Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They believed is was in accordance of Sharia Law.9/11? The terrorists believed they were acting according to Sharia Law.Can you cite a single instance - in the United States - in which anyone other than Muslims has been affected by Sharia law? Take your time.
Here is one example, the mother of the boyfriend of a muslim girl was ran over by the girl's muslim father.
Muslim Man Guilty of 'Honor Killing' in Daughter's Death
An Iraqi immigrant was found guilty of second degree murder today for running over his daughter, a crime motivated, prosecutors said, by the Arizona Muslim man's belief that the 20-year-old woman had Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, was also convicted of aggravated assault, because the mother of his daughter's boyfriend was also injured when he ran down the two women with his Jeep Cherokee in a suburban Phoenix parking lot in the October 2009 incident.
9/11 was an act of terrorism, not Sharia. Your second example was murder, plain and simple.
They believed is was in accordance of Sharia Law.9/11? The terrorists believed they were acting according to Sharia Law.Can you cite a single instance - in the United States - in which anyone other than Muslims has been affected by Sharia law? Take your time.
Here is one example, the mother of the boyfriend of a muslim girl was ran over by the girl's muslim father.
Muslim Man Guilty of 'Honor Killing' in Daughter's Death
An Iraqi immigrant was found guilty of second degree murder today for running over his daughter, a crime motivated, prosecutors said, by the Arizona Muslim man's belief that the 20-year-old woman had Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, was also convicted of aggravated assault, because the mother of his daughter's boyfriend was also injured when he ran down the two women with his Jeep Cherokee in a suburban Phoenix parking lot in the October 2009 incident.
9/11 was an act of terrorism, not Sharia. Your second example was murder, plain and simple.
Murder yes, according to our system of beliefs and values, according to our education.
The murder was committed by a Muslim, who lived his life according to Sharia Law, he was from Iraq, where he lived under Sharia Law in an Islamic society. His perception of what and why he did it is not based our values or beliefs, they are based upon how he lived, under Sharia law.
I doesn't make any sense that anyone is having such a conniption over Sharia Law in this thread. Why, of all the things "Muslims want," may want, think they want, etc. why is there such an extreme focus on Sharia Law, most especially with regard to Muslims who are U.S. citizens or who seek American citizenship?
If Sharia Law were so damned important to them -- as important as several writers in this thread imply as a consequence of all the ruckus they're raising about it -- well, there are a ton of places those would be American citizens can go that have it in spades. It's not as though Muslim immigrants head to the U.S. thinking they will arrive in a nation governed by Sharia Law, much less by the extremely fundamentalist interpretations of it that several folks here are "on about."
What makes more sense, as evidenced by the fact that in many cases Muslim immigrants have left everything familiar to themselves and come to a new land where they know before they get here that they will face a ton of "jackass" opinion from millions of folks who talk about Sharia Law as though they are experts on it yet have never so much as read the transcripts from a Sharia Law case, don't speak Farsi or Arabic, who haven't actually read the entirety of the Quran or Bible, to say nothing of actually pursuing scholarly comparison and contrast of the two.
Look at who is in here talking about Sharia Law, and yet not one person has dialectically presented their case.
- Has anyone in 600+ posts bothered to present the case against Sharia Law achieving comity in U.S. courtrooms from the standpoint of a Muslim?
- With regard to the treatment of women, who's, for instance, addressed the matter of personal status codes in Islamic countries or in Islam?
- Has anyone discussed the concept and application of jtihad, fitnah, or fardh? Does anyone here fully understand those concepts as expressed in Islamic culture and the role they play in Sharia Law or the treatment of women?
I tried to inject an element of cognitive rigor into the discussion only to be met by a clown who can't distinguish the difference in meaning between singular and plural nouns.
Should that then be applied to ALL religious councils?
Two aspects occur to me - one is competency and certification
The other is - maintaining religous freedom
The third is - maintaining individual rights
That makes three.
Seems to me that the best way to guarantee the last without infringing on religious liberty is to not give it the force of law until it's ratified by a secular court.
