What happened to "freedom of religion"? by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What happened to "freedom of religion"?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, April 21, 2024 13:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3723
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:27 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Tennessee State Sen. Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) and state Rep. Judd Matheny (R-Tullahoma) introduced a bill last week outlawing the practice of Sharia, a complex set of religious laws that guide behavior for Muslims. The bill attempts to define Sharia law and to make following it a felony punishable by 15 years in jail.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2011/02/sharia_law_
ban_proposed_in_tennessee.html

Can anyone honestly say THIS is not infringing on freedom of religion? There are “laws” in every religion—just like Sharia, some are practiced, some are not in different countries. But to make it a FELONY??

Anyone who honestly believes sharia law would “take over” is absolutely brainwashed by the deliberate provocation of paranoia by the right.

By the way, Constitutional scholars point out that Sharia law is religious law, and the first words of the First Amendment say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Ergo, all this bullshit is unconstitutional, given they MAKE LAWS infringing on a religion.

The use of this fear tactic is obvious by the fact that NOBODY but Muslims are or ever will be under its “jurisdiction”, and even Muslims can choose not to abide by it if they don’t want to, as is the case in many countries, including America. The Constitution says first, that the laws of the nation would be secular and that the government would not "establish" a religion (separation of church and state), and second, that people living here would be free to worship as they see fit, or not at all. These concepts are embodied in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. But as the Founders declared in their writings -- and as U.S. courts have upheld ever since -- rights are not absolute and must be limited in order to preserve the society as a whole.

While there is unquestionably pressure within their community to abide by sharia law, the fact is that any Muslim who chooses to abide by US laws as opposed to sharia laws is free to do so, and that will be upheld in any US court. For example, “honor killings”: Only the most perverse logic would attempt to apply the subject to parents who might want to kill their child; there is no parental right to “honor killing.”

In July 2008, a Pakistani man living near Atlanta was prosecuted for beating his 25-year-old daughter to death for declining to go along with an arranged marriage to a cousin twice her age.

There are examples in the other direction, where judges have mistakenly upheld sharia law, but they’ve been overturned by higher courts. And again, the fact is that only MUSLIMS, and only Muslims who CHOOSE TO, abide by sharia law. That is indisputable. Yes, we have to be careful to ensure that Muslims abide by US laws rather than their religious laws, but to say that Americans will ever be held to account of sharia law is an outright lie. NOWHERE in the world, that I know of, have non-Muslims had to abide by sharia.

For there to be Islamic law(sharia) there can be no separation between state and Islam.(religion). To do this you must first put on hold the notion of "separation of church and state", which is going to happen. So for people to be afraid sharia will “take over” in our courts is ridiculous. Whatever any other country does, WE have a Constitution which forbids it, and the American people wouldn’t stand for it, however much they may have been incited to fear Islam.

Aside from that, the Founders were quite clear on the point that while there could be no abridgment of thought or belief in one's religious faith, there can and will be limitations placed on one's actions. Actions in the name of religious worship, when they conflict with the laws of the United States, are not protected. So any decision handed down by sharia law wouldn’t be legal under US laws, there’s no need to MAKE laws about it, it’s already IN the law. This is merely a fear tactic, nothing more.

For example, In the Matter of Ramadan, the 2006 New Hampshire case in which a Muslim husband sought to enforce in that state an Islamic divorce decree. The couple married in Lebanon, but had since lived in several places, including New Hampshire. Under Sharia law, a husband may divorce his wife by telling her three times that he wishes to dissolve the marriage. In this case, the husband, after telling his wife he wished to divorce her, traveled to Lebanon to obtain the decree. While he was gone his wife filed for divorce and financial support in New Hampshire family court. When the husband ignored the action, the court awarded the wife everything she had petitioned for. The New Hampshire court would not recognize divorces obtained in other jurisdictions because the couple had been domiciled in New Hampshire when the divorce was initiated. A state is not going to afford recognition to Sharia law when it does not even afford that recognition to another state. Federal statutes as well as the equal protection clause would forbid the application of foreign

No “law” of other religions takes precedence over US law, that I’m aware of, and sharia is no different. Religions all have their own laws, and within their own communities, if they know those laws and choose to abide by them, that’s different than those laws taking precedence over US law if the person chooses not to follow the religious laws. They may have to leave their culture, but if they choose to do so, US laws are there for them like anyone else.

