Sharia Law In America?

[stebo0728]

http://www.redcounty.com/content/nj-jud ... f-his-wife

Disturbing story here. Fortunately caught by appellate court, and corrected. But how can a judge sworn to uphold the constitution even produce a quote like this?

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Any thoughts, again without getting heaved into religion.

[IBCoupe]

I'm going to try and tip-toe around the religious issue and focus strictly on the legal perspective. A few years ago, there was some news about Christian Scientists refusing to take their children to hospitals, inaction that could be seen to have resulted in the death of their children. They opted for prayer, in lieu of medicine. Some argued that it was child abuse. I don't recall how that turned out, but it's still a contentious issue.

It seems to me that the Judge wasn't making a comment specifically about Islam; he was trying to play the same balancing act that has come up repeatedly in American history. Where the right, protected by the First Amendment, to practice your religion as you please comes up against a mens rea element of a criminal act, what gives?

I don't have the answer, but I'm just trying to temper the potentially knee-jerk cries of the "islamification" of America. The Judge was not trying to apply Sharia law, he was examining the mental state of the defendant - something that's done in every case. It just so happens that every once in a while, one's religious beliefs become a part of that mental state, and we get a fuzzier issue than normal.

[stebo0728]

I'm going to try and tip-toe around the religious issue and focus strictly on the legal perspective. A few years ago, there was some news about Christian Scientists refusing to take their children to hospitals, inaction that could be seen to have resulted in the death of their children. They opted for prayer, in lieu of medicine. Some argued that it was child abuse. I don't recall how that turned out, but it's still a contentious issue.

I remember that, I guess its also related to J Witnesses not allowing transfusions or organ transplants due to religious reasons. Admittedly I do not have the answer fully to the issue either, I would suggest that possibly it is the obligation of the parent to determine these things while the child is a minor? Sounds like good Law and Order episode material. However there is a bit of a difference here, in that the victim was not a child of the defendant. I think that its probably well understood in this country that wives are not to be considered property of husbands, regardless of religious affiliation.

It seems to me that the Judge wasn't making a comment specifically about Islam; he was trying to play the same balancing act that has come up repeatedly in American history. Where the right, protected by the First Amendment, to practice your religion as you please comes up against a mens rea element of a criminal act, what gives?

I don't have the answer, but I'm just trying to temper the potentially knee-jerk cries of the "islamification" of America. The Judge was not trying to apply Sharia law, he was examining the mental state of the defendant - something that's done in every case. It just so happens that every once in a while, one's religious beliefs become a part of that mental state, and we get a fuzzier issue than normal.

Well said, but lets remember, one individuals rights and liberties only extend to the point that they do not interfere with the life and liberty of another.

[IBCoupe]

I absolutely agree, and I can't help but wonder if the Judge's objections came from the specific charge. Not only did this involve religious beliefs and mens rea requirements, but it was also a spousal rape case. Rape remains an odd legal subject, and spousal rape even more so.

Had they gone with something like assault, they might have had an easier time with it. That said, I don't know what the prosecutors charged him with. It could be that it wasn't only spousal rape, and that means I'm talking at least a little bit out of my butt.

[stebo0728]

Well there was apparently some torture also involved, "punishment" as it were for refusing him.

Yes spousal rape is a touchy subject no doubt, I would think the cause could be made if defensive wounds or overly rough "sex wounds" were evidenced.

[Cold_Zero]

Stebo,
I think I read about this story (in NJ??). The guys religious leader (Imam) even said that the guy should not treat his wife like an animal and provided some levity during the court case.

Here is my issue. For some years now, we have been watching the Turks overrun Germany and the case is the same (different immigrant groups) in many Central and Western European countries. So many European governments have made concessions including Sharia Law/Courts that now there appears to be a backlash brewing in Europe. That is something that I do not want to see happen in the United States. (And yes I am biased against Turks for a whole host of reasons and probably not allowed in Turkey, not that I would ever go there, as I have constantly 'Insulted Turkish National Pride'.) I also support Switzerland's Minaret Law and their deportation of African illegals. While I think the Swiss and French anti Burqa laws are utterly ridiculous.

