MorningGlory Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 How do you stop people who freely chose to have their disputes regulated by a religious court? You do what many states here have done or are in the process of doing....you pass laws against these 'religious' courts and the application of any laws except those of the land in which you're living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 If this is just civil stuff they are settling, with both parties willing, how is it different to what we see in 1 Cor 6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 If this is just civil stuff they are settling, with both parties willing, how is it different to what we see in 1 Cor 6? 1 Cor. 6 illustrates civil proceedings between Jews, who operate under the same basic beliefs. The problem here is that religious laws which don't mesh with ours (we are overwhelmingly a Christian society) are being attempted. Sha'ria law gives all rights to the man in a divorce (including custody of children), using divorce as a civil example. How could that be incorporated into or condoned in a country like the U.S.? Or Australia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't know how it is over there MG, but here you can reach a mutual agreement on custody outside of court, and simply present this agreement. There are some limited cases where a mutual agreement is better than going to court. Technically we aren't supposed to take our brother to court over civil issues, we are to come to some agreement (if we still abide by 1 Cor 5) so I'm just curious how this really differs in terms of legality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 I find no problrem whatever in passing a special law which specifically forbids Muhammad's tragic & misogynistic sharia law throughout the entire nation. Part of this new law should include the sending back to their country of origin. If from USA or Canada, they should feel the full force of stated penalty for breaking such. But this would require the changing of the American Presidency in November 2012! The current President would probably not find too much anti-American or anti-democratic re a detestable Islamic sharia legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't know how it is over there MG, but here you can reach a mutual agreement on custody outside of court, and simply present this agreement. There are some limited cases where a mutual agreement is better than going to court. Technically we aren't supposed to take our brother to court over civil issues, we are to come to some agreement (if we still abide by 1 Cor 5) so I'm just curious how this really differs in terms of legality. Yes, we can here as well; my ex and I did exactly that and it worked out very well. I see what you're saying but having two or more sets of laws is too divisive for a country, any country; remember, 1 Corinthians isn't talking about having a set of separate laws, based on another religion, within the Jewish community. They would never have allowed such a thing! My take? If emigrants to the U.S. don't want to live by our established laws, including those covering civil disagreements, then they should return to their country of origin. It's just a matter of what's right for the country, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 If this is just civil stuff they are settling, with both parties willing, how is it different to what we see in 1 Cor 6? What you have in 1 Cor. 6 amounts not to a private civil court but a mutual willingness to settle disputes in house. If I damage someone's property, he and I agree to a plan of restitution that is amicable. That is acceptable even here in teh US. What is not acceptable is commuinities or organizations creating their own courts that operate with their own laws. We have ONE government in this country, not a bunch of little sub-governments that can enact juris prudence and make legal declarations that might infringe on US law. Private civil or religious courts in the United States is not part of the rights that Americans are afforded constitutionally. We have laws and they need to be followed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 How do you stop people who freely chose to have their disputes regulated by a religious court? That is not a freedom we are afforded in the US. Freedom doesn't mean that you are free to just do whatever you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 so what does armor suggest when theres so many sects of christianity(ie baptists, etc)? some of them do consider the others heretics and would forbade marriage to them. im not for marraige of christians to sinners but its a choice that must be allowed. armor, go read the history of america and learn why the 13 colonies were formed and most of it was from religious persecution from the puritans to the other christians. ie rhode island and connectitcut. your idea has been tried and found wanting. imagine a fine for not paying tithes, penalties for not attending your church. is grace and it alone that causes us to give. i dont want the church to delve far more into legalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted March 14, 2012 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,194 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted March 14, 2012 Jasoncran do you firstly understand the difference between civil and criminal law? Secondly, these courts/tribunals work on an opt-in basis. They work on the basis that that those on both sides chose to use them in preference to the public courts. Do you think that people shouldn't be able to make that choice? As to Christians, well divorce is legal within our society but many churches don't recognise the validity of civil divorce and refuse to marry divorcees. Do you think the Catholic church for example be forced to marry divorcees, or do they have the right to say that those who want Catholic marriage must accept church rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts