'Anti-Sharia' law is back

[gambit]

We R talking about family law here. It doesn't concern the state and thus logically it can not be counted as religious infringement on the state. A muslim have to follow islamic code in divorce, marriage and other affairs. Same with the orthodix jews i believe. How the hell does it concern the state? Discrimination against a particular religious groups by a secular state huh? If US respects freedom of religion then why this law?

Yes, it does. Polygamy is illegal in the US, for starter. That mean no four wives for you.

 

[scrumpy]

Very true. We should have killed that bloody R.Davis guy but our religious loophole let him escape.
How wrong of him to subject himself to Islamic law !!

Are we still talking of Florida?

In that case you guys were foolish to let the man leave because you guys follow some tribal laws from the last millennium. He should have been made to stand a proper trial and I believe that is exactly what would have happened in Florida. He took advantage of your laws(did he have a choice in choosing the law he could stand trial on?).

I totally support your right to use Sharia or whatever method you want to use in an arbitrage process but I also believe Sharia law is an antiquated set of laws codified for a different society at a different time and has no place in society today.

 

[Contrarian]

I can see how non-Muslims and non-Jews would feel about this, but religion plays an important part in our lives. It is not a trivial thing to suddenly challenge his/her religious liberty. It's like telling a Sikh not to wear a turban anymore or a Jew/Muslim to eat pork.

It is irrelevant what Muslims and Jews feel what is an important part of their lives.

Tomorrow they might feel that lashing as a punishment is also an important part of their Islamic life or Polygamy - because of Sharia- that does not mean the State should implement it in their laws.

The State has evolved some laws for personal protection - that include family and inheritance laws - that are absolutely equal and in most cases female gender supportive. It has been these very laws which are a reason for a nation like USA to prosper and led to these communities migrating to US in the first place.

The Muslims and Jews are more than free to practice/observe their laws in private, they cannot and donot have a right to ask the State to change their laws to accommodate Sharia. If they donot find it suitable they are more than free to go back to one of their 'stans'.

I can see how non-Muslims and non-Jews would feel about this, but religion plays an important part in our lives. It is not a trivial thing to suddenly challenge his/her religious liberty. It's like telling a Sikh not to wear a turban anymore or a Jew/Muslim to eat pork.

It is irrelevant what Muslims and Jews feel what is an important part of their lives.

Tomorrow they might feel that lashing as a punishment is also an important part of their Islamic life or Polygamy - because of Sharia- that does not mean the State should implement it in their laws.

The State has evolved some laws for personal protection - that include family and inheritance laws - that are absolutely equal and in most cases female gender supportive. It has been these very laws which are a reason for a nation like USA to prosper and led to these communities migrating to US in the first place.

The Muslims and Jews are more than free to practice/observe their laws in private, they cannot and donot have a right to ask the State to change their laws to accommodate Sharia. If they donot find it suitable they are more than free to go back to one of their 'stans'.

 

[gambit]

Much ado about nothing.

Then let US do that 'nothing'. Unless the Muslims are afraid that this 'nothing' is really 'something' they do not want US to know.

 

[monitor12345]

This is called Western Democracy, Western Secularism where minorities cannot practice their religion. Where the State can interfere in the personal matters of a minority community. Where the State attacks Right to Religious Freedom. The so-called champions of Democracy.

It is irrelevant what Muslims and Jews feel what is an important part of their lives.

Tomorrow they might feel that lashing as a punishment is also an important part of their Islamic life or Polygamy - because of Sharia- that does not mean the State should implement it in their laws.

The State has evolved some laws for personal protection - that include family and inheritance laws - that are absolutely equal and in most cases female gender supportive. It has been these very laws which are a reason for a nation like USA to prosper and led to these communities migrating to US in the first place.

The Muslims and Jews are more than free to practice/observe their laws in private, they cannot and donot have a right to ask the State to change their laws to accommodate Sharia. If they donot find it suitable they are more than free to go back to one of their 'stans'.

It is irrelevant what Muslims and Jews feel what is an important part of their lives.

Tomorrow they might feel that lashing as a punishment is also an important part of their Islamic life or Polygamy - because of Sharia- that does not mean the State should implement it in their laws.

The State has evolved some laws for personal protection - that include family and inheritance laws - that are absolutely equal and in most cases female gender supportive. It has been these very laws which are a reason for a nation like USA to prosper and led to these communities migrating to US in the first place.

The Muslims and Jews are more than free to practice/observe their laws in private, they cannot and donot have a right to ask the State to change their laws to accommodate Sharia. If they donot find it suitable they are more than free to go back to one of their 'stans'.

If you cannot accommodate other minorities in your society, then why do you do chest-thumping , that We are Civilised People.

 

[gambit]

This is called Western Democracy, Western Secularism where minorities cannot practice their religion. Where the State can interfere in the personal matters of a minority community. Where the State attacks Right to Religious Freedom. The so-called champions of Democracy.

