get involved unless there's a court order. Guess what? This isn't a court.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 4:51:39 PM
So..how is that war on women working for ya.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/poll-women-voters-abandon-gop-in-key-battleground-states.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Hint...Women have morality, opinons, a majority of the vote, and can veto your rights to conjugal bliss, merely because you are an azzhat without a condom and a clue. Shove your cross in the wrong places with sharp edges, go on a dating site with expectations that being a shiitehead or any stripe, and then wonder why....

Grow up. Give women their due respect. Give others or other faiths their due respect and at least "tolerance", argue from a place of honor and respect, admit that your theocracy is as crazy as anyone elses, that your gods are as schizo and control freakish, that texts were written by ancient control freaks from a different error/era, and just do the golden rule thang, and who knows...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 105
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 4:54:06 PM

Just out of curiousity, once a judgement is handed down by the "arbitration court", who enforces it?

Umm... The LAW...?!? Did you REALLY miss that or just deliberately being obtuse...

What happens if the "arbitration court" comes to a decision that is contra to the law of the land

You REALLY don't understand arbitration, do you...?

Lets say that a person takes you to "shariah court"

I was right... you DON'T understand arbitration... someone CANNOT "take you" to arbitration... by its fundamental nature, ALL PARTIES must agree to arbitration...

you don't recognize that type of nonsense

Then it DOESN'T go to arbitration...

He then "wins" in "shariah court"....... and comes to you for the settlement... What if he trys to enforce his judgement,

One cannot "win" in arbitration without the consent to arbitration of the other party... Without consent there is no arbitration... Ergo, nothing that can be "enforced"...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 4:55:03 PM
Are you really that f*cking stupid?


I guess so if thats what you think. Have you looked into what Sharia is yet? Do you understand it and are basing your opinion on facts and not on your belief that Sharia is arbitration because that is what it is started. Have you looked into the UK and how it started there and where it is at and the issues. Have you seen how that because it has been allowed in UK that all there were renewed efforts to start cristian prayers at the start of government meetings...

If so... I guess I am that f*cking stupid.

This is not a right wing conspiracy site incase you don't quite get it.
http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence.


In case you don't know... punishment for adulty is DEATH

A 2010 Pew poll conducted in seven countries including Egypt found strong support for Islam in politics and for harsh punishments for crimes such as theft, adultery, and conversion away from Islam


The arbitration is to set up a DUAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Dual Legal System. Many majority Muslim countries have a dual system in which the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship. Examples can be seen in Nigeria and Kenya, which have sharia courts that rule on family law for Muslims. A variation exists in Tanzania, where civil courts apply sharia or secular law according to the religious backgrounds of the defendants.


A seperate financial system

Growing at an estimated 15 percent annually, Islamic banking and finance is a worldwide industry that modifies modern business practices to conform to the rules of sharia. Central to this field is riba, the charging or payment of interest, banned under Islamic law. Clever twists on standard financial products like credit cards, savings accounts, mortgages, loans, and even trust funds bypass the interest business model


 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 107
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 5:03:41 PM
So let me get this straight in my head, there is NO shiriah law, applied in the USA, anywhere. Oklahoma tried to enact a law, forbidding the use of something that isn't being used. But as best I can see, Bachmann and others want a christian version of shiriah law. That about sums it up?

Oh and some how this has become something that the liberals would want, when we our busy trying to stave off the christians from stripping the right of women, by enacting hurdles and probes to short circuit abortion.

Yeah sorry guys, I don't think you are even close to right. No liberal is going to subject themselves willingly to another set of religious tenants, worse than the christian ones. Given this, YES the right IS Islamophobic.

But it does sound like something Karl Rove and his buddies would dream up, to scare the christians further right and blast the liberals. There is no end to the tricks that darth vader(cheney) clone would do.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 108
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 5:07:34 PM

I guess so if thats what you think. Have you looked into what Sharia is yet? Do you understand it and are basing your opinion on facts and not on your belief that Sharia is arbitration because that is what it is started


Oh Lord give me strength. That was exactly my point. You. Yes You brought up Sharia based arbitration in Ontario. I, yes I, said that's not the same as introducing Sharia law.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 109
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 5:08:35 PM
The reason religion is such a big deal in the US
is the Christians here are not true Christians.

There I've said it.


If their faith was strong, deep, and true....
they could be happy in a land of pagans, sinners, satanists, whatever.

But since their faith is not true....but weak....false...and deluded....
they are very nervous around folks who do not believe as they do.
If someone who believes or lives differently is happy....
well....they really become unglued.

They must force themselves to be miserable
less they miss their one tiny chance at heaven.
cus their god is a jerk and trickster...
who will condemn them for even one tiny slip up.

