The ATF tried to execute a search warrant. Things went bad. This is a criminal issue, not connected to the arbitration that we're talking about. Past that Koresh's sect was into all kinds of sexual misconduct and wierdness that again would fall under criminal law. I don't see what kind of connection you're trying to make to the arbitration question.

Well let me break it down for you.

Muslims are, IMHO, not entitled to their own system of laws in this country. Are bestiality, stoning, or honor killings legal because their religion permits it? If no one complains, because under sharia law, acts are allowed which are repugnant to us as Americans, is it illegal? Who will decide what is legal and what is not? Is sharia law subject to review as to whether it is constitutional or not?

The Mormon church once supported polygamy. Some fringe members still do (as does Islam). If their religion allows for it, and none of the participants object, or harm anyone else, where is the beef? Is it legal, or not? Can an arbitrator judge the complaint, or will we assault their homes to enforce the laws of this nation?

Those allegations against David Koresh were made after the fact and have never been proven, but an armed assault on American citizens was made when they were operating according to the tenets of their religion. Will we be doing this to Muslim compounds (which already exist in this country).

Incidentally, WRT Waco, the ATF tried to get SF involvement in the training and initial assault (from JTF-6) by alleging that the Davidians were involved in drug trafficing. When they were asked why the ATF was conducting a drug raid, the story changed to illegal weapons, and they went in without SF training. I do not believe that the child abuse charges were even mentioned till very late in the siege, and they were never proven. Did we burn the children alive in order to save them? BTW, some types of CS are known incendiaries, and you do not use them in a wooden structure if you are concerned about the health of the occupants. You may be too young to remember some of this.

TR

None of that is at issue. Thats my point. All the things you just mentioned are not under the umbrella of arbitration that we're talking about. We're talking about division of property in relatively minor civil cases, like divorce. Not a separate criminal code. Not a separate court system. We can extend to devout Muslims, the same niche considerations we extend to devout Jews, certain sects of Christianity, etc. without compromising any American legal precedents or traditions and without encumbering any other citizens.

Again, polygamy is criminal issue. Furthermore, we already have plenty of non-Muslim people practicing day-to-day polygamy at any of the various "free love" communes around the world. A man can live and mate with as many women as he can find willing, but he can only claim one as his wife under the law. Anything else is illegal.

Lets look at how this applies to our discussion though.

Lets say a Muslim guy has two women living with him in a consensual state of Islamic polygamy. He loves them both. He has children by them both. He cares for them both. Also, he's a law-abiding American and is only legally married to one of them.

The woman who is married to him both in the eyes of Islam and the eyes of the law, can sue for divorce and, if they both consent, accept arbitration by her local mosque. The mosque decides how to divide their property, any child custody issues, and what alimony she's entitled too. They take that settlement to the civil court and its ratified.

Any "divorce" between him and the other woman is in spirit only. It has the same legal status as breaking up with your live-in girlfriend. The woman can ask the local mosque to "arbitrate" and may get some compensation, through moral/social pressure, but whatever property or alimony agreements they reach is not eligible for ratification because they were never married in the eyes of the law.

It sucks to be the woman in that case, but she ostensibly entered into the relationship knowingly, so them's the breaks. Maybe she'll reconsider certain aspects of her faith. But whatever she does no other citizen is in any direct way inconvenienced or harmed.

Where's the problem with any of this?

If they're breaking the law, yes. If they resist a search warrant, yes. None of that is at issue.

You certainly no more about the incident than I do. And I know, generally speaking, that the raid was a tactical disaster. My point though, is that it was a criminal issue, not a civil one and so not really relevant to this issue.

X-factor - Sharia law is about far more than civil arbitration. Your contention that this isn't a "slippery slope" doesn't wash. Accepting part of it adds legitimacy to having all of it forced on us. (On the same order as compromising with liberals.) The Arabs are the ones who gave us the "camel's nose under the tent". NTM none of the other religious groups you've cited have "Convert, Enslave, or Kill" as a tenet of their faith.

I believe that is the trump card. There can be no compromise with it. Being American is more important then Islam. Selah.

If you're operating from the assumption that there's no such thing as moderate Islam, that a devout Muslim citizen can't be treated the same as a devout Jew (or any of the harmless cults out there that we leave to their own affairs on petty matters) then there's nowhere else to go with this question.

