The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-04-2012, 10:50 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
To think that one person with a robe might judge based on it..... not so much.
Muslim judges are rare in this country, and no other conceivably would be influenced by Sharia except at all parties' request.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:20 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 20,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Anyway, it's not as though there was ever a real chance of the UK becoming a communist state.
It came quite close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Central America was in large part a reaction to US policies. Sort of like stretching a rubber band too far...
Except, of course that US policies were in response to Soviet aggression and subversion.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:29 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Its interesting to me how the word "jihad" so closely resembles "struggle". It can mean, and does when used in the context, the sort of forced conversion by conquest that popular ignorance has fixed upon. But not necessarily.

"Struggle" is a word near and dear to hearts of old-timey Marxist lefties, when they wore a collective onion on their proletariat belt, as in "The struggle of class against class is a political struggle." It was also commonly used in more direct and personal ways, as in "argument". A group of Marxists arguing an arcane point of Marxist theory were often (self-described) as engaging in a "struggle". Typically, it was used by one side of the argument or the other as an inference about the opposing view, that one was engaged in a "struggle" with bourgeois elements seeking to dampen the solidarity of the revolutionary cadres blah blah blah. It was also used, though less frequently, as a personal reference, an internal "struggle" to reach to correct political line.

Same with"jihad". It can mean, and does mean, the sort of theocratic force it is usually defined as. But it also means an internal "struggle" to find the true path to Allah. One is engaged in "jihad" as one contemplates one's failings as a Muslim, as one "struggles" to overcome doubt and complacency.

This is fairly interesting, which is why I dragged you along on this diversion. The worry about judges ruling by Sharia law in American courts, by comparison, isn't interesting. Unless "silly" means the same thing as "interesting". And sometimes it does! Just not this time.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-04-2012, 12:59 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Its interesting to me how the word "jihad" so closely resembles "struggle". It can mean, and does when used in the context, the sort of forced conversion by conquest that popular ignorance has fixed upon. But not necessarily.

"Struggle" is a word near and dear to hearts of old-timey Marxist lefties, when they wore a collective onion on their proletariat belt, as in "The struggle of class against class is a political struggle." It was also commonly used in more direct and personal ways, as in "argument". A group of Marxists arguing an arcane point of Marxist theory were often (self-described) as engaging in a "struggle". Typically, it was used by one side of the argument or the other as an inference about the opposing view, that one was engaged in a "struggle" with bourgeois elements seeking to dampen the solidarity of the revolutionary cadres blah blah blah. It was also used, though less frequently, as a personal reference, an internal "struggle" to reach to correct political line.

Same with"jihad". It can mean, and does mean, the sort of theocratic force it is usually defined as. But it also means an internal "struggle" to find the true path to Allah. One is engaged in "jihad" as one contemplates one's failings as a Muslim, as one "struggles" to overcome doubt and complacency.

This is fairly interesting, which is why I dragged you along on this diversion. The worry about judges ruling by Sharia law in American courts, by comparison, isn't interesting. Unless "silly" means the same thing as "interesting". And sometimes it does! Just not this time.
Nitpick: Actually, "struggle" was always a sexual euphemism and Marxism was always a Libertine cult. I dunno how those horny Marxists ever got a reputation for being political or some shit. As for "jihad," I think it has something to do with pretty-boys, you know the Arabs.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-04-2012, 05:45 PM
OurLordPeace OurLordPeace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It came quite close.



Except, of course that US policies were in response to Soviet aggression and subversion.
On the contrary. The United States supported every right-wing tyrant in Latin America from the moment of those countries' independence(s), with economic and political consequences we still see today. Revolts against US imperialism during the Cold War were not that different in origin from those that happened before or after the Cold War. The same is true around the world, and it isn't necessarily even a right-left issue, as the fear in Washington has always been a fear of independent national and political development.

Besides, even if all of your red-baiting examples were valid (and they are not), the best way to fight the cold war would be to not fight it at all. Imperial expansion hurts one's economy and leads to collapse. It's a fools' game, as the British economist Hobson discovered and wrote in his book, Empire, in 1900. Incidentally, who won the Cold War? In 1989, who was better off: Central American (or Haitian, etc.) killing fields run by mass-murderous US-trained death squads, or police states in Eastern Europe under the Soviet boot? Communism was a disaster, but neoliberal capitalism was/is even worse.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-04-2012, 05:51 PM
grude grude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Call it a "dodge" if you wish but it takes an extra extra extra stupid right-winger to think that your state legislature might soon legislate Sharia law.

