Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I posted the link to the Appellate ruling on another thread. The link was then reposted on this thread by InformedConsent.
The wife sought a restraining order. It was a case of intent. All criminal offenses look at intent. It isn't a Sharia Law case. The restraining order was sought on domestic violence, hence the points that it was appealed on were thus:
POINT ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED BUT FAILING TO ISSUE A FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER.
A. Defendant's conduct constituted an egregious act of domestic violence.
B. The pendency of simultaneous court proceedings, does not negate the importance of affording domestic violence protections when justified by the record.
C. Given that the parties were about to have a child in common, the trial court erred in determining that the parties would have no further need for communication.
POINT TWO
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.
a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)
Read through the case.
Please note the inability to prosecute the first time. The reconciliation and the refusal to leave with a ticket in hand.
There are more blatant examples of excusing abusive male authority among stricter proponents of complementarianism and submission theology. In June 2007, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Bruce Ware told a Texas church that women often bring abuse on themselves by refusing to submit. And Debi Pearl, half of a husband-and-wife fundamentalist child-training ministry as well as author of the bestselling submission manual, Created to Be His Help Meet, writes that submission is so essential to God’s plan that it must be followed even to the point of allowing abuse. “When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer,” she writes, “it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering.”
^^^posted for the lazy. It is called Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome.
Now, go read the case again only this time instead of counseling from Imam, replace with counseling from Bruce Ware.
You are either against IPV or you are not, which side of the road are you on?
I posted the link to the Appellate ruling on another thread. The link was then reposted on this thread by InformedConsent.
The wife sought a restraining order. It was a case of intent. All criminal offenses look at intent. It isn't a Sharia Law case. The restraining order was sought on domestic violence, hence the points that it was appealed on were thus:
POINT ONE
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED BUT FAILING TO ISSUE A FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER.
A. Defendant's conduct constituted an egregious act of domestic violence.
B. The pendency of simultaneous court proceedings, does not negate the importance of affording domestic violence protections when justified by the record.
C. Given that the parties were about to have a child in common, the trial court erred in determining that the parties would have no further need for communication.
POINT TWO
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.
a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)
Read through the case.
Please note the inability to prosecute the first time. The reconciliation and the refusal to leave with a ticket in hand.
^^^posted for the lazy. It is called Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome.
Now, go read the case again only this time instead of counseling from Imam, replace with counseling from Bruce Ware.
You are either against IPV or you are not, which side of the road are you on?
I am against Intimate Partner Violence, but that is beside the point. The point of this thread is that the courts should not base their decisions upon Sharia Law or any other Religious Law. If, as was stated, Muslims only want to utilize Sharia Laws that do not conflict with the Oklahoma Government's Laws, then they are already free to do so within the confines of their Mosque . There is no need to establish a separate recognition of Sharia Law within the Oklahoma State Courts.
Great Britain and Canada has already done this. There is no reason to believe that Muslims will not try to push this in the U.S. The fact that they are already filing a law suit over this ban of Sharia Law strongly suggests this. I back Oklahoma's preemptive move to forbid the use of Sharia Law.
There are, actually, times when courts in this country have used religious law (usually Jewish, AFAIK) in civil cases in things like divorces where both parties agree that is the system they want to work under. It's basically binding arbitration in a court
Why don't we just incorporate the laws of all the other countries that way no-one will be offended and all the politically correct junkies will be happy. We could rename the country so no-one gets offended....
When I can drink a beer and have some bacon for breakfast in Saudi Arabia I'll have some sympathy. When women are treated as equals, when women are no longer castrated I'll think different.
In regards to criminal courts not considering Shariah Law, there was a case in New Jersey in which a judge used Sharia Law to base his decision regarding Spousal Rape. The case was appealed and eventually overturned. But at what emotional and monetary expense? Why not preemptively avoid this type of thing?
With regard to Muslims abiding by Sharia Laws that do NOT conflict with Oklahoma Law, I don't see what the problem is as long as they keep it out of the U.S. Courts. They can handle these matters within the confines of their mosques since these are religiously mandated matters. An analogy would be the Catholic Church prohibitting birth control. A violator would not be taken to court since it does not violate the laws of the country. It would be handled within the confines of the church through counseling or excommunication, etc.
There should be no mixing of specific Religious Laws and Governmental Laws and since there have been incidents of this in other states, I see Oklahoma's preemptive law as a wise and economical move.
The difference is that Oklahoma hasn't premptively invalidated any laws based upon Catholic doctrine. And, if they did, I'm sure there would be quite a howl about it.
I am against Intimate Partner Violence, but that is beside the point. The point of this thread is that the courts should not base their decisions upon Sharia Law or any other Religious Law. If, as was stated, Muslims only want to utilize Sharia Laws that do not conflict with the Oklahoma Government's Laws, then they are already free to do so within the confines of their Mosque . There is no need to establish a separate recognition of Sharia Law within the Oklahoma State Courts.
Great Britain and Canada has already done this. There is no reason to believe that Muslims will not try to push this in the U.S. The fact that they are already filing a law suit over this ban of Sharia Law strongly suggests this. I back Oklahoma's preemptive move to forbid the use of Sharia Law.
You do not win a card to pull out a case and call it a Sharia case because it suits you. It isn't a Sharia case. Period. So, you will need to find another example of this very horrible threat. Because your example, frankly, sucks and is a complete and total lie or if you prefer, than it is a complete and total twisted interpretation.
In the case that is being used, the woman was to leave the US as the Visa was up, the restraining order would not have been effective anyway.
And might I add that you are a proponant of making it doubly illegal, because the ancient tribal views are illegal anyway, and international jurisprudence be damned----you then point to other countries----because it suits you?
Can you wear the hijab to get a drivers license? Like no.
The most basic way to break this down is like this: Many Christians in the United States strive to be good Christians by reading their particular version of the Bible and trying to incorporate it into their daily lives.
They recognize, in most instances--IPV aside-that no matter how much they may object-they must abide by the law of the land. In this land the Constitution is the highest law of the land.
Muslims also strive to be good by applying Sharia in their daily actions. The jurisprudence that you are afraid of is called Fiqh. What is the problem? The Consitution is still the highest law of the land.
Nothing changed.
By singling out one specific religion and with minimal clarity, you have chosen one religion or any other religion over one. You cannot do that. It violates the First Amendment.
You are deliberately being obtuse. You need to go look at the arguments provided.
You are in denial.
I already did look at the arguments. AND I quoted the ruling:
Quote:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No.
