CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[flacaltenn]

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

The discussion here is about what American Muslims want.

Some want mediation services like those used by Jews and Catholics and Christians.

Most don't.

As long as those practices do not violate U.S. law, then Americans are free- and should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. And that includes working within their religion to resolve disputes.

Polling and Analysis

April 8, 2013
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”

Here's the diff. And it has NOTHING to do with the SCOPE or CONTENT of any of these religious laws. It's a matter of trust actually.

Americans TRUST that Catholics/Jews are largely confining themselves to things like anullments and financial disputes that are no where near CRIMINAL matters. And as the material you ppreviously provided stated, Both those organizations have PUBLISHED principles that state they are informed by Civil law.

I don't trust Scientologists to hold hearing s concerning locking up a person's assets as a tool to keep them in the r"religiion"".. Similarly -- I have valid concerns about Muslim immigrant communities attempting to djudicate things that CLEARLY should come before normal publicCRIMINAL procedeeding. Things like spouse abuse, rape, arranged marriages, and prostittuitution..

I'm down with 2nd /3rd gen. AMERICAN Muslims not hiding these CRIMINAL issues in the Mosque. But for RECENT immigrants who have always expected Sharia justice as part of their culture and KNOW NO OTHER WAY -- it is a dangerous preceedent to purposely turn a blind eye and not MONITOR the scope of these mediations. This type of accommodation is PREVALENT in leftist enclaves. Like Euro city centers and San Francisco. Where in San Francisco -- they simply thumb their noses at the civil law in favor of accommodating SERIOUS criminal alien illegals.

Apologize for the typing/spelling. My USMB pages are pretty slow and hosed up right now..

 

[Coyote]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes -- many Civil judges have gone over the line to consider "foreign" law in regards to ATTEMPTING to validate or dismiss some of these religious settlements. And there are cases of where actual crimes are being hidden and "handled internally" rather than launching them in the proper CIVIL proceedings.


See my comments above to Syriously. It is NOT an issue for long-time AMERICAN muslims and are accepting and committed to following CIVIL law. But it WILL encourage isolation, crime, and SEPARATE justice for Americans. Just like it has in Europe where entire enclaves are largely IGNORED by the sovereign justice systems/police there. Largely because they think they are compassionate leftists, but also because those immigrants are their "Mexicans" and not seen as equal under the law anyway.....

 

[Coyote]

THere is virtually NO catholic or jewish religious law "councils" in America that are solving issues in conflict with CIVIL law and the liberties of Americans. Name a few for me. Name ONE that has ever attempted to enforce a "religious ruling:" in conflict with American law.

I was thinking about this last night...and you know there ARE cases where that has happened. The largest and by far most egregious in terms of shear numbers is the Catholic scandal involving the handling of it's pedophile priests. All of that was handled strictly under canonical law when it should have been turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution.

 

[flacaltenn]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

Let's start on the obvious --- do you trust Scientology to handle family matters and financial settlements? You "think" MAYBE there's more going on there in matters of "religious law"? Should we be concerned? OF COURSE.

So -- what do you think a 1000 BRAND NEW syrian immigrants dropped out in Peoria might expect from their Mosque and muslim community leaders in terms of adjudicating things that IN THIS country should ALWAYS be criminal matters -- or MORE than mundane Civil disputes?

Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?

That "religious court" WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH -- to avoid cultural immersion. And I simply don't TRUST that it won't because of the CULTURAL differences are to freaking enormous..

 

[Asclepias]

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...

I've been living next door to a Muslim family for the past decade and they seem to be pretty normal people to me.

I think your neighbor was one of those who wouldn't want to go to a sharia court


As far as the muslims who are looking for the "guidance" of a sharia court are concerned, I just would like to remind them; do they like how secular law overwrites their sharia law?

Maybe should be the same, back there... where they came from...

I am just saying, when I get the opportunity... and enjoy saying it too...

I'll ask him tomorrow and see what he says.

Do you know what country he is from?

He is from Pakistan. He is a Sunni Muslim. I talked to him this morning and he told me that most americans are seriously ignorant when it comes to Sharia law. Its in any community that has a sizable Muslim population and he name several cities where they actually run the city. They wont do anything that oversteps US/state/local law. He likened it to what the Amish do in their communities.