To think that one person with a robe might judge based on it..... not so much.
Are you saying the real fear driving all this is a muslim judge letting his religious leanings affect his work? Isn't there a mechanism in place to deal with nutty judges?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-04-2012, 06:15 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 20,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by OurLordPeace View Post
On the contrary.
I see Communist revisionists are still hard at work. I think you should try talking to people who lived under Soviet oppression.

Jackboots are jackboots, no matter who wears them, but the Western democracies were far better off than the so-called 'Democratic Republics' of Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Last edited by Quartz; 05-04-2012 at 06:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-04-2012, 06:29 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
The democracies were, yes. If you are willing to define Pinochet's Chile or Nicaragua under Somoza to be "democracies", thinks get a bit murkier. How do you say "jackboot" in Spanish? "Gringo".
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-04-2012, 08:09 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Jackboots are jackboots, no matter who wears them, <snip>
Which is of course a central part of the criticism of American Cold War behavior. Being imprisoned, raped, tortured and murdered in the name of God and Capitalism by an American puppet dictator was just as bad as suffering the same fate in the name of Communism under a Soviet puppet dictator. And we actively encouraged that sort of tyranny and abuse. Outside of their borders there was little moral difference between the behavior of America and the Soviet Union; both were monstrously evil.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-04-2012, 08:30 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
As fact lovers all, lets stress that "It appears to be a popular topic, that sharia law is going to be legislated and implemented any moment. " is indeed not particularly factual.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-04-2012, 09:38 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It wasn't unrealistic at all. See: North Korea & the attack on South Korea, Central America, Africa (especially Namibia & Angola), Vietnam, China, Western Europe (especially Italy and U.K.), Eastern Europe (thoroughly under Moscow's thumb), Afghanistan, Nepal...
Very little of these incidents had anything to do with "world wide communism." They were nearly all simply extensions of The Great Game from the 19th century extended into the 20th, with the Russians (and allies) wearing the cloak of "communists" while the Brits (and allies) wore the mantle of "democracies." The number of actual Marxist revolutions, springing up in the manner described by Marx were pitifully few while the majority of such actions were nothing more than the games the Soviets played to nibble away at the power ot the U.K. and U.S. Once Stalin exiled Trotsky, "world wide communism" was a dead letter. Everything after that point was a power play by Stalin (and, later, Kruschev and his successors), that had nothing to do with actual communist theory. There were a few Marxist efforts that lasted beyond the 1930s--China, for example--but again, one does not see China actually attempting to support revolutions that would actually follow Marxist doctrine. Instead, we see Soviet puppet states waving the banner of "Socialism" and Western puppet states waving the banner of "democracy" while the actual people involved simply suffer under whichever puppet the world power with the best game in the region was able to establish. Iran was never going to become a Marxist utopia before we installed the Shah. Ho Chi Min actually disbanded his communist party before he discovered that the French were not going to grant independence to his country while the U.S. was going to put no pressure on France to grant independence at the same time that the "communist" Russians were willing to support his efforts--so he called his party back together and went forward. Italy and France each elected legislatures with huge numbers of "communists," yet even when they had something resembling power in those countries, they never came close to pushing for a Marxist revolution.

The Soviet/Russian threat was real, (if often overblown), but it was of the ancient model of empires clashing rather than of the "world domination" claims of the people who irrationally feared "communism," and the various "communist" movements were rarely more than simply the current effort by the Soviets to destabilize U.S./U.K. allies while our "democratic" movements were pretty nearly always efforts to destabilize their allies.

Last edited by tomndebb; 05-04-2012 at 09:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-04-2012, 09:57 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Call it a "dodge" if you wish but it takes an extra extra extra stupid right-winger to think that your state legislature might soon legislate Sharia law.

To think that one person with a robe might judge based on it..... not so much.
This might have some vague sembnlance of reality if there was even one occasion when a judge in the U.S. had ordered Sharia to be implemented on any level, but there really is not*. (And, had such a decision been rendered, it would still need to make it past the various layers of state and Fedral appellate courts, which, again, is simply silly.)

It is nothing more than silly, hyperbolic scaremongering that has no basis in fact.


* There actually is an organization, the Center for Security Policy think tank, that claims to have found a number of such "Sharia" deicisions, but as this is the same group that proposed, in 2007, making G W Bush "president for life" because democracy was inherently unstable and as no other legal analysis group has been found to agree with them, I am willing to dismiss such claims as more paranoia.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-05-2012, 12:25 PM
What the .... ?!?! What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by grude View Post
Are you saying the real fear driving all this is a muslim judge letting his religious leanings affect his work? Isn't there a mechanism in place to deal with nutty judges?
No, not necessarily a Muslim judge...... just one who might think some other country or people's laws should have a bearing on his judgments.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-05-2012, 03:50 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
I agree that the thought that American courts might adopt sharia law is absurd, but IIRC the start of it was some SCOTUS decisions (or concurrences) that looked at how other countries such as England or France looked at certain things that we had in common. I can't recall the exact case, so I'm making this up as I go, but lets say that our constitution had a "right to eat ice cream" and France's constitution had the same thing.

Since we both have the same thing based on the same ideals for implementing it some Justices looked at what France ruled on the right to eat ice cream to form the basis of how our right to eat ice cream should be formed.

Well, when this case came out, conservatives were enraged that the US Supreme Court would look to other countries for guidance on how to implement our law. They argued that SCOTUS should look only to our constitution and our history in ruling on laws. Some of the articles speculated that since we are looking at foreign countries' laws, what would stop them from looking at Iran and implementing sharia law in the next case?

I thought it was a reasonable, if not way too slippery slope argument that had little merit. Although I agreed with the sentiment that we should not look at anything other countries are doing to determine our own law, the nexus with sharia law was suspect because nothing in our law is common with that, and there would be no need to look at it. It seems like a rhetorical device against using foreign law in our courts.

Then I went into a cave for a few years and emerged to see states debating outlawing sharia law like it was a looming menace.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:04 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
No, not necessarily a Muslim judge...... just one who might think some other country or people's laws should have a bearing on his judgments.
When you have the time, how about your top ten examples? Seven? Five? Three?

One?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-05-2012, 09:42 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Which is of course a central part of the criticism of American Cold War behavior. Being imprisoned, raped, tortured and murdered in the name of God and Capitalism by an American puppet dictator was just as bad as suffering the same fate in the name of Communism under a Soviet puppet dictator. And we actively encouraged that sort of tyranny and abuse. Outside of their borders there was little moral difference between the behavior of America and the Soviet Union; both were monstrously evil.
I won't bother with your thesis: I'll just add a qualification. You might have said, "Outside of the OECD (i.e. advanced countries), there was little difference..." Objectively, Europe and Japan benefited a lot from the US's military umbrella, peacenik anti-nuclear protests (which I supported) notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-05-2012, 09:51 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
I won't bother with your thesis: I'll just add a qualification. You might have said, "Outside of the OECD (i.e. advanced countries), there was little difference..." Objectively, Europe and Japan benefited a lot from the US's military umbrella, peacenik anti-nuclear protests (which I supported) notwithstanding.
Not really, except maybe Japan. Once they had nukes the USSR was never going to attack them, and America has done quite a bit of economic and social damage to them. The most important difference is that they were stronger, so America was able to do less damage to them than to some African country. And that isn't a moral difference, just a matter of power.

Last edited by Der Trihs; 05-05-2012 at 09:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-05-2012, 10:22 PM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
No, not necessarily a Muslim judge...... just one who might think some other country or people's laws should have a bearing on his judgments.
You actually think that non-Muslim judges would start applying Sharia law?


Why?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-06-2012, 12:30 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Not really, except maybe Japan. Once they had nukes the USSR was never going to attack them, and America has done quite a bit of economic and social damage to them. The most important difference is that they were stronger, so America was able to do less damage to them than to some African country. And that isn't a moral difference, just a matter of power.
Western Europe also benefited economically from lower military spending than they would have had without NATO. As did Canada. I seriously doubt whether those countries would have simply trusted their nukes - and remember that only France, UK and Canada even had those WMDs anyway.

I'm not sure about Australia and New Zealand, but they weren't exactly under the US's heal during the era.

The rest of the world was a mixed bag. Guatemala was a nightmare while Mexico escaped mostly unscathed for example. India kept both powers at bay.

Oh and yes, it does help to be stronger: weak states are often client states. See my examples. Though Panama did pretty well for itself in many ways, notwithstanding the dictatorships and US invasion.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-06-2012, 04:25 AM
Rune Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
Demonizing Sharia law is an easy way some elements in our society can indirectly demonize certain people. If those people can be demonized and identified as the "other", it will be easier to de-humanize them, and easier to justify killing them.
That’s like saying demonizing Nazism is an easy way to demonize Germans. There’s no need to demonize Sharia because it is inherently bullshit stupidity. And while it may in some interpretations be merely rather bad, it certainly can with other interpretations be naked evil.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-06-2012, 08:07 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
That’s like saying demonizing Nazism is an easy way to demonize Germans. There’s no need to demonize Sharia because it is inherently bullshit stupidity. And while it may in some interpretations be merely rather bad, it certainly can with other interpretations be naked evil.
Piffle.