Whatever anyone thinks of sharia law, and whatever happens in other countries, has nothing to do with non-Muslims whatsoever.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 9:09 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

The ooky thing is that people in America used to go watch public executions just like that, hangings and the like, yuck. I think they enjoyed it too, it was a social event, yuck. You wouldn't catch me at a public execution, legal or not.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 9:19 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Open your eyes a bit, please.
Pedophilia is supposed to be illegal, too.
Rape is supposed to be illegal, too.

That's a moronic defense. They still are illegal. The fact that certain people break these laws does not mean they are becoming acceptable.

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Yet in Wisconsin, Hmong groups still practice the traditional method of marriage - a grown man kidnaps a girl of about 12-14, rapes her, and thus she becomes his wife. Have not heard of a single one of these men being prosecuted, have you?

Why, yes. With a whole whopping 30 seconds of looking, I did find such a case:

http://www.shrdo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=863:
appeals-court-hmong-marriage-provides-no-defense&catid=913&Itemid=124

Was the first link that came up. So I'm thinking wither you deliberately didn't look, or ignored facts which didn't suit your narrative.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 12:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Am I opposed to/afraid of mosks being built in my area? No, if they want to they can as long as they obtain the property etc. Am I afraid of Sherria law? Sort of. Am I afraid of Sherria law gaining a foot hold in the US? Not in the near future since we have laws against hurting girls and women etc. But Sherria law, well those aspects of it, do scare me some.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism is not a consistent religion, and Sharia law is interpreted differently in different places. Sharia is based upon the teachings in the Qu'uran but like all other religions, it is all in the interpretation. For example, no where in the Qu'uran does it say that women must wear the veil, or cover themselves from head to foot. It says that women AND men should dress modestly. The rest is in the interpretation.

My understanding is that a lot of interpretating depends on the culture of a place, what are the local traditions. That is why in Afghansistan women wear the burqa, which covers their entire body and face and but in other places women wear the hijab which is simply a veil which covers the head, but leaves the face uncovered. Niki has probably more to say on the burqa given that she has lived in Afghansistan, but I believe it is a local practice. Covering the head, for both males and females is pretty common in a lot of cultures. In orthodox Judaism, married women and all males must cover their heads. When I was growing up married women in the Catholic Church still wore mantillas to mass.

Really throughout much of human history, women have been treated as second class citizens and various laws, both religious and secular have reflected that. Up until the 20th century, Islam in most places probably had better laws regarding women that in Christendom, because at least it granted them divorce and property rights. The problem has been that as Christendom (or the increasinly secular west) has moved forward with regards to women's place in society, thanks to the feminist movement,and many countries that are Islamic have moved the other way, more conservative, less rights for women. It is true that fundamentalism has been on the rise in the Islamic world, for a variety of complex reasons including power struggles and conflict that have been won by the religious extremists. Iran is an example of that. For many Iranians, the introduction of an ultra othordox religious police state was not what they had hoped for with the Iranian revolution, but I guess that is always the danger in revolutions, you never know who is going to ultimately sieze power.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Sharia law can be practiced in all sorts of ways. In itself it is not particularly hard on women, but its the ultra conservative, ultra orthodox sects that interpret it in that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 5:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
The ooky thing is that people in America used to go watch public executions just like that, hangings and the like, yuck. I think they enjoyed it too, it was a social event, yuck. You wouldn't catch me at a public execution, legal or not.

You sure ?
Cause a while back the Chinese had some financial bigwig pull some of the same shit that got CitiGroup thrown out of (I think) six foreign counties, including Japan...

And he got the rope for it.