You really can't hold hearings in such an atmosphere without absolutely infringing on religious freedom. You can enourage the community to move in that direction - but it's not very heirarchical and unified in fact, quite the opposite - criteria for being a religious leader is all over the board.
From: Judaism 101: Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all.
Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?
There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.
The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.
The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?
Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countires.
Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential.
Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countires.
Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential.
How exactly does it happen that MUSLIMS "misunderstand Sharia"? Perhaps you've heard of the Taliban or the Shia clerics in Iran with "radical interpretations". How about the Wahabi Saudis who are making an industry of exporting radicalized Islam all over the world? Do ALL THESE folks simply misunderstand Shariah? How did the Taliban OBTAIN religious authority in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc? They OBTAINED that authority thru Sharia Law.. So at the least -- there are some SERIOUS legal loopholes in the code. I gave you the list of countries that adopt Sharia either TOTALLY integrated into their legal systems --- or in part. Find the places on the lists I gave you in the previous posts where this has occurred -- and THERE Is where you see the DAILY MONUMENTAL CARNAGE due to radicalized Islam.
The "big deal" in this country -- is that SOMEONE has to resist the influence to do the same in America and in ANY PART start incorporating religious code in legal proceedings... If a judge is forced to cite "foreign law" in a family law case --- perhaps that judge has NO AUTHORITY to hear the case.
Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countires.
Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential.
How exactly does it happen that MUSLIMS "misunderstand Sharia"? Perhaps you've heard of the Taliban or the Shia clerics in Iran with "radical interpretations". How about the Wahabi Saudis who are making an industry of exporting radicalized Islam all over the world? Do ALL THESE folks simply misunderstand Shariah? How did the Taliban OBTAIN religious authority in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc? They OBTAINED that authority thru Sharia Law.. So at the least -- there are some SERIOUS legal loopholes in the code. I gave you the list of countries that adopt Sharia either TOTALLY integrated into their legal systems --- or in part. Find the places on the lists I gave you in the previous posts where this has occurred -- and THERE Is where you see the DAILY MONUMENTAL CARNAGE due to radicalized Islam.
The "big deal" in this country -- is that SOMEONE has to resist the influence to do the same in America and in ANY PART start incorporating religious code in legal proceedings... If a judge is forced to cite "foreign law" in a family law case --- perhaps that judge has NO AUTHORITY to hear the case.
"How exactly does it happen that MUSLIMS "misunderstand Sharia"?"
Because they do NOT read their holly book either, just like christians.
I think majority of the muslims dont read quran for their entire life...
From: Judaism 101: Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all. By drawing these comparisons between various Religious codes you are actually hurting the proposition that there is nothing especially "weird or unusual" going in Islam.. Because the DIFFERENCE IS --- The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures.. Where is it given co-authority with whatever tyrannical forms of civil governments exist. Whereas in Western culture and places where both Judaism and Islam are practiced -- NONE of this matters a whit.
There is not a single Western culture where a Jewish man is prohibited from re-marrying his ex-wife or REQUIRES him to divorce him for sexual transgressions. However -- the similar Sharia practice is ENSHRINED in many many places. Likewise the Jewish wife is NOT obligated in any secular Western culture to culture to obtain a RELIGIOUS divorce before remarrying. IN FACT -- in the ONLY Jewish nation in the world -- Israel -- I DOUBT this is a REQUIREMENT. (could be wrong).
Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?
In America -- this is matter between individuals and their RELIGIOUS authority. NEVER a matter of law. And the difference is I've never been aware of a Jewish movement to FORCE secular authorities to recognize their religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes. And while this is RARE in America for Muslims, it's been kicked out there as a proposal on a few occasions.. No different than the consequences of a ex-communication from the Catholic church for instance.
Really don't NEED to become a religious scholar to see where the REAL PROBLEM exists. THIS ---- is the center of the storm in America about sharia law.....
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It
(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.
North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.
The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.
In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.
Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.
In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.
Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.
So what's really happening in these threads is that folks you call "right-wingers" are actually taking the side of KEEPING govt in America secular. So hit them up on hypocrisy -- but don't try to tell them the ISSUE does not exist because "all religions" do it..
And BTW -- why is it that only "some" Islamic scholars argue for separation of state and religion?
