Hat tip to Red County and Colony Rabble
Some time ago, one of my anonymous kibitzers took issue with me on the subject of Oklahoma's attempt to legally preclude Islamic Sharia law from their own state law. "It never happens anyway", said Anonymous or some such rot. Well, Anonymous, wherever you are out there, take a look at this.
http://redcounty.com/content/florida-judge-orders-muslims-follow-sharia-law
Two points here: First of all, only civil law should be considered in this or any other local civil dispute. Second, the judge (as Brigitte Gabriel points out) is ordering Muslims who don't want to be subjected to Shariah to follow that law-which has no standing under American law civil or criminal.
Therefore, not only should someone overrule this judge, but it illustrates why states like Oklahoma and more recently South Dakota are looking for ways to protect their state laws from the influence of Sharia law.
Separation of Church/Mosque and State?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Gary, Google is having a specific problem with your site (I encounter it nowhere else) that when logging in, after typing a comment, Google says "Sorry, we can't complete your request."
This time, when I tried to log in separately, Google showed me already logged in. I have no idea whether my comment went through, so I will wait a day before posting again. If if did not reach you, get a head start by reading
http://supreme.justia.com/us/393/440/case.html
But I have plenty to say about it myself, the link is only from the bibliographic references in a long commentary.
Well you're on here.
I have the same site problem Siarlys has occasionally but I just reload the page or give my Google password and everything works fine.
Siarlys has actually submitted a good history and analysis of the First Amendment implications of this religious law question and it was interesting reading.
However, all the cases in the review dealt with disputes within various churches or religions, sometimes dealing with property, that are properly decided by religious courts rather than secular courts. Our courts and juries cannot determine the various rules and orthodoxy of particular religions and it is best for them to determine those things in their own forums and hierarchy.
In this case though when you have Sharia Law which may, for example, allow for a husband to beat his wife this is direct conflict with US laws, which would have jurisdiction. Cutting off hands to punish thieves may be appropriate in Sharia Law but it would never hold up as a defense in criminal case.
The choices for the Muslims in this particular case are to quit this mosque if they don't like the doctrine practiced there. It is not up to US courts to say which type of Sharia Law is superior but once again, Sharia law cannot run afoul of US laws.
.
Actually Miggie, my point was that in this particular case, the dispute WAS about control of church property.
In general, I agree with Gary (and I infer you probably do also) that religious law has no place in judicial reasoning or disposition of civil cases, whether that law is Muslim, Roman Catholic, Orthodox Mormon, Buddhist, Kosher or Amish. The occasional case where a judge justifies wife-beating because the husband thought it was his right are off the wall.
But when it comes to disposition of church property, or control of church assets (mosque, synagogue, ashram, whatever), courts have determined that they MUST simply enforce whatever internal church governance provides, because otherwise they inevitably get drawn into deciding which claimants adhere more faithfully to the doctrine of the faith in question.
Other precedents include whether a state legislature can legislate what authority determines assignment of Russian Orthodox priests in an American city (no). The case I posted concerned whether a George jury can weigh whether a denomination has departed from its traditional doctrine, justifying a local church seceding and taking the property with it (no, courts may not consider such questions -- that's something British courts do, even when it concerns dissenting or nonconforming churches, but American courts cannot).
The grand-daddy of all such cases is Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/80/679/case.html.
I could fault the judge in Florida for failing to cite applicable precedent and provide a semblance of reasoning for his decision. On the other hand, maybe it was all in a preceding opinion, and those who posted and critiqued his ruling failed to provide the background -- in which case they are likewise at fault.
Othodox Mormons believe is is morally acceptable to slit the throat of a disobedient wife. Ask one the difference between himself and Osama bin Laden, he says "I'm right, he's wrong." He is in prison for life, just like the Muslim father in Missouri who stabbed his teenage daughter. Roman Catholics in Brazil think "honor killing" is all right too, although that may be changing somewhat. In our courts, such claims have no standing. The Florida case cited here does not seem to be such a case.
I'd like to hear from an actual orthodox Mormon as to whether slitting the throat of a disobedient wife is current Mormon belief or was ever part of the Mormon religion.
I'd also like to see a citation in support of the assertion that Brazilian Roman Catholics ever supported honor killings in the last 3 or 400 years, whether or not that is changing now.
Personally, I don't believe that either of these two assertions are true. We know that wife beating and honor killings are far too common in the Islamic world and to infer that Christian religions do more or less the same thing is specious.
.
I never heard of that either.
I should first note that by "Orthodox Mormon" I was referring specifically to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not to adherents of the mainstream Mormon presidium in Salt Lake City. I recall a specific murder case in Utah, of two men who are in fact serving life sentences for slitting the throat of a disobedient wife. I had not recalled their names. A quick Google search turned up this article for a general overview:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy1106.html
It is not a sect with millions of followers, but it does have a definite and persistent presence. To some extent, it does carry on the "original" Mormon faith, while the main LDS church adheres to the compromise church leadership made with the jurisprudence of the United States, after losing a low-intensity war with the Seventh Cavalry, trying to keep their theocratic "State of Deseret" independent.