Also from a rule of law standpoint, our system is based on the British Common Law framework. I do not think that Sharia law and courts have any place in this country. Trust me, you wouldn’t want me to drag you through a 'Christian Court' because I have a grievance. Our system may not be perfect, but seems to work fine. I do make an exception for the people(s) who were originally here before this country was founded. Mainly because the check/balance in that system is that if you are not a Native American and have to appear before the tribal courts, your case is sent to the Federal Court systems.

[stebo0728]

Stebo,
I think I read about this story (in NJ??). The guys religious leader (Imam) even said that the guy should not treat his wife like an animal and provided some levity during the court case.

Here is my issue. For some years now, we have been watching the Turks overrun Germany and the case is the same (different immigrant groups) in many Central and Western European countries. So many European governments have made concessions including Sharia Law/Courts that now there appears to be a backlash brewing in Europe. That is something that I do not want to see happen in the United States. (And yes I am biased against Turks for a whole host of reasons and probably not allowed in Turkey, not that I would ever go there, as I have constantly 'Insulted Turkish National Pride'.)

Also from a rule of law standpoint, our system is based on the British Common Law framework. I do not think that Sharia law and courts have any place in this country. Trust me, you wouldn’t want me to drag you through a 'Christian Court' because I have a grievance. Our system may not be perfect, but seems to work fine. I do make an exception for the people(s) who were originally here before this country was founded. Mainly because the check/balance in that system is that if you are not a Native American and have to appear before the tribal courts, your case is sent to the Federal Court systems.

Agreed, I dont think there would be a problem having "some" of Sharia, where applicable and on a voluntary basis, but then how exactly do you place a judiciary within a judiciary? And again I stress that ones rights and liberties only extend so far as they do not impede upon someone else's life and liberty. Much of Sharia revolves around subjugation of women. Women fought such a bitter fight for equality, just to give it up for Sharia? True, christian women may not be subject to Sharia if it were in the states, but Muslim women would be, and how can you have 2 perpendicular sets of rules? The only way, and ONLY way I could see it even remotely working in the US, is if a consenting adult recognized said Sharia law rulings and willingly abided by them. But even then womens rights advocates would not sit idly by and watch this. And then again, Sharia also allows the procuring of female spouses at ages well below our conventionally recognized age of consent, so how is that going to work? Long story short, it wont. This whole Sharia is partly why Islam is viewed by so many as such a barbarous faith. And in other countries, these religious policies dictate government policies and law. Is that to be the end effect of Sharia in America? No doubt you would hear resounding no's from the galleys, but my sneaking suspicion is secretly that answer is a yes.

[IBCoupe]

You can't consent to assault. That's why the S&M scene remains underground. You can't consent to acts of barbarism against you. Or, rather, you can, and that means you can't sue, but that doesn't mean the person who does it to you is shielded from criminal liability.

Sharia law will not find a foothold in the United States, unless we repeal the First Amendment. That's that.

[Cold_Zero]

There is a reason why Syria and Turkey have secular governments for this very reason. The converse is obiviously, Saudi Arabia.

[heliochrome85]

In medical school we are taught that spousal abuse is the only type of abuse that isnt immediately reported to law enforcement. From a religious standpoint, if you look into the actual text of Sharia law, you will find that Islam grants women many more freedoms including the right to vote, own property, ask for divorce. That being said, just like how the US has its citizens that marry their cousins, and beat their wives; so does Islam.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I'm going to try and tip-toe around the religious issue and focus strictly on the legal perspective. A few years ago, there was some news about Christian Scientists refusing to take their children to hospitals, inaction that could be seen to have resulted in the death of their children. They opted for prayer, in lieu of medicine. Some argued that it was child abuse. I don't recall how that turned out, but it's still a contentious issue.

I think you are talking about the little girl that died from diabetes because her parents thought prayer would heal her. The mother did end up doing some jail time over it. I'm not sure how much.