There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.
The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.
The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?
Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.
And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.
This situation is very different in European countries.
If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.
So; US doing "relatively" good...
But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...
From: Judaism 101: Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all. By drawing these comparisons between various Religious codes you are actually hurting the proposition that there is nothing especially "weird or unusual" going in Islam.. Because the DIFFERENCE IS --- The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures.. Where is it given co-authority with whatever tyrannical forms of civil governments exist. Whereas in Western culture and places where both Judaism and Islam are practiced -- NONE of this matters a whit.
I disagree with your analysis of drawing comparisons. The comparison is valid, and this is why I think it is. Part of the argument against Sharia specifically, is that it is somehow UNIQUELY EVIL, that it's criminal codes are uniquely barbaric, and that because it is within the text of the religion, it is "unchangeable" (unlike other religions). This is stated over and over and it denies Islam the potential to evolve beyond a medievil interpretation. Almost the same rules exist in Halakah yet Judaism for the most part has moved into a modern view of it with exception of the ultra religious where it is incorporated into their daily fabric.
There is not a single Western culture where a Jewish man is prohibited from re-marrying his ex-wife or REQUIRES him to divorce him for sexual transgressions. However -- the similar Sharia practice is ENSHRINED in many many places. Likewise the Jewish wife is NOT obligated in any secular Western culture to culture to obtain a RELIGIOUS divorce before remarrying. IN FACT -- in the ONLY Jewish nation in the world -- Israel -- I DOUBT this is a REQUIREMENT. (could be wrong).
I'm not sure about that - or I'm misunderstanding you. In any secular Western culture - NO ONE is required to obtain a religious divorce before remarrying. That applies equally to Muslims, Jews, etc. However - within their own communities, that isn't necessarily the case - both Jews, Muslims (and Catholics) need a religious divorce if they are devout.
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
In Orthodox Judaism, a woman cannot obtain a divorce – and therefore cannot remarry – without her husband’s consent. Sometimes, in order to obtain money or attempt to stop a divorce, a husband will refuse to grant his wife a get, no matter how broken the marriage may be. In such cases, a beit din cannot divorce the couple. But both Perlman and Weissmann say that to sway an obstinate husband, rabbis may issue rulings calling on the community to exert social pressure on the man by, for example, barring him from the synagogue or protesting outside his home or workplace until he relents.
They can get divorced without it, but then they risk being ostracized from their community or family and unable to remarry within their community.
In Israel (again, if I am understanding it correctly), marriage and divorce are religous, governed by the doctrine of each of it's religious groups. For Jews, Israel's political system, despite being democratic, is still a religious system and marriage and divorce reside solely with religious authorities:
Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.
Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism. Similarly, children of adulterous and incestuous unions are restricted as to whom they can marry.
Up to 1999, any marriage council had the option to send a person to a Judaism test (Hebrew). A governing document[11] that defined rules of marriage had been finally concluded in 2001. Contrary to guidelines, some councils didn't fulfill the guideline; several petitions had been sent to the high court.[12] A research showed that 93.5% of people sent to Judaism test had been from the former Soviet Union and 83% of them succeeded and 10% left the process. In 2010 a final ruling defined that all immigrants after 1990 must go over a Judaism test.[citation needed]
However, Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel. It is usual for couples who may not or choose not to marry in Israel to travel overseas to marry.[13] One out of every ten Israelis who married in 2000 did so abroad mainly because they could not marry in Israel. 2,230 couples who married abroad consisted of two Israeli partners, and another 3,660 couples consisted of an Israeli and a non-Israeli partner.[13]
The issue of civil marriages is a major issue for secular Jews and members of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, who are required to meet the Orthodox standards to be able to marry in Israel.[14] There is a debate over whether civil marriages would divide the Jewish people in Israel by increasing interfaith marriages and marriages that do not meet halakhic requirements, and over the character of the Jewish state.
Divorce is similarly complicated and dictated by religious rules: Israel divorce law traps women in marriages that died long ago
Under the court's interpretation of Jewish religious law, a husband's, or wife's, consent is necessary to end a marriage. As has been the case for centuries, a Jewish divorce is not final in Israel until men deliver handwritten divorce decrees into the cupped hands of the women, who then must hold the paper aloft. A rabbi tears the document, called a get, into pieces, which are then filed for record-keeping.
