Reply #22

In the discussion thread: States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law? [View all]

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:07 PM

treestar (40,494 posts)

22. Are they really applying Sharia law or just trying to come up with a definition?

The matter of labeling something about what it is - can only go so far as people understanding the terms. It's not a fraud if it's true but just some people don't understand the term.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

66 replies	Author	Time	Post
States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law? [View all]	no_hypocrisy	May 2012	OP
The State of New York enforces Jewish law	jberryhill	May 2012	#1
Shocking though it might be, kosher is not the only Jewish "law."	aquart	May 2012	#11
The state of New York set up a school district just for Orthodox kids	KamaAina	May 2012	#43
Go ahead.	aquart	May 2012	#2
The "banning" of these types of laws is illogical	treestar	May 2012	#3
It's worse than illogical	jberryhill	May 2012	#4
Not really, because you'd need to label the pork as something other than pork	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#7
And that's where you are wrong	jberryhill	May 2012	#9
Because you have to say it is not pork. Does the law allow one to sell beef as lamb? No.	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#10
Nope, I sell it as "Halal pork"	jberryhill	May 2012	#13
And what of the jurisdictions with halal laws, which you claim do not exist?	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#35
Then you are simply ignorant of the Kansas Law	jberryhill	May 2012	#40
Gee councilor surly, I said in my post I do not know what that law says. I said you might be right	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#47
You've never been "snippy"?	jberryhill	May 2012	#50
Again, the personal nature of your attacks is not called for.	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#54
All that means is "lawful" pork (or "fit/appropriate" pork).	MADem	May 2012	#53
Strangely enough, "halal" housewives won't be buying your "halal pork."	aquart	May 2012	#17
It was an extreme example	jberryhill	May 2012	#19
The fraudulent beef example is better for it lacks the I assume unintended implication	Bluenorthwest	May 2012	#38
Are they really applying Sharia law or just trying to come up with a definition?	treestar	May 2012	#22
The subsidiary fact question turns on a question of religious law	jberryhill	May 2012	#31
But it's still only applying that to a fact question within American law	treestar	May 2012	#52
The relevant text of the Kansas law....	jberryhill	May 2012	#55
And it could add cases that wouldn't have been filed before	treestar	May 2012	#59
Orthodox Jews	edhopper	May 2012	#5
And your point?	aquart	May 2012	#18
The point is that that's why they aren't being targetted by legislation. (nt)	Posteritatis	May 2012	#66
one reason perhaps Sharia law is singled out and targeted for ban by repugs	lunasun	May 2012	#23
What does it say in the constitution?	Rosa Luxemburg	May 2012	#6
What about orthodox any law?	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#8
All religious law should be banned; Canon Law, Rabbinical Courts, and Sharia Law	FarCenter	May 2012	#12
So, you agree that courts should not enforce contracts or wills, right?	jberryhill	May 2012	#14
Contracts and Wills are religious laws?	cleanhippie	May 2012	#15
Simple	jberryhill	May 2012	#16
Unless kosher is a defined term in the commercial code of the state, it is unenforceable.	FarCenter	May 2012	#20
Hello, and welcome to the thread about "banning" religious law	jberryhill	May 2012	#24
The company that I formerly worked sold "Orthodox Union" certified products	Nikia	May 2012	#60
Yes, it is another religious racket	FarCenter	May 2012	#62
Funny, that is a civil case	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#21
So?	jberryhill	May 2012	#27
What part of fraud are you missing	nadinbrzezinski	May 2012	#49
When the determination of "fraud" depends on a determination of religious law	jberryhill	May 2012	#51
Usually Kosher products are certified	Nikia	May 2012	#61
The federal courts of New York didn't think so...	jberryhill	May 2012	#63
It's still deciding American law	treestar	May 2012	#25
Yes, you win the prize - "religious law" can be a subsidiary fact question	jberryhill	May 2012	#29
It is probably unenforceable as against public policy	FarCenter	May 2012	#37
Okay, but you get the point	jberryhill	May 2012	#42
Sticking strictly to your example, define "kosher" for the purposes of the court.	cleanhippie	May 2012	#28
The USDA doesn't have to set the guidelines	jberryhill	May 2012	#30
No, the question will be whether the defendant and the plaintiff are working from the same	cleanhippie	May 2012	#33
If I take you to court	jberryhill	May 2012	#44
The burden will be on you to prove that I did not fulfill my part of the contract.	cleanhippie	May 2012	#57
That's an easy burden to carry	jberryhill	May 2012	#58
You are also missing the HUGE elephant in the room - binding arbitration	jberryhill	May 2012	#36
You are now moving the goalposts. Stop adding conditions to try and meet your case.	cleanhippie	May 2012	#39
I did...	jberryhill	May 2012	#46
A sensible judge would require the spirits of the dead to show up and testify, or throw the case out	WriteWrong	May 2012	#64
That's not how cases involving arbitration enforcement work	jberryhill	May 2012	#65
actually, I don't believe any state has banned Sharia Law	cali	May 2012	#26
I stand corrected, thank you.	no_hypocrisy	May 2012	#32
your point is entirely valid	cali	May 2012	#41
Or Fundamentalist Christian Law	obamanut2012	May 2012	#34
Sure right after	libodem	May 2012	#45
And yet these idiots see nothing ironic about trying to impose	mythology	May 2012	#48
All religious extremist law should be banned.	Initech	May 2012	#56

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.