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 damages. People's Court also doesn't take family court / divorce law cases (*I do vaguely remember there being a show called "Divorce Court" at one time, but it looks like it's been off the air for quite a while), which Sharia court surely would.

Difference #2 - "People's Court" is still based on American jurisprudence. The judges showboat and whatnot, but generally their rulings are consistent with what you would get in any small claims court across the country. Sharia court, on the other hand, would rely on sharia law, which (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread) is inherently discriminatory towards women, and has a number of other quirks that make it completely incompatible with American jurisprudence.

Difference #3 - "People's Court" is open to everyone (at least, everyone who has a case that looks like it would bring in good TV ratings) and not based on a particular culture. Why does this matter? Because Sharia courts are community based and based on Muslim culture - which means that there would be infinitely more pressure for Muslims to, first, use the Sharia courts instead of regular courts of law, and second, to abide by the Sharia court decisions rather than appeal them, for fear of being shunned within their community. This sort of thing already happens on a smaller scale among the Amish and Hasidic Jews in America - I see no reason to actually legally institutionalize the ability of religions to coerce their followers into submission.

But I guess he wasn't a MUSLIM!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!

Muslim, Amish, Jewish or Baptist - I don't care. Officially sanctioned religious courts have no place in the US, and if it was another religion proposing this I'd be just as upset. If Muslims or whoever want to have unofficial religious courts, there's nothing I would do to stop them, but the decisions of those courts should in no way, shape, or form have the weight or sanction of actual law behind them.

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."

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 be to take it to voluntary arbitration. Another way would be to ask our town preacher to decide who was right and then voluntarily abide by his decision. The first option and the second option have the weight of law behind them, but the third doesn't (and, shouldn't). The only "voluntary" part about voluntary arbitration is that you voluntarily agree to go through arbitration instead of through the courts. Generally speaking, two parties agree to go through arbitration they are bound by law to accept the results. My fear is that Sharia law would be implemented in such a manner - it would be "voluntary" to choose between a regular court or a Sharia court, but once the Sharia court was chosen, the Sharia court's decision on the case would have the force of law. Even if there is a right of appeal to a regular court, this is still a troublesome issue, because it ads an extra legal burden to the aggrieved before he or she can gain his or her full rights under the law. Considering the inevitable pressure that members of religious communities would be under to take their disputes to the religious courts, I think the state has a compelling interest in making sure that religious courts are not state sanctioned in any way, shape, or form, even (or perhaps especially) under the guise of "voluntary" jurisdiction.

First amendment, anyone?  If you are going to allow arbitration, I don't see how you can prohibit religious arbitration.

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.

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.  If it doesn't work, then government court is the next step.

I'm curious if you think that the First Amendment bans church marriages and christenings as well as religious arbitration.

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 are using its colloquial definition.

Voluntary arbitration doesn't trump the civil or criminal courts, it's simply a step to try to avoid them. If it doesn't work, then government court is the next step.

If you will read the links from my earlier discussions of arbitration, you will see that a decision by an arbitrator has the force of law, and that a case settled by arbitration can only be overturned under limited circumstances. For example, if we have a business dispute that goes to arbitration, even voluntary arbitration, and the arbitrator decides you owe me $1000, but you refuse to pay, I could send that bill to your local Sheriff and tell him to collect the money from you. If you go through arbitration and don't like the result, you have many fewer legal options than if you skip arbitration and go right to the courtroom. This is why I don't think the government should sanction religious arbitration.

Once again, I am not saying that the government should ban religious arbitration - I'm just saying that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it whatsoever. It shouldn't legitimate it, it shouldn't set guidelines for it, it shouldn't enforce it.

The Christian notion of Confirmation actually makes an apt analogy. Once someone is confirmed in the Church, he or she is considered an "adult" as far as church matters are concerned. In my Lutheran church, for example, we were allowed to vote for church council members once we were confirmed. However - just because the church said we were adults, this had no impact on our legal status otherwise. I was confirmed when I was 15, but I still couldn't vote in real elections until I was 18. The church said I was an adult, and my fellow parishioners were supposed to treat me as an adult, but it was all purely voluntary and within the context of our religious community - the state had absolutely no part in any of it.

This is exactly how religious arbitration should be - if two Muslims want to go to their imam and have him tell them how to settle a dispute, that's great. Bully for them. But whatever the imam's decision, it should have absolutely no legal impact.

Let's look at an example of what I mean. Let's say two Muslims partner up to form a business, but it goes sour and at the end of the day they need to figure out how to divide up their remaining debts and resources. They can't agree, so they go to an imam and ask him to decide the case. Let's say that that the imam finds that partner B owed partner A $500. If both parties agree this is a fair resolution, that's great, there's no reason to take the case to an actual court. Now, let's say that parter A decides he only owes $50, instead of $500. In my opinion, there should be no way that partner B can call up the Sheriff and force partner A to pay him $500, without first going through a real court (Note that if religious arbitration was considered to be "voluntary arbitration" in the way that "voluntary arbitration" is currently defined by American law, partner B could call up the Sheriff and ask him to enforce the judgment against partner A, purely based on the imam's decision).

This is my position on arbitration. Do you understand what I am saying? I don't have a problem with arbitration per se. I just don't think that the state should be involved in it, period.

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 agreements that aren't actually voluntary, for instance the one I had to sign to get health insurance.