What I was originally thinking of is covered in the book Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (ISBN 1-4000-3280-6) is an investigative non-fiction book by best-selling author Jon Krakauer, first published in July 2003. It is a juxtaposition of two stories: the origin and evolution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and a modern double murder committed in the name of God by brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty, who subscribed to a fundamentalist version of Mormonism. The Laffertys were formerly members of a very small splinter group called the School of the Prophets, led by a man named Robert C. Crossfield (also known by his prophet name Onias). The group accepts many beliefs of the original Church at the time when it ceased the practice of polygamy in the 1890s but do not identify with those who call themselves fundamentalist Mormons. (This information is from Wikipedia, not what any of us would consider a definitive authority, but the book referenced is real enough).
As for Brazil, my recollections were from an hour long documentary, probably done under PBS auspices, but possibly true nevertheless. As a matter of fact, a search reveals that the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that "a man can no longer kill his wife and win acquittal on the ground of 'legitimate defense of honor'." That was published in the New York Times, so maybe honor killing never really ended, but it is clear that this ruling was a CHANGE from the previous status quo.
The article also referenced that "Although never part of the legal code of Brazil, the 'defense of honor' strategy has been used by lawyers to win acquittals in thousands of cases of men on trial for murdering their wives. According to a study in Sao Paulo State for the period 1980-81, 722 men claimed defense of their honor as justification for killing women accused of adultery."
As far as I recall, the defense was also used when a wife was killed for not having her husband's dinner ready on time. I was rather interested in the fact that the Palestinian man convicted of killing his youngest daughter in St. Louis was aided and abetted by the girl's mother, a Brazilian Roman Catholic!!!
Miggie, I know you are predisposed to believe that only the enemies of Israel countenance such atrocities, but it isn't so. They have many roots, in many cultures and faiths. I even noticed some reference to tiny ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects that come close to permitting similar measures... which I won't go into, because whether "Jews do it too" isn't the point.
Note: I posted a detailed response 24 hours ago, but Gary hasn't gotten around to posting it. I think detailed factual accounts of world history give him mental indigestion.
OK, Gary or Google really seem to have lost the earlier response, although I got no notice on the screen except the usual "will be available after review" etc.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the largest of the Mormon groups that were dissatisfied when the church presidium in Salt Lake City accepted the authority of the United States after a low-level war with the U.S. Seventh Cavalry, abandoned polygamy, etc. There are some smaller, and more dangerous, splinters of the same ilk.
Here's a quick link, although not the most unbiased and authoritative source imaginable:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy1106.html
W. John Walsh has been quoted many times saying that “When a man is limited to only one wife, some women will have the choice of marrying a worldly, carnal man or remaining unwed,” Walsh writes. “If men were eternally limited to only one wife each, some women would never have the opportunity for exaltation.
“Plural marriage remedies these penalties by enabling every woman the opportunity to have a righteous husband, enjoy the blessings of motherhood and fill the measure of her creation.”
The book "Under the Banner of Heaven" details the knife murder of 24-year-old Brenda Lafferty and her 15-month-old daughter Erica in American Fork, Utah, in 1984. The culprits were her two brothers-in-law, Ron and Dan Lafferty. They were following the doctrine of "blood atonement," which holds that when a person is in a state of grievous sin, any Mormon in good standing who kills that sinner according to the proper protocol is actually doing the victim a service, cleansing the sin with blood. Of course, blood atonement has fallen into even greater disfavor with official Mormondom than polygamy has, but there are dozens of Mormon splinters who claim to be returning to the "true faith."
OK, on to Brazil: accordingly to coverage in the New York Times, we can all take comfort that the country's Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that thenceforth, a man could no longer win acquittal on a charge of murder after killing his wife in "legitimate defense of honor." The ruling was necessary because the defense had been endemic in Brazilian courts.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/honor-killing-of-wives-is-outlawed-in-brazil.html
Since the New York Times says its all over, that must be true, but I retain a suspicion that this corrective has, in practice, been implemented "with all deliberate speed," and that the practice continues with a bit more subterfuge, rather like the many polygamous Mormon marriages that continue in the back country of Utah, Idaho and Nevada.
Miggie, I know you would prefer to believe that only the enemies of Israel countenance such nefarious practices, but its not true. There are many culture that foster such abominations, for many reasons. Deal with it.
I posted a detailed response to Miggie's question AGAIN, and again I got the message saying it would appear after blog owner approval. Once again, Gary hasn't let it see the light of day. I have never seen Gary so afraid of the truth before.
Siarlys,
I do not recall ever deleting one of your comments. If I did, I would have the courtesy of telling you.
Post a Comment