[vikesfankevin1986]

In medical school we are taught that spousal abuse is the only type of abuse that isnt immediately reported to law enforcement. From a religious standpoint, if you look into the actual text of Sharia law, you will find that Islam grants women many more freedoms including the right to vote, own property, ask for divorce. That being said, just like how the US has its citizens that marry their cousins, and beat their wives; so does Islam.

I didn't say anything because of the whole religious thing, but I went to this thing called "Women in Islam" and the lady said what he said above. That means that the whole supressing and mistreating women thing is cultural. It is their society, not their religion. This is America, our culture is different. We are civilized, so you can't beat or rape women here...sorry.

[Cold_Zero]

Correct me if I am wrong, T. Excluding much of the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan, women in Muslim countries (so to speak) have many rights and privileges. The one nut that is hard to crack is Malaysia. They have in certain places a Mutaween (sp?) which reminds me of Saudi Arabia and appear to be very repressive towards women.

[heliochrome85]

yeah. That is true. Saudi is another story. They are screwed up beyond belief. Its like having Texas with its wealth, run by Pat Robertson. yes he practices Christianity, but his take on things, and that of his followers, diverges significantly in important areas, from main stream Christianity.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Correct me if I am wrong, T. Excluding much of the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan, women in Muslim countries (so to speak) have many rights and privileges. The one nut that is hard to crack is Malaysia. They have in certain places a Mutaween (sp?) which reminds me of Saudi Arabia and appear to be very repressive towards women.

Maybe and maybe not. I was deployed to the United Arab Emerates and went off base a number of times. It appears women have more rights than most believe but who knows how it is behind closed doors. Most women still covered their faces but at the same time not all did. Another thing to note is that women could be in public in bikinis. On the beach and at the water park there were girls in bikinis. All different races, mostly Middle Eastern. I have pictures to prove it...That's a reason I got so pissed off when they made a big deal about Paris Hilton wearing a bikini over there. They acted like they were ready to kill her.
Most of UAE's population does come from some place else. They are there just to work, so you do see a lot of different races and religions there. On a final note...Unless kissing, holding hands, rubbing legs, looking men up and down, and other things, are a common thing in their culture for men to do...there are a lot of homosexuals...
When I was there I was told that they are taught from a young age that women are for babies and men are for pleasure...

[stebo0728]

Its like having Texas with its wealth, run by Pat Robertson. yes he practices Christianity, but his take on things, and that of his followers, diverges significantly in important areas, from main stream Christianity.

Word. Im a fundamental baptist, yet that man irritates me to no end!

[Cold_Zero]

Well technically speaking the man (Pat Robertson) is pentecostal.

[stebo0728]

Well technically speaking the man (Pat Robertson) is pentecostal.

True.

[Cold_Zero]

While most americans would throw you both in the boat as fundies or evangelicals, I understand the theological and historical differences. And also know that neither of you are 'evangelicals' theologically being baptist or pentecostal. *shrug*

[stebo0728]

Oh I dont wear the mantle of evangelical. I consider myself more of an Apologetic.

[heliochrome85]

im just going to leave this here...
http://www.murfreesboropost.com/residen ... -cms-24115

arguements sound familiar?

thankfully, we have not seen such bigoted opposition in these parts of the state.

[heliochrome85]

oh, and these too
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08 ... ted=1&_r=1
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ush/61133/

[Cold_Zero]

No offence T, but what you expect from a country that can't even teach its children its own history let alone world history. You expect people who have virtually no exposure to Near Eastern culture to not get rattled when Syrians (just an example) move in next door?

As I have said on FB, I think the alarming thing is that Islam in many countries in the Middle East has not gotten beyond 'Magisterium' like most 'Christian' nations have. Once Islam moves out of the phase I think that it will be a less abrasive religion for people to co-exist with in their daily lives.

BTW I picked up 'Lost to the West' at Borders yesterday. Which reminds me, I can't help but think that a lot of our problems in the Near East, in Europe and by proxy here in the US havent been caused by the Ottomans (damn Turks).

