States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law?

[Freeper]

no_hypocrisy
 
States are incrementally banning Sharia Law. What about Orthodox Jewish law?

Women face poverty, opt not to obtain restraining orders, give up their children for a "get" or the "settlement price" is very expensive.


"We consider the withholding of a get a form of domestic abuse,” said Rabbi Jeremy Stern, the executive director of ORA, which is currently working on about 70 agunah cases, the majority of them in the New York area. “Domestic abuse is about control. Abuse is not just about black and blue marks.”

-snip-

“A lot of victims of abuse give up many important rights in order to get a religious divorce,” Nataneli said. “Many women who need an order of protection won’t do it. They are terrified.”

-snip-


In Israel, men who don’t give their wives a get can be thrown in jail. But in the U.S., where civil law has no jurisdiction over religious unions, women have far less leverage.

New York State has passed laws aimed at removing barriers to religious remarriage. But as a practical matter, they have had limited benefits.

-more-

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lost-women-struggle-jewish-divorce-orthodox-husbands-article-1.1085440

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002736474

Damn I better start working on giving my wife a get, I don't wanna go to jail. 

treestar
3. The "banning" of these types of laws is illogical

I can follow the Catholic law, by choice, and not use birth control. No need for the government to pass a law banning "Catholic Law." Likewise the banning of "Sharia law" is just ridiculous. It will not be enforced where it's not US law, and people can only follow it to the extent allowed here. For instance if Sharia law allows a man to beat his wife, he can't do it here anyway and it's a crime. No need to declare "sharia law" unenforceable.

Yeah it's not like radical Muslims are calling for world wide Sharia law or anything, let's worry about real oppression from the Catholics who refuse to buy Fluke her birth control. 

[Boojatta]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002736474

Damn I better start working on giving my wife a get, I don't wanna go to jail. 

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it.  However, if you are traveling by plane and there is a hijacking, and the airplane heads towards Cuba, but passes through the Bermuda Triangle, and lands up in Israel, then you might be in trouble.

[CactusCarlos]

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it.  However, if you are traveling by plane and there is a hijacking, and the airplane heads towards Cuba, but passes through the Bermuda Triangle, and lands up in Israel, then you might be in trouble.

[Mr Mannn]

Sharia law kills people. Other laws do not.

Typical DU, equivocating islamic murderers with civilized people.

[Kyle Ricky]

These people are beyond stupid. Apparently the DUmmy has no idea what Sharia law is. Maybe he should actually read a book instead of listening to MSNBC 24/7/365. *facepalm*

[DumbAss Tanker]

It would be excessively boring to give a detailed legal explanation of exactly what it wrong with no_hypocrisy's flawed comparison there, but suffice it to say the 'No Sharia Law' thing means it cannot be used as a legal basis of decision in US courts on American legal issues, not that it is prohibited for people to obey it in their personal arrangements as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights, whether that obedience is driven by positive faith, fear of the afterlife, or objective reason.  In a given case, it might be relevant to explain customs or the understanding of the parties and be cited for that purpose, but not as binding law.  The same is true of any other ecclesiastical law, Hebrew, Catholic, Wiccan, Mithran, Zoroastrian, or whatever.

[Kyle Ricky]

It would be excessively boring to give a detailed legal explanation of exactly what it wrong with no_hypocrisy's flawed comparison there, but suffice it to say the 'No Sharia Law' thing means it cannot be used as a legal basis of decision in US courts on American legal issues, not that it is prohibited for people to obey it in their personal arrangements as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights, whether that obedience is driven by positive faith, fear of the afterlife, or objective reason.  In a given case, it might be relevant to explain customs or the understanding of the parties and be cited for that purpose, but not as binding law.  The same is true of any other ecclesiastical law, Hebrew, Catholic, Wiccan, Mithran, Zoroastrian, or whatever.

What about Apostasy? Sharia laws calls for the death penalty for that.

[sharkhawk]

They might already be civilly divorced, she just can't get remarried in their faith.  The courts don't care about the religions divorce (or marriage for that matter) laws.  If they did there would be no divorced Catholics.

On by the way Dummies the same situation exists in the Muslim communities.  A woman cannot file for divorce under Islam, but she can file in the civil courts.

[Kyle Ricky]

On by the way Dummies the same situation exists in the Muslim communities.  A woman cannot file for divorce under Islam, but she can file in the civil courts.

And if she did file for divorce, she would be executed.

[sharkhawk]

BTW I support these laws wholeheartedly.  I saw an ad for some stupid new show on HBO by Aaron Sorokin where the hero asks what community in the US is trying to implement Sharia law.  I guess they forgot Dearborn MI which prevented Terry Jones from speaking because he might have insulted Islam, and he burned a Koran.

They can keep their religious marriage laws as far as I am concerned.  If the church, temple or Mosque wants to refuse marriage to anyone for any reason fine by me.

[obumazombie]

Sharia law allows for honor killing. The ultimate in abuse.

[Kyle Ricky]

Sharia law allows for honor killing. The ultimate in abuse.

Yup, it does.

[DumbAss Tanker]

What about Apostasy? Sharia laws calls for the death penalty for that.

OK, you've got me there, I can't understand what the Hell that has to do with what I posted.

[Boojatta]

It would be excessively boring to give a detailed legal explanation of exactly what it wrong with no_hypocrisy's flawed comparison there, but suffice it to say the 'No Sharia Law' thing means it cannot be used as a legal basis of decision in US courts on American legal issues, not that it is prohibited for people to obey it in their personal arrangements as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights, whether that obedience is driven by positive faith, fear of the afterlife, or objective reason.  In a given case, it might be relevant to explain customs or the understanding of the parties and be cited for that purpose, but not as binding law.  The same is true of any other ecclesiastical law, Hebrew, Catholic, Wiccan, Mithran, Zoroastrian, or whatever.

What would happen if somebody posted that on DU?  When somebody shines a light that allows people to see exactly how DU sucks, people at DU recognize that it sucks.  Even though the person who shines the light might neither assert nor hint that DU sucks, the light alone might do damage.  Perhaps there's some confusion at DU and, when somebody shines a light at DU, people at DU think that the person who is shining the light is causing DU to suck.  The DU solution to a fire is to turn off the alarm.

[wasp69]

What would happen if somebody posted that on DU? 

You're own personal granite pizza wasn't enough to enlighten you on this matter?

[DumbAss Tanker]

The DU solution to a fire is to turn off the alarm.

That was very well-put, and accurate.  I'll high-5 ya for it.