[x-factor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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?

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.

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?

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?

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).

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

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.

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.