Believe me, were they to hang some of these banksters who've done us over, I might very well set up a concessions stand and sell popcorn.

I'd reccommend impalement, rather than hanging though, old-school vlad-style, get more entertainment out of it that way, plus we can have a betting pool on how long it takes em to die.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 6:34 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Even though there are indeed people who would find pleasure and enjoyment in watching execution, just as people did in the days of old, I don't think it should be legal. If people enjoy that sort of thing they should watch slasher movies, or become snipers to kill badguys or what have you, there are options, but public executions just encourage such feelings and I feel we should stick to not having them. I do reckon though that enterprizing individuals could make money at them, selling refreshments and all, still doesn't make it something I want happening in my city.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 3:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can anyone honestly say THIS is not infringing on freedom of religion?

The government infringes on "Freedom of Religion" all the time, whenever 'religion' violates civil law. Practices such as polygamy, 'marriage' to child brides, etc. that some religions and sects want to follow are illegal and have been prosecuted. The IRS regularly goes after 'churches' that they consider to be nothing but tax-avoidance schemes. To go to silly extremes, I'm sure that churches conducting human sacrifice would be frowned upon, although the Supremes say animal sacrifice is okay. When some interpretaions of Sharia Law, such as punishments like flogging or cutting off limbs, come up against the 8th Amendment, that particular 'freedom of religion, would lose out.

If you think about it, you probably approve of infringing on people's 'freedom of religion'. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal, and support laws to make it so? Do you want to do away with Sunday Blue laws? Then you're supporting the government's infringment on the freedom of religion of the folks who want to keep those religion-based laws in place.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 7:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, thank you Magons; very well said and appropos. And yes, the "chadri" is pretty exclusive to Afghanistan, and differs even within the country. The kuchi women (gypsies is closest we have) have never, EVER hidden their faces and are quite proud of it; city women cover from head to toe, tho' there are some professional women now that the Taliban isn't totally in control who wear scarves.

Quote:
Up until the 20th century, Islam in most places probably had better laws regarding women that in Christendom, because at least it granted them divorce and property rights.

That’s also true; if one reads the Qu’ran, the teachings quite explicitly set out rights for women which many other religions did not...the problem is interpretive POWER: the Mullahs. They have always known (as have Christian priests) that their power over the people can be heightened by their control, especially control of women. One only has to look at the “Garden of Eden” thing, and all throughout the Bible, to see how that works. So whenever and wherever they have been able, Mullahs have increased their control over women worldwide. But the original Qu’ran and teachings of Allah, unlike the Bible, gave women a lot of respect and rights.

I don’t think Islam has actually moved backwards, I think the INTERPRETATION of it became more constrictive of women over the years, and in teh countries where Islam was indistinguishable from government, the power increased. Here, despite the pretty consistent efforts of the religious right, our forefathers having the foresight to insist on separation of church and state has allowed us to move forward...and most other Western cultures have as well. If the government of Muslim countries wasn’t tightly in the hands of the mullahs, I think that would have happened there as well, and may in time.

Geezer, you are not getting it. In fact, you just made my point in a way. “whenever 'religion' violates civil law...”. Polygamy IS still practiced and rarely does anyone go after it, because it is practiced WITHIN the religious community; anyone who doesn’t want to abide by that law can leave the culture and our laws will protect them. The same would be true for Muslims. That’s not “infringing” on those who WISH to practice it, that’s protecting those outside the religion. That is my point; that Muslim laws would never supersede civil U.S. law OUTSIDE the religion where it is practiced.

Going after pseudo-churches who are hiding behind religion to avoid our laws is appropriate; it’s using religion to avoid civil law, so has nothing to do with "religious law"...in fact, in my opinion it's wrong to let ANY church not pay taxes. Someone has to make a determination in order to stop fraud. It’s not perfect, certainly, but unless there is a more viable means to weed out fraud, it’s what we have.

As to cutting off hands and feet, that’s tougher; but I don’t see any case of it having taken place in America, so until it does, we’ll have to wait and see. Yes, that would be infringing on freedom of religion, but there, like some other aspects, I’m not sure what you do in order to allow that religious practice, unless the person to whom it happens wants to leave their faith, at which time there’s no DOUBT to me that they would be protected by U.S. laws. Unfortunately such things (and many of the provisions toward women) only come to light after the fact.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue; within their religion, just like within Islam, Christians can enforce their own “laws” against it, just as they do contraception, divorce, etc. But to make a civil law AGAINST it, just like abortion and homosexuality, is to force people to abide by Christian laws, so wrong. It should have nothing to do with the public at large and their civil rights. Practically ANY religion can keep to its practices if it wants to, as long as they don’t go against U.S. laws. Anyone NOT of that religion doesn’t have to abide by it’s laws. Do you understand?

Blue laws are wrong, and have been falling steadily throughout our history.

Quote:
A blue law is a type of law in the United States and Canada designed to enforce moral standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest. Most have been repealed, declared unconstitutional or are simply unenforced. They describe various laws first enacted by Puritan colonies in the 17th century.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Blue_law

They definitely ARE an infringement of freedom of religion and are wrong, in that they require people not of the faith that created them to abide by them. At least they’re dying:

Quote:
Maine was the last New England State to take off the books laws that prohibited department stores from opening on Sundays. The laws against the department stores opening on Sundays were ended by referendum in 1990.

Indiana: A recent change in legislation now allows Indiana residents to purchase alcohol on Election Day.

Massachusetts: Most off-premises alcohol sales were not permitted on Sundays until 2004. Exceptions were made in 1990 for municipalities that fell within 10 miles of the New Hampshire or Vermont border. Since 1992 cities and towns statewide were able to sell on Sundays from the Sunday prior to Thanksgiving to New Years Day. In both exceptions sales were not allowed before noon. Since the law changed in 2004, off-premises sales are now allowed anywhere in the state, with local approval, after noon

Minnesota: As of 2011, a bill has been proposed in the state legislature to end the prohibition on Sunday liquor sales.

New York: Prior to 2006, off-premises alcohol sales were forbidden until noon on Sundays, and liquor/wine stores were required to be closed the entire day.

Many Blue Laws still exist, especially around alcohol and, for what reason I can’t conceive, car sales (?). Some of the most absurd:

Quote:
Illionis: Horse racing is prohibited on Sundays unless authorized by the local municipality.

Michigan: Vehicle sales are banned on Sunday in counties having a population of 130,000 or more. Vehicle dealers who keep seventh-day Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday may operate on Sundays instead.

New Jersey: East New Jersey banned the "singing of vain songs or tunes" on Sabbath.

Pennsylvania: Hunting is prohibited on Sundays, with the exception of foxes, crows and coyotes.

Virginia: Hunting on Sunday is illegal, except for raccoons which may be pursued until 2 a.m.

Wiki

Note ALL of this is in the South, Midwest and East of the country...there are no Blue Laws in California:

Quote:
In the nineteenth century the United States was predominately rural, and clerics utilized their power to influence legislators on what should constitute proper observance of Sunday. By 1931, of the forty-eight states, only California resisted the enactment of blue laws.

Most likely because the Puritans settled the East and by the time they spread West, Blue Laws didn’t hold. Hopefully they’ll catch up with us in time.

Nonetheless, Blue Laws are FAR more infringing on the religious freedom of non-Christians than sharia ever was or will be in the U.S. Muslim sabbath is Friday, yet they are required to live by our Christian blue laws. That’s definitely something we should be against, if we truly want separation of church and state. They are wrong, period, and definitely go against our supposed beliefs AND the Constitution. It’s the opposite of what you said: If blue laws were eradicated, those who WISHED to keep them certainly could, but those of other religions would be free NOT to abide by them. Their existence is 100% wrong.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? Currently--and hopefully forever--WITHIN THE RELIGION, each faith is allowed to practice its own laws, as long as they don't impinge on the freedom of those OUTSIDE that religion.