The rabbis can order a reluctant spouse, usually a man, to grant the divorce, and Israel's parliament is considering a bill to expand the court's power to apply pressure. But if a spouse refuses to undertake the religious rite, the court says, it doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage.
Rabbis have upheld the need for consent even in cases where a man has abused his wife, disappeared, lied about his sexuality or molested their children.
There is no such thing as a secular marriage or divorce in any of Israel's religious communities.
Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?
In America -- this is matter between individuals and their RELIGIOUS authority. NEVER a matter of law. And the difference is I've never been aware of a Jewish movement to FORCE secular authorities to recognize their religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes. And while this is RARE in America for Muslims, it's been kicked out there as a proposal on a few occasions.. No different than the consequences of a ex-communication from the Catholic church for instance.
I agree with what I bolded.
Specifically though - when has there been ANY movement to force secular authorities to recognize Islamic religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes in the US? I haven't heard of any.
Really don't NEED to become a religious scholar to see where the REAL PROBLEM exists. THIS ---- is the center of the storm in America about sharia law.....
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It
(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.
North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.
The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.
In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.
Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.
In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.
Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.
So what's really happening in these threads is that folks you call "right-wingers" are actually taking the side of KEEPING govt in America secular. So hit them up on hypocrisy -- but don't try to tell them the ISSUE does not exist because "all religions" do it..
And BTW -- why is it that only "some" Islamic scholars argue for separation of state and religion?
But THOSE SAME RIGHT WINGERS (and keep in mind, I'm using this term scornfully because folks are using "leftwingers" in the same derogatory scornful manner) - are not REALLY interested in keeping America secular because they are the same one's who are typically supporting pro-religious "freedom" bills geared towards Christians. They are interested in keeping America Islam-free, not secular.
Lastly....is it only "some"....or, is this too, a reflection of culture?
There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.
The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.
The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?
Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.
And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.
This situation is very different in European countries.
If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.
So; US doing "relatively" good...
But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...
It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.
From: Judaism 101: Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all. By drawing these comparisons between various Religious codes you are actually hurting the proposition that there is nothing especially "weird or unusual" going in Islam.. Because the DIFFERENCE IS --- The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures.. Where is it given co-authority with whatever tyrannical forms of civil governments exist. Whereas in Western culture and places where both Judaism and Islam are practiced -- NONE of this matters a whit.
I disagree with your analysis of drawing comparisons. The comparison is valid, and this is why I think it is. Part of the argument against Sharia specifically, is that it is somehow UNIQUELY EVIL, that it's criminal codes are uniquely barbaric, and that because it is within the text of the religion, it is "unchangeable" (unlike other religions). This is stated over and over and it denies Islam the potential to evolve beyond a medievil interpretation. Almost the same rules exist in Halakah yet Judaism for the most part has moved into a modern view of it with exception of the ultra religious where it is incorporated into their daily fabric.
There is not a single Western culture where a Jewish man is prohibited from re-marrying his ex-wife or REQUIRES him to divorce him for sexual transgressions. However -- the similar Sharia practice is ENSHRINED in many many places. Likewise the Jewish wife is NOT obligated in any secular Western culture to culture to obtain a RELIGIOUS divorce before remarrying. IN FACT -- in the ONLY Jewish nation in the world -- Israel -- I DOUBT this is a REQUIREMENT. (could be wrong).
I'm not sure about that - or I'm misunderstanding you. In any secular Western culture - NO ONE is required to obtain a religious divorce before remarrying. That applies equally to Muslims, Jews, etc. However - within their own communities, that isn't necessarily the case - both Jews, Muslims (and Catholics) need a religious divorce if they are devout.
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
In Orthodox Judaism, a woman cannot obtain a divorce – and therefore cannot remarry – without her husband’s consent. Sometimes, in order to obtain money or attempt to stop a divorce, a husband will refuse to grant his wife a get, no matter how broken the marriage may be. In such cases, a beit din cannot divorce the couple. But both Perlman and Weissmann say that to sway an obstinate husband, rabbis may issue rulings calling on the community to exert social pressure on the man by, for example, barring him from the synagogue or protesting outside his home or workplace until he relents.
