I’m heading to Florida next week, I wonder if I should force my wife to cover up and walk behind me.
The Florida lawsuit, filed in 2008, concerns, among other things, $2.2 million in state money the Islamic Education Center of Tampa received in an eminent domain settlement when some of its land was used in a road project. Shortly before the case was to go to trial, those who brought the suit sought to have the court enforce an arbitrator’s award reached under Islamic law.
The judge said in a March 3 ruling that he would decide whether the teachings of the Quran were followed properly in the arbitration.
Defending his earlier ruling, Nielsen wrote in his March 22 opinion that it is settled doctrine that religious law can be used is certain disputes between members of a faith.
Sure religious law can be used to settle disputes between members…but not when you involve state or federal courts. In America we do have some “religious laws” on the books, things like Adultery, blue laws, or sodomy laws…but I put the quotes in because while they may be based on laws in such-and-such scripture, or doctrine, they were established in a secular fashion. If an Islamic group wanted to lobby for such-and-such a Sharia law to be placed on the local or federal books, there is a channel for that, but essentially it would need to be voted into law through our secular legal system.
This is not only Bad Justice, but its downright dangerous. let’s hope this Judge is reprimanded, and his decision is overturned, because this is NOT how we conduct justice in America.
If that’s your plan, you might want to take away her shotgun, first 😉
You try, I’ll be hiding behind my truck’s engine block! 😉
Wait, so two private parties had a private arbitration based on whatever rules that they both initially followed, and now they’re suing each other, saying these rules weren’t followed properly in the arbitration, or shouldn’t have been binding.
What’s the problem? This is basically what civil courts are for. What the arbitration rules were is pretty much irreverent, and caselaw is pretty consistent as to what religious rules can be binding. Here in Boston, we’ve generated more than a few of these cases with the Catholic church as a party.
Dude, I suspect you’re a really smart guy, but you’re really falling prey to the sort of crazy headlines people forward to each other in chain emails.
That is correct. Basically two parties used Sharia Law to settle a dispute privately then for whatever reason one didnt like the outcome and sued over it.
In this case the judge is NOT saying he is using Sharia Law in the dispute but rather will rule on if the agreement reached by the two parties involved follows the religious laws as understood by these parties and per how Sharia binds them. This is no different if two parties decide to settle their differences by flipping a coin, write up a contract to that effect, have a witness observer the flip, and then the losing party decides to sue because he did not like the outcome.
I have to agree with ZK here Weerd- usually you dont fall for this type of obfuscation because you are a pretty smart and savvy guy but I believe this is an over reaction.
Didn’t Days of our Trailer start a religion a while back?
Church of JMB or something?
Let’s embrace this decision and then convert to the new church. If Sikh’s can carry their ceremonial daggers to school, then we should be able to carry our firearms; right?
While I think that’s a great idea (1911s unite!) this decisions doesn’t actually change anything. While the article doesn’t say, these sort of cases are pretty typical and are usually about internal matters not easily settled by state law, like who actually owns or ‘runs’ the church or which members are “shareholders”.
A better headline for this article would be “Court Follows Usual Method to Determine Administrative Bullshit Nobody Cares About”.
I’m not sure if this is a koran thing, or a sour grapes suit over the outcome of arbitration. I’m leaning towards the latter – meaning this case will get 15 seconds of fame, 14.98 of which will be out of context.
OTOH, Weerd, you’d look good in a burqa. You do have the kind eyes for it.