Blue laws were part of our beginnings and long established, even tho' they're wrong when it comes to separation of church and state, whereas adopting a foreign law to apply to non-Muslims is inconceivable and wouldn’t be allowed. What hasn’t been and isn’t being addressed at all here is that sharia poses no threat whatsoever to NON-MUSLIMS, despite all the hue and cry, which makes it nothing more than a fear-mongering, hate-inciting non-issue.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:05 AM

BYTEMITE

God used to have a female counterpart/aspect, the Shekina. Some historians have argued that the religion used to have a pair God and Goddess.

The Adam and Eve story is commonly misinterpreted as an excuse for misogyny.

Originally, it's suggested that Adam and his partner were created at the same time, either as two distinct entities or within the same entity and later separated. There's some dispute whether his first partner was Eve or Lilith.

The stories that Eve was made from muck or other lowly substance to the dust/mud/clay that was used for Adam, or that she was made from Adam's rib, came much later. Also, the whole thing about the apple and original sin isn't actually suggested to be the fault of women - rather, Adam carries original sin, because whereas Eve was tricked into tasting the fruit of knowledge, Adam chose to so she would not be alone.

The whole thing about the immaculate conception is not that Mary was a virgin, but rather that God intervened at the moment of Mary's conception, to make sure she would be free of the sin that would normally have passed to her from her father. This made her an appropriate vessel through which Jesus was then born.

And then I could get into Gnostic text and make comparisons to Shekina with Sophia and Eve and the Demiurge with Lilith, but this is already getting boring, so I won't.

Basically, most of the excuses from the Judeo-Christian texts to repress women are mistaken from what the mytho is SUPPOSED to suggest. But, unfortunately, it's also true that women were largely oppressed throughout most of the ancient world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, you are not getting it. In fact, you just made my point in a way. “whenever 'religion' violates civil law...”. Polygamy IS still practiced and rarely does anyone go after it, because it is practiced WITHIN the religious community; anyone who doesn’t want to abide by that law can leave the culture and our laws will protect them.

I can see you're not getting it either. Polagamy is illegal. Polagamous marriage is not recognized by the government and any wives beyond the first one have no legal rights as spouses. I do notice you skipped right over forced marrigae of very young girls to hurch "elders" without a comment. The government is surely active in prosecuting this as a crime. As for leaving - based on recent cases concerning folks in very insular sects, it's very difficult for folks, especially chidren, who have no real knowledge of the outside world, or who believe that the safety of their soul depends on living by their elders rules, to just up and leave.

Quote:
As to cutting off hands and feet, that’s tougher; but I don’t see any case of it having taken place in America, so until it does, we’ll have to wait and see. Yes, that would be infringing on freedom of religion, but there, like some other aspects, I’m not sure what you do in order to allow that religious practice...

So you would allow flogging, cutting off limbs, stoning to death and "honor" killings if it was done by people of a certain religion to another person of that religion, as long as it was done under color of their religious practice? I would hope that if it even threatened to reach that point that you'd decide that there might be some good in reasonable control over the practice of that particular faith.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
So you would allow flogging, cutting off limbs, stoning to death and "honor" killings if it was done by people of a certain religion to another person of that religion, as long as it was done under color of their religious practice?

Where exactly did I say that? I didn't, I said I'm not aware of any cases of it in the U.S. OBVIOUSLY such an idea is abhorrent, I hated it as much in Afghanistan, where I actually SAW a man's hand cut off. So trying to misrepresent what I said is inexcusable.

