Ideology is one thing. But if the tea-partiers do well next week, especially if the Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy. This means having something serious to say about how actually to bring spending under control. To date, they have preferred breezy slogans. Will they cut into pensions and Medicare, and if so how? Will they accept that taming the deficit will require hikes in taxes as well as cuts in spending? Will they continue to oppose reflexively every measure of a Democratic administration, or have the courage to share responsibility for the painful decisions the times demand? It has been all too easy from the outside to conjure up a mythic America of limited government, sing hymns to the constitution and denounce the federal bureaucracy in all its forms. Once they are in government themselves, that gig will be over.
Not really.
They have no interest in governing, or governance beyond cutting taxes and raising spending, for the wealthy, rich and uberrich.
They have just come off 12 years of running things and are enjoying being downtrodden.
So what we will see from them are corporate tax breaks, socialism for agri-biz, and other cronyism.
That stuff will get little or no press.
What will get lots of press will be legislation to outlaw the use of Sharia law in the US.
Anti-immigrant laws such as AZ 1070.
And other nonsense attacking Muslims, immigrants, Latinos, GLBT, and the poor.
Anyone who opposes these laws will be Muslim or socialist or worse.
Do you support the practice of Sharia Law in the U.S.??
The point is that no one is practicing Sharia law in the US.
You might as well pass a bill outlawing the eating of fried unicorn shit.
Ideology is one thing. But if the tea-partiers do well next week, especially if the Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy. This means having something serious to say about how actually to bring spending under control. To date, they have preferred breezy slogans. Will they cut into pensions and Medicare, and if so how? Will they accept that taming the deficit will require hikes in taxes as well as cuts in spending? Will they continue to oppose reflexively every measure of a Democratic administration, or have the courage to share responsibility for the painful decisions the times demand? It has been all too easy from the outside to conjure up a mythic America of limited government, sing hymns to the constitution and denounce the federal bureaucracy in all its forms. Once they are in government themselves, that gig will be over.
Not really.
They have no interest in governing, or governance beyond cutting taxes and raising spending, for the wealthy, rich and uberrich.
They have just come off 12 years of running things and are enjoying being downtrodden.
So what we will see from them are corporate tax breaks, socialism for agri-biz, and other cronyism.
That stuff will get little or no press.
What will get lots of press will be legislation to outlaw the use of Sharia law in the US.
Anti-immigrant laws such as AZ 1070.
And other nonsense attacking Muslims, immigrants, Latinos, GLBT, and the poor.
Anyone who opposes these laws will be Muslim or socialist or worse.
Do you support the practice of Sharia Law in the U.S.??
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
Ideology is one thing. But if the tea-partiers do well next week, especially if the Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy. This means having something serious to say about how actually to bring spending under control. To date, they have preferred breezy slogans. Will they cut into pensions and Medicare, and if so how? Will they accept that taming the deficit will require hikes in taxes as well as cuts in spending? Will they continue to oppose reflexively every measure of a Democratic administration, or have the courage to share responsibility for the painful decisions the times demand? It has been all too easy from the outside to conjure up a mythic America of limited government, sing hymns to the constitution and denounce the federal bureaucracy in all its forms. Once they are in government themselves, that gig will be over.
Not really.
They have no interest in governing, or governance beyond cutting taxes and raising spending, for the wealthy, rich and uberrich.
They have just come off 12 years of running things and are enjoying being downtrodden.
So what we will see from them are corporate tax breaks, socialism for agri-biz, and other cronyism.
That stuff will get little or no press.
What will get lots of press will be legislation to outlaw the use of Sharia law in the US.
Anti-immigrant laws such as AZ 1070.
And other nonsense attacking Muslims, immigrants, Latinos, GLBT, and the poor.
Anyone who opposes these laws will be Muslim or socialist or worse.
Do you support the practice of Sharia Law in the U.S.??
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
I don't believe the UK "passed" Sharia based laws, but do allow Sharia courts to operate while deeming their decisions binding by UK law under the "Arbitration Act".
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
I don't believe the UK "passed" Sharia based laws, but do allow Sharia courts to operate while deeming their decisions binding by UK law under the "Arbitration Act".
If this is incorrect please set me straight.
b/w
Would this scenario be impossible under U.S. law?
From what I understand it is already happening in Texas.
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
I don't believe the UK "passed" Sharia based laws, but do allow Sharia courts to operate while deeming their decisions binding by UK law under the "Arbitration Act".
If this is incorrect please set me straight.
b/w
Would this scenario be impossible under U.S. law?
So rock, do you support outlawing the use of Sharia law in the US?
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
I don't believe the UK "passed" Sharia based laws, but do allow Sharia courts to operate while deeming their decisions binding by UK law under the "Arbitration Act".
If this is incorrect please set me straight.
b/w
Would this scenario be impossible under U.S. law?
From what I understand it is already happening in Texas.
You don't have to believe in Sharia law to believe that legislation outlawing it is a stupid, jingoistic waste of taxpayer dollars that is intended only to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
I don't believe the UK "passed" Sharia based laws, but do allow Sharia courts to operate while deeming their decisions binding by UK law under the "Arbitration Act".