 

[Coyote]

Yes -- many Civil judges have gone over the line to consider "foreign" law in regards to ATTEMPTING to validate or dismiss some of these religious settlements. And there are cases of where actual crimes are being hidden and "handled internally" rather than launching them in the proper CIVIL proceedings.


See my comments above to Syriously. It is NOT an issue for long-time AMERICAN muslims and are accepting and committed to following CIVIL law. But it WILL encourage isolation, crime, and SEPARATE justice for Americans. Just like it has in Europe where entire enclaves are largely IGNORED by the sovereign justice systems/police there. Largely because they think they are compassionate leftists, but also because those immigrants are their "Mexicans" and not seen as equal under the law anyway.....

I am not so sure it will if it is so limited in scope. The Jewish rabbinical councils in the US have been in operation for a long long time. Did it encourage isolation, crime and seperate justice for Americans during the huge flood of jewish immigrants from Russia and East Europe? They had their own communities, their own yiddish language newspapers, their conservative religion - they were accused of being insular and "not assimilating" but they did.

I think all of these seperate councils should not have the force of law but otherwise their fine if people choose to use them to resolve religious issues - how else can they do it?

How can you justify more oversight for ONE and not ALL? You really can't.

 

[Arianrhod]

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

How does this jibe with the narrative that "all Jews vote Democrat"?

It does amaze me that the Trumpsters in particular haven't exploited Sanders' cultural identity (he's non-religious, but that wouldn't make a difference to them), but IMO there are two reasons for that. One is that they assume Hillary will be the nominee, so why bother with him?

The other is that the RW has so profoundly conflated being pro-Israel, no matter what, with labeling anyone who takes issue with certain Israeli government actions as an "anti-Semite," that they can't exactly exploit the alte kaker's origins without looking [more] foolish [than usual].

Unless, of course, he were to win the nomination, and then they'd be polishing their jackboots.

 

[Coyote]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

Hey - I LOVE Bernie - he got my vote! Everyone knows he's a Jew, I'm not conflicted because he, as a person has a shitload of integrity and a consistent unvarying message

Let's start on the obvious --- do you trust Scientology to handle family matters and financial settlements? You "think" MAYBE there's more going on there in matters of "religious law"? Should we be concerned? OF COURSE.

So -- what do you think a 1000 BRAND NEW syrian immigrants dropped out in Peoria might expect from their Mosque and muslim community leaders in terms of adjudicating things that IN THIS country should ALWAYS be criminal matters -- or MORE than mundane Civil disputes?

Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?

I think I've made it clear that these religious "mediations" are ONLY for civil matters - NOT for criminal matters. Domestic abuse is CRIMINAL and should be turned over to the secular authorities without question. Just like the pedophile priests. I've never said otherwise.

Here's the thing. Big worry with Islamic religious rulings on civil situations is with domestic abuse. If it's suspected, it should be reported to the proper SECULAR authorities. But lets look at the situation in perspective.

Many religious people are reluctant to divorce because the major religions frown upon it. Women are "encouraged" to stand by their man and...violence is somehow the victims fault. Usually, the first option is to go to one's religious authority - priest, imam, rabbi for marital counseling or, if seeking a religious divorce - counseling is first suggested and it really is often helpful in working through disputes particularly if both members are religious.

There is this implied assumption that Islam is uniquely brutal to women and that therefore religious counseling can not possibly be done in such a way that benefits the woman. That's a stereotype that ignores the reality of domestic abuse in this country which is that it can occur anywhere to any person. Reporting it can occur but if the woman refuses to press charges or even go to the police - what then?

There is good religious counseling and there is bad religious counseling, and in another post - not sure if it was in this thread - it's quite clear that in Britain at least, the quality of advice given to women is all over the board. One of the common complaints - not just of Islamic counseling, but also in Catholic and Jewish groups also, is that domestic abuse is not reported and couples are encouraged to stay together because the cultural proscription against divorce is so strong.

So what are you going to do with these people and, if denied a religious avenue - what will you give them that is acceptable and not an infringement of state into religion? And I mean not just Muslim women, but Orthodox Jews and Catholics. Observent Orthodox Jewish women, even if abused are in the same position as observent Muslim women - Jewish women can not get a religious divorce without her husband providing the "get". Islamic women CAN - but, may not know it (bad advising) or they have pay money they don't have if the man controls the purse so they too are stuck.

What is a win - win situation where vulnerable women can be identified and helped, and those people who need a religious avenue can get what they need?