There are variations of Sharia, occurring in various culturally determined contexts, that are harsh or that deprive certain members of society, (notably women), of rights and protections. But Sharia is not some monolithic entity that is universally evil. There are numerous variations of Sharia that have developed in many different places and they have different strengths and weaknesses. Many are also under constant review and development, just as jurisprudence in Western societies is, so that areas of injustice are slowly being eliminated, just as in Western societies, backsliding such as has occurred in Iran, notwithstanding.
Looking at the versions of Sharia that fail to protect people and declaring Sharia evil is like looking at the constitutions of various Cold War era Iron Curtain countries and declaring that constitutional republics are evil.

Broad brush condemnation is fun and makes for convenient demonization of others, but it is rarely accurate or useful, (except for stirring up hatred).
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-06-2012, 08:13 AM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Western Europe also benefited economically from lower military spending than they would have had without NATO. As did Canada. I seriously doubt whether those countries would have simply trusted their nukes - and remember that only France, UK and Canada even had those WMDs anyway.
They could simply have created a version of NATO without the US. And the economic damage done by the US to the world easily overshadows any savings from a smaller military.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Guatemala was a nightmare while Mexico escaped mostly unscathed for example.
Mexico was being screwed over by the US before, during and after the Cold War.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Though Panama did pretty well for itself in many ways, notwithstanding the dictatorships and US invasion.
That's like saying that a woman is "doing quite well, except for the rapes and beatings.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:25 AM
What the .... ?!?! What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
When you have the time, how about your top ten examples? Seven? Five? Three?

One?
Well it could happen . What's wrong with getting out front of an issue?

I'm satisfied having pointed out that "legislated and implemented any moment" is not what would drive whatever is bothering the OP.

If liberals and liberal judges aren't in favor of heading in that direction then great .... but why would you be worried about legislation that wouldn't allow you to?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:53 AM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Well it could happen . What's wrong with getting out front of an issue?

I'm satisfied having pointed out that "legislated and implemented any moment" is not what would drive whatever is bothering the OP.

If liberals and liberal judges aren't in favor of heading in that direction then great .... but why would you be worried about legislation that wouldn't allow you to?
OK, how about a law that says the following:
Quote:
No President of the United States, having been elected to that office as a member of the Republican Party or having publicly declared himself to be a member of the Republican Party after having been elected, shall do or conspire with any other person to
(1) abolish, suspend, or obstruct the operation of the Constitution of the United States, or any article, section, or part thereof; or
(2) cancel, postpone, or obstruct the normal process of selection of electors for the office of President of the United States and their election of the President of the United States, or of elections of the members of the United States House of Representatives, or of elections of the members of the United States Senate; or
(3) carry out any terrorist attack against the United States or its citizens, or knowingly allow such an attack to be carried out.
I'm not saying such things have happened, but what's wrong with getting out in front of the issue?
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-06-2012, 11:12 AM
brazil84 brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Yes, but liberals/progressives, on average, use facts, and the fact is that sharia law is only being "implemented" in a very small way in a very few situations in a very few places in the "West". And, no reason to believe it will ever be much more than that. So there's no reason to panic.
This sounds like a rationalization to me. My sense is that "liberals/progressives" pay a lot of attention if some policy is implemented in a small town which policy offends them. For example, if a bunch of Tea Parties were able to push through a policy requiring a racially segregated prom at the local high school you can imagine the kerfuffle which would ensue.

Realistically, Jim Crow laws are about as likely to be legislated and implemented at any moment in the West as are Sharia laws.

So the next time Pamela Geller gets upset about Christian Missionaries being harassed and arrested in Dearborn, Michigan, imagine how you would feel if a couple gay activists were harassed and arrested for holding hands while walking down the main street in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Last edited by brazil84; 05-06-2012 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-06-2012, 11:28 AM
Rune Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Piffle.
Piffle yourself.