If this is incorrect please set me straight.
b/w
Would this scenario be impossible under U.S. law?
So rock, do you support outlawing the use of Sharia law in the US?
I am against allowing any religious laws/courts that are separate from, but equal to and upheld by our legal system.
In 2005 Canada changed their Arbitration laws so that such courts could not operate.
The complaints I've heard about the Sharia law/courts that do operate around the world is that they are very discriminatory towards women.
Whether or not this needs to be "outlawed" is a legal question I don't know the answer to.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,916 Posts
Hold on a minute, some of you guys actually believe sharia courts are allowed to operate with impunity in the UK, and that any judgements made by them would be allowed to stand, even though a sharia court has absolutely no authority whatsoever under English law..?
Hold on a minute, some of you guys actually believe sharia courts are allowed to operate with impunity in the UK, and that any judgements made by them would be allowed to stand, even though a sharia court has absolutely no authority whatsoever under English law..?
Hold on a minute, some of you guys actually believe sharia courts are allowed to operate with impunity in the UK, and that any judgements made by them would be allowed to stand, even though a sharia court has absolutely no authority whatsoever under English law..?
not sure how we go on to this but rock sounds on point.
aren't sharia courts recognized and empowered under the Arbitration Act to act as tribunals (a kind of ADR) in civil matters (eg. divorce) when the parties so elect? aren't the decisions of such "courts" legally binding and enforceable?
Hold on a minute, some of you guys actually believe sharia courts are allowed to operate with impunity in the UK, and that any judgements made by them would be allowed to stand, even though a sharia court has absolutely no authority whatsoever under English law..?
Are you fucking mad?
I believe the only way Sharia Law is being legally enforced in the UK is by defining it as an "Arbitration Tribunal" which under your Arbitration Act makes the rulings binding in UK law.
Admittedly this is based on what I've read on the subject, but I do know for fact Canada amended their Arbitration laws to prevent this from happening.
And it's only weed and beer over here..
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,916 Posts
Horseleech said:
DocMcCoy said:
Hold on a minute, some of you guys actually believe sharia courts are allowed to operate with impunity in the UK, and that any judgements made by them would be allowed to stand, even though a sharia court has absolutely no authority whatsoever under English law..?
These are no more than tribunals which essentially function in the same way as Beth Din does in Orthodox Jewish communities, and they have zero impact on non-Muslims. Certain lunatics on both sides of the argument are trying to invest this with more significance than it has because it suits their purpose to do so. The implication that any judgement made in one of these courts would prevail if challenged under English law is utterly laughable.
Here's a quote from a letter dated 18th August 2010 from the Ministry Of Justice to Ayalah Namun of the British Society For Freedom Of Speech;
"As previously stated in earlier correspondence, there are no Sharia courts operating in this country. Only Sharia councils exist, and they do not describe themselves as Sharia 'courts' because they do not have the powers or means of enforcing their decisions. Sharia councils help the Muslim community resolve civil and family disputes by making recommendations, which they hope parties will abide by. They are not part of the court system in this country and they have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of these decisions or recommendations were illegal or contrary to public policy or national law, the law of this country would prevail. This is no different to any other council or tribunal - whether or not based on Sharia law."
Ideology is one thing. But if the tea-partiers do well next week, especially if the Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy. This means having something serious to say about how actually to bring spending under control. To date, they have preferred breezy slogans. Will they cut into pensions and Medicare, and if so how? Will they accept that taming the deficit will require hikes in taxes as well as cuts in spending? Will they continue to oppose reflexively every measure of a Democratic administration, or have the courage to share responsibility for the painful decisions the times demand? It has been all too easy from the outside to conjure up a mythic America of limited government, sing hymns to the constitution and denounce the federal bureaucracy in all its forms. Once they are in government themselves, that gig will be over.
Not really.
They have no interest in governing, or governance beyond cutting taxes and raising spending, for the wealthy, rich and uberrich.
They have just come off 12 years of running things and are enjoying being downtrodden.
So what we will see from them are corporate tax breaks, socialism for agri-biz, and other cronyism.
That stuff will get little or no press.
What will get lots of press will be legislation to outlaw the use of Sharia law in the US.
Anti-immigrant laws such as AZ 1070.
And other nonsense attacking Muslims, immigrants, Latinos, GLBT, and the poor.
Anyone who opposes these laws will be Muslim or socialist or worse.
Don't forget subpoena power. Should make for an exciting 2 years. If you don't agree with the baggers, get ready to called on the carpet and televised by C-Span. Can't wait.
^This one does. The emphasis in the following quote is mine.
[Junior minister Bridget Prentice] said Sharia councils would still have no jurisdiction in England, and rulings by religious authorities would have no legal force.
But she added: "If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgement in Sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court. This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets."
In other words, UK law trumps the decision of a sharia council. As if there were any other possibility.
^For those who don't know, The Daily Mail is like the British print version of Fox News. As per the article in The Times, this article doesn't quote a single government source either, and under-emphasises (deliberately, one must assume) the fact that any rulings made by this "network of courts" have to be ratified by the county courts or the High Court in order to be legally binding.