They can get divorced without it, but then they risk being ostracized from their community or family and unable to remarry within their community.
In Israel (again, if I am understanding it correctly), marriage and divorce are religous, governed by the doctrine of each of it's religious groups. For Jews, Israel's political system, despite being democratic, is still a religious system and marriage and divorce reside solely with religious authorities:
Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.
Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism. Similarly, children of adulterous and incestuous unions are restricted as to whom they can marry.
Up to 1999, any marriage council had the option to send a person to a Judaism test (Hebrew). A governing document[11] that defined rules of marriage had been finally concluded in 2001. Contrary to guidelines, some councils didn't fulfill the guideline; several petitions had been sent to the high court.[12] A research showed that 93.5% of people sent to Judaism test had been from the former Soviet Union and 83% of them succeeded and 10% left the process. In 2010 a final ruling defined that all immigrants after 1990 must go over a Judaism test.[citation needed]
However, Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel. It is usual for couples who may not or choose not to marry in Israel to travel overseas to marry.[13] One out of every ten Israelis who married in 2000 did so abroad mainly because they could not marry in Israel. 2,230 couples who married abroad consisted of two Israeli partners, and another 3,660 couples consisted of an Israeli and a non-Israeli partner.[13]
The issue of civil marriages is a major issue for secular Jews and members of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, who are required to meet the Orthodox standards to be able to marry in Israel.[14] There is a debate over whether civil marriages would divide the Jewish people in Israel by increasing interfaith marriages and marriages that do not meet halakhic requirements, and over the character of the Jewish state.
Divorce is similarly complicated and dictated by religious rules: Israel divorce law traps women in marriages that died long ago
Under the court's interpretation of Jewish religious law, a husband's, or wife's, consent is necessary to end a marriage. As has been the case for centuries, a Jewish divorce is not final in Israel until men deliver handwritten divorce decrees into the cupped hands of the women, who then must hold the paper aloft. A rabbi tears the document, called a get, into pieces, which are then filed for record-keeping.
The rabbis can order a reluctant spouse, usually a man, to grant the divorce, and Israel's parliament is considering a bill to expand the court's power to apply pressure. But if a spouse refuses to undertake the religious rite, the court says, it doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage.
Rabbis have upheld the need for consent even in cases where a man has abused his wife, disappeared, lied about his sexuality or molested their children.
There is no such thing as a secular marriage or divorce in any of Israel's religious communities.
Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?
In America -- this is matter between individuals and their RELIGIOUS authority. NEVER a matter of law. And the difference is I've never been aware of a Jewish movement to FORCE secular authorities to recognize their religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes. And while this is RARE in America for Muslims, it's been kicked out there as a proposal on a few occasions.. No different than the consequences of a ex-communication from the Catholic church for instance.
I agree with what I bolded.
Specifically though - when has there been ANY movement to force secular authorities to recognize Islamic religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes in the US? I haven't heard of any.
Really don't NEED to become a religious scholar to see where the REAL PROBLEM exists. THIS ---- is the center of the storm in America about sharia law.....
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It
(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.
North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.
The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.
In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.
Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.
In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.
Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.
So what's really happening in these threads is that folks you call "right-wingers" are actually taking the side of KEEPING govt in America secular. So hit them up on hypocrisy -- but don't try to tell them the ISSUE does not exist because "all religions" do it..
And BTW -- why is it that only "some" Islamic scholars argue for separation of state and religion?
But THOSE SAME RIGHT WINGERS (and keep in mind, I'm using this term scornfully because folks are using "leftwingers" in the same derogatory scornful manner) - are not REALLY interested in keeping America secular because they are the same one's who are typically supporting pro-religious "freedom" bills geared towards Christians. They are interested in keeping America Islam-free, not secular.
Lastly....is it only "some"....or, is this too, a reflection of culture?
That's why I'm amazed at the tone of this debate. I'm not a winger. But I suggest there's ample hypocrisy on BOTH sides. One side calling folks bigots for CARING if the USA remains a secular nation, while they should be JOINING in that cause. And t'other side whining about codifying religious law when THEY often cite the "christian values" of this nation should be enshrined into law.
THAT IS the debate. Has NOTHING to do with even CARING what the content of these religious codes are. They are implemented NO WHERE IN WORLD ---- except for Islam as part of Civil code. It's a CIVIL LAW debate.
As far as Jewish divorce law goes.. Folks need to deal with their OWN religious authorities. A family might "disown" you over a religious violation. This is NONE of my concern. It BECOMES my concern if they consider an "honor killing" to enforce it..
...I tend to agree. But I think for the most part (at least in the US) - people dealing with religious councels are dealing with their own religious authorities. The sticky point seems to be ... where does it cross the line? That's why it seems to me a just way to handle it would be to make any legally binding resolutions subject to ratification by a secular court.
So Tilly, specifically - how would you handle then, the balance between religious freedom and individual rights and protections?
Most of what Sharia councils are used for seem to be religious marriage, religious divorce, contracts, banking, dispute arbritration, matters involving doctrine - not criminal matters. How would those aspects be fairly dealt with for those who are truly religious?
Would you apply this "One Law" to all the independent religious arbitration councils or only the Islamic ones?
From: Judaism 101: Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all. By drawing these comparisons between various Religious codes you are actually hurting the proposition that there is nothing especially "weird or unusual" going in Islam.. Because the DIFFERENCE IS --- The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures.. Where is it given co-authority with whatever tyrannical forms of civil governments exist. Whereas in Western culture and places where both Judaism and Islam are practiced -- NONE of this matters a whit.
I disagree with your analysis of drawing comparisons. The comparison is valid, and this is why I think it is. Part of the argument against Sharia specifically, is that it is somehow UNIQUELY EVIL, that it's criminal codes are uniquely barbaric, and that because it is within the text of the religion, it is "unchangeable" (unlike other religions). This is stated over and over and it denies Islam the potential to evolve beyond a medievil interpretation. Almost the same rules exist in Halakah yet Judaism for the most part has moved into a modern view of it with exception of the ultra religious where it is incorporated into their daily fabric.
There is not a single Western culture where a Jewish man is prohibited from re-marrying his ex-wife or REQUIRES him to divorce him for sexual transgressions. However -- the similar Sharia practice is ENSHRINED in many many places. Likewise the Jewish wife is NOT obligated in any secular Western culture to culture to obtain a RELIGIOUS divorce before remarrying. IN FACT -- in the ONLY Jewish nation in the world -- Israel -- I DOUBT this is a REQUIREMENT. (could be wrong).
I'm not sure about that - or I'm misunderstanding you. In any secular Western culture - NO ONE is required to obtain a religious divorce before remarrying. That applies equally to Muslims, Jews, etc. However - within their own communities, that isn't necessarily the case - both Jews, Muslims (and Catholics) need a religious divorce if they are devout.
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
In Orthodox Judaism, a woman cannot obtain a divorce – and therefore cannot remarry – without her husband’s consent. Sometimes, in order to obtain money or attempt to stop a divorce, a husband will refuse to grant his wife a get, no matter how broken the marriage may be. In such cases, a beit din cannot divorce the couple. But both Perlman and Weissmann say that to sway an obstinate husband, rabbis may issue rulings calling on the community to exert social pressure on the man by, for example, barring him from the synagogue or protesting outside his home or workplace until he relents.
They can get divorced without it, but then they risk being ostracized from their community or family and unable to remarry within their community.
In Israel (again, if I am understanding it correctly), marriage and divorce are religous, governed by the doctrine of each of it's religious groups. For Jews, Israel's political system, despite being democratic, is still a religious system and marriage and divorce reside solely with religious authorities:
Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.
Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism. Similarly, children of adulterous and incestuous unions are restricted as to whom they can marry.