Did you even read what I wrote (“some interpretations,“ “rather bad“ to “naked evil”) or merely jump to the conclusion you wished for? There are variations of Sharia, some are merely rather bad, some are naked evil. All are bullshit. None should be implemented in Western society. We need religious based jurisprudence and priests and imams to play judges like we need another hole in the head. That is my personal opinion. If you think more religious law would be super great, you are free to have another opinion. And I shall attempt not to label you as a fascist for having a divergent opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:49 PM
DearestDane DearestDane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It wasn't unrealistic at all. See: North Korea & the attack on South Korea, Central America, Africa (especially Namibia & Angola), Vietnam, China, Western Europe (especially Italy and U.K.), Eastern Europe (thoroughly under Moscow's thumb), Afghanistan, Nepal...
Communism never stood a chance in Western Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-07-2012, 12:41 AM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Well, when this case came out, conservatives were enraged that the US Supreme Court would look to other countries for guidance on how to implement our law.....I thought it was a reasonable, if not way too slippery slope argument that had little merit. Although I agreed with the sentiment that we should not look at anything other countries are doing to determine our own law,
I have to ask--why is this a bad thing? Are we presuming that other countries cannot ever have something meaningful to say about jurisprudence in the abstract, in the absence of specific guiding principles from our own precedents and constitution?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:37 AM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
I have to ask--why is this a bad thing? Are we presuming that other countries cannot ever have something meaningful to say about jurisprudence in the abstract, in the absence of specific guiding principles from our own precedents and constitution?
Yes, pretty much. The idea is that there is no abstract jurisprudence, and only specific jurisprudence based on pre-existing principles. The idea is that, by even looking at what another country did, you bias yourself towards implementing their solution, and thus make it impossible to come to an unbiased conclusion for yourself.

It's not entirely wrong, either, but the relevance is overblown. Smart people can overcome biases, and can see what principles two different countries work under and make sure they don't conflict.

Or to relate it back to this thread--there's no way shariah law will become the norm as long as we realize that there is a different principle of how women are allowed to be treated.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:05 AM
What the .... ?!?! What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
OK, how about a law that says the following:

<Insert silliness here>

I'm not saying such things have happened, but what's wrong with getting out in front of the issue?
No problem..... give it a shot.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:11 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,800
Moderating

What the .... ?!?!, Do not mangle other posters quotes.

. . . modifying another's post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.

[ /Moderating ]
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:23 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
Did you even read what I wrote . . .?
Sure I did, then I looked past your weasel words and discovered your claim that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
There are variations of Sharia, some are merely rather bad, some are naked evil. All are bullshit.
I have never argued that Sharia should be implemented in Western society, but you are simply engaged in empty "moooslims is bad" rhetoric.

There are variations of Sharia to which I would object in any context in the U.S. (I'll let other countries deal with their own laws.) Certainly, as practiced in Saudi Arabia, I would object to any form of it being employed in the U.S. On the other hand, I would have no problem if variations that were not misogynistic, (and there are a few), were permitted in marriage and property resolutions in the way that Catholic tribunals, Jewish Bet Din, and Tribal Courts have been employed in a limited manner to augment the existing state and local courts in the U.S.
I would want any court so employed to be vetted for consistency with the U.S. Constitution as well as general acceptance by the Muslim population before it was granted any authority, but I would not simply reject it out of hand because I came in with an a priori declaration that it was "bullshit."
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:46 AM
What the .... ?!?! What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Thank-you for your tempered warning. When I clicked QUOTE I didn't get all of the detail. I had to add to it for it to make any sense. In doing so I inserted my own editorial opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-08-2012, 04:51 PM
Rune Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Sure I did, then I looked past your weasel words and discovered your claim that I have never argued that Sharia should be implemented in Western society, but you are simply engaged in empty "moooslims is bad" rhetoric.
Nonsense. You did no such things. You stuck your head in your ass, skipped the reading and jumped to the conclusion you wanted. Another time it would probably be more profitable if you let me present my views. Then I'll let you present your own. If you are uncertain of what I write you are most welcome to ask for details. That way you don't have to bother with inventing your own interpretation. But since I’m equally opposed to Christian, Jewish, and pagan law being integrated into state law, and priests or Jewish-what-ever-they-have playing judges you can accuse me of Christophobia and anti-Semitism as well, in addition to the “moooslims is bad”-thingy. It’s not like a give a shit about the opinion from someone who knee jerks forum posts.

Last edited by Rune; 05-08-2012 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-08-2012, 05:16 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
Nonsense. You did no such things. You stuck your head in your ass, skipped the reading and jumped to the conclusion you wanted.
Right.

So someone else posted the following?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune View Post
There are variations of Sharia, some are merely rather bad, some are naked evil. All are bullshit.
If that is not what you meant, then you should have posted something different.