Also, we’re talking LAWS and the prosecution of same, not what the result of a polygamous marriage means to the multiple wives. Let’s stay with that, please. As to polygamy being enforced, you’re wrong:

Quote:
About 1953, the state of Arizona National Guard raided a polygamist colony called Short Creek on the Utah/Arizona border, and separated the kids from their mothers, and threw the men in jail. The people of the nation were so outraged by it, that there have not been polygamy prosecutions since. (Unless you want to consider Waco to be an anti-polygamist raid.) So while polygamy is not legal, the laws against it are not enforced.

http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/faq.htm

Quote:
Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle; these laws originated as anti-Mormon legislation, although they are rarely enforced.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polygamy

I believe child-marriage laws ARE enforced, but not very seriously in many cases:

Quote:
While American news journalists frequently report child marriages in Third World countries, the matter is largely ignored in the United States.

http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/07/17/life_and_arts/art1.txt

Quote:
Until 2008, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced child marriage through the concept 'spiritual (religious only) marriages,' as soon as girls are ready to bear children, as part of its polygamy practice and laws have raised the age of legal marriage in response to criticism of the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

NOT because of prosecution, note, but because of criticism.

Quote:
In March 2008, the state of Texas believed that children at the Yearning For Zion Ranch were being married to adults and were being abused. The state of Texas removed all 468 children from the ranch and placed them into temporary state custody. After the Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Texas acted improperly in removing them from the YFZ Ranch, the children were returned to their parents or relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#United_States

Given parents or relatives were probably within the cult, I wonder if there was any follow-up on child marriages within the group?

As recently as the 19th century, child marriage was common in America ( http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009637.html) Even more recently,

Quote:
Country star Lorretta Lynn was married at 13. History has been forgotten that marrying before 16 even was not entirely rare.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/8D0A30C9-1883-418E-B9FD-2CC38E509098/ I believe Loretta Lynn is still alive? I suspect there are many child marriages in poorer, more ignorant states and among religious cults. Whether they are prosecuted or not is another matter; it would seem that in many cases, they’re ignored.

Then there’s “forced marriage”:

Quote:
A shotgun wedding is a form of forced marriage occasioned by an unplanned pregnancy. Some religions and cultures consider it a moral imperative to marry in such a situation, based on reasoning that premarital sex is sinful and unsafe. The phrase is an American colloquialism, though it is also used in other parts of the world. The use of violent coercion to marry is no longer legal in the United States, although many anecdotal stories and folk songs record instances of such intimidation in the 18th and 19th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage#Compensation_marriage

Yes, these things are illegal under civil law. But how much the American legal system prosecutes AMERICANS for them is questionable, especially in religious cults. Before we go about feeling self-righteous, I think we need to look to ourselves first.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 11:29 AM

BYTEMITE

As someone who lives in Utah, I can vouch that polygamists live around here as pretty much an open secret. It's only when they upset someone in the higher ups that anyone goes after them.

Warren Jeffs eventually pissed off too many people. The Texas FLDS compound had some baptists in the police and the state national guard down there that had been looking for an excuse to raid the mormons anyway.

As for Sharia Law, eh. It's not like communities that all these people practicing Sharia Law are moving into don't already have their own laws about harm you can do to a human being. Where personal/religious law and community law overlap is where a jury comes in. This is why a story like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Mitchell

Ends up with Mitchell being both diagnosed a crazy AND convicted of a crime. Freedom of Religion is one of those "right to swing your arms ends at my nose" kinds of thing.

However, care must be taken to not interpret that as "this religion MIGHT do something, so let's stomp out the ability to practice that religion."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:42 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Niki, you say that things aren't prosecuted unless there is criticism. Well it doesn't seem like you are willing enough to criticize, if people just pussy foot around bad behavior like 14 year olds being married off to 50 year olds then it isn't prosecuted enough, sure we do have laws about it, but people need to push for those laws to be enforced sometimes because the law establishment gets lazy, or they get so busy prosecuting other things that they don't pay attention. So we need to be more vocal about criticizing such behavior, just because it happened to Loretta Lyn doesn't make it okay.

I think child marriages are worse than polygamy, I mean polygamy is a bit groty in my opinion and I agree it should be illegal but enforcement of it isn't as important as enforcement of other laws. From what I know the only enforcement of it is that subsequent wives don't get legally recognized as such, meaning they don't get marriage rights, which I'm totally okay with. If people want to do it at home its their choice, but don't expect me to recognize it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Pffth, some members of my family *still* do the whole shotgun wedding thing, and the shotguns are not whatever metaphorical - not that most of those on the business end are all that reluctant, tis more a matter of tradition these days than anything.