There are a lot of strategies that are possibly more effective then outright bans and that don't cross the freedom of religion line - for example: American Orthodox Jewish Women and Domestic Violence: An Intervention Design | University of Chicago - SSA

That "religious court" WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH -- to avoid cultural immersion. And I simply don't TRUST that it won't because of the CULTURAL differences are to freaking enormous..

Do you have any evidence that this is causing a lack of "cultural immersion" in the US?

Cultural immersion doesn't and never has meant giving up one's religion - it means accommodating it to the cultural norms of the country you are now a citizen of and inevitably, over several generations that has happened in this country regardless of dire warnings.

Do you realize that the argument on "cultural differences" is the same one that has been used on other immigrant groups? Yet, they assimilated.

Wouldn't simply mandating that religious rulings have NO FORCE OF LAW without a secular court backing resolve the main problem which is protecting vulnerable people?

 

[Coyote]

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.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Jewish courts and Catholic courts didn't lead to 'ghettos' in the United States. Nor do Christian arbitration and mediation services

Peacemaker Ministries is a non-profit, non-denominational ministry whose mission is to equip and assist Christians and their churches to respond to conflict biblically. We provide conflict coaching, mediation and arbitration services to help resolve lawsuits, family conflicts, business disputes, and church divisions. Our training services include seminars, conflict coaching training, mediation training, advanced mediation and arbitration training for conciliators and church leaders working within their churches, as well as training for individuals conducting more formal and complex proceedings.


Similar mediation centers provide such services to Jews:
The dayanim who sit on cases include leading authorities on Jewish law, as well as lawyers and businessmen who are familiar with secular law and contemporary commercial practices. When appropriate, the Beth Din will either include expert professionals on an arbitration panel, or consult them as expert witnesses. Cases are decided under Jewish law, through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and secular law.

Prior to having a case heard by the Beth Din, litigants are required to enter into a binding arbitration agreement. The Beth Din conducts its proceedings in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of secular arbitration law, so that the rulings of the Beth Din are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system.


So what is so threatening about non-binding arbitration and mediation services?

Perfect example. In both cases, the mediation is done WITH CONSIDERATION of Civil law. As it says for the Beth Din --- ''through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and SECULAR law".. I also want some assurance that PARTICIPATION is not coerced in any way.

Get the Sharia counsels to include THAT kind of language and we can all let this go and focus on Trump/Hilliary.

Great post.. .

Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.

According to Bambach, many U.S. Muslims take marital and other problems to local imams and ask them to use sharia principles to resolve the disputes. But because there is no single credentialing organization or centralized hierarchy for American imams, there also are no standard procedures for dispute resolution, she says.


Abed Awad, an attorney in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., who is an expert on sharia, says the ground rules for dispute resolution are often set by the imam and other participants in an ad hoc manner at the beginning of each case. “These things tend to spring up as the need arises,” he says.


According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”


Eid follows the same procedure. “Today you have to mix modern and Islamic law,” he says.​

 

[320 Years of History]

He likened it to what the Amish do in their communities.

Excellent comparison.

 

[flacaltenn]

THere is virtually NO catholic or jewish religious law "councils" in America that are solving issues in conflict with CIVIL law and the liberties of Americans. Name a few for me. Name ONE that has ever attempted to enforce a "religious ruling:" in conflict with American law.

I was thinking about this last night...and you know there ARE cases where that has happened. The largest and by far most egregious in terms of shear numbers is the Catholic scandal involving the handling of it's pedophile priests. All of that was handled strictly under canonical law when it should have been turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution.

Good catch -- but what happened there was just failure to REPORT crimes. NOT justified by anything Jesus taught I would guess. Same deal as the Penn State authorities as far as I'm concerned. Just attempting to hide it..

Which IS ANOTHER valid concern when you have a large IMMIGRANT community trying to solve problems the way they did in the "old country". Not reporting and STFU IS also a matter of public trust.

All that has to happen here is for AMERICAN Muslim clergy to certify that their counseling and mediation will not attempt to handle Criminal or serious Civil cases. And that they will take local Civil Law into account in all their "verdicts". AND ideally that they will report or ENCOURAGE the reporting of such instances of Civil crimes committed that are REVEALED thru these mediations to authorities.

 

[flacaltenn]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

Hey - I LOVE Bernie - he got my vote! Everyone knows he's a Jew, I'm not conflicted because he, as a person has a shitload of integrity and a consistent unvarying message

Let's start on the obvious --- do you trust Scientology to handle family matters and financial settlements? You "think" MAYBE there's more going on there in matters of "religious law"? Should we be concerned? OF COURSE.