It does raise another question though.

If there's no such thing as moderate Islam and all Muslims are committed to the "convert, enslave, or die" philosphy, then why don't we just start burning down mosques and driving Muslims into the sea? What are we waiting for?

X-Factor - It's not about the moderates. They don't count. They're not the ones controlling the terror (though they are the ones tolerating those who do). Appended is an e-mail that's been circulating for a while. It makes good food for thought. Wish I knew who to credit it to. And yes - I have a problem with ANYONE of ANY religion who seeks to force their beliefs on others. I like freedom of religion - I also like freedom from coersion. I don't care what religion you profess - keep it to yourself. Islam doesn't do that. America is an amazingly tollerant society. I welcome anyone who is willing to embrace the ideals that America stands for, that wants to assimilate. Islamic radicals do not meet that criterion. FWIW - I don't believe in driving threats "into the sea". I believe in burying them. That way they don't come back. BTW - Islamists are not good citizens - their only loyalty is to Islam. That is also a tenet of their faith. And it's not die - it's kill.


Subject: Unfortunately This Is True -- History Repeats

If we don't wake up and stand up.... Where's the line in the sand?

German's View on Islam

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis ' he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. I t is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the e nd of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

I'm all for whacking Islamists. You don't have to convince me. I've participated in plenty of that myself. But, who's talking about Islamists?

We're talking about law-abiding Muslim citizens who'd rather settle their petty property disputes using an arbiter from their faith. They're not forcing any conversions by violence. They're not forcing non-Muslims to pay a tribute. They're not even evangelizing. They're living their life in peace, within the law, according to their own conscience.

Why can't they be afforded the same considerations as Orthodox Jews, the Amish, or any other such sect?

I refer you back to my post #904. Arbitration is just the tip of the iceberg. Look at the Archbishop of Cantebury's recent remarks about the "inevitability" of Sharia Law in England. Then look at every other place where Sharia has become the law of the land. (Africa is a good place to start.) I'm not happy about any of the religious courts, I'm vehemently opposed to Sharia. Melting pot - not a fricking stew (thanks COL M.).

Practical question - when the time comes to enforce the decision of the Sharia arbitrator - who does it? The civil authorities they've spurned with their religious court? Or do they get their own enforcers too? Who guarantees justice/equity/etc. in a Sharia court? The civil authorities they've spurned? (Yes, I like spurned - it fits perfectly.) The practical application of Sharia is not a system noted for equality. Pretty quotes from the Koran aside, the Imams tend to interpret and pass judgement however they want.

And I refer you back to #896.

Arbitration is a voluntary act, under the law, that doesn't effect anyone but the two parties involved. As Oliver Wendell Holmes sad, "your right to swing ends where my nose begins." In this case, no one else is involved. We allow other religious minorities these considerations and their beliefs have not overrun the country and so long as Islam remains a tiny fraction of the American population (with devout Islam even less and radical Islam even less than that) the comparison to Africa (or even to London) is not really applicable.

Furthermore, besides the fact that law-abiding Muslim citizens are entitled to the same rights as their fellow Americans (Orthodox Jews, etc), there's another upside to doing right by them. Thats the fact that it shoots a nice big hole in the extremist's case against America and democracy. Moderation grows and killing the really bad folks gets easier.

First, a judge has to ratify the arbitration to make sure that nothing that contradicts US law has been done (fraud, coercion, etc). Then the civil authorities enforce it like any other contract between two parties. The same way they'll enforce the recent arbitration between Ryan Howard and the Philadelphia Phillies. Again, this is not some new radical idea. This is an established practice within the law and with all proper checks.

Well, here's the problem:

People game the system, and neglect or abuse those over whom they gain power.

On the Arizona-Utah border, there are the twin polygamist cities of Colorado City and Hildale (there's also the "suburb" Centennial Park).

The men there legally marry their first wife, and then are "spiritually" married to the other 2-14 wives.
The wives are expected to bear 1 child per year.
They are often married by age 16.

Most of these women and children have no income.
They are largely supported by the state.

As of about 3 years ago, the communities took in a combined $8.1 million in social benefits.
They payed a combined $100,000 in taxes.
The FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint) Church calls this "Bleeding the Beast".

The local police force enforced the wishes of their church.
I have never heard of a domestic violence case being brought by the locals.