Of course this didn't stop Yuriko (who has some bizarre ideas of how our culture works) from threatening to come over here and marry me in that fashion - I pointed out that she didn't have a shotgun and she retorted "Yeah, but you're in america, I can just buy one at the grocery store over there..."

I'm not entirely sure whether Shinto beliefs allow for such a thing, but coming from a culture in which arranged marriages still exist (been talkin to Maltquake about hers as of late) it's certainly credible, even if her threat really isn't.

-Frem

PS. Been worried as hell about them recently, she lost her beloved uncle to the carnage and will not listen to me or her family as we encourage her to get the hell out of dodge, but then I wouldn't listen either, she's busy with relief efforts and communication has been difficult.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 3:42 PM

BYTEMITE

I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and I don't have to hear or see it.

Consent obviously becomes questionable the younger someone is, and with teenagers there's the whole hormone thing clouding the issue.

Of course, there's ways that the law gets abused and teenagers get labeled with sex offender felonies that I don't approve of either.

I need to remember to send some cash to a Japan relief fund. I've been meaning to. I have a friend over in Japan right now too. Think she's in Osaka, which should not be in the danger zone, unless the fault slips again.

As for Yuriko, just point out the difficulties between a kitsune-human relationship. Sad, about her uncle. We have some Japanese in our town, migrated here from Topaz after being thrown out of most everywhere else, and so now and then I hear about people still lost and missing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 6:34 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I don't have a problem with arranged marriages as long as both parties are grown and concenting and both willing to do it. I think that my family would do a decent job of finding me a mate, I haven't had any luck the Western way of choosing your own.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, Maltquakes problem is that she is tall (like 5'10" - VERY tall over there!) and curvy, which wouldn't mean so much to most americans but in her culture is considered by many to be unattractive, and when you add in that her canines stick out kind of straight, cause cosmetic dentistry isn't as common overseas, well.

One of her pole-up-ass relatives from her oh-so-very-proper-lets-not-offend-anyone family referred to her as an ogre and about reduced her to tears, this was before the disaster and she had stress enough running things (she's next up in line in their heirarchy) while Yuriko was in Italy at her studies, so it kind of fell to me to comfort and counsel - she asked me to send her a Texan to marry, lololol..

I gave her a fistfull of tips on how to drive her oh-so-proper parents completely batshit (this got me oh-so-politely bitched out by them via a quite, quite diplomatic email) and encouraged her to be a little bolder towards the one potential who *did* like her - they were still at the playdate/"interview" date stage of things, and most of em couldn't wait to get AWAY from her, but one of them who is on the low end of socially-acceptable for her (apparently her family is pretty upscale, so there's the whole shame factor of being unmarriable) actually liked her, in part because she has certain, uhhh, endowments up front which are for the most part lacking amongst her peers, you see, and because the gent in question has a bit of a thing for warrior/amazon type chicks - he's sweet enough even if he is something of a goofball, and just barely well off enough to qualify for attention, bonus points for that being his own founded biz and not family money, either.

So, stealing a page from american culture she snuck out to go see him and upon her return found both parents with THAT look goin on - and instead of handing off the little speech I gave her about how if all she's gonna get for being the good always-do-the-expected-thing girl, is crapped on, well maybe that isn't going to happen...
She flat tells em *I* gave her permission. *wince*
Thus the bitching out they delivered - and then they invited her paramour to tea, and bitched HIM out for an hour and a half, but that was actually a good sign cause the manner in which they did so placed him as idiot boyfriend or errant husband, indicating a begruding acceptance of his interest, AND praise to his loyalty cause while he did drive her home, he did NOT rat her out.