So they constantly try to enact laws to force others to bow to their Devil.
Otherwise it is hard for them to do so.

I know folks will disagree.
But there is an easy test to see if you are
a follower of God or the Devil.

If you must pass laws to protect your faith,
or force others to embrace it...
....you are a follower of the Devil.

Cus God requires no laws.
Only the devil does...
to bind men to his blindness.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 110
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 5:17:13 PM
most courts ruling in the "law of the land" ENCOURAGE people to seek arbitration as a DIVERSION to the court procedure -in case you hadn't heard, courts are way back-logged, over-booked, and burdened, they do NOT want people to "go to court" to solve every disagreement, if at all possible.. an ALTERNATIVE to the GLACIAL, Super-slow, extended, years & years, decades & decades -to-reach settlement, or conclusion, , traditional court processes

they encourage arbitration, BOTH parties have to AGREE BEFORE-HAND to accept the arbitrator's decision for it to go ahead (an alternative might be to spend $50- 100, 000 or $$ millions, or more on lawyers' fees to go to court if that turns your crank? )

do you think people who go to court never get pissed off & cranky in court?

but if you have a civil dispute and WANT to take 5 -10 or more years & $$ hundreds of thousands or $$ millions in legal fees to settle it, go through the traditional court procedure, by all means.

don't worry Paul, NO-ONE could EVER force you to go to a Sharia court even if one established, BOTH, again *BOTH*** [parties have to agree to accept the arbitrator's decision, get it?

but let's let fear rule and spend $$ billions more of public (taxpayer) and private money on traditional court-only "solutions"
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 5:28:52 PM

Oh. It's the old "Islam is the Borg" argument. Cause if you're Muslim you can't think. This one is invariably brought up by someone who has never met a Muslim in his or her life


No, you're just jumping to ignorant conclusions. In order for muslims to remarry they must divorce in a muslim court. People shouldn't have to choose between their legal rights in this country and being faithful in their religion. In order for muslims to remain in good standing in the eyes of their religion/court some believe they must be judged by an imam, not a real judge. That's the problem, not whatever nonsense you were on about. Of course lots of muslims opt for the safety of real courts in this country, but those who truly believe must pass up that right.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 5:33:49 PM
I am serioiusly at a loss. All of the complaints about womens rights and religion and Sharia gets a free pass...

http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Sharia_11.2.pdf

The United Nations Declaration
on the Elimination of Violence Against Women makes a
valid observation: Domestic violence is inevitable if the
attitudes or beliefs of a culture condone such violence
as passive.9 The outcry against Sharia began here, and
rightly so. In her Review, Marion Boyd acknowledged
the beliefs of Ontarians, that the Muslim community
must first counter traditional “attitudes that may
condone violence against women” before recognizing
Sharia as an alternative dispute resolution


They fully admit to violence against women as being a part of it.... and thats just ducky because it isn't Christian ???"


Oh Lord give me strength. That was exactly my point. You. Yes You brought up Sharia based arbitration in Ontario. I, yes I, said that's not the same as introducing Sharia law.

You seriously need it.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 8:17:22 PM

Grow up. Give women their due respect.


sooo, EP

Are you all in with this harmless sharia biz with the others here? They see no problem with it as long... Just some silly divorce and civil arbitration.

Which team are you picking on this one. Just curious.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 8:20:28 PM
Devout Jews, Muslims and Catholics ALL need religious as well as legal divorce if they wish to get re-married in their faith. This is nothing new.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 8:43:06 PM
Devout Jews, Muslims and Catholics ALL need religious as well as legal divorce if they wish to get re-married in their faith. This is nothing new.


How can anyone think this isn't the lowest level of dignity and supports the real subjugation of women and then claim that complainints about paying for abortion is a war on women is just beyond any sense of conscience. They don't even try to hide it. It is public knowledge. Under what liberal ideal does this fall under?

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/04/02/sex-and-sharia-muslim-women-punished-for-failed-marriages/

Today I received another telephone call from a young Muslim woman, Nasrin, who pleaded with me to help her obtain an Islamic divorce. After fleeing a forced marriage characterised by rape and physical violence, Nasrin applied for an Islamic divorce from a Sharia council; that was almost 10 years ago now. Despite countless emails, letters and telephone calls to the Sharia council as well as joint mediation and reconciliation meetings, the Sharia council refuse to provide Nasrin with an Islamic divorce. Why? Because of Nasrin’s sex. An Imam at the Sharia council told Nasrin that her gender prevents her from unilaterally divorcing her husband, instead the Imam told her to return to her husband, perform her wifely duties and maintain the abusive marriage that she was forced into.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080509/Islamic-courts-cleared-deal-family-divorce-disputes-Government-endorses-sharia.html

Sharia tribunals will be able to decide how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children.

