Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:30:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants  (Read 2665 times)
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2016, 08:33:06 PM »
« edited: August 16, 2016, 08:37:00 PM by Santander »

As for the British application of religious law by general courts. The problem lies in the fact that Britain ENGLAND has no separation of Church and State. In fact, it has an officially established Church.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2016, 08:37:54 PM »

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

I'm not.  You people are freaks.


I mean, we are not the ones having sex with goats Smiley
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2016, 08:39:38 PM »

As for the British application of religious law by general courts. The problem lies in the fact that Britain ENGLAND has no separation of Church and State. In fact, it has an officially established Church.

Point taken Smiley

Another reason for Scotland to resent the union with such a backward uncivilized country as England.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2016, 08:40:48 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don't you ask Hirsi Ali that same question? I have no problem with denying citizenship to anyone who states that they believe that Sharia should be law in the United States.

Why not halakha? What is the freaking difference?

And, BTW, do you acknowledge that you, gentiles, routinely have sex with goats?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 16, 2016, 09:03:13 PM »

And, BTW, there is a reason Jews are not warming much to Trump. No matter what our political or religious persuasion, we all know far too well that once they start with an ideological test for Muslims, we aren't far behind. Some of my fellow tribesemen may, actually, hate Muslims, but few have enough faith in the newfound Judeo-Christian friendship to think of themselves as a permanent part of the "white" majority.

It is, actually, quite hilarious to observe conservative Russian Jews in the US this time. They hate Hillary. They hate Muslims. They hate blacks. They hate Mexicans. But Trump activates all the danger sensors they have grown over the centuries of surviving in Russia. They know the type - and they know how dangerous he is. Dangerous to them, personally to them. Their ideology tells them to adore Trump. Their heart and their brains combine to tell them to hate the guy. A lot of them have started sounding positively deranged recently.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 16, 2016, 09:15:19 PM »

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the US constitution that would contravene this or any other limitation of immigration.

Nothing whatsoever indeed. Foreigners have no standing here.

It might not be possible to order a US citizen to enforce such a system, though.

Or, as it says in the Olsen vs. Albright:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/990/31/1405494/
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2016, 09:55:27 PM »
« Edited: August 16, 2016, 10:03:14 PM by angus »

you, gentiles, routinely have sex with goats?

I wish.  It's been so long I forgot what a tender young goat feels like.  

And you yids buy up all our turkeys so that only leaves deers.  Unfortunately they run too fast and their assholes are too high anyway.  Tongue

Seriously, though, the whole ideological supremacy thing is a bit much.  Too French.  Sure, Muslims and Jews and Hindus promise their two-year-old daughters in marriage.  So what?  Sure, all goyyim have sex with goats.  So what?  It's what makes us great, and Making America Great Again is the whole point.  

I didn't read the details of the Trump ideological plan, but I do know that I cringed when I read a few years ago that certain governments in the European Union (and California!) were forbidding the wearing of islamic headwear or crucifixes in public schools.  It's political correctness run amok.  Not that we need additional reasons not to support Trump, but the idea of an ideological test does deserve its own discussion apart from the Trump candidacy.  I'm against it.  There will be communists, fascists, freaks, satanists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, people who attend Dude Fest, Merkin-wearing Burning Man attendees, feminists, masculinists, vegans.  Diversity is not a bad thing.  Can you hold a job?  That's a legitimate question.  Do you have any skills other than bartending?  That's legit as well.  Those questions deal with economics, and the economic burden placed upon the larger society.  The black caftan-wearing yids in Williamsburg, however weird they may seem to us goatfucking goyyim, do create microeconomies and generally support themselves.  The poles understood this eight hundred years ago when they encouraged immigration.  I think you're taking the thread a little off course with a discussion of the bizarre ethnoreligious customs of certain groups.  Who cares about that?  Sure, you people have some weird customs, but if you can add value to the society and don't become a burden to the taxpayers, then I don't care if you shave your head and wear a wig and refuse to let me have carnal knowledge with your goat.  Similarly, sharia law doesn't bother me as long as the folks in a ten square block of detroit are happy with it, and you're right about it not being any more foreign than the bigoted and insular acculturation that occurs in Williamsburg, or in the many Mormon communities of the Southwest, for that matter.  

You need to put all that thousand-year-old hatred of the Eastern European aristocracy aside.  This is about economics.  There is enough to dislike about Trump without likening him to the cossacks.  They at least had reason to loathe and fear those Jews who worked for the nobility.  Trump and his supporters have no such justification for indignation.  They are just responding to general anxiety.

Hell, we have people here who dress like it's 1847.  I don't know why.  They drive horses pulling black buggies.  If you haven't been to southeastern Pennsylvania it'll startle you.  There are many cults here.  There are at least 14 flavors of mennonites and at least four flavors of Amish.  There are quakers as well (I've attended a function at one of their meeting halls).  WE also have a handfull of black skullcap-wearing Jews with sidecurls and shaved heads who put their women and children in black dresses and headscarves even on days like today, when it's ninety-five degrees.  None of my business, and none of Donald Trump's.  To me, they all dress alike, although I suspect that to each other they have subtle differences that are obvious.  Yes, I'll admit that the Amish, the Hassids, the ultra-Orthodox Jews, some Muslims and Hindus, and some Christians seem to suppress their women and children in a way that seems deeply opposed to the culturally fashionable moralism that is prevalent in the US and Western Europe, and I don't know why they do all that, but I really don't care.  They pay taxes and they stay out of trouble.  That's really the only ideological test we need.  The court case you cite is correct.  They are not always right, but they were in that case.  Such ideological tests are not justified, despite our own prejudices.