Up to 1999, any marriage council had the option to send a person to a Judaism test (Hebrew). A governing document[11] that defined rules of marriage had been finally concluded in 2001. Contrary to guidelines, some councils didn't fulfill the guideline; several petitions had been sent to the high court.[12] A research showed that 93.5% of people sent to Judaism test had been from the former Soviet Union and 83% of them succeeded and 10% left the process. In 2010 a final ruling defined that all immigrants after 1990 must go over a Judaism test.[citation needed]
However, Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel. It is usual for couples who may not or choose not to marry in Israel to travel overseas to marry.[13] One out of every ten Israelis who married in 2000 did so abroad mainly because they could not marry in Israel. 2,230 couples who married abroad consisted of two Israeli partners, and another 3,660 couples consisted of an Israeli and a non-Israeli partner.[13]
The issue of civil marriages is a major issue for secular Jews and members of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, who are required to meet the Orthodox standards to be able to marry in Israel.[14] There is a debate over whether civil marriages would divide the Jewish people in Israel by increasing interfaith marriages and marriages that do not meet halakhic requirements, and over the character of the Jewish state.
Divorce is similarly complicated and dictated by religious rules: Israel divorce law traps women in marriages that died long ago
Under the court's interpretation of Jewish religious law, a husband's, or wife's, consent is necessary to end a marriage. As has been the case for centuries, a Jewish divorce is not final in Israel until men deliver handwritten divorce decrees into the cupped hands of the women, who then must hold the paper aloft. A rabbi tears the document, called a get, into pieces, which are then filed for record-keeping.
The rabbis can order a reluctant spouse, usually a man, to grant the divorce, and Israel's parliament is considering a bill to expand the court's power to apply pressure. But if a spouse refuses to undertake the religious rite, the court says, it doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage.
Rabbis have upheld the need for consent even in cases where a man has abused his wife, disappeared, lied about his sexuality or molested their children.
There is no such thing as a secular marriage or divorce in any of Israel's religious communities.
Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?
In America -- this is matter between individuals and their RELIGIOUS authority. NEVER a matter of law. And the difference is I've never been aware of a Jewish movement to FORCE secular authorities to recognize their religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes. And while this is RARE in America for Muslims, it's been kicked out there as a proposal on a few occasions.. No different than the consequences of a ex-communication from the Catholic church for instance.
I agree with what I bolded.
Specifically though - when has there been ANY movement to force secular authorities to recognize Islamic religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes in the US? I haven't heard of any.
Really don't NEED to become a religious scholar to see where the REAL PROBLEM exists. THIS ---- is the center of the storm in America about sharia law.....
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It
(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.
North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.
The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.
In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.
Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.
In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.
Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.
So what's really happening in these threads is that folks you call "right-wingers" are actually taking the side of KEEPING govt in America secular. So hit them up on hypocrisy -- but don't try to tell them the ISSUE does not exist because "all religions" do it..
And BTW -- why is it that only "some" Islamic scholars argue for separation of state and religion?
But THOSE SAME RIGHT WINGERS (and keep in mind, I'm using this term scornfully because folks are using "leftwingers" in the same derogatory scornful manner) - are not REALLY interested in keeping America secular because they are the same one's who are typically supporting pro-religious "freedom" bills geared towards Christians. They are interested in keeping America Islam-free, not secular.
Lastly....is it only "some"....or, is this too, a reflection of culture?
That's why I'm amazed at the tone of this debate. I'm not a winger. But I suggest there's ample hypocrisy on BOTH sides. One side calling folks bigots for CARING if the USA remains a secular nation, while they should be JOINING in that cause. And t'other side whining about codifying religious law when THEY often cite the "christian values" of this nation should be enshrined into law.
THAT IS the debate. Has NOTHING to do with even CARING what the content of these religious codes are. They are implemented NO WHERE IN WORLD ---- except for Islam as part of Civil code. It's a CIVIL LAW debate.
As far as Jewish divorce law goes.. Folks need to deal with their OWN religious authorities. A family might "disown" you over a religious violation. This is NONE of my concern. It BECOMES my concern if they consider an "honor killing" to enforce it..
You think a County Judge ought to be "ratifying" something that is contrary to Civil Code? Not gonna happen in America likely. Now HOW all those "religious courts" operate and IF they operate as actual LEGAL mediators is another issue. 