The sole proviso from Jack Straw's Justice Ministry is that a formal law court must rubber-stamp the ruling.

This would be in the form of a two-page form sent to a judge sitting in a family court. The divorcing couple would not need to attend.

The decision follows nine months of controversy over the role of tribunals run according to Islamic strictures.

In February, Downing Street slapped down the Archbishop of Canterbury when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'.

But in July, Lord Phillips, who has since retired as Lord Chief Justice, said sharia principles could be the basis for resolving family and business disputes.

Muslim ministers have warned that sharia should not have an official role because it accords unequal status to men and women.



'Women who live in some communities may have no option but to go to the sharia court. The case is then rubber-stamped by a family court without any of us knowing how the decision was reached


How can this be so easily supported.... It is happening right in front of people and is ignored. Why? Because they are not Christian republicans? :(

http://ipatriot.co.uk/the-problem-of-sharia-law-in-britain/

Surveys show that most Muslim students in Britain want Sharia law to be introduced into British law. Sharia law reflects Muslim cultures abroad in which compliance is enforced. Opponents of Sharia law object to law derived from theocratic systems. Once confined to Saudi Arabia, enforcing theocratic rules through national laws has spread to democratic countries, thus becoming a troubling issue. It is not consonant with the true values of democratic systems—the rule of law, legal equality, and open justice.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 9:39:39 PM
What's with the personal attack? I was simply pointing out that religious divorces are nothing new, nor only for muslims.
I personally do not follow any religion, nor do I endorse the practices of any religion.

I never stated that having to pay for abortion is a war on women, nor did I say I support sharia law. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

PS, if the christian republicans you mentioned are catholic, guess what? They will also need a religious divorce.

Try to be civil in your discourse, please.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/3/2012 10:24:04 PM
What's with the personal attack? I was simply pointing out that religious divorces are nothing new, nor only for muslims.
I personally do not follow any religion, nor do I endorse the practices of any religion.

I never stated that having to pay for abortion is a war on women, nor did I say I support sharia law. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

PS, if the christian republicans you mentioned are catholic, guess what? They will also need a religious divorce.

Try to be civil in your discourse, please


I wasn't pointing out the religous divorce. Sharia isn't religous divorce. I was pointing out the left support of it by saying nothing about it. Ignoring it. Pretending it doesn't exist while at the same time chastising catholics for not wanting to pay for birth control while at the same time accusing the tea party of attempting to install a thocracy but totally ignoring that under sharia a womens word is only half the value of a mans. It's just arbitration.

Civil? Read the top post from Earth Puppy on this page and read the vile hatrid of christians war on women. And not a single word against a real instituted and promoted by british as an acceptable practice. I didn't know it had become officially supported which techically makes this OP exactly on target for Sharia. And not a single work against it other then, "i'm not religous." Your insurance pays for you birth control so why do you care if someone elses doesn't.

Hint...Women have morality, opinons, a majority of the vote, and can veto your rights to conjugal bliss, merely because you are an azzhat without a condom and a clue. Shove your cross in the wrong places with sharp edges, go on a dating site with expectations that being a shiitehead or any stripe, and then wonder why....


I've disagreed with people on these posts and its just opinions and differences and whatever. This is the first time I've been let down and don't see the point. Such is life.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-and-the-future-of-liberalism

The ferocious response to my discussion with Rogan about the war on terror has, once again, caused me to worry about the future of liberalism. It is one thing to think that the war in Afghanistan has been an excruciating failure (which I believe), but it is another to think that we had no moral right to attack al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place. A significant percentage of liberals seem to hold the latter view, and consider President Obama to be nothing more than a neocon stooge and Islam to be an unfairly maligned religion of peace. I regularly hear from such people, and their beliefs genuinely trouble me. It doesn’t take many emails containing sentences like “The United States and Israel are the greatest terrorist states on earth” to make me feel that liberalism is simply doomed.


It's all right in front of everyone. And people say creationists are delusional... Give me Michell Bachmen any day over this. At least with her you know you can laugh and walk away.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 2:01:23 AM
Our christian taliban is very territorial. When threatened, they resort to demonization of their competitors and just make shiite up. There is a very real full on, multi-frontal assault on the seperation clause. The christian taliban is relentless, methodical, intolerant, and increasingly violent in their pursuits. The "sharia law" dog whisltle is merely a call to the faithful to help distract the masses and obfuscate the very real crusade to shove a big cross up the behind of American politics.

A few words from their wise leaders.
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

The war on women is just their most most prounounced and concerted effort recently.
http://www.politicususa.com/christian-conservative-women/
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 3:09:14 AM

Devout Jews, Muslims and Catholics ALL need religious as well as legal divorce if they wish to get re-married in their faith. This is nothing new


True. But what is new is that most of these religions have passed the "othodox/fundamental/crazy" portion of their program and are willing to play along with established western law. For example jewish courts granting divorce in the UK...


Civil courts, however, retain the right to intervene in any case where the award of the Beth Din is considered unreasonable or contrary to public policy


Again, the Islamic Council of Great Britain patently says that it will grant two types of British civil divorce, but will not recognize a third type in which the woman wants a divorce without a husband's consent. So now you're back to forcing women to deal with a fundamentally misogynist system if they want to be religiously firm.


3. The woman was the petitioner but the husband did not attend the proceedings or defend the divorce petition.

In the Council's Ruling the first two types of the divorce are valid Islamically because the husband's consent is found. On the other hand in the third type of divorce the husband's consent is missing so the woman is required to apply for Khul'a to Islamic Shari'a Council


So instantly any woman wanting to get divorced in a sharia tribunal and in the eyes of her god needs too have the consent of the man she's trying to get rid of. Sound fair?

Here's the most telling quote of all. When you check the Islamic Sharia Council of Great Britain web site for information on Islamic divorce and civil law....there's a complete blank page. The Beth Bin courts explain their religious relationship to civil law very clearly. The Sharia Council has information on absolutely everything else. But oddly there just happens to be nothing on its relationship to existing civil law. Weird, eh?


Divorce > Civil Court Divorce & Related Issues








This Category is currently empty
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 8:49:48 AM
christian taliban is relentless, methodical, intolerant, and increasingly violent in their pursuits. The "sharia law" dog whisltle is merely a call to the faithful to help distract the masses and obfuscate the very real crusade to shove a big cross up the behind of American politics.


Ok there. Right.

I know you guys don't remember that I don't support the stupid birth control measures being passed because they are stupid. But to say that they are worse relentless, methodica, intolerant, and violent is out of context and loses all credibility when you look at intent. To help with intent read Sam Harris if you are capable. In the mean time here are quotes that you think are acceptable for government to promote through sharia

http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Women.Islam

Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Bukhari:V3B48N826 "The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.'"



There are many more... But its just arbitration. Who cares. The only thing this shows is that womens rights are not your real issue. Church and State is not your real issue. Liberalisim is your religion and DavidVs Goliath is your calling.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 121
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:34:23 AM
Interesting discussion, about plenty of nothing!

If you are a muslim, and want a divorce, then to remain within your faith, you need to apply to those religious courts to receive one, same as the Jewish faith. Ahhh but the kicker is they male centric, so most rules favor the man. If you are a Catholic, there is "NO" divorce, you need to have it annuled, a process where it is so convoluted, because it even happens when you have kids!

Kids demonstrating in the UK, doesn't amount to much more than...well...kids demonstrating, unless there are actual bills introduced to include actual shiriah law into british law. We all want what we want,doesn't mean we will get it.

As for arbitration, no one can force that on you. It "IS" a way to clear the court calender of some cases. If you should submit to a religious arbitration, what fool would not know, they are then tied to the tenants of that particular religion and those rules would be used in the interpretation, of any decision that would come from the arbitraitor?

In order to avoid these crazy religious rules, we have civil courts, that operate under state laws. YES, you may in some cases be shunned, expelled, excommunicated or whatever from your chosen religion. Though your problem will be adjudicated in a fair and impartial manner, devoid of the rules of your religion.

As for the religious war on women, birth control and abortion. Let's step away from that for a moment and examine another issue shall we. The GOP continues it's slime campaign on Obama, either he is classed a muslim, or an extremist for listening to sermons from rev. Wright. One makes him a muslim the other a quasi-terrorist. Yet it's the SAME people saying both, even THEY can't keep their lies straight.

If a person listened to sermons from James Baker, does that make them prone to prositution? Or the other things he was accused of?

The issue here was and is, religion should return inside the halls, of it's place of worship, and leave the world of politics to others, able to view things without the tinted glasses of religion.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 122
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:05:37 AM
"Has anyone ever heard of a 700 club viewer flying a plane into a building?"

No, they fly into IRS buildings. Or bomb Planned Parenthood clinics. Or shoot it out with cops while heading to the Heritage Foundation to kill everyone there.

Or they assassinate Ob/Gyns in the foyer of their church.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:06:08 AM
Interesting discussion, about plenty of nothing!

About nothing?????

It is state supported religous law... wth... It's everywhere. It is at only the most beginning stages in the US so we get to watch what happens the the more 'advanced' UK.

The problem with this is the cultural differnce. Liberals are completly blind to the fact that they are projecting their known relationship with western religions onto sharia. It is a false projection. Western religions coexist with western culture and western laws and it is always been a game of balance. None of that applies to sharia. It is a totally different cultural and world view position that does not accept your acceptance as a good thing. Your acceptance is your weakness.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642211-sharia-law-is-a-code-of-despair-a-code-obsessed-with-women

Whilst there are differences in application as in any phenomenon, all the courts agree on the basics. After all, Sharia law is based on the Koran, the hadith (sayings and actions of the prophet Mohammad), and Islamic jurisprudence. They all agree that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, a women can’t sign her own marriage contract, men have the unilateral right to divorce whereas a women have limited rights to divorce; child custody goes to the father at a preset age; girls get half of the inheritance boys do and so on.

The Islamic Sharia Council explains why this is so: With regards to women’s testimony, ‘If one forgets, the other can remind her.’ It’s the difference between a man and a woman’s brains.’ ‘A woman’s character is not so good for a case where testimony requires attention and concentration.’ And this also applies to divorce. ‘Women are governed by emotion; men by their minds so he will think twice before uttering talaq [divorce].’ It goes on to say it is not ‘derogatory’ but ‘the secret of women’s nature.’ 2



Also, proponents defend Sharia law in Britain by saying there is no evidence that it is discriminatory.[5] Of course there is ample evidence, including on the Islamic Sharia Council website and via statements made by various Sharia judges but also via a number of studies and reports on Sharia courts. Some are included in One Law for All’s report: ‘Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights.’[6] Here’s one of many example: according to the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, which interviewed 90 Muslims in London, the West Midlands, Lancashire and West Yorkshire, many felt they did not get a fair hearing under Sharia law. The CIP uncovered the case of thirty-year-old from West Yorkshire, who was 13 when her father arranged her marriage. She went to three different imams who all ruled she was legally married according to the Sharia. ‘I told them I had been forced but they said that did not change anything.’ She eventually secured her divorce because her husband finally agreed to it.[7]


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

Dr Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable' and Lord Phillips said there was no reason why decisions made on sharia principles should not be recognised by the national courts.

But the Civitas report said the principles on which sharia courts work are indicated by the fatwas - religious decrees - set out on websites run by British mosques.
Controversial comments: Dr Rowan Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'

Mr MacEoin said: 'Among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.'



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207643/Muslim-model-woman-Malaysia-caned-caught-drinking-beer.html

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno originally had been scheduled to enter a women's prison today before being lashed six times with a rattan cane some time this week.

...

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a 32-year-old mother of two, insisted she is ready to be lashed six times with a rattan cane next week for breaching the country's Shariah law, which forbids Muslims to consume alcohol.



It isn't OKAY.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 124
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:23:03 AM

It is state supported religous law... wth... It's everywhere. It is at only the most beginning stages in the US...

Well, Matchlight continually assures us all that the Constitution effectively protects us from any potential intrusion of religion on affairs of the state, so claims to the contrary are highly overblown. I have not seen you disagree with him on that point, either.

Frankly, I am more concerned about a president with delusions of "end times" grandeur who has the entire US military arsenal at his/her disposal. Add in some plausible deniability regarding religious motivations and "bombs away!"
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 125
Church and State
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:33:09 AM
Do you know what I find fascinating? That you guys(conservatives) have no defense or answers to discuss what's in the OP.

Perhaps you are right and the shiriah law issue will overtake us in 10 or 20 years. It certainly is worth discussing IN IT'S OWN THREAD! There you can prepare to be the Paul Revere's of shiraiah law. I have no doubt, that the issues between the Islamic faith and the USA will continue.

But the problem here and now confronting us EVERYDAY, is the christian right's push to advance an agenda, of their morality and rules, upon all the citizens of this country in contravention of the seperation of church and state rules. Sorry, the majority of abortionist activists are christians, the worst extreme christians, who in the name of their god would firebomb clinics, kill doctors and intimidate women trying to get one.

Their agenda has morphed into state mandates of lying doctors, vaginal probes, and films of abortions potential patients are forced to view.

That christians routinely ostracize those who are gay, or hold a different belief system than theirs. Atheists, agnostics and pagans are constantly viewed as the "work of satan" instead of people walking to a different tune or belief.

Changing the topic, looking to consolidate behind a future thread of shiriah law, while interesting doesn't dispose of the issues of one group trying to inflict their view on us all.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State