So -- what do you think a 1000 BRAND NEW syrian immigrants dropped out in Peoria might expect from their Mosque and muslim community leaders in terms of adjudicating things that IN THIS country should ALWAYS be criminal matters -- or MORE than mundane Civil disputes?

Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?

I think I've made it clear that these religious "mediations" are ONLY for civil matters - NOT for criminal matters. Domestic abuse is CRIMINAL and should be turned over to the secular authorities without question. Just like the pedophile priests. I've never said otherwise.

Here's the thing. Big worry with Islamic religious rulings on civil situations is with domestic abuse. If it's suspected, it should be reported to the proper SECULAR authorities. But lets look at the situation in perspective.

Many religious people are reluctant to divorce because the major religions frown upon it. Women are "encouraged" to stand by their man and...violence is somehow the victims fault. Usually, the first option is to go to one's religious authority - priest, imam, rabbi for marital counseling or, if seeking a religious divorce - counseling is first suggested and it really is often helpful in working through disputes particularly if both members are religious.

There is this implied assumption that Islam is uniquely brutal to women and that therefore religious counseling can not possibly be done in such a way that benefits the woman. That's a stereotype that ignores the reality of domestic abuse in this country which is that it can occur anywhere to any person. Reporting it can occur but if the woman refuses to press charges or even go to the police - what then?

There is good religious counseling and there is bad religious counseling, and in another post - not sure if it was in this thread - it's quite clear that in Britain at least, the quality of advice given to women is all over the board. One of the common complaints - not just of Islamic counseling, but also in Catholic and Jewish groups also, is that domestic abuse is not reported and couples are encouraged to stay together because the cultural proscription against divorce is so strong.

So what are you going to do with these people and, if denied a religious avenue - what will you give them that is acceptable and not an infringement of state into religion? And I mean not just Muslim women, but Orthodox Jews and Catholics. Observent Orthodox Jewish women, even if abused are in the same position as observent Muslim women - Jewish women can not get a religious divorce without her husband providing the "get". Islamic women CAN - but, may not know it (bad advising) or they have pay money they don't have if the man controls the purse so they too are stuck.

What is a win - win situation where vulnerable women can be identified and helped, and those people who need a religious avenue can get what they need?

There are a lot of strategies that are possibly more effective then outright bans and that don't cross the freedom of religion line - for example: American Orthodox Jewish Women and Domestic Violence: An Intervention Design | University of Chicago - SSA

That "religious court" WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH -- to avoid cultural immersion. And I simply don't TRUST that it won't because of the CULTURAL differences are to freaking enormous..

Do you have any evidence that this is causing a lack of "cultural immersion" in the US?

Cultural immersion doesn't and never has meant giving up one's religion - it means accommodating it to the cultural norms of the country you are now a citizen of and inevitably, over several generations that has happened in this country regardless of dire warnings.

Do you realize that the argument on "cultural differences" is the same one that has been used on other immigrant groups? Yet, they assimilated.

Wouldn't simply mandating that religious rulings have NO FORCE OF LAW without a secular court backing resolve the main problem which is protecting vulnerable people?

you are on the right track. And appreciate the effort to BUILD the trust that is required for tolerance of religious practices.

I could certainly produce the evidence that there are attempts to handle criminal matters as they were handled in the "old country". Unlike those Catholic authorities who didn't USE religious law to justify their decision not to report criminal or serious civil matters to authorities -- there is a clear danger that Sharia WOULD be used to counsel women (EG) to place the sanctity of the Islamic family ABOVE their rights as American citizens. OR to justify not reporting that son or daughter who has been radicalized and seeks to go fight with ISIS in the Sinai.

I'll go fetch your "evidence" after I'm done moving a couple ton of wall rock from one place to another in my yard. Consider it a religiously imposed penalty for disagreeing with you.. Hope you're happy.

 

[Syriusly]

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

The discussion here is about what American Muslims want.

Some want mediation services like those used by Jews and Catholics and Christians.

Most don't.

As long as those practices do not violate U.S. law, then Americans are free- and should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. And that includes working within their religion to resolve disputes.

Polling and Analysis

April 8, 2013
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”

Here's the diff. And it has NOTHING to do with the SCOPE or CONTENT of any of these religious laws. It's a matter of trust actually.