Logged
Desroko
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2016, 10:01:22 PM »

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the US constitution that would contravene this or any other limitation of immigration.

Nothing whatsoever indeed. Foreigners have no standing here.


As an aside, you shouldn't use legal terms like "standing" in a discussion like this unless you are absolutely sure that you're using it correctly. Foreigners absolutely can have standing in US courts. Stick to broader non-legal terms when trying to make a point like that.

(FYI, it's not settled whether the First Amendment applies to undocumented or prospective immigrants. It does protect resident aliens.)
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2016, 10:14:34 PM »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided.  

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years.  

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 16, 2016, 10:30:44 PM »
« Edited: August 16, 2016, 10:37:54 PM by ag »

This is more than likely blatantly unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the US constitution that would contravene this or any other limitation of immigration.

Nothing whatsoever indeed. Foreigners have no standing here.


As an aside, you shouldn't use legal terms like "standing" in a discussion like this unless you are absolutely sure that you're using it correctly. Foreigners absolutely can have standing in US courts. Stick to broader non-legal terms when trying to make a point like that.


I, actually, use the term advisedly. Though foreigners do have standing in US courts, they do not have standing in matters of admission to the US. This is, to the best of my understanding, a very well-established doctrine. An applicant for a visa may be able to demonstrate that decision to exclude him or her was legally flawed on whatever grounds - s/he cannot sue. This, BTW, was an issue that was discussed a lot when visas for brides/grooms were introduced. This, finally, created a non-immigrant visa category potentially subject to judicial review: though a foreign bride still cannot go to court, her fiance may. It is also a difference between US and Canadian law: there is some avenue for judicial appeal in Canada. In fact, Canadian consular employees are instructed to keep records of their decision process in case courts ask for those. American consuls are explicitly told to destroy any such records.

This is, actually, what makes the Olsen vs. Albright so unique. The US consulate in which he worked was blatantly discriminating on racial grounds and this was well-know, but no visa applicant could sue. But, of course, Olsen was a US citizen, and he objected to being punished for refusing to follow unconstitutional orders. He, most certainly, did have standing there. And that is the only reason we actually have a court ruling saying such discrmination in visa process is unconstitutional.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 16, 2016, 10:32:33 PM »
« Edited: August 16, 2016, 10:38:24 PM by ag »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided.  

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years.  

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.

And, literally, nobody in the US - Muslim, Jewish or Pastafarian - has ever suggested anything else. It is completely a non-issue, given the US constitutional system. It is, of course, quite another matter in Israel - there religious law is the law for communities in question.

There is no reason to believe that Muslims are any more perfidious in pushing for their law than Jews. Not even the practice in many Muslim-majority states - the one Jewish-majority state does the same.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 16, 2016, 10:40:58 PM »



Hell, we have people here who dress like it's 1847.  I don't know why.  They drive horses pulling black buggies.  If you haven't been to southeastern Pennsylvania it'll startle you.  


Been there, been there Smiley We also have mennonite communities in Mexico - and all over Latin America, actually. And Russia has Old Believers, who would not eat potatos, because these were unknown in Russia in 1654. I know more about these kinds of communities than you suspect Smiley
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 16, 2016, 10:43:03 PM »


You need to put all that thousand-year-old hatred of the Eastern European aristocracy aside.  This is about economics.  


It is, and it is not. Xenophobia may be an expression of economic anxiety, but economic anxiety does not have to manifest itself in xenophobia.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 16, 2016, 10:44:45 PM »

 There is enough to dislike about Trump without likening him to the cossacks.


He is not a Cossack. He is a pogromshchik. Urban-style. Like in Chisinau or Odessa.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 16, 2016, 10:46:44 PM »

I think you're taking the thread a little off course with a discussion of the bizarre ethnoreligious customs of certain groups.  Who cares about that?


You missed my point Smiley Some people (not you) have built a straw man. I am burning him Smiley
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 16, 2016, 10:56:00 PM »

This seems like a great idea, but I think Trump should start with building a committee of people inside the government before going ahead with this plan, like congressmen? Maybe call it the House Un-American Activities Committee?

/s
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 17, 2016, 08:47:53 AM »


perhaps.  I have a cognac headache this morning.  I'll read over your long post again when my neurons are better functioning. 

I've seen mennonites in Belize and Guatemala.  Never ran into them in Mexico.  Interesting.

also, I concede:  pogromshchik was analogy that I was looking for, not cossacks.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 17, 2016, 09:38:14 AM »

LOL. I want a sanity test for presidential candidates. Would make more sense for someone who’s seeking to get the nuke codes.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 17, 2016, 09:45:26 AM »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided. 

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years. 

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.

How is this substantially different from voluntarily submitting to binding arbitration?
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 17, 2016, 10:11:15 AM »



The Serbian Radical Party is ready to take Donald's test
Logged
Desroko
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 17, 2016, 10:45:08 AM »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided. 

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years. 

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.

How is this substantially different from voluntarily submitting to binding arbitration?

Arbitration courts are secular, while granting civil jurisdiction to religious courts would entail something much more than the remote and minimal relationship envisioned under Walz.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 17, 2016, 11:11:04 AM »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided. 

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years. 

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.

How is this substantially different from voluntarily submitting to binding arbitration?

Arbitration courts are secular, while granting civil jurisdiction to religious courts would entail something much more than the remote and minimal relationship envisioned under Walz.

Do arbitration courts have to be secular? If that's the objection, then do the same people opposing sharia oppose states that have enacted covenant marriage?
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,948
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 17, 2016, 03:30:35 PM »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.
In a country where sharia law is state law it obviously affects non-Muslims as well. There are 13 centuries of sharia law practice to back this up. And there is of course the prescription of how non-believers are to be treated in a Muslim state which are certainly part of Sharia as well.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 17, 2016, 09:05:20 PM »


 to the point of imposing it on non-Muslims.

This pretty much directly contradicts sharia. Next.

When you allow Muslims to submit matters of family law to Sharia Courts, the religious freedoms and liberties of at least one party (usually the female) are voided. 

No religious court should be empowered to sit in a judgement of any kind binding on a secular society.  At least not in America.

How is that different from submiting matters of family law to the rabbinical courts? Remember, Israel does not even have secular family law for Jews (recently they made up something for the mixed couples - until then such couples had to get married outside of Israel):  for a Jew there are only Halakhic courts, and nothing else (same for others, BTW: they use sharia for Muslims and churches deal with Christians). Within Judaism secular family law is an impossibility - it directly contradicts the most fundamental aspects of the Jewish faith.  In this respect there is exactly no difference between Judaism and Islam. Zilch. Nada.

Nor is the Jewish law particularly pleasant as far as gender equality is concerned. I mean, as a wise Jewish lawyer said: a Jew should avoid passing between a woman and an ass - for neither studies the Torah. For instance, a man can divorce his wife at will, simply by announcing his intention (following certain religiously-specified formalities, the infamous get) - a woman cannot be divroced from her husband without his explicit agreement. This is the Law that any religious (ok, Orthodox) Jew belives is given by God and no human can change it. BTW, it has been forced on millions of US citizens inside the US: no religious Jewish woman can re-marry without getting the get, no matter what the civil law (which from Jewish standpoint has no validity here) says. Orthodox rabbis inside the US follow this law - you will not be able to persuade one to officiate a marraige that is perfectly legal by US law. And were such a woman to remarry outside the rabbinical legal system, her child would be legally a momser - a bastard. A bastard cannot legally get married at all - his or her children are momsers no matter what. BTW, Israeli goverment maintains lists of bastards to make sure these cannot get married in Israel. Some families have been on the lists (which Israel has adopted from the pre-Israeli rabbinical courts) for hundreds of years. 

And rabbinical courts have real power in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. As you, probably, do not know, a married Jewish woman must shave her head and wear a wig. Some of the best wigs (and these costs thousands of dollars) are made in India, from the hair Indian women cut in Hindu ceremonies. Some years ago a rabbinical court ruled that such pagan wigs cannot be used by Jewish women. Many hundreds, if not thousands, women in NYC had to stay home for weeks, while their husbands were searching for the proper Jewish wigs. For those people a rabbinical ruling is far more important than anything SCOTUS may say.

And it goes beyond the family law. An authoritative legal commentary, which many rabbinical courts still find valid, states that a Jew should not sell his goat to a gentile. This is so for a rather delicate reason. It is well-known (among the good Jews) that gentiles practice zoophilia. So a Jew, selling a goat to you, would be guilty of aiding and abetting a very perverse sexual practice.

Are you sure you still want to let my fellow tribesmen into the US?

If folks, in a religious concept, go to a Rabbinical court to decide something, that's one thing.  But such a resolution should never be binding on any person as far as civil law goes.

How is this substantially different from voluntarily submitting to binding arbitration?

Submitting to binding arbitration is part of the civil legal process that one would do with the advice of an attorney.  Submitting to Sharia Law to resolve a dispute is a process that opens itself up to people who are part of the process using emotional coercion to get an aggrieved party to forsake civil justice and go the religious route.  Given the treatment of Muslim women in many nations, it is not unreasonable to believe that such an option, when formalized, would open up Muslim women in America to be coerced out of their valuable legal rights.  To say nothing of the degree to which this actually makes a church a de facto part of the state if submitting the matter to a Sharia court was an action that couldn't be taken back. 

I believe that most of the red avatars here were very much in favor of the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.  If so, how can one entertain this idea for five measly seconds? 
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: August 18, 2016, 05:30:47 AM »

Do you really think that every time people enter into binding arbitration it's due to a completely symmetric and voluntary agreement on both sides? Come on now.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 13 queries.