Posted on 03/24/2011 1:52:22 PM PDT by ml/nj
It's really hard to listen to someone bleating about something he obviously knows nothing about. The issue is whether two persons (obviously Muslims) can agree to a contract which stipulates that disputes will be settled according to Sharia Law.
Dobbs thinks this is some sort of Constitutional issue; first he said because in a Constitutional Republic we decide things by majority rule. This is both wrong, sadly wrong, and has virtually nothing to do with contract law. It is sadly wrong because in Madison's Constitutional Republic, the majority only was to prevail in a limited set of areas. (E.g. post road and post offices, patent, copyrights, etc.) We cannot take a vote on whether to execute Dobbs. The will of the majority is not allowed to vote upon this in Madison's Republic.
Then Dobbs said that an agreement to abide by Sharia Law violates the First Amendment which provides for "separation of church and state." Actually it does no such thing, but even if it did, certainly forms of religious agreement are legal in this country. My synagogue, in its by-laws, requires that all food brought onto the premisis be kosher. Dobbs would apparently argue that agreeing to such a provision is unconstitutional. It isn't. I wonder if he thinks he would have to take my call or else violate my "freedom of speech." The man is an idiot.
The only problem with Sharia Law is that some of it violates statute law. I cannot enter a contract with someone to murder someone else, because it requires one of the parties to the contract to violate statute law. So the parts of Sharia that permit beating wives and requiring stoning certain people to death could not be enforced by a court here; but the parts of Sharia that prohibit lending money at interest could be enforced.
And if I were to bring a large ham into the dining area in my synagogue disrupting lunch on Saturday, I assume I would be liable to "pain and suffering" suits by others present whom I had offended. Freedom also means being allowed to enter into agreements with others without undue government interference, even if some people think the agreements are strange.
ML/NJ
Yep. Personal contracts that mandate binding arbitration using Sharia law (or any laws or rules) are fine, so long as the arbitration doesn’t try to enforce a term that is against public policy (that is, against the law), or the arbitrator uses rules that violate public policy (that is, violates the law). It’s not a constitutional issue, really.
If you think Lou Dobbs is dumb, wait to you read the comments to your post. You would think that most people only have a 6th grade education.
If you think Lou Dobbs is dumb, wait to you read the comments to your post. You would think that most people only have a 6th grade education.
I listened to that segment of his show on the ride home today. I found his argument on this particular FL case off as you have stated. There are other cases were Sharia is creeping into our judicial system that would have made the point better if he are concerned about this. I thought I heard him talk of the honor killing in Buffalo. That makes a better example.
The FL case should be seen as strictly a contract dispute and nothing more. How the contract is derived doesn’t matter, it is that both parties agreed to it.
He’s not an ignoramous, he knows everything. I guess he’s the quintessential renaissance man.
Contracts can be settled in arbitration according to whatever law the parties want.
Rush was talking about this today...
So far I stand corrected, but its early.
My quibble is it’s a vanity but not labeled and it’s in News and Activism.
“parts of Sharia that permit beating wives and requiring stoning certain people to death could not be enforced”
No court can enforce an illegal contract, like one to buy drugs or have someone killed. However, parties to a contract can choose the law or forum to resolve any disputes that arise, provided that the subject and remedies are legal. (Example, two people contracting in New York could agree that all disputes arising will be resolved in Arkansas applying California law.) Such a provision is only binding on the parties that enter into the contract.
Well, ml ( Can I call you Mike?), I see where you’re going with this and I disagree for one reason only: Islam isn’t a religion but a whole governmental-cultural-theocratic system hellbent on world domination.
Orthodox Jews and other religions, such as Mennonites and Amish, have religious laws that are internal between members. Members refusing to follow those laws are, by and large, shunned.
The above mentioned religions aren’t determined to take over governments, establish a world-wide dictatorship (Caliphate) like Islam has every intention to do so, and furthermore do not kill or punish non-believers.
P.S.: if I were Jewish and you brought a ham into my synagogue on the Sabbath, you would probably get a result worse than just being shunned because I would be outraged at your arrogance. Why? Because you should know better than to do something like that!
Of course there are. But our side cannot afford to have people making stupid points, even if we agree with the philosophy. This is why I switch away from Hannity when Rush concludes. Sometimes I go to music. Today I went to Dobbs. A few more rants like the one he gave today and it will be music or nothing at 3 PM ET here at the center of the universe.
ML/NJ
If I enter a contract with my pastor to charge twice the price for donuts on sundays, there is nothing wrong with that contract.
And if he published this as an op-ed instead of speaking it on the radio, where would you put it then?
ML/NJ
Dobb’s is a point well taken. Once the law is opened to Sharia, advocates of Islam and pliant, activist judges will see that it grows mischievous. What of a marriage contract? One man, four wives? We must be tolerant. What of a public accommodation contract, or a bank that forbids Jews? It is a custom among Muslims, we must be tolerant. We have only to look at the twisted extremities of our laws to see the serpents that await.
I never look at Dobbs as one of us. He is some sort of odd Populist, kind of like BOR. I was just killing time till Malzberg came on. Hannity was letting Lib callers make him look stupid because he is stuck with his tired talking points so I moved over to WOR. This mindless grandstanding must work because the dopey callers were in full agreement with Dobbs point at the time I tuned in.
What’s to put? You have no source except your ears and we are supposed to trust them? Bad practice. Becomes hearsay.
>> He’s not an ignoramous, he knows everything <<
Yep, and it seems to me that he’s also basically a demagogue — who will change a policy positions “on a dime” if he thinks the change will bring him a bigger audience.
It wasn't well taken, because it was poorly made, which was my point. I believe poorly made points hurt our cause.
If you've been paying attention you would know that I believe that mosques are enemy military installations and should be banned in this country; and destroyed when it suits our convenience elsewhere. My motto after 9/11 has been, "A mosque a minute, until we're done."
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.