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 voluntary, for instance the one I had to sign to get health insurance.

This is definitely a problem and it's something consumer rights groups have been lobbying about for years. You certainly can appeal any arbitration decision to a real court, but the appellate grounds would have to be based on whether the arbitration was carried out in a legal manner - not whether the judgment itself was fair. A court might vacate a grossly inappropriate judgment (i.e. if you went into arbitration with your cell phone company because you wanted to terminate your service before the contract ran out, and the arbitrator decided to award Verizon your house and car in addition to the $180 that the contract required you to pay), but it would probably be less willing to take up a lesser case (i.e. if the arbitrator awarded Verizon $180 plus another $400 for legal fees, a judge might well let that stand, especially if your initial contract stipulated that legal fees could be awarded). Here is an article I found about how to enforce arbitration awards that you might find interesting. The most relevant bits:

as a general matter, both Acts provide simplified enforcement procedures which require only that the winning party file a motion in an appropriate court to confirm the arbitration award. The court must confirm the award and enter judgment on it unless, upon timely motion of the unsuccessful party and for one of the very few reasons allowed by the Federal Act or Uniform Act, the court vacates, modifies or corrects the arbitration award. There is a presumption in favor of the validity of the award, and under either Act a party's ability to block entry of judgment is extremely limited. Once a court enters judgment, relatively simple procedures exist to execute the judgment and pursue collection from the losing party's assets...

...A party's ability to vacate an award is not open-ended. 9 U,S.C û 10 states that an order vacating the arbitration award may be entered only where: (a) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; b) there was evident partiality or corruption among the arbitrators; c) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct by refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause, by refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence or by engaging in any other misbehavior which prejudiced the parties; or (d) the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so improperly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award on the subject matter was not made....

...In light of these narrow grounds for vacating, modifying or correcting an award, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited and courts will not examine the merits of the decision except to the extent that the award exceeds the agreement of the parties.12 A district court enforcing an arbitration award does not engage in de novo review of the award, but may reverse or modify the award only on the grounds specified in the Act.13 Arbitration awards are presumed to be based on proper grounds.

This is all well decided federal law - the Federal Arbitration Act has been in force since the 1920s, and there's plenty of judicial precedent for its application and enforcement. If your health insurance company ever takes you to arbitration, be prepared to bring lots of lube and some kneepads...it'll make things more comfortable when they bend you over and fuck you up the ass. Does this make it more clear why I am so uncomfortable with the idea of government enforced religious arbitration? If it was implemented in the same way that standard arbitration law is today, it would essentially have the effect of de facto codifying big chunks of Sharia law into the US code.

That's probably the kindest thing I've said about Huckabee, too.

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.  A tremendous amount of creativity and effort has gone into every project which has recruited significant numbers of adherents.  After all, most people have ideas and opinions, even original ideas at times.  Very few wind up as leaders, gurus, folk heroes, etc.  But give it a try if you are so inclined.  Maybe you will succeed.

Too succinct.

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, rather than religious discrimination, just as antisemitism takes the form of racism rather than religious discrimination.

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, rather than religious discrimination, just as antisemitism takes the form of racism rather than religious discrimination.

So just so I'm clear about the way your mind "channels":

1. You believe that people who use the term "islamofascist"  describe muslims  as "dirty brown people" - therefore I must be racist.

              A) In re: to islamofascist - am I supposed to be Christopher Hitchens? You do recall that the term "islamofascist" is his right? Furthermore when has he ever used the phrase "dirty brown people" or anything similar. For that matter - when have I?
              B) In re: to dirty brown people - do you even recognize how silly you seem by saying this? FYI, (and not that it should matter - it certainly does not to me) my skin color is not white.

2. You believe that I am a racist because my negative comments on extremists who adhere to the religion of Islam is couched in racism. What about my negative comments on catholics, jehovah's witnesses and religion in general? Do those take the form of racism too? Do you even have a working definition of the term racism that you go by (I don't even care if its not a standard commonly accepted definition), or is it a label you spew at people like 'nazi' which has no meaning beyond your inchoate rage?

3. You admit that  in order to get to your conclusion/goal of calling me racist and nazi, you lumped me in with what you refer to as "the rightwing mind" and then refusing to address my own words, created words and concepts on behalf of this group mind. These are the words and concepts you claim to address. This is weak sauce.

If this is the best argument you can put forward having had time to think and type your words, I'm at a loss to imagine a verbal conversation when you are "channeling the rightwing mind" .

Confession is good for the soul Jimmy (least so the jesuits tell me) - why don't you admit you started from the position that I must be a racist and worked from there? Even better - how about you save me (and everyone else) time in the future and just respond to my comments "You nazi racist you!". Perhaps with some emoticon indicating spluttering rage at the end. This way I'll know that you yourself don't even believe what you are saying, but are merely vomiting whatever your mind is channeling at the moment - somewhat like a baby, or someone intellectually disabled.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

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 promotes islamic culture at the expense of western culture.

It's clearly culturalism.

my skin color is not white

Only pale folk can be racist?  What an incredibly racist statement! (Do you include albinos as potential racists, or only Europeans?)

you lumped me in with what you refer to as "the rightwing mind"

I'd estimate that there's a 90% overlap on that Venn diagram.  So while you are about 10 times more independent-minded than the average tool, you still aren't out of the woods.