Posted on 03/08/2012 4:51:11 AM PST by SJackson
TALLAHASSEE — An imam, a rabbi and a pastor walked into Senate President Mike Haridopolos’ office Wednesday with two demands: Withdraw the foreign law bill they say targets Muslims, and investigate who is behind anti-Muslim booklets and flyers circulating the Senate.
Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, presiding over a long-running Senate session, did not engage the clergy or the 20 Muslims, Christians and Jews who carpooled from around the state to protest together. The group organized after reading about the anti-Muslim booklets and flyers.
At issue is a booklet Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, delivered to fellow senators called Shari’ah Law: Radical Islam’s threat to the U.S. Constitution. Hays, sponsor of SB 1360, said he gave out the booklet to educate his peers and influence the votes on a bill that would void marriage, divorce and custody contracts grounded in foreign law. The measure passed the House and is scheduled for a Thursday Senate hearing.
Hays insists the proposal doesn’t target a particular group, but protesters say the intent is obvious.
“This proves this bill is exactly what we’ve been saying it is. It’s intended to target the Muslim community in Florida, and it’s intended to target and limit religious freedoms for Muslims,” said event organizer Ahmed Bedier, president of United Voices of America.
In Haridopolos’s absence, Senate chief of staff Craig Meyer met privately with the clergy and with Bedier.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
A Communist, a molsem, and an illegal alien walked into a bar...
The bartender said: "What can I get you Mr President?"
BADUM Tshhhhh!
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
While I'm sure the idea garners lots of support, it's a bad one. I've no doubt the bill doesn’t target a particular group, that would be clearly unconstitutional. And it will likely have unintended consequences. In the case of Orthodox Jews, arbitration in Jewish courts in matters such as divorce will be invalid. I understand there are Cannon based arbitration services which operate as well, and I can't imagine the Catholic Church will be able to annul a marriage. Certainly a law such as this could easily be adapted to require abortion services at all institutions. Of course I doubt the law will pass constitutional muster anyway.
If one stands off a ways and observes the anti sharia talk and then considers the efforts to insure the Ten Commandments are placed in court houses, the conclusion must be that the imposition of Christian law is acceptable but Islamic law is not.
I notice that these groups always seem to find some “rabbi” who 1) hates Israel, 2) champions Islam, 3) believes in positions contrary to scripture (e.g., gay marriage). Probably find ‘em in the Yellow Pages under Useful Idiots or Traitors.
Unfortunately we have judges who need to be seriously counseled concerning these things.
As I noted earlier I oppose the law and I’m neither a useful idiot or a traitor.
Right?
(NOTE: You got the wrong religion in mind here)
I haven’t read the bill but the ecclesiastical courts of all religions can continue to act so that unless you obtain a get (sp?) you cannot remarry in certain branches of the Jewish faith. There’s a similar ritual for Muslims which of course, only affects the woman. In the Catholic church, under civil law, the Church annulment is required if a person wants to remarry in the Church but the civil process is almost always done first. I’m guessing that the bill wants to make a divorce solely the role of the civil authorities. Even in the existing civil context here in the midwest, the parties can seek and use a mediator. I’m not sure about binding arbitration but if an Iman does the arbitrating, it would still have to be approved by the civil court who could change it based upon various elements of the common law.
But the law doesn't get beyond contract, it focus' on divorce and child custody, contracts and arbitration.
Yes, but agreements reached in religious arbitration would cerainly be set aside if binding, and likely couldn’t be introduced in civil proceedings despite the agreement of the parties even if nonbinding. In your example, the concept of a get violates equal protection laws in most if not all states. Personally I think they’re “fixing” a problem that isn’t there. Religious courts have been around for years, they can’t chop off heads or rape women as these discussions often suggest. Essentially the deal with civil matters only with the agreement of all parties.
The civil law must always be paramount, and no religious court, or agreement belched up by such a court should at all INFLUENCE the decision of our civil courts.
Should be a correction. It should read, "an imam and two Dhimmis."
Sounds like some “religious” “leaders”
desperately need a one way ticket to the most repressive Muslim nation available.
Your point?
You don't like that?
Its very simple. Go ahead and use your courts, but don’t expect the states to adhere to their decisions. What needs to be done is this. Settle your differences however you may choose. Just like us whitey’s we can come to an agreement in matters of custody, support etc.... and not have the courts make those decisions unless they are contested. We then file the proper paperwork through the courts. The Judge will accept the agreement on its merits or deny it. If accepted it is a done deal and we go our separate ways. But don’t expect the states or feds to accept your 12th century decisions based on mysoginy or heathenism. Go back home to the land of camels and sand if you expect to live like heathens.
Since when do women and/or children have ANY rights whatsoever in shariah? There is never an ‘agreement’ between parties. Should a woman be stoned to death for adultery just because her husband and his imam say so? Is honor killing acceptable?
The Public must be made aware of the fact that Islam is not a religion.
It is a theocratic political ideology which seeks to destroy or oppress all religions aside from Islam, using whatever methods are available and most likely of success.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.