She was dancing around in little happy circles till the disaster hit, but for days after he was missing and she was totally insane about it, one of the things that prompted Yuriko to go running back despite both me and her own family telling her not to.
Apparently the whole neighborhood was flooded, and since the temple was on a hill, it was the only structure which wasn't wrecked, and thus happens to be the core of the relief efforts, so someone has take charge of the situation, and Maltquake wasn't coping so well.

Anyhows, I dislike the whole concept of arranged marriage since it leans toward regarding people as property, which always gets my back up - but if they're okay with it, then it ain't really for me to say, other than to "officially" throw my approval at it since that's such a comfort to her - ain't about what *I* believe, but what they need to believe in order to get through the day, so for the time being I gotta grit my teeth, bite my tongue and play along, cause the last thing those kids need right now is me provoking a crisis of their faith, however misplaced.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 7:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Freedom of Religion is one of those "right to swing your arms ends at my nose" kinds of thing.

However, care must be taken to not interpret that as "this religion MIGHT do something, so let's stomp out the ability to practice that religion."

Concisely put, and pretty much sums up the argument for me.

No, Rione, I never said things aren't prosecuted unless there is criticism. I mentioned that one sect changed its practices because of criticism, I didn’t connect that to prosecution. I was indicating that we HAVE some of those things in America already, so pointing at Islam and saying it has them so we should deny all Muslims freedom of religion is disingenuous self-righteousness. And I never, ever said ANY of those things were okay or that I wanted to pussy foot around them, I merely pointed out that they EXIST, so condemning Islam for having them when we don’t even bother to eradicate them in our own culture is hypocritical. I agree with you that they should be prosecuted, and I believe they would be prosecuted if brought to the attention of the law, as actually has been the case in many instances.

Look at the quote above; THAT is the essence of what I was saying, nothing more.

Quote:
enforcement of it isn't as important as enforcement of other laws

That’s a judgment, in my opinion, and I don’t think each of us has the right individually to decide which law is more important to prosecute. If a law is bad, we should change it. If it is not, it should be prosecuted, and polygamy and child marriage are both wrong in my opinion and should be prosecuted. I just don’t think it’s right to point to ALL Muslims as practicing those things while ignoring that we allow them.

Byte, I agree to a point:

Quote:
I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and I don't have to hear or see it.

Consent obviously becomes questionable the younger someone is, and with teenagers there's the whole hormone thing clouding the issue.

I would say rather “I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and harm no one.” Unquestionably it can be extremely difficult for those who don’t want to abide by a religious law to appeal to the authorities, as it would mean being shunned by their community. But the law IS there to protect them if they choose, as it is with any other thing people choose to appeal to it for. (sorry about the grammar!)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 9:05 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I would say rather “I have to admit I don't really care what people do so long as they're consenting adults and harm no one.”

BDSM crowd wouldn't like that.

Love hurts, or so they say. People lie, they reject, they lead people on, they break promises, they're unfaithful, they neglect. Ethically a good person will avoid too much of any of that, or at least soften the blow, and do their level best to not intentionally harm anyone. But people aren't perfect, either.

We already have laws about assault, abuse, and murder, and unlawful detention, and I already mentioned non-consent, so those're covered. People have to make their own choices, and some of them will be unforgiveable. Sometimes people can intervene, but when they can't, friends, family, or society as a whole will do for the victims what they can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:01 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Byte, your first line made me laugh out loud, that's one of those ... fuzzy ... areas of life, fuzzy as in, what should I do/think? I tend to lean against such things, but ... anyways.

Frem how old is your friend whose parents want her to be married? Is hersister Yuriko married? At least she found someone that she sort of fancies and that seems to like her, maybe it will work out. But of course I believe she shouldn't be forced to marry him, nor should he be forced to marry her. They need to be willing etc. I hope they're doing okay right now, what with being earthquaked and all.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 21, 2024 1:47 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Journalist jailed as Taliban continue media crackdown

https://www.voanews.com/a/journalist-jailed-as-taliban-continue-media-
crackdown/7574223.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE