"Sharia" law in the US

Would anyone who rails against Sharia law in the US be concerned about this? Would they stand for this if it was Muslim law?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-religious-arbitration-scripture-is-the-rule-of-law.html

I had the same thought.

When people sign an agreement they sign an agreement. Period. So the Times is making much ado about nothing.

bramzzoinks said:
When people sign an agreement they sign an agreement. Period. So the Times is making much ado about nothing.

100% false

bramzzoinks said:
When people sign an agreement they sign an agreement. Period. So the Times is making much ado about nothing.

Which is exactly the same as those using "sharia" law in the US. I agree that in principle it's a big deal about nothing, but in the context of Republican crying about sharia law, it's pretty relevant.

bramzzoinks said:
When people sign an agreement they sign an agreement. Period. So the Times is making much ado about nothing.

And when they have no choice other than to sign the agreement in the first place, it's just tough luck, and part of what makes Libertarianism so... unfair to those who don't have real choices.

I assume civil disputes are already resolved in Islamic religious courts where the parties agree to have it adjudicated there. I know it happens in Jewish religious courts. And the judgments of the courts are enforceable.

bramzzoinks said:
I assume civil disputes are already resolved in Islamic religious courts where the parties agree to have it adjudicated there. I know it happens in Jewish religious courts. And the judgments of the courts are enforceable.

Those are generally disputed where both parties knowingly enter in to an agreement for religious arbitration. Generally it's between two individuals. These are companies putting religious ajudication into their contracts.

But more importantly, if a company put this in place but used Sharia law rather than the Christian bible, most conservative talking heads would explode.

Which the other party signs. Lesson - read contracts you sign. And f you do not like them take your business elsewhere.

bramzzoinks said:
Which the other party signs. Lesson - read contracts you sign. And f you do not like them take your business elsewhere.

Read the article. It's clear you did not. The first example was someone who had no choice.

I did read it and they all had the choice not to do business (and rehab is a business) with that organiazation.

To his family and friends, Mr. Ellison’s professed identity change was just one of many clues that something had gone wrong at the program, Teen Challenge, where he had been sent by a judge as an alternative to jail.

I guess his alternative was prison.

bramzzoinks said:
I did read it and they all had the choice not to do business (and rehab is a business) with that organiazation.

Was "degaying" him part of the contract?

Different issues are getting mixed together. Freely entered into - genuinely freely entered into - arbitration agreements will be upheld and that's fine. You freely choose to have a priest or a rabbi resolve a contract dispute rather than a civil judge, that's your business. That you may have second thoughts about the contract after the fact is no different than second thoughts after any contract. Tough. The subject of the article may not be a person who freely entered into a contract. There are serious questions about duress and mental competence with someone like that. As for concerns about stoning and such, aint never gonna happen. People cannot, by private agreement, violate the law. You cannot agree to allow someone to kill you. A sharia judgment of stoning for adultery would be as unenforcible as a similar American Arbitration Association or secular court ruling.

Let's hope they can get to a secular court and have it declared unenforceable before sentence is carried out pursuant to their religious text.

I assume if the person wasn't agreeable they would have a choice of a non religious program....I hope? The article was too long to read right now......i can't see it being legal only having a choice between jail or religion. I have heard that agreements not to sue are often over turned in court...but not when its a religion involved.

The person in the article was sent to Rehab by a Court. I do not know if he had a choice of which rehab to go to.

And if Mr. Zoinks read every line of every Contract he enters into he would have no time to post on MOL.

If someone freely joined a Labor Union, tried to quit, and had to go to Arbitration run by that Union, Zoinks would find an exception to his Rule.