Your take on Sharia law in America

[1836]

Hm

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[presence]

States handle laws as to murder. I cannot think of a state that allows murder, but perhaps you can.

Trial by boiling oil does not entail murder. Two people accused and accuser stick their hands in boiling cocoa butter, which boils at relatively low temperature. Its kinda like walking on hot coals barefoot one might expect. The witness declares whether the accused is guilty based upon his perception of who came through most mentally/emotionally unscathed.

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[presence]

Its all voluntary.

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[idiom]

Yes we can tell you that. That is the whole point.

In a lot of northern European countries prison security doesn't need to be very secure. People accept their punishment.

If you won't go along with what you agreed to, but only do so while you are getting a clear benefit, then you are a person without integrity and a problem for civilisation.

While agreeing to a system that involves boiling oil might make me question your judgement, I can't stop you doing so without a heck of a lot of force.

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[presence]

We're not talking about boiling peanut oil (440 degrees), we're talking about butter... I can't find data... but I'd expect boiling point around 160-200' F

Anyway all three men are members of a "community" In order to be accepted in that community in honor they agree to this "trial by ordeal" of the community elder /witness. The accuser says you stole my chicken, the witness tells him if your really think thats the truth say it again and stick your hands in the boiling oil. He does and then the accused has the option to back down or profess his innocence and stick his hands in the boiling oil with a straight face.

In the clip I posted the thief backs down and the village elder sides with the accuser who came up unscathed.


(it may be shea butter... nonetheless, an oil with a relatively low boiling temp is used, dairy butter for example boils at 230 F.)

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[idiom]

Quick version of the Crito from Wiki.

Socrates is sentenced to death by suicide. His friend Crito shows up and says I have bribed the guards, and a have a horse out of here, lets go. Socrates says no even though Socrates thinks he was unjustly convicted.

Socrates tells Crito that he is one of those people who must be guided by reason, while Crito has insisted that he be obeyed in this matter regardless of whether he has convinced Socrates. Socrates claims that he was serious at his trial about not fearing death. He expresses contempt for the opinions of the masses of mankind who think irrationally and act randomly. Socrates says that the only person whose opinion is of value is the one who understands justice.[3] Money, reputation and feeding children are values of thoughtless men.[4] The question is whether it would be unjust for Socrates to escape, not what people would think about him.

Socrates argues that if it is never good to do injustice, then certainly it is never good to do injustice in response to injustice. He says that this premise will be taken as true for the purpose of their discussion.[5] Crito says he agrees with Socrates.

This does not answer whether it is just or unjust for Socrates to escape from the prison, so Socrates asks what the Laws would say about his leaving. Socrates claims that the Laws would say that he destroys the city in leaving, and this unjustly. The Laws say that a citizen stands in relation to the city as the child does to the parent, as the slave does to his master.

The Laws would further say, Socrates says, that he entered into a contract with them by remaining within the city, benefiting from it, and so now cannot justly attack it on account of having been unjustly convicted. Socrates says the laws argue that he tacitly agreed to obey the law by remaining in Athens after having reached maturity, witnessing the structure of the law and how it functions, and raising children of his own in Athens.

Socrates does not declare that he is satisfied with the Laws' argument, instead asking Crito whether they mustn't accept it. Crito says they must, and so the dialogue comes to a conclusion.

Its a social contract theory argument, but it is just as valid if you had a voluntary signed contract with a city, even more so.

If you had an An-Cap city, you sign a thing to enter it, something bad happens, you lose in court, they ask you to kill yourself... then you should. You agreed to do so before you entered the city.

The question you have to answer is, a) do you really want to enter the city, b) are you a person of your word.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Let me ask you the question, because I want a sincere explanation:

Where in the Constitution, in either context I discussed earlier in the thread, does the government have the right to stop individuals from voluntarily participating in ritual?

I haven't seen anybody in this thread calling for the ritual to be banned.

Here's another case for you to review: Church of Lukumi Bablu Aye v. City of Hialeah, about a church practicing Santeria in Florida which was attacked by a city ordinance. A groundbreaking case in Free Exercise incorporation.

Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah

I guess I fail to see where the argument is here that you're presenting. All I see is the fright factor of how horrible Sharia is. Yes, it is, but is its voluntary practice unconstitutional? I'm not sure it could hit that level as a voluntary manner.

Not to say, however, that a city or a state couldn't ban it –*at least, under an originalist interpretation of our Constitution. In fact, that very thing is contradicted by the incorporation of free exercise in the case I linked above.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you believe Muslims should be able to enforce Sharia laws in their own communities as opposed to Constitutional law?

No more and no less than any other private organization. Constitutional, State and local law always applies.

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[1836]

Not everyone here likes Antonin Scalia, and I don't like him all the time, but he has a brilliant legal mind and in theory rejects incorporation doctrine.

 

[idiom]

Not everyone here likes Antonin Scalia, and I don't like him all the time, but he has a brilliant legal mind and in theory rejects incorporation doctrine.

Of I go to google...

A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporation+Doctrine

 

[mad cow]

In America,for decades after its founding,people,including Presidents and other high government officials voluntarily engaged in duels,often to the death,to settle disputes.

It was all voluntary and had nothing to do with and was often in complete contravention of State and/or Federal Constitutions and Laws.

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

 

[1836]

Hm

 

[FrankRep]

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

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

20 states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have some statute(s) (including constitutional provisions) specifically prohibiting duelling. The remaining 30 states either have no such statute or constitutional provision, or limit their duelling prohibition to members of their state national guard. This does not necessarily mean, however, that duelling is legal in any state, as assault and murder laws can apply.

States which specifically prohibit members of the state national guard from duelling are Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Hawaii, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and New York.

States and territories which have statutory prohibitions on duelling for all citizens are Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and Utah. California previously prohibited duelling, but this was repealed in 1994.​

 

[Confederate]

California previously prohibited dueling, but this was repealed in 1994.

California repealed a law?!