What Would Anglican Jesus Do? (Sharia Court Controversy Edition) (Trees And Things)

port1080: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:46:39 EST

The lack of appeal in arbitration agreements strikes me as a significant flaw, and I find it hard to believe that it could stand a Constitutional challenge, especially since there are a lot of "voluntary" arbitration agreements that aren't actually volu

JimmyHavok: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:25:30 EST
We are in agreement.
The lack of appeal in arbitration agreements strikes me as a significant flaw, and I find it hard to believe that it could stand a Constitutional challenge, especially since there are a lot of "voluntary" arbitration agreemen

port1080: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:43:38 EST
You're going to pass a law against religiously based voluntary arbitration? I think you're a little confused about what "no law" means.
I think we have wildly divergent views of what arbitration means. I am using its legal definition, you ar

JimmyHavok: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:18:03 EST
You're going to pass a law against religiously based voluntary arbitration? I think you're a little confused about what "no law" means.
Voluntary arbitration doesn't trump the civil or criminal courts, it's simply a step to try to avoid them. &nbs

JimmyHavok: Re: talking to the intellectually disabled

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:13:57 EST
therefore I must be racist.
Gosh, how could I ever see racism in this statement?
For myself I strongly oppose this idea on the grounds that it pr

skeptic: two words

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:55:19 EST
Too succinct.

thefadd: three words

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:03:37 EST
personal interface checkboxes

wetkarma: Re: talking to the intellectually disabled

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:10:06 EST

Forgive me for channeling the rightwing mind. While Muslims are indeed from all over the world, the people who say "Islamofascist" generally portray them as dirty brown people, and while Islam is a religion, Islamophobia takes the form of rac

port1080: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:37:55 EST
The first amendment is exactly why you can't allow arbitration. If that's not obvious to you on the face of it, then there's nothing I'll ever say that will convince you. I hope you enjoy our coming theocratic paradise.

JimmyHavok: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:06:05 EST
First amendment, anyone? If you are going to allow arbitration, I don't see how you can prohibit religious arbitration.

port1080: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:53:38 EST
I guess you missed the part about "voluntary."
There's voluntary, and then there's voluntary. For example, if you and I have a business dispute we could settle it a few different ways. One way would be to take it to court. Another way would

JimmyHavok: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:24:39 EST
those courts should in no way, shape, or form have the weight or sanction of actual law behind them.
I guess you missed the part about "voluntary."

JimmyHavok: Re: talking to the intellectually disabled

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:21:49 EST
Forgive me for channeling the rightwing mind. While Muslims are indeed from all over the world, the people who say "Islamofascist" generally portray them as dirty brown people, and while Islam is a religion, Islamophobia takes the form of racism, rat

skeptic: Re: the wetkarma arbitration panel

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:33:20 EST
It is not impossible in principle that you could promulgate your own movement - whether based upon movies (as in the Jedi knights) or religious cultism (Scientology) or politics (name your party) or whatever. But it's not as easy as you might think.

port1080: Re: Ever watch People's Court?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:13:03 EST
A Sharia court would be no different:
Well, let's talk about the differences.
Difference #1 - the "People's Court" (and similar shows) only takes civil cases where monetary damages are involved. There is also a limit to the monetary d

wetkarma: Re: the wetkarma arbitration panel

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:50:46 EST

Although you could in principle set up Wetkarma's Arbitration Panel as you propose, there is still a significant difference between that and the suggested Muslim courts, which is that there is only one wetkarma (to my knowledge) and there are a who

wetkarma: talking to the intellectually disabled

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:05:23 EST

You're right that this is nothing except a suggestion that Muslims be allowed to conduct arbitration according to their own law. And I'm not surprised that you immediately dissolved into a racist frenzy at the thought. Muslims are to ri

JimmyHavok: Ever watch People's Court?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:46:37 EST
A Sharia court would be no different: as MayorBob points out, it would be voluntary arbitration that, if one party or another decided to dispute it, would then go to a regular court. And somehow or other, our civilization hasn't dissolved since Judge

gerrymander: Re: who hearts who?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:19:06 EST
That's probably the kindest thing I've said about Huckabee, too.

1fastdog: who hearts who?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:01:12 EST
Sharia law does two things which should be abhorrent to a Western, liberal government: it claims an unbreakable tie between civil and religious law, and it specifically encodes discrimination.
Sooooooo, you're saying that Mike Huckabee's a practi

Steve Urkel: Turf notes

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:49:34 EST
The Queen should remove Rowan and replace him with a new Archbishop. I'm going to suggest this to her the next time I see her at the track.

gerrymander: Re: Murder In The Cathedral (Modern Media Edition)

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:23:24 EST
But, for all the Archbishop's skillful and deft crafting of his statement, he needn't have gotten beyond uttering the word "Sharia" and everyone tipped over their water dishes.
There's a valid reason for that. Sharia law does two things which sho

skeptic: the wetkarma arbitration panel

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:23:59 EST
Although you could in principle set up Wetkarma's Arbitration Panel as you propose, there is still a significant difference between that and the suggested Muslim courts, which is that there is only one wetkarma (to my knowledge) and there are a whole lot o

port1080: Re: Murder In The Cathedral (Modern Media Edition)

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:02:28 EST
Actually, in both the US and Canada, there is a tradition of upholding the decisions made by some courts which fall outside of civil authority in both countries. I'm referring to tribal courts of Native Americans or Native Peoples.
This isn't

MayorBob: Murder In The Cathedral (Modern Media Edition)

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:46:02 EST
The truly interesting aspect of this story is the awesome power of the media and the movers and shakers in society to leap to conclusions and insert words into what the Archbishop said. What he said is that, sooner or later, civil authority is going

JimmyHavok: Re: You call it Sharia, I call it binding arbitrat

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 04:44:51 EST
You're right that this is nothing except a suggestion that Muslims be allowed to conduct arbitration according to their own law. And I'm not surprised that you immediately dissolved into a racist frenzy at the thought. Muslims are to rightloons

wetkarma: You call it Sharia, I call it binding arbitration

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 04:03:12 EST
If Bob Co. and Will Co. agree to settle their dispute in arbitration, most courts will go along with whatever the arbiter decides as long as the ruling isn't outrageous*. This is why virtually ever cell phone/ISP/service provider in the USA now has a secti

port1080: Sometimes the French get it right...

Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:49:36 EST
This is one development you will never see in France, at least - maybe the only country on the Continent where this might not be an issue, though. Since most European nations never officially abolished their state religions, there is still a shocking