You are also free to be hostile to all other religious legal systems. That, however, is not what you posted.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:30 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,098
We should probably reign in this hijack at some point, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
They could simply have created a version of NATO without the US. And the economic damage done by the US to the world easily overshadows any savings from a smaller military.
Are we talking at cross purposes? I'm saying that a NATO without the US would have involved substantially higher military spending by Europe, as a share of their GDP, even if they in aggregate spent less than NATO did. You can see this from the Kosovo War, where Germany had markedly less advanced weapon systems, i.e. less accurate bombs.

As for "the [net] economic damage done to the rest of the world", cite? You can claim stuff like that all you want, but substantiating it is an entirely different matter.
Quote:
Mexico was being screwed over by the US before, during and after the Cold War.
Mexico nationalized the US oil industry in the 1930s and Roosevelt did nada. And they held their own fine against the US afterwards. NAFTA wasn't exactly imposed on them: it was something they asked for after liberalizing. I won't comment on Mexico before 1930.
Quote:
That's like saying that a woman is "doing quite well, except for the rapes and beatings.
Thanks to its US built canal, Panama has a per person GDP of $13,600, favorable relative to Belize ($8,300) and even Costa Rica ($11,500). True they lost 800 according to the UN (though I see now there are higher estimates), but that did end a (US backed) tyranny.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-09-2012, 07:30 AM
tagos tagos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It came quite close.



Except, of course that US policies were in response to Soviet aggression and subversion.
Complete and utter nonsense. The UK NEVER came close to becoming communist. Argument supported by non-crazy cites please.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-14-2012, 06:39 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Tabloid newspapers and ignorance. Sharia law is used in the UK , IF (and only if) all parties agree to it as an arbitration method. So is any other religious method including Jewish and Christian ones.

But "OMG Jewish councils are deciding divorce cases when both parties agree" doesn't quite get readers outraged the same that "SHARIA IS ALREADY IN THE UK" does in huge red letters.
Not as much as "Honour Killings", or women unable to leave home without a chaperone, or women who've been raped being adjudged the guilty party and punished, or being forced to wear bhurkas.

Or murderers being kept from the law of the land and paying "blood money" to the victims family as a penalty

Yes damn those hysterical people who complain about it, no doubt they're all racists.

Last edited by Lust4Life; 05-14-2012 at 06:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-14-2012, 06:47 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Except, of course that US policies were in response to Soviet aggression and subversion.
Banana republic policies are older than Soviet agression and subversion.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:10 AM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Not as much as "Honour Killings", [...] or women who've been raped being adjudged the guilty party and punished [...] Or murderers being kept from the law of the land and paying "blood money" to the victims family as a penalty

Yes damn those hysterical people who complain about it, no doubt they're all racists.
Cite for any of these things happening even just the once in the UK (nevermind routinely), please ?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:34 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Its not unusual have a look for yourself .
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:51 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Its not unusual have a look for yourself .
Sorry I should have said, not unusual to Sharia law, the point being that we don't want Sharia law in the West.

Unless Sharia law varies from country to country, which as you well know it doesn't, it is completely irrelevant whether its practiced in Bradford or Bangla Desh

The example of the unlawful killing being solved by Blood money was in South London as I recall, after a street fight between Somalis and an Asian group.

I suppose if I must I could trawl through stuff to retrieve it, though it isn't particulary relevant.
I'll see how I feel.

Sharia" Law" is S.L., how ever you look at it and wherever it is practiced.

Nice diversionary tactic, but no cigar
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:00 AM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Sorry I should have said, not unusual to Sharia law, the point being that we don't want Sharia law in the West.

Unless Sharia law varies from country to country, which as you well know it doesn't, it is completely irrelevant whether its practiced in Bradford or Bangla Desh
Of course it's relevant. Here, I'll walk you through the reasoning:

- You say these things routinely happen in countries where Sharia Law is practised
- Sharia Law is practised in the UK when both parties agree to it
- Therefore, these things should routinely happen among Muslims in the UK

If they don't, what does that tell you about Sharia Law ?

Spoiler:
SPOILER:
That its application varies from country to country, culture to culture, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:33 AM
tagos tagos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Cite for any of these things happening even just the once in the UK (nevermind routinely), please ?
Honour attack numbers in the UK

Quote:
UK police recorded at least 2,823 so-called honour attacks last year, figures from 39 out of 52 forces show.

<snip>

Such attacks can include acid attacks, abduction, mutilations, beatings and in some cases, murder.
The UK has, for the first time in a long time, a small but significant immigrant community from the rural sub-continent that is both resistant to assimilation and possessed of an 'unsophisticated' view of religion and culture.

There are cases all the time.

This is recognised as a problem by successive governments and some muslim organisations. One response has been to try and stop communities importing iman's from the same rural background that will reinforce prejudice.

A Muslim Social Worker organisation some time back issued a report highlighting the frightening level of domestic violence against women. I've cited it before but it's eluding my google skills now.

And it is a problem for allowing sharia in some areas, even with consent of all parties, if there is a cultural gender power imbalance.

Article

Quote:
Today I received another telephone call from a young Muslim woman, Nasrin, who pleaded with me to help her obtain an Islamic divorce.

After fleeing a forced marriage characterised by rape and physical violence, Nasrin applied for an Islamic divorce from a Sharia council; that was almost 10 years ago now. Despite countless emails, letters and telephone calls to the Sharia council as well as joint mediation and reconciliation meetings, the Sharia council refuse to provide Nasrin with an Islamic divorce.

Why? Because of Nasrin’s sex. An Imam at the Sharia council told Nasrin that her gender prevents her from unilaterally divorcing her husband, instead the Imam told her to return to her husband, perform her wifely duties and maintain the abusive marriage that she was forced into.

<snip>

Anne-Marie Waters, Spokesperson for One Law for All commented – “the very process employed by Sharia law bodies is gender discriminatory, flawed and incompatible with UK legislation”.

For instance, unlike male divorce applicants, women are requested to bring along two Muslim, male witnesses to corroborate their testimony.

I have yet to represent a Muslim woman who is able to comply with this gender discriminatory requirement that is contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Not only are such requirements near impossible to adhere to, but they also reflect Sharia law bodies’ ideology that women are second class citizens.
It is alarmist to talk of being 'swamped' by immigration and it is borderline insane to act as if Muslims are some sort of invading extra-terrestril able to shoot Sharia-Rays out their eyes or something.

But it is not alarmist to note that a growing immigrant community that is fiercely resiting assimilation and successfully imposing religious/cultural attitudes derived from rural Pakistan and Bangladesh represents a new challenge.

If it were up to me no religion would be involved in any aspect of the law or education.

To add:

Honour code support

Quote:
Two-thirds of young British Asians agree that families should live according to the concept of "honour", a poll for BBC Panorama suggests.

Of 500 young Asians questioned, 18% also felt that certain behaviour by women that could affect her family's honour justified physical punishment.

These included disobeying their father, and wanting to leave an existing or prearranged marriage.

The results come as women's groups call for action to stop "honour" crimes.

The poll, conducted for the BBC by ComRes, interviewed young Asians living in Britain between the ages of 16 and 34.

To qualify as Asian, interviewees had to identify themselves as being from one of the following communities: Mixed Asian; Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian.

Asked if they agreed that families should live according to "honour", 69% agreed, a figure that rose to 75% among young men, compared with 63% of young women.
This includes 6% of male respondents saying 'killing is okay'.

Last edited by tagos; 05-14-2012 at 09:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:43 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagos View Post
It is alarmist to talk of being 'swamped' by immigration and it is borderline insane to act as if Muslims are some sort of invading extra-terrestril able to shoot Sharia-Rays out their eyes or something.

But it is not alarmist to note that a growing immigrant community that is fiercely resiting assimilation and successfully imposing religious/cultural attitudes derived from rural Pakistan and Bangladesh represents a new challenge.
IMHO, this is a very well-balanced view of the topic.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:12 AM
tagos tagos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
IMHO, this is a very well-balanced view of the topic.
Thanks.

I think it's important to know this is not a left/right liberal/conservative thing in the UK. There is a growing, shared realisation that 'multi-culturalism' as a policy is not longer working.

It was fine with the wave of west indian immigration in the fifties but (especially after attitudes noticable hardened after 9/11) now there is a community (or several communities) who both take their religion (which they see as under attack, specifically post-9/11 but generally from the godless morality of secular western culture) seriously (a shock to Anglican England) and see it as a primary component of identity.

And it is constantly reinforced by the social practice of arranged marriage bringing in more men and women from the extended family back on the Sub-Continent.

Back in the more hopeful 80's we kind of imagined multi-culturalism as being the odd 'ethnic' festival where the minority community would go back to being increasingly 'British' when the bunting came down. Like The Notting Hill Carnival.

As i've said in these threads before - I've been through Birmingham train station with an Asian friend who had to run away from her family and go into hiding and she was petrified that someone connected to her family would see her.

Her brothers would, she was absolutely clear on this, kill me.

Last edited by tagos; 05-14-2012 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:54 AM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagos View Post
This includes 6% of male respondents saying 'killing is okay'.
Only 6 percent? That's not much at all. When you get to percentages that low you you can find support for virtually anything. I wouldn't be surprised if you could find at least as high a percentage of non-Muslims who wanted to kill all Muslims, or all homosexuals, or all blacks, or whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-14-2012, 12:01 PM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Why are we discussing honor killings in a discussion of Sharia?

They are seperate issues.

There are very legitimate reasons to be concerned about Sharia Law, but people aren't giving good examples.

Moreover Sharia law does not condone honor killings.

For example, in many of the tribal areas of Iran(honor killings has more to do with tribalism than Islam) honor killings are more frequent then they should be, but that doesn't make them legal.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-14-2012, 12:22 PM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
The hysteria over implementation of "Sharia law" derives from a single source, aside from xenophobia: widespread misunderstanding of how arbitration and other forms of ADR works.

There is a legitimate debate about the proper role of ADR of any stripe in (say) family law cases. But it is hard to engage in this, when people are freaking out over the allegation that somehow Sharia law is getting into courtrooms via some sort of backroom conspiracy.

Just as an example, it would be perfectly possible in some jurisdictions to create a system of arbitration based on Klingon law. That would not mean that the litigants could cut off each other's heads in battle, unfortunately ... All it means is that you can, by mutual agreement, choose how to manage your disputes, whether by Sharia, Klingon, or the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association - but not in such a way as to offend existing public policy, as contracts that offend public policy are void and unenforceable.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-14-2012, 12:26 PM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagos View Post
Honour attack numbers in the UK

The UK has, for the first time in a long time, a small but significant immigrant community from the rural sub-continent that is both resistant to assimilation and possessed of an 'unsophisticated' view of religion and culture.

There are cases all the time.
The link doesn't say these attacks are sanctioned (or ordered) by the Sharia courts though. Which was sort of my point.

You'll find barbaric attitudes like these in pretty much all societies, in one form or another. Sometimes it's as "civilized" as casting a son out of the family for marrying a woman from another ethnicity or religion, sometimes it's honour killings.
Hell, we have our own honour killings of a sort, the so-called crimes of passion. Not too long ago, if a man stumbled upon his woman balling some young buck and killed them both, well, it was understandable and if the husband was even convicted, he'd receive a lighter sentence than if he'd committed a "real" murder. And by not too long ago I mean the specific laws protecting these sorts of things were stricken from the books as late as the 70s around here, and some judges still show some measure of lenience for them to this day. Well, to "real" French people of course - if they're brown it becomes one of them dreadful honour killings, don't it ?

So that's one thing. But it's another to say that this is the result or end-game of Sharia arbitration.

Quote:
This is recognised as a problem by successive governments and some muslim organisations. One response has been to try and stop communities importing iman's from the same rural background that will reinforce prejudice.
That seems sensible.

Quote:
A Muslim Social Worker organisation some time back issued a report highlighting the frightening level of domestic violence against women. I've cited it before but it's eluding my google skills now.
No doubt, but you'll find domestic violence wherever there's macho culture as well. And again, I doubt you can link it to Sharia courts, or that Sharia judges order wife beatings. Because they're kind of against the regular law.

Quote:
It is alarmist to talk of being 'swamped' by immigration and it is borderline insane to act as if Muslims are some sort of invading extra-terrestril able to shoot Sharia-Rays out their eyes or something.

But it is not alarmist to note that a growing immigrant community that is fiercely resiting assimilation and successfully imposing religious/cultural attitudes derived from rural Pakistan and Bangladesh represents a new challenge.
Agreed. But that was where I was coming from asking these cites in the first place - rabid islamophobia is rampant these days, is very much tolerated and it's fucking unseemly.

Quote:
If it were up to me no religion would be involved in any aspect of the law or education.
Again, agreed. But if we are to allow one strain no matter how much harm it demonstrably results in then we can't turn around and say theirs is no good, can we ?

Quote:
To add:Honour code support. This includes 6% of male respondents saying 'killing is okay'.
*snort* Cry me a river. In my country, ~15% of the people vote for overt fascists and a good proportion of them would be A-ok with harsh, state backed discrimination against blacks, arabs, Jews and gays. Now that's a sizeable, credible threat to society and democracy. As Der Trihs says, you can find 5% of people who'll agree with anything.

Besides, the question is loaded/leading to begin with, isn't it ? What's the alternative, being OK with living according to dishonour ? Personally, I'm very much down with living according to honour - it's just that my conception of it differs from theirs.

Last edited by Kobal2; 05-14-2012 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.