[Cold_Zero]

Tariq do Orthodox Christians in Turkey (one of the ancient centers of Christianity), Egypt (another center Alexandria) and Ethiopia are met with the same response when they want to build a church? No because people in this country dissent (albeit in this case with tackles words) is no where near the harassment that my Orthodox brothers in the countries listed above have to endure. I don't want to get into a news article pissing match. This is not a religious point. It is a cultural and political point.

Also I did not include the Serbians who lost their entire country let alone churches to the ethnic Albanians. Again damn Turks to blame

[heliochrome85]

No offence T, but what you expect from a country that can't even teach its children its own history let alone world history. You expect people who have virtually no exposure to Near Eastern culture to not get rattled when Syrians (just an example) move in next door?

As I have said on FB, I think the alarming thing is that Islam in many countries in the Middle East has not gotten beyond 'Magisterium' like most 'Christian' nations have. Once Islam moves out of the phase I think that it will be a less abrasive religion for people to co-exist with in their daily lives.

BTW I picked up 'Lost to the West' at Borders yesterday. Which reminds me, I can't help but think that a lot of our problems in the Near East, in Europe and by proxy here in the US havent been caused by the Ottomans (damn Turks).

i agree. damn the turks.

[heliochrome85]

Tariq do Orthodox Christians in Turkey (one of the ancient centers of Christianity), Egypt (another center Alexandria) and Ethiopia are met with the same response when they want to build a church? No because people in this country dissent (albeit in this case with tackles words) is no where near the harassment that my Orthodox brothers in the countries listed above have to endure. I don't want to get into a news article pissing match. This is not a religious point. It is a cultural and political point.

Also I did not include the Serbians who lost their entire country let alone churches to the ethnic Albanians. Again damn Turks to blame

i agree with you. but ultimately, i think we shouldnt be comparing the situation in the US to the situation in those countries. Just like newt gingrich saying, (among others) that we should allow a mosque to be built in NYC when Saudi Arabia allows a church to be built. Last i checked, the US was not a Theocracy. Yet, in all the papers, and across many news channels, what is being said is that opposing Islamic spread is an entirely American Ideal. Its absolutely disgusting. Is there a more fundimentally American ideal than Religious freedom? Afterall, the pilgrims came for that reason. Why is it that those who claim to defend the US constitution want to defend only the parts of it that they agree with? Last I checked, the 1st amendment and 14th were just as important as the 2nd.

[heliochrome85]

No offence T, but what you expect from a country that can't even teach its children its own history let alone world history.?

Why is it that we arent upset more about this?

[AZhitman]

Tariq do Orthodox Christians in Turkey (one of the ancient centers of Christianity), Egypt (another center Alexandria) and Ethiopia are met with the same response when they want to build a church? No because people in this country dissent (albeit in this case with tackles words) is no where near the harassment that my Orthodox brothers in the countries listed above have to endure. I don't want to get into a news article pissing match. This is not a religious point. It is a cultural and political point.

Also I did not include the Serbians who lost their entire country let alone churches to the ethnic Albanians. Again damn Turks to blame

Typing with those boxing gloves on again?

Let's remember what happened to the REAL center of Christianity in the Middle East... Genocide that makes the holocaust look small... decimation of an entire culture and language, dispersion of descendants, ethnic cleansing and racism that continues to this day, and 100 years later, STILL no accountability, recognition or reconciliation.

Let's not knock the teaching of history in THIS country unless we're going to knock the teaching of FALSE history in the middle eastern countries.

Yep. Screw Turkey.

[IBCoupe]

Bah. I say screw the rest of the world. Knock our history teaching if it's not adequate. "The other kids are dumber" is no excuse to be a retard.

[Cold_Zero]

Greg and T,
Sorry guys, as my buddy Nate says I for a little gin'ed up last night. I think the thing we need is perspective. Most people don't realize that Saint Nikolas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed during the 911, attacks and the rationale used to keep a mosque Islamic center from being built (mainly that it is sacred ground and nothing should be built on ground zero) would keep these people church from being rebuilt. I know this discussion was locked and I implore people to not to continue on as we really have gotten off track here. Time to re focus on the topic of Islamic law in the US.