And other nonsense attacking Muslims, immigrants, Latinos, GLBT, and the poor.
Speaking of Latinos, aside from the Angle/Reid race in Nevada (which most politicos consider to be the most "important" race in the nation... and Angle is going to win, by the way), to me, the second most important race in the nation is the Senate race in Florida, for it will bring forth the ascendancy of the man who will be (among other great things) the most significant threat to the Democrat party's "hold" on one of their most taken-for-granted electoral demographics.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Florida's newest Senator, Marco Rubio.
Comments
The point is that no one is practicing Sharia law in the US.
You might as well pass a bill outlawing the eating of fried unicorn shit.
Absolutly.
Absolutely.
You and I have been around here a long time, and seen a lot of things, and I can honestly say you're right.
I'm still baffled as to what this proposed legislation even contemplates. You can't "practice" a law in the absence of legislation bringing that law into existence, so is the idea that the legislature would pass a law forbidding itself to pass Sharia-based laws? If so, that curtailing of the legislature's own power would seem to require a constitutional amendment.
I don't believe the UK "passed" Sharia based laws, but do allow Sharia courts to operate while deeming their decisions binding by UK law under the "Arbitration Act".
If this is incorrect please set me straight.
b/w
Would this scenario be impossible under U.S. law?
Nah, we've seen worse. If anything, this is the most pathetic attempt at a thread ever.
From what I understand it is already happening in Texas.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/sharia-law-enforced-in-texas/
Could this thread get any worse?
So rock, do you support outlawing the use of Sharia law in the US?
Of all the times I've been to Dearborn, I've only gotten stoned there once or twice.
(thank you! thank you!)
I call bullshit.
I am against allowing any religious laws/courts that are separate from, but equal to and upheld by our legal system.
In 2005 Canada changed their Arbitration laws so that such courts could not operate.
The complaints I've heard about the Sharia law/courts that do operate around the world is that they are very discriminatory towards women.
Whether or not this needs to be "outlawed" is a legal question I don't know the answer to.
Are you fucking mad?
(get it get it?)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3258965/Sharia-rulings-on-divorces-and-disputes-to-be-rubber-stamped-by-English-courts.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/
I didn't know Dane Cook posts here.
not sure how we go on to this but rock sounds on point.
aren't sharia courts recognized and empowered under the Arbitration Act to act as tribunals (a kind of ADR) in civil matters (eg. divorce) when the parties so elect? aren't the decisions of such "courts" legally binding and enforceable?
I believe the only way Sharia Law is being legally enforced in the UK is by defining it as an "Arbitration Tribunal" which under your Arbitration Act makes the rulings binding in UK law.
Admittedly this is based on what I've read on the subject, but I do know for fact Canada amended their Arbitration laws to prevent this from happening.
And it's only weed and beer over here..
These are no more than tribunals which essentially function in the same way as Beth Din does in Orthodox Jewish communities, and they have zero impact on non-Muslims. Certain lunatics on both sides of the argument are trying to invest this with more significance than it has because it suits their purpose to do so. The implication that any judgement made in one of these courts would prevail if challenged under English law is utterly laughable.
Here's a quote from a letter dated 18th August 2010 from the Ministry Of Justice to Ayalah Namun of the British Society For Freedom Of Speech;
"As previously stated in earlier correspondence, there are no Sharia courts operating in this country. Only Sharia councils exist, and they do not describe themselves as Sharia 'courts' because they do not have the powers or means of enforcing their decisions. Sharia councils help the Muslim community resolve civil and family disputes by making recommendations, which they hope parties will abide by. They are not part of the court system in this country and they have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of these decisions or recommendations were illegal or contrary to public policy or national law, the law of this country would prevail. This is no different to any other council or tribunal - whether or not based on Sharia law."
Full text of the letter can be found here.
Don't forget subpoena power. Should make for an exciting 2 years. If you don't agree with the baggers, get ready to called on the carpet and televised by C-Span. Can't wait.
Fixed.
^This article doesn't quote a single government source.
^This one does. The emphasis in the following quote is mine.
In other words, UK law trumps the decision of a sharia council. As if there were any other possibility.
^For those who don't know, The Daily Mail is like the British print version of Fox News. As per the article in The Times, this article doesn't quote a single government source either, and under-emphasises (deliberately, one must assume) the fact that any rulings made by this "network of courts" have to be ratified by the county courts or the High Court in order to be legally binding.
^This article is little more than scare-mongering.
So, one final time for emphasis; there are no sharia "courts" in the UK, and sharia law has no jurisdiction in the UK. Tell your friends.
Speaking of Latinos, aside from the Angle/Reid race in Nevada (which most politicos consider to be the most "important" race in the nation... and Angle is going to win, by the way), to me, the second most important race in the nation is the Senate race in Florida, for it will bring forth the ascendancy of the man who will be (among other great things) the most significant threat to the Democrat party's "hold" on one of their most taken-for-granted electoral demographics.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Florida's newest Senator, Marco Rubio.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586360559462070.html?mod=rss_opinion_main