Yet Another Group Wants Its Own Law

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Madeline, Dec 13, 2010.

  1. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Amish demand to judge their own | The Columbus Dispatch

    The entire article is interesting...please read it. I was struck by the creditors' interest in forgiveness for the man who squandered half their wealth.

    I was also struck by the contrast between what the Amish want and what some believe Muslim Americans may want -- the right to settle disputes on their own, under their religious principles, without a civil court. Is this really such a bad thing, if all parties agree?

    What're your thoughts?
     
  2. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,443
    Thanks Received:
    4,010
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,007
    For civil issues, this is acceptable, as long as all parties agree willingly. There is no juristiction from a civil court unless 1 party or both bring the matter before a judge. All civil courts provide is redress when two parties cannot come to a settlement on thier own.

    The issue seen with sharia law is that the proponents at times also want to have thier own courts handle criminal matters as well, which since crimes are against both individuals and the people (i.e. the state) at the same time, would then create a second tier of justice, which I would oppose.

    There is also the issue of coersion. Most sharia proponents want it to handle mostly family law. In a religon such as some forms of Islam, where womens rights are at best given only a passing recognition, the concept of both parties agreeing to the shaira court is dubious at best.

    What the amish are doing is pretty much arbitration. The only caveat I would add is that both parties should retain the right to bring this to court if they so feel it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    I rarely trust a fundie, if ever.
     
  4. High_Gravity
    Offline

    High_Gravity Belligerent Drunk Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    40,159
    Thanks Received:
    6,894
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Richmond VA
    Ratings:
    +7,726
    The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man. Shariah is incompatible with American law, point blank period. If I moved to Iran and faced a legal dispute and asked them to handle it under American law they would laugh in my face.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    The Amish are certainly not "doing arbitration", marty. I dun know if one could even call what they have in mind "alternative dispute resolution"; sounds as if they want to hold a prayer meeting and be done. And yes, coercion is a possibility...imagine the pressure that'd be applied if one Amish creditor resisted the request to handle this out of court? I dun know how such a risk could ever be managed.

    There is zero chance that criminal matters will ever be heard in religious courts in the US regardless of the religion. Small property matters, yes...but every day, DAs all over the country accede to a complainant's wishes and dismiss such matters in exchange for restitution, etc. But not major property crimes or crimes against persons, no. In this case, the man who "lost" the money is under SEC investigation; if they develop evidence of a crime, nobody is going agree to let the Amish handle that one.

     
  6. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,443
    Thanks Received:
    4,010
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,007
    That is the main concern, as I noted above.
     
  7. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,443
    Thanks Received:
    4,010
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,007
    If the SEC finds violations, as opposed to just stupidity (it does exist), then yes, the courts have to become involved as now the finacial process becomes an injured party.

    If, however no malice or rule breaking was found, and all injured parties consent to letting them handle it themselves, there is no real legal standing to force them to use the courts. Once they decide to handle the matter on thier own, it basically becomes a contract negotiation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    As far as I know, the Constitution declares that we are all equal under the law. So, because I am not a member of some religious group, I have only ONE option for civil cases - the courts. Tough shit for the Muslims and Amish/Mennonites - they can have the same options as I.

    If the courts feel arbitration is acceptable, then the courts can assign that arbitration, as they would for any non-religious person.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Apparently you are none too familiar with the Amish, High Gravity. Ladies dun fare all that much better under their beliefs, either. In fact, most religious dispute resolution processes in the US -- Catholic, Jewish, Native American, etc. -- can all be faulted in that way to one degree or another, as most or all arise from the oldest, most orthodox teachings of the sect/tribe.

    Again, in the US, any alternative dispute resolution, religious or not, has to be limited to civil matters. The provisions of Sharia Law bearing on criminal matters, inheritance, child custody and divorce, etc. are more or less moot here. I suppose they might could be relevant in a US court as to a question of intent, but that's all.....you cannot deprive a US court of exclusive jurisdiction of its power over a case.

    I have no idea how Iranian law views alternative dispute resolution processes, and I am confused as to how that's relevant. The issue is not can Americans in foreign lands rely on the US constitution (and I'd expect, most times, the answer is "no") but rather, what constitutional limits are there on Americans who wish to use ADR processes in the US?
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2010
  10. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    I agree, but it is also a concern with respect to any other ADR -- a Catholic parent might feel tremendous pressure to dismiss a lawsuit over her child's sex abuse; a Jewish woman might feel a tremendous pressure to dismiss a property dispute with her former spouse; etc.

    There likely are one or more Amish creditors in this bankruptcy none too pleased to be kissing off any chance at a recovery.

    How can such duress be measured? At what point is it "undue"?
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2010

Share This Page