Americans TRUST that Catholics/Jews are largely confining themselves to things like anullments and financial disputes that are no where near CRIMINAL matters...

And since when do you speak for all Americans or even any other Americans other than yourself?

What you are saying is really nothing more than a religious bias.

And since when in America do we allow a bias for or against any religion to determine how we treat the people who follow that religion?

Whether you trust Catholics or Jews more than you trust Muslims is immaterial.

They all have the same rights under the Constitution.

You find examples of abuse of religious courts- criminal or civil abuse- and regardless of what religion it is, and I will be glad to condemn it.

But what I can condemn right now is an argument that we should treat one religious group differently in America because you have decided that you don't trust them as much.

 

[Coyote]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

Hey - I LOVE Bernie - he got my vote! Everyone knows he's a Jew, I'm not conflicted because he, as a person has a shitload of integrity and a consistent unvarying message

Let's start on the obvious --- do you trust Scientology to handle family matters and financial settlements? You "think" MAYBE there's more going on there in matters of "religious law"? Should we be concerned? OF COURSE.

So -- what do you think a 1000 BRAND NEW syrian immigrants dropped out in Peoria might expect from their Mosque and muslim community leaders in terms of adjudicating things that IN THIS country should ALWAYS be criminal matters -- or MORE than mundane Civil disputes?

Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?

I think I've made it clear that these religious "mediations" are ONLY for civil matters - NOT for criminal matters. Domestic abuse is CRIMINAL and should be turned over to the secular authorities without question. Just like the pedophile priests. I've never said otherwise.

Here's the thing. Big worry with Islamic religious rulings on civil situations is with domestic abuse. If it's suspected, it should be reported to the proper SECULAR authorities. But lets look at the situation in perspective.

Many religious people are reluctant to divorce because the major religions frown upon it. Women are "encouraged" to stand by their man and...violence is somehow the victims fault. Usually, the first option is to go to one's religious authority - priest, imam, rabbi for marital counseling or, if seeking a religious divorce - counseling is first suggested and it really is often helpful in working through disputes particularly if both members are religious.

There is this implied assumption that Islam is uniquely brutal to women and that therefore religious counseling can not possibly be done in such a way that benefits the woman. That's a stereotype that ignores the reality of domestic abuse in this country which is that it can occur anywhere to any person. Reporting it can occur but if the woman refuses to press charges or even go to the police - what then?

There is good religious counseling and there is bad religious counseling, and in another post - not sure if it was in this thread - it's quite clear that in Britain at least, the quality of advice given to women is all over the board. One of the common complaints - not just of Islamic counseling, but also in Catholic and Jewish groups also, is that domestic abuse is not reported and couples are encouraged to stay together because the cultural proscription against divorce is so strong.

So what are you going to do with these people and, if denied a religious avenue - what will you give them that is acceptable and not an infringement of state into religion? And I mean not just Muslim women, but Orthodox Jews and Catholics. Observent Orthodox Jewish women, even if abused are in the same position as observent Muslim women - Jewish women can not get a religious divorce without her husband providing the "get". Islamic women CAN - but, may not know it (bad advising) or they have pay money they don't have if the man controls the purse so they too are stuck.

What is a win - win situation where vulnerable women can be identified and helped, and those people who need a religious avenue can get what they need?

There are a lot of strategies that are possibly more effective then outright bans and that don't cross the freedom of religion line - for example: American Orthodox Jewish Women and Domestic Violence: An Intervention Design | University of Chicago - SSA

That "religious court" WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH -- to avoid cultural immersion. And I simply don't TRUST that it won't because of the CULTURAL differences are to freaking enormous..

Do you have any evidence that this is causing a lack of "cultural immersion" in the US?

Cultural immersion doesn't and never has meant giving up one's religion - it means accommodating it to the cultural norms of the country you are now a citizen of and inevitably, over several generations that has happened in this country regardless of dire warnings.

Do you realize that the argument on "cultural differences" is the same one that has been used on other immigrant groups? Yet, they assimilated.

Wouldn't simply mandating that religious rulings have NO FORCE OF LAW without a secular court backing resolve the main problem which is protecting vulnerable people?

you are on the right track. And appreciate the effort to BUILD the trust that is required for tolerance of religious practices.

I could certainly produce the evidence that there are attempts to handle criminal matters as they were handled in the "old country". Unlike those Catholic authorities who didn't USE religious law to justify their decision not to report criminal or serious civil matters to authorities -- there is a clear danger that Sharia WOULD be used to counsel women (EG) to place the sanctity of the Islamic family ABOVE their rights as American citizens. OR to justify not reporting that son or daughter who has been radicalized and seeks to go fight with ISIS in the Sinai.

I'll go fetch your "evidence" after I'm done moving a couple ton of wall rock from one place to another in my yard. Consider it a religiously imposed penalty for disagreeing with you.. Hope you're happy.

umh....you can have some of my m&m's....at no charge...

I think the "not reporting" radicalization is complicated - many are not aware of what is happening until it's too late, ISIS is supremely good at "grooming" and I would liken their methods to a pedophile ring in that respect.

What needs to be done and is being done is Imams and people within their community banding together to identify vulnerable youth, come up with strategies to deflect ISIS propoganda and help young people resist it.

Another aspect is - what will happen to their children if they are reported to authorities? Are they faced with the prospect of losing them to ISIS vs losing them to the prison system? For a parent, this must be a horrible choice and, if they are immigrants from countries with corrupt and brutal regimes, they are going to have a difficult time trusting authorities.

There is not an easy answer here and my heart breaks for the parents - every time they lose a child to this group. Once they leave the US, there gone. There is no sure and safe way to bring them in that I'm aware of - it's a tricky and horrible situation.

 

[Syriusly]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

Hey - I LOVE Bernie - he got my vote! Everyone knows he's a Jew, I'm not conflicted because he, as a person has a shitload of integrity and a consistent unvarying message

Let's start on the obvious --- do you trust Scientology to handle family matters and financial settlements? You "think" MAYBE there's more going on there in matters of "religious law"? Should we be concerned? OF COURSE.

So -- what do you think a 1000 BRAND NEW syrian immigrants dropped out in Peoria might expect from their Mosque and muslim community leaders in terms of adjudicating things that IN THIS country should ALWAYS be criminal matters -- or MORE than mundane Civil disputes?

Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?

I think I've made it clear that these religious "mediations" are ONLY for civil matters - NOT for criminal matters. Domestic abuse is CRIMINAL and should be turned over to the secular authorities without question. Just like the pedophile priests. I've never said otherwise.

Here's the thing. Big worry with Islamic religious rulings on civil situations is with domestic abuse. If it's suspected, it should be reported to the proper SECULAR authorities. But lets look at the situation in perspective.

Many religious people are reluctant to divorce because the major religions frown upon it. Women are "encouraged" to stand by their man and...violence is somehow the victims fault. Usually, the first option is to go to one's religious authority - priest, imam, rabbi for marital counseling or, if seeking a religious divorce - counseling is first suggested and it really is often helpful in working through disputes particularly if both members are religious.

There is this implied assumption that Islam is uniquely brutal to women and that therefore religious counseling can not possibly be done in such a way that benefits the woman. That's a stereotype that ignores the reality of domestic abuse in this country which is that it can occur anywhere to any person. Reporting it can occur but if the woman refuses to press charges or even go to the police - what then?

There is good religious counseling and there is bad religious counseling, and in another post - not sure if it was in this thread - it's quite clear that in Britain at least, the quality of advice given to women is all over the board. One of the common complaints - not just of Islamic counseling, but also in Catholic and Jewish groups also, is that domestic abuse is not reported and couples are encouraged to stay together because the cultural proscription against divorce is so strong.

So what are you going to do with these people and, if denied a religious avenue - what will you give them that is acceptable and not an infringement of state into religion? And I mean not just Muslim women, but Orthodox Jews and Catholics. Observent Orthodox Jewish women, even if abused are in the same position as observent Muslim women - Jewish women can not get a religious divorce without her husband providing the "get". Islamic women CAN - but, may not know it (bad advising) or they have pay money they don't have if the man controls the purse so they too are stuck.

What is a win - win situation where vulnerable women can be identified and helped, and those people who need a religious avenue can get what they need?

There are a lot of strategies that are possibly more effective then outright bans and that don't cross the freedom of religion line - for example: American Orthodox Jewish Women and Domestic Violence: An Intervention Design | University of Chicago - SSA

That "religious court" WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH -- to avoid cultural immersion. And I simply don't TRUST that it won't because of the CULTURAL differences are to freaking enormous..

Do you have any evidence that this is causing a lack of "cultural immersion" in the US?