Ain't nothing 'so-called' about it. Imperfect as we are, we are the best champion for democracy you got. Your fellow Indian engineers I work with daily say so.

 

[narcon]

To be fair to Muslims who are able to pull on their lives in the US without any hassles, as are the others of various faiths, BUT FOR YOUR (MUSLIMS) EXTRA DEMANDS, which are not compatible with American values, society, Laws: such as Sharia which allows Muslims the right of Polygamy, whereas an American goes to jail for Bigamy. How fair is this for a host country?

And, should not the Muslims be introspecting, when they know that Champions of Islam, Guardians of Mecca and Medina, does not allow the images of Santa claus in Saudi Arabia, let alone the holy Bible!

Non Muslims are not allowed in Mecca area, let alone enter the Masjid haram/Kaba. Similarly, why Muslims are volatile, when they are deprived of Sharia in the US? What is sauce for goose should be the sauce for the gender.

Then, there are those Americans, who would not like to see public lashings, beheading, amputations of limbs in their country - All part of Sharia.

The golden rule: Do not do unto others, what you dont want others to do unto you.

 

[KingMamba]

People bugging out about this in thread meanwhile American Muslims do not care about this law nor do they find it offensive. If somebody does find it offensive it is a small minority and they are more than welcome to take their concerns to the supreme court. If it does violate the 1st amendment it will be overturned, it really is that simple.

As for polygamy as far as I know it is illegal but if you have more than 1 wife when you came here they allow you to keep those marriages legally. For the rest it really is don't ask don't tell and they won't bother you unless you admit you are a polygamist in which case they have to arrest you according to procedure.

 

[scrumpy]

Can someone please summarise what exactly does the law state.

From the link
Senate Bill 0058 (2013) - The Florida Senate

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases; Clarifying that the public policies expressed in the act apply to violations of a natural person’s fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution; providing that the act does not apply to a corporation, partnership, or other form of business association, except when necessary to provide effective relief in proceedings under or relating to chapters 61 and 88, F.S., etc.

Isn't this exactly what happens already? A person's fundamental rights, followed by state & federal laws will trump all other laws in Florida.
There doesn't seem to be any case in Florida where a judge has relied on the Sharia or other international law to make a ruling.

and
Why does the muslim community think that this is specifically targeted at them?

Edit:

Found this link which seems to give some info.
http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/leadership-in-tallahassee.html

I don't see why 2 consenting people shouldn't be allowed to refer to Sharia or any other law when arbitrating over things like divorce proceedings. If a party doesn't want to, they can refuse to subject themselves to it and use the civil courts for things like divorce settlements, inheritance, etc.

 

[scrumpy]

To be fair to Muslims who are able to pull on their lives in the US without any hassles, as are the others of various faiths, BUT FOR YOUR (MUSLIMS) EXTRA DEMANDS, which are not compatible with American values, society, Laws: such as Sharia which allows Muslims the right of Polygamy, whereas an American goes to jail for Bigamy. How fair is this for a host country?

And, should not the Muslims be introspecting, when they know that Champions of Islam, Guardians of Mecca and Medina, does not allow the images of Santa claus in Saudi Arabia, let alone the holy Bible!

Non Muslims are not allowed in Mecca area, let alone enter the Masjid haram/Kaba. Similarly, why Muslims are volatile, when they are deprived of Sharia in the US? What is sauce for goose should be the sauce for the gender.

Then, there are those Americans, who would not like to see public lashings, beheading, amputations of limbs in their country - All part of Sharia.

The golden rule: Do not do unto others, what you dont want others to do unto you.

Nobody is suggesting that an outside law the way you describe it should be introduced in the US.

 

[cyphercide]

Can someone please summarise what exactly does the law state.

From the link
Senate Bill 0058 (2013) - The Florida Senate



Isn't this exactly what happens already? A person's fundamental rights, followed by state & federal laws will trump all other laws in Florida.
There doesn't seem to be any case in Florida where a judge has relied on the Sharia or other international law to make a ruling.

and
Why does the muslim community think that this is specifically targeted at them?

Edit:

Found this link which seems to give some info.
Leadership in Tallahassee Must Stand Against Intolerance

I don't see why 2 consenting people shouldn't be allowed to refer to Sharia or any other law when arbitrating over things like divorce proceedings. If a party doesn't want to, they can refuse to subject themselves to it and use the civil courts for things like divorce settlements, inheritance, etc.

There is a detailed explanation in the Florida Senate website. Check the PDF attachment under the tab 'Analyses':

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0058/Analyses/f8yJQWThzK=PL=1L0jIWSMERwzLDkI=|14/Public/Bills/0001-0099/0058/Analysis/2013s0058.pre.ju.PDF

 

[narcon]

Nobody is suggesting that an outside law the way you describe it should be introduced in the US.

Re-read the article and my post. Dont just judge the book by its cover - read it.