Many of the boys are driven off (often literally) when they become teenagers.
Many of the girls are married off (pimped) in their teens.
There are MANY disabled children (very likely due to inbreeding).

If you think it's just a "civil legal matter", come on out and take a look.

-Look into the red-rimmed, sorrow-filled eyes of women who knows she is trapped and has to bear this burden to protect her own children.
-Look at the despair on the faces of a half-dozen (or more) young children gathered aimlessly outside their home.
-Look at the neglect, when a severely disabled 16 year old, left alone to roll around in the dirt next to a horse stable, struggles to regain her feet.


I would expect much the same from anti-US Muslim groups setting up shop in this country...except they might divert some the money they get to other groups which, in turn, would use that money to directly wage war against us.


It may be politically incorrect to say this, but not all cultures are equal.

This nation was successful because of the principles and culture upon which it was founded.
If others want to enjoy the benefits, they need to assimilate.

GC - My point to TR was not that all polygamy is harmless. We were talking about the legality of polygamy and the legal protections afforded a woman in polygamous relations. Everything you cite is a problem, but none of it is or would be caused or effected by the civil arbitration we're talking about.

1) If these communities are gaming the social welfare system, thats a problem with the design of social welfare system and has nothing to do with the issue of limited civil arbitration. Write your Congressman.

2) If these communities are engaged in some form of child abuse or neglect, thats a criminal issue and has nothing to do with the issue of limited civil arbitration. Call the police.

3) If these people are inbreeding, thats a public health issue (and possibly a criminal one too) and has nothing to do with the issue of limited civil arbitration. Call the police or the Department of Public Health.

4) If these people are just bad (ie not abusive) parents...well thats terrible but its the price you pay for living in a society where child-rearing is not closely regulated by the government. The alternative seems worse to me though. Thank God that you (and most Americans) were blessed to be born into a better family.

5) If groups are setting up communities inside the US as bases to support terrorism, thats a counterterrorism issue. Whether or not they're able to seek civil arbitration for divorces and small claims issues inside their community has no effect on their ability to support terrorism. (Nevermind the fact that they're probably not apt to seek any kind of legal approval for any of their actions.) Call the FBI.

Also...

And chief among those principles was the idea that it was both smart and right that government allow people the personal freedom to make their own way, provided no other party was harmed in the process.

X,
This is the part that is most difficult to resolve. At what point is there "harm". Much like the term "reasonable" what exactly is reasonable?

IMO the harm does not come in a single act or event but takes place in a measure of degrees over time.

The Constitution allows for protection of religios belefs, but also provides for equal protection under the law....well now what law will that be? And at what point is it established that someone is eligible to waive that equal protection?

Again, this makes for the variation by degrees. Immigrants coming to the United States bring their culture, but what if that culture includes specific laws such as Sharia? I believe there is a difference between a cultural moral code and what is perceived as a rule of law that would supercede the U.S. Code.

I believe that entry into this country would mean you abide by the established law of the land. I would venture to guess if you tried to apply American laws in most of the Middle East, that there would be very little consideration of that opinion.

-R10-

An excellent and extremely valid point. If anyone can show how this policy will cause demonstrable harm, I'd reconsider my support.

However, with the legal restrictions in place and the precedents set by other religious communities who avail themselves of this option, I truly don't see it. A couple of issues have been rightly raised (oppression of women chief among them) and I've explained how I believe controls exist to protect against those concerns.

The law will be the same law thats been in effect for a long while now. The only difference is that devout Muslims will take advantage of it in the same fashion that other religious communities have.

People waive their rights to certain protections all the time when its to their personal benefit. Voluntary drug testing and background checks to become eligible for certain jobs, for example.

Ok, several have talked about Sharia superceding US law. I think we can all agree thats a nightmare and will happen over all of our dead bodies...but, in terms of the policy we're discussing here, its simply not what we're talking about.

The civil arbitration option we're discussing is already the law of the land and has been for a while now. We're not talking about immigrants overrunning American culture. We're talking about Muslims (whether immigrants or not) availing themselves of the same legal options as other religious communities.

Thats not in dispute either, but as my mom used to say "I don't judge against the other kids, I judge you against what you should be." The fact that the Middle East has little regard for the rule of law is irrelevant.