[Ruprecht]

Mind you I'm not impressed with this anglican leader...

He's "progressive", which means he ordains active homosexual priests, doesn't think believing in the virgin birth is in any way a crux of the Anglican faith and believes that sharia law should be allowed to operate in Britain...

[Cayne-Abel]

Originally Posted by RuSSiaNThuG

yeh, want to name some names?

Just about any Chassidic Jewish group would love the freedom to practice Halacha in a more authentic way - both in the U.S. and Israel. I've spoken to many Chassids that will openly tell you that the reason that they no longer stone people for adultery (or apostasy or whatever else) is simply because they do not have the political capability of carrying out such sentences - secular Western governments (including Israel) would never allow it.

They take what they can get, though...which is why Jewish family law arbitration is so popular in many circles. Many states in the country actually recognize a religious Jewish marriage.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

Just about any Chassidic Jewish group would love the freedom to practice Halacha in a more authentic way - both in the U.S. and Israel. I've spoken to many Chassids that will openly tell you that the reason that they no longer stone people for adultery (or apostasy or whatever else) is simply because they do not have the political capability of carrying out such sentences - secular Western governments (including Israel) would never allow it.

They take what they can get, though...which is why Jewish family law arbitration is so popular in many circles. Many states in the country actually recognize a religious Jewish marriage.

I took a class on Jewish Law in law school. I also took a class on Islamic Law. It's interesting stuff. There definitely is substantial desire in these religious communities to carve out more space for the application of religious law.

That said, I put little stock in statements by Chassids that they don't carry out x or y punishment because of some contingent political development. To me, that kind of talk is clearly just casuistry, designed to excuse the fact that nobody wants to do it, despite the obvious religious command. Religious law is where you typically find the acme of such casuistry -- clear religious injunctions ignored based on some trivial dogma or thin excuse.

On the other hand, I do think a substantial portion of the Shariah support is for full-on Shariah, including the criminal punishments. The fact that Islam has been in complete power for so long in so much of the world has made Islamic law much more "realistic" than Jewish law, which often consists of ridiculously elaborate speculation, freed from the constraints of actually having to put that into practice (apart from areas where Jews did have legal autonomy within their community, like some portions of family law). Islamic law does have some of these same casuistic restraints built in, in the form of elaborate proof requirements that can be either applied or ignored, as the case may be.

Maybe I am wrong, and the Chassidim long to stone people, but I can't say that I think it's likely. I think they will seize on any excuse to avoid it.

[Cayne-Abel]

Originally Posted by Zankou

I took a class on Jewish Law in law school. I also took a class on Islamic Law. It's interesting stuff. There definitely is substantial desire in these religious communities to carve out more space for the application of religious law.

That said, I put little stock in statements by Chassids that they don't carry out x or y punishment because of some contingent political development. To me, that kind of talk is clearly just casuistry, designed to excuse the fact that nobody wants to do it, despite the obvious religious command. Religious law is where you typically find the acme of such casuistry -- clear religious injunctions ignored based on some trivial dogma or thin excuse.

On the other hand, I do think a substantial portion of the Shariah support is for full-on Shariah, including the criminal punishments. The fact that Islam has been in complete power for so long in so much of the world has made Islamic law much more "realistic" than Jewish law, which often consists of ridiculously elaborate speculation, freed from the constraints of actually having to put that into practice (apart from areas where Jews did have legal autonomy within their community, like some portions of family law). Islamic law does have some of these same casuistic restraints built in, in the form of elaborate proof requirements that can be either applied or ignored, as the case may be.

Maybe I am wrong, and the Chassidim long to stone people, but I can't say that I think it's likely. I think they will seize on any excuse to avoid it.

I agree completely. In fact you've articulated my exact suspicions regarding the Chassids and other Orthodox groups - though I would not put it past some of the more extremist factions to actually jump at any theoretical opportunity to implement genuine Halachic criminal law.

I will only add this: however widespread the interest in establishing genuine "full-on" Shariah (the "dark" and brutal kind we are thinking of) really is, people like the Archbishop dismiss, out-of-hand, the possibility of accommodating such forms of Sharia in a secular, pluralistic State.

As for the elaborate proof requirements in Islamic law you spoke of, you should see some of the ridiculous proof requirements for the death penalty that some modern Orthodox Jews are trying to claim are mandated by Halacha. For example, applying the death penalty for murder supposedly required at least two witnesses who both shouted to the killer "please don't do it, this is a crime punishable by death!", and the killer had to respond, "even so, I will do it" a maximum of 5 seconds after the witnesses' warning (along with plenty of other silly requirements). They expect us to believe that these extreme requirements were actually implemented in ancient Israel.

[Joe Funaro]

Fuck any religious courts.

If you want something to be arbitrated outside of court, thats ok as long as both people agree to it.

But if you stab someone or rob someone or commit any violent crime, then the state should prosecute.

Letting a violent criminal go because the parties decided to settle it out of court is wrong.