GarfieldJL
Regular Member
Have you tried reading the Old Testament?
Also you could read:
Women in governments of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upvote
0
Islamic Tribunals in Texas, Sharia law being used to oppress women
- Thread starter ObamaChristian
- Start date
Also you could read:
Women in governments of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freedom if religion isn't absolute, that is what you fail to realize.
There are limits on what a religion can or cannot do that applies to everyone.
Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can kill, or rape, just because your religion allows it.
Islam crosses that line in far too many ways.
Upvote
0
So which Christian group in the U.S. right now are causing woman to suffer through religious law?
I know there are polygamy relationships that go on in Mormon groups, but that's about all I know.
All I know is America freaks out when Christians don't want to bake gay people a cake. When the Islamic states are beheading homosexuals.
Enlighten me.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Stranger in a Strange Land
- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,270
- 36,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
"Police Chief John D. Coyle of North Attleborough, who walked a patrol beat opposite St. Mary's School from 1954 to 1964, speculated that no parent ever reported Porter to police because "they were probably awed by the Catholic Church and the clergy. They probably thought they were doing the right thing by going to the church hierarchy rather than go to the police and have a big disgrace.""
These people went voluntarily to the Church. Yes, their tight-knit community made that seem like the best course of action. How would you prevent people from doing this?
Upvote
0
KitKatMatt
stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
Look them up yourself. There are plenty. I'm on a mobile device and can't do much.
Upvote
0
That was more than 50 years ago. Secondly, we had nearly 10 years of media ridicule of the catholic church over sexual molestation of young boys.
Pretty sure it has died down now.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Stranger in a Strange Land
- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,270
- 36,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
There are plenty of more recent cases, but that was the first I googled with a phrase about not going to the police.
What has died down? The abuse? The ridicule? Or people going to the Church instead of the police? Have Catholics stopped being "awed by the Catholic Church and the clergy"?
Upvote
0
show me the "plenty of more recent cases" cause I haven't heard of any.
I can't find any studies on parents not wanting to go to the police because of the catholic church pressures.
I see many churches going into bankruptcy though over law suits.
So I don't think the catholic church is that effective at keeping it in the religion.
And it has died down, there are far less sexual molestation issues in the catholic church due to re-education and seminar training.
Upvote
0
GenetoJean
Veteran
- Jun 25, 2012
- 2,807
- 140
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Another poll that I cant answer because none of the options is what I believe. I dont think Sharia law is a good thing for Texas but I dont think it is a bad thing. If people want to VOLUNTARILY follow it and go to a tribunal to get their input in their lives, that is their choice. In my opinion it wouldnt be any different then any other really religious person going to their church to get input into their life.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Are we really going to try to pretend that they're the same?
Now if you can find some links showing a vast number of cases where Christian/Jewish arbitration favors a physically abusive husband, kindly post them and you might have a leg to stand on.
As Sam Harris said:
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=0373f2bdabd6
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It is only a violation of Constitutional rights if they are physically preventing women from going to the police. That would be considered kidnapping. As it is, these women are choosing to stay in the religion and follow those rules of their own volition.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Stranger in a Strange Land
- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,270
- 36,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
"They had two children together, but Stein left Weiss after a series of alleged abuses, which she says included raping her and punching her in the stomach while she was pregnant. She says she never sought to have him criminally charged, but is now speaking to the Brooklyn District Attorneys office. Prosecutors declined to comment, saying they do not confirm or deny investigations.
Weiss, who runs an Internet search engine optimization firm, has denied Steins abuse claims.
Meanwhile, Rivky, who works at a daycare center near her Borough Park apartment remains an agunah or chained woman, unable to move on with her life and date other religious Jewish men because she is still considered married according to strict Jewish law."
If one is not enough, that's fine. If you don't believe her, that's fine.
But my real question is again:
These people went voluntarily to the Church/imam/rabbis. Yes, their tight-knit community made that seem like the best course of action. How would you prevent people from doing this?
What, exactly, are you going to outlaw? The Jewish woman could fly to Reno and get divorced quite easily. But she wants a Jewish get, because she wants to stay in her community, and she'll be ostracized otherwise. How do you make it illegal for people to voluntarily go to their religious communities for this kind of arbitration?
Upvote
0
Not allow religions to arbitrate on things that are damaging to the state. It really isn't hard at all.
If that Sharia proceeding in Texas, wants women to take different procedures to get divorced. The state should step in, and it can easily establish a compelling interest, to not allow that procedure.
When it is actively written in the religious law, you can either get rid of that, or be banned.
I mean we don't allow many forms of religious practices, why should we allow a Sharia court who demands women go to see their Imams first to obtain a divorce?
All the government has to do is outlaw that, even if it doesn't outlaw the sharia court. If the sharia court wanted the woman to kill a baby to get divorced, we'd arrest her for murder, and we'd arrest that sharia court for cospirarcy for murder.
So if that woman has to go see a Imam due to the fact she's a woman, create a statue, that says religious proceedings cannot discriminate on the basis of a man and a woman, and when they do, stop that action from secular law. Just get the population to pressure their politicians to actually do things.
It's not hard at all. It really isn't, we outlaw things all the time.
Edit: You are also picking at straws with that article, the husband didn't show up for the Beth Din, it wasn't that the Beth Din was refusing to grant the divorce. There is nothing in that article that says the proceedings of the Beth Din is abusing this woman. Stop misrepresenting.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That would definitely violate the entanglement prong of the Lemon Test.
1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
2. The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What the imams arbitrate has no legal binding. It is entirely a religious matter which the government is not allowed to entangle themselves in.
The women are free to ignore the imams and file for a legal divorce.
Upvote
0
KitKatMatt
stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
That would be the government getting involved with religion, which is not allowed.
Religious groups and churches are allowed to discriminate all they want.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Not true, government can get involved with religion. It merely has to satisfy a compelling state interest to do so.
Why do you think native Americans can't smoke peyote, even though it's their supposedly religious right to do so.
Wrong a religion cannot discriminate however it wants. The United States has the ministerial exception, but that IS NOT ABSOLUTE. All the state has to establish is that it has a compelling state interest to do so.
No, religion cannot discriminate all it wants to. That is not true even in the smallest sense.
I'd like to see a religion that has a doctrine that forces woman to have sex with any member of it's religion and see the government not get involved. Stop making extreme statements like religion can do whatever it wants.
Upvote
0
Lol, in no way would it violate the lemon test. Excessive entanglement never applies to the government stopping religion from doing something. It only applies when the government actively participates or supports a religious action.
It applies to prayer in schools
It applies to prayer in public office
It applies to prayer in a school football game
It possibly applies to government funding religious practices (this depends a lot on the specific circumstance, and how the money is used).
This is a free exercise clause question, not a establishment question. This is government stopping the free excerise of a religion, not entangling itself with it because it refuses it to do something.
And if the government satisfies a compelling state interest, it's fine.
And lastly, there is clearly a secular purpose to this law, ummm, to help women?
Upvote
0
Rape is illegal. Voicing your opinion that you should stay with your husband is not illegal.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It applies equally to involving itself in religious affairs. The government is not allowed to tell a church what its theology will be. The government can not go into a church, synagogue, or temple and stop people from praying. They can't tell imams what they are allowed and not allowed to say.
The counsel of imams is free exercise of a religion.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
