Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
They can come. As long as they realize the liberals they kept electing and their insane stance on self defense and gun rights is what gave them the feel good crime utopia they're fleeing.olafpfj wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... urvey.html
The article lists several issues facing the English such as cost of living but I was surprised by how high crime ranked in the reasons. Not surpirising is that the US is one of the top destinations for emigration. The world loves to hate on the US but everyone still wants to come here for some reason...
Just curious but what is the problem with Muslims having their own Sharia courts? Jews their own religious courts where divorces (aka - "gets") can take place, questions on religious issues, and even civil issues can be resolved. I don't know how the Sharia courts work, but the decisions handed down by a Beit Din (what a Jewish court is called) are voluntary. In civil matters it works much the way an arbitration service works in that all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Beit Din. Assuming that the Sharia courts in the US and/or UK function in a similar way (which is my understanding), what's the problem?psijac wrote:Utopia is built not found. Muslims move into Europe to escape the brutal regimes in the Middle east only to setup their own ridiculous sharia courts in host countries. Britons moving here would vote out gun laws I am afraid.
RottenApple wrote:Just curious but what is the problem with Muslims having their own Sharia courts? Jews their own religious courts where divorces (aka - "gets") can take place, questions on religious issues, and even civil issues can be resolved. I don't know how the Sharia courts work, but the decisions handed down by a Beit Din (what a Jewish court is called) are voluntary. In civil matters it works much the way an arbitration service works in that all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Beit Din. Assuming that the Sharia courts in the US and/or UK function in a similar way (which is my understanding), what's the problem?psijac wrote:Utopia is built not found. Muslims move into Europe to escape the brutal regimes in the Middle east only to setup their own ridiculous sharia courts in host countries. Britons moving here would vote out gun laws I am afraid.
BTW, obviously I am NOT talking about the Sharia courts in such countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Only those in the US and UK.
I don't understand what you're suggesting....are you merely talking about civil arbitration based on religious law? If so, there is nothing stopping such arbitration from happening in the US....all that's required is for the involved parties to agree, just like they could agree to non-religious based arbitration. They could make contracts based on religious law to begin with if desired and all parties agree --as long as the contracts don't violate US law.RottenApple wrote:Just curious but what is the problem with Muslims having their own Sharia courts? Jews their own religious courts where divorces (aka - "gets") can take place, questions on religious issues, and even civil issues can be resolved. I don't know how the Sharia courts work, but the decisions handed down by a Beit Din (what a Jewish court is called) are voluntary. In civil matters it works much the way an arbitration service works in that all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Beit Din. Assuming that the Sharia courts in the US and/or UK function in a similar way (which is my understanding), what's the problem?psijac wrote:Utopia is built not found. Muslims move into Europe to escape the brutal regimes in the Middle east only to setup their own ridiculous sharia courts in host countries. Britons moving here would vote out gun laws I am afraid.
BTW, obviously I am NOT talking about the Sharia courts in such countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Only those in the US and UK.
RottenApple wrote:Just curious but what is the problem with Muslims having their own Sharia courts? Jews their own religious courts where divorces (aka - "gets") can take place, questions on religious issues, and even civil issues can be resolved. I don't know how the Sharia courts work, but the decisions handed down by a Beit Din (what a Jewish court is called) are voluntary. In civil matters it works much the way an arbitration service works in that all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Beit Din. Assuming that the Sharia courts in the US and/or UK function in a similar way (which is my understanding), what's the problem?psijac wrote:Utopia is built not found. Muslims move into Europe to escape the brutal regimes in the Middle east only to setup their own ridiculous sharia courts in host countries. Britons moving here would vote out gun laws I am afraid.
BTW, obviously I am NOT talking about the Sharia courts in such countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Only those in the US and UK.
This is exactly what I'm suggesting. A Beit Din does exactly this. If a Jewish man or woman is seeking a divorce (just to use as an example), they can go before a Beit Din and the Rabbi's judging the case will make the decision to counsel,or to grant or deny the divorce. The same is true if you were found to have my property in your possession and I wanted it back. Of course, I *could* go to the civil authorities for these things, but I would probably seek redress from a Beit Din. And, if I did so, I would agree to abide by the decision of the Beit Din.VMI77 wrote:I don't understand what you're suggesting....are you merely talking about civil arbitration based on religious law? If so, there is nothing stopping such arbitration from happening in the US....all that's required is for the involved parties to agree, just like they could agree to non-religious based arbitration. They could make contracts based on religious law to begin with if desired and all parties agree --as long as the contracts don't violate US law.
Certainly not! Criminal matters are a whole 'bother barrel of fish and are, naturally, served by the civil authorities, A Beit Din might grant a divorce based upon infidelity, but they would certainly not proscribe corporal punishment.VMI77 wrote:You're not suggesting something like, for example, an Islamic court in the US could sentence a woman to being stoned to death for adultery ---right?
Are you saying that if I was Jewish, my wife and I could go to a Beit Din and get a divorce in the U.S? How does that work out with paperwork for the proof of a divorce? I really don't care, except that there are many religions out there that want to be the ones to mandate marriage/divorce of their members. I am just thinking about doing my taxes and I got a divorce from a local religious authority...By the way I do somewhat agree, just confused on the how? I did hear that in the old west, the local Church to which you belonged could mandate civil matters within their church.RottenApple wrote:This is exactly what I'm suggesting. A Beit Din does exactly this. If a Jewish man or woman is seeking a divorce (just to use as an example), they can go before a Beit Din and the Rabbi's judging the case will make the decision to counsel,or to grant or deny the divorce. The same is true if you were found to have my property in your possession and I wanted it back. Of course, I *could* go to the civil authorities for these things, but I would probably seek redress from a Beit Din. And, if I did so, I would agree to abide by the decision of the Beit Din.VMI77 wrote:I don't understand what you're suggesting....are you merely talking about civil arbitration based on religious law? If so, there is nothing stopping such arbitration from happening in the US....all that's required is for the involved parties to agree, just like they could agree to non-religious based arbitration. They could make contracts based on religious law to begin with if desired and all parties agree --as long as the contracts don't violate US law.
Based on my reading, these Sharia courts in the US and UK are doing the same thing.
Certainly not! Criminal matters are a whole 'bother barrel of fish and are, naturally, served by the civil authorities, A Beit Din might grant a divorce based upon infidelity, but they would certainly not proscribe corporal punishment.VMI77 wrote:You're not suggesting something like, for example, an Islamic court in the US could sentence a woman to being stoned to death for adultery ---right?
I agree with you Beiruty. But in order for a system like this to work, everyone would have to belong to a religious order. I don't see many Americans agreeing to or even belonging to a religious order that fully mandated civil law. I have read that in order for a Muslim to get divorced all the male has to do is state "I divorce you" three times in front of three witnesses? I don't know for sure as I am not a Muslim. But if true, a Texas gal would probably wait until you almost uttered the 3rd time when she would shoot you three times, or at least my wife would. I guess as long as everyone agreed...Beiruty wrote: In Lebanon, all personal and civil matters like that of family law and inheritance are handled by religious courts, Christians have their own courts for marriage and divorce etc. Muslims do to. Sunnis have their courts Shiaa do to. Druze are the same. Criminal law is matter for the state to resolve. Any problem with that? none! Zill, nadda. Ah, till the time when atheists and communists and extreme liberals got a foot hold (thanks to open travel, immigration/counter-immigration) and start calling for civil courts.
Civilly, the Beit Din would, in essence, mediate the divorce and it's terms. Then the paperwork would simply be filed with the court in order to take care of the civil end. Assuming all parties agreed to abide by the Beit Din's judgement, then it would not be contested in civil court. The Beit Din itself would take care of the religious end to the marriage.DEB wrote:Are you saying that if I was Jewish, my wife and I could go to a Beit Din and get a divorce in the U.S? How does that work out with paperwork for the proof of a divorce? I really don't care, except that there are many religions out there that want to be the ones to mandate marriage/divorce of their members. I am just thinking about doing my taxes and I got a divorce from a local religious authority...By the way I do somewhat agree, just confused on the how? I did hear that in the old west, the local Church to which you belonged could mandate civil matters within their church.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that this is true.DEB wrote:I read a story about a town in Texas that currently has two Baptist Churches when they originally had only one. This duality is due to a disagreement within the original church between two individuals. One of these individuals sold another a milk cow that he guaranteed would give 1 gallon a milk per teat. When the animal was delivered the buyer found that this particular Cow only had two teats and complained to the local Preacher. The Preacher and the Elders found that although the seller didn't lie he did mislead and ordered him to repay the buyer. The seller vehemently disagreed and not only left that congregation but started another of his own. So I don't know about a Beit Din, but I do know Texans...
