Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
29. Yes, you win the prize - "religious law" can be a subsidiary fact question
Mon May 28, 2012, 01:15 PM
May 2012

Now, go read some of the "anti shariah law" proposals.

They literally prohibit courts from applying religious law to ANY question. There is no carve-out for answering subsidiary questions of fact in a legal dispute properly before the court.

For example, if the will says, "I leave my house to my son, provided he marries a Catholic by age 25, otherwise the house goes to St. Alphonso's Pancake Breakfast Mission" then the son and St. Alphonso's are going to end up in Probate Court to figure out whether he married a Catholic.
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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»States are incrementally ...»Reply #29