Cultural immersion doesn't and never has meant giving up one's religion - it means accommodating it to the cultural norms of the country you are now a citizen of and inevitably, over several generations that has happened in this country regardless of dire warnings.

Do you realize that the argument on "cultural differences" is the same one that has been used on other immigrant groups? Yet, they assimilated.

Wouldn't simply mandating that religious rulings have NO FORCE OF LAW without a secular court backing resolve the main problem which is protecting vulnerable people?

you are on the right track. And appreciate the effort to BUILD the trust that is required for tolerance of religious practices.

Why do you argue that anything is required for the tolerance of religious practices in America/

The tolerance of religious practices is as American as free speech or the right to own a gun.

I certainly don't argue that gun owners need to build trust in order for me to tolerate their gun ownership.

Why would you argue that anyone is obligated to 'build trust' for something that we should all extend- until proven otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...
..

I thought this was the Clean Debate Zone?

That statement is as stupid as saying that the reason a lot of the far right oppose Bernie is because he is a Jew.

The thread has been reasonably non-partisan so far- lets keep it that way.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?
..

As I and others have pointed out many times- no one- including no Muslims we have quoted- have suggested that religious mediation can be used to avoid criminal prosecution.

Guy beats his wife- he should be arrested, and his wife should be offered support.

What you are concerned about is not Sharia law- but cultural isolation. An issue that we have dealt with dozens of immigrants groups through our history in the United States- and never has it been harder for a group to stay truly isolated here than it is now. It can be done- but its much harder than it used to be

 

[Syriusly]

[
All that has to happen here is for AMERICAN Muslim clergy to certify that their counseling and mediation will not attempt to handle Criminal or serious Civil cases. And that they will take local Civil Law into account in all their "verdicts". AND ideally that they will report or ENCOURAGE the reporting of such instances of Civil crimes committed that are REVEALED thru these mediations to authorities.

Or what?

I understand what you want- and we have provided quotes to you from American Muslim clergy that have clearly stated that their rulings are not handling Criminal matters and are none binding- and that all of their rulings are subject to Federal, State and local laws.

But why would they take local Civil law into account in their 'verdicts'? The Catholic Church doesn't care whether a couple can divorce according to Civil Law- they still will not allow that couple to divorce according to the Catholic Church.

And reporting sounds good- but remember- Catholic priests are forbidden to reveal what is told to them in confession- and cannot by law be compelled to.

Why again do you seem to think that Muslims should be held to a different standard than every other religious group?

 

[alpine]

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...

I've been living next door to a Muslim family for the past decade and they seem to be pretty normal people to me.

I think your neighbor was one of those who wouldn't want to go to a sharia court


As far as the muslims who are looking for the "guidance" of a sharia court are concerned, I just would like to remind them; do they like how secular law overwrites their sharia law?

Maybe should be the same, back there... where they came from...

I am just saying, when I get the opportunity... and enjoy saying it too...

I'll ask him tomorrow and see what he says.

Do you know what country he is from?

He is from Pakistan. He is a Sunni Muslim. I talked to him this morning and he told me that most americans are seriously ignorant when it comes to Sharia law. Its in any community that has a sizable Muslim population and he name several cities where they actually run the city. They wont do anything that oversteps US/state/local law. He likened it to what the Amish do in their communities.

Pakistan eh...

Ahmadiyya muslims in Pakistan are declared "heretics" and prosecuted by the state and denied their basic human rights by the government. And if ahmadiyyas didnt like the treatment of constantly being murdered and ridiculed by the state, and wanted to leave,... ops....., they cant, because government deny their human right to acquire a passport, because, well, they are not considered as citizens, since they are lesser people with their heretic religion....

Here is "sharia" for you, with no sugar coating tho...


And none of this has anything to do with the amish people, nor Americans being ignorant about sharia or not.



The whole point is; islamists in this country see themselves worthy of enjoying the luxury to practice their religion freely, to the point of enjoying sharia courts...

but;
apparently nobody else is worthy enough to enjoy anything similar, back in their home town (except of course, islamists themselves) so they see no problem voting for their islamist parties promoting anti-secular sharia laws... a sharia law which has not been curbed by a secular western law... a full blown sharia...

To a Pakistani islamist living in the United States of America, this is how worthless people in Pakistan are...
Same with most other muslim majority states around the world.


I have plenty words to describe such a world view... And none of em are nice...