Trump wants an ideological test for immigrants

[Slander and/or Libel]

 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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

 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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

People enter binding arbitration because their lawyers tell them to.  Not every party in a civil matter has equal leverage, and people decide to go to binding arbitration for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to go through a protracted legal struggle and dealing with the costs of such a thing.

Sharia Courts, however, in family matters offer arbitration that is hardly secular and objective.  Women, vulnerable to coercion, will be pressured and intimidated to take family law disputes to Sharia Courts, and not the civil courts, and this would extend to non-Muslims who marry Muslims. 

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/damning-report-slams-misogyny-uk-sharia-courts

Women in America have fought long and hard to be free from abuse and coercion within their homes.  My mother sought a divorce from my stepfather in 1974 and got it, but Judicial Selection was a huge issue.  It was possible that her case was going to be handled by an older Catholic male Judge (in NY State) with doctrinaire Catholic views on the subject for the time.  Her lawyer told her that this Judge, in denying a woman who had been abused cruelly be her husband a divorce, told the woman in Open Court, "If you can stand this man for twenty (20) years, you can stand him for the rest of your life."  Allowing Sharia Courts to get the smallest toehold in America allow at least some women to be subject to coercion by their male partners and to be subject to misogyny by the Sharia Judge(s).  Sharia Courts are a blight on the UK and represent a repudiation of American concepts of individual rights. 

I don't think there's really good evidence that private arbitrators are inherently and largely objective, especially if they're appointed through a corporate agreement.

My point wasn't to argue the finer points of Sharia law. My point was simply that there are plenty of avenues in life through which people voluntarily choose avenues other than judicial ones for dispute resolution.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Doesn't binding arbitration pressure consumers to give up their rights to corporate interests?