 

[gambit]

Can someone please summarise what exactly does the law state.

From the link
Senate Bill 0058 (2013) - The Florida Senate



Isn't this exactly what happens already? A person's fundamental rights, followed by state & federal laws will trump all other laws in Florida.
There doesn't seem to be any case in Florida where a judge has relied on the Sharia or other international law to make a ruling.

and
Why does the muslim community think that this is specifically targeted at them?

Edit:

Found this link which seems to give some info.
Leadership in Tallahassee Must Stand Against Intolerance

I don't see why 2 consenting people shouldn't be allowed to refer to Sharia or any other law when arbitrating over things like divorce proceedings. If a party doesn't want to, they can refuse to subject themselves to it and use the civil courts for things like divorce settlements, inheritance, etc.

Florida SB 58 can be said to be 'prophylactic', meaning preventative in both introduction and effects thereof.

But first...

Inside any country, there can be only one set of laws or one legal code. If you want to make an allowance for a specific law for a specific situation, the allowance itself must also be a law and it has to reference the law that it is asking for the allowance.

Example...Marriage is between man and woman where man and woman must be of the same handedness, in other words, right-handed people cannot marry left-handed people. This is the law of the land.

Then Joe Schmoe petitions the legislature to make an allowance that a right-handed person can marry a left-handed person on the full moon of every other month based upon his religious beliefs. In order for this allowance to be accepted throughout the land, the allowance itself must become a law outlining this very specific circumstance. Any deviation from this law and the marriage between the right-handed person to the left-handed person is nullified and both will be imprisoned. Until this allowance/exception is itself a law, no such marriages can be performed inside the country and no such marriages from outside the borders will be recognized. Any marriage related issues such as wills, probates, next of kin, etc., must also be specified inside this allowance/exception.

Now...

What Florida SB 58 does is to prevent the introduction of any religiously based law and cultural artifacts to be even introduced as an argument at any level.

Section 1

(4) Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.

The highlighted is significant. It means that the US Constitution with its perceived human rights and liberties trumps all other perceived rights and liberties REGARDLESS of source(s). If a woman have only 5 rights in wherever she came from, the moment she set foot on US soil, she has all 10 rights endowed to her by the US Constitution, and if she was to enter into any legal contests, regardless of who is her opponent, from father or even to husband, the justice system cannot consider her origin, as in originally have only 5 rights, as part of its decision making process. The justice system is also obligated to inform her of her 10 rights.

(7) This section may not be construed to:

(a) Require or authorize any court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters, including, but not limited to, the election, appointment, calling, discipline, dismissal, removal, or excommunication of a member, officer, official, priest, nun, monk, pastor, rabbi, imam, or member of the clergy of the religious organization, or determination or interpretation of the doctrine of the religious organization, if such adjudication or prohibition would violate s. 3, Art. I of the State Constitution or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;

Basically, leave the religious administrative organs alone, no matter what religion it may be, as long as their decisions are kept in-house, so to speak. But if even just one side of an internal religious dispute take that matter to public, such as a lawsuit, then any religious law must be subordinate to State or US federal laws.

So if the fourth wife of a sheik believes her beatings to be Allah's will and keep quiet about it, then there is nothing the government can do. But the moment she takes her beatings to a US court, then her marriage is not recognized and she would be classified as a victim of an assault, such as domestic violence, or something similar.

 

[scrumpy]

The highlighted is significant. It means that the US Constitution with its perceived human rights and liberties trumps all other perceived rights and liberties REGARDLESS of source(s). If a woman have only 5 rights in wherever she came from, the moment she set foot on US soil, she has all 10 rights endowed to her by the US Constitution, and if she was to enter into any legal contests, regardless of who is her opponent, from father or even to husband, the justice system cannot consider her origin, as in originally have only 5 rights, as part of its decision making process. The justice system is also obligated to inform her of her 10 rights.

Isn't this already what happens right now and state and federal laws trump over all others? Why does the Florida Senate think that they need another law? I always thought that you cannot sign away your fundamental rights by getting into a contract.
and
Are religious communities actually asking that they be exempted from state laws and that they be allowed to use their own laws instead? I was of the view that these communities were asking that they be allowed to use their own laws in matters such as divorce and alimony where all parties have consented in a manner akin to arbitrage. This could save money to both parties in terms of court expenses. If either party objects to such arbitration, the case would have to be decided in a court of law.

and
What does this mean for pre-nup contracts. Can they ever be enforced?

There is a detailed explanation in the Florida Senate website. Check the PDF attachment under the tab 'Analyses':

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0058/Analyses/f8yJQWThzK=PL=1L0jIWSMERwzLDkI=|14/Public/Bills/0001-0099/0058/Analysis/2013s0058.pre.ju.PDF

That is a good document. I always thought that you cannot sign away your fundamental rights through a contract but then what do I know.

 

[Redbull]

God bless America