Presidential candidates explained using D&D character sheets

[PoliteNewb]

Got to go with Frank here. "Only if both parties request it" is much, much better than "whenever the judge wants to" when it comes to deciding whether to apply Sharia law or not.

How about choice C, "never"?

[Username17]

Got to go with Frank here. "Only if both parties request it" is much, much better than "whenever the judge wants to" when it comes to deciding whether to apply Sharia law or not.

How about choice C, "never"?

That is not an option. That has never been an option and will never be an option. Because get this: people can make whatever contracts they want and can go into arbitration with anyone they want. Period. There is absolutely no way to keep people from deciding amongst themselves that a late payment requires a reimbursement in camels.

If you make a rule that a binding arbiter cannot be a religious leader you do one of two things:

• Make religious leaders have to hide their affiliations.
• Make people who want to settle their differences under the eye of a respected community leader do so without the watchful eyes of justice around.

Both of those are bad. Very very bad.

I am one of the most anti-religion people here. But I think you have to be on crack to not notice that 83% of Swiss people self-identify as being some flavor of Abrahamic religion and make provisions for them to do that. Freedom doesn't just mean freedom from religion (although of course, it does mean that), it also means freedom to practice whatever religion you have. When people bring in a Rabbi or a Priest for civil arbitration they are not usually expecting that the guy is going to decide that the adultress needs to be stoned or that the wearers of fiber blend clothing need to be exiled. They are just coming in as a respected member of the community. The reason they are a respected member of the community is rather questionable, but the respect is real. And you solve absolutely nothing by attempting to tell 5/6 of the population that many of the people they respect and trust cannot be selected for counselling duty.

Remember: priests and imams and rabbis and shit are mostly just counselors and community organizers. They are actually pretty good choices for arbiters, because that is basically their actual job.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

You'd also be an utter fool to assume that the swiss take religion even 10% as seriously as americans. Yeah, we might call ourselves christian this or that, but the churches are empty - especially the protestant ones, the catholic ones get by by relying on immigrants.

The state also has a mandate to uphold human rights. Letting someone who is religiously bound to pass inhuman sentences be an arbiter violates that mandate.

Yeah, you cannot stop people from wrecking their lives in private, but you should not give their errors the nod of approval from a judge. That's why no matter what kind of agreement you have for your divorce, the judge (over here) is going over it, to make sure it's not unjust - especially with regards to children.

Because get this: People cannot make the contracts they want, not if they want them enforced by the law. If you sell yourself into slavery then the court will not uphold the claim of your "owner". If you want to force your wife into accepting your beatings cause she agreed to some extremist fanatical version of islam when she married you, you will not get any judge over here to approve of your claim.

And that's how it should be: Whenever some religious insanity violates human rights and basic standards of justice, the judge can and should come down hard on that religious "law", not respect it.

And if we have to assume that once we stop tolerating inhuman shit the religious communities will close up and get worse... well, what do you do with sects who abuse children? You storm their ranches and arrest the assholes, as done in the US. We need to teach people that religiously mandated inequality is shit, not brabble something about how all cultures are equal and we should not condemn some delusional fuckers for cutting of a girl's private parts.

The vast majority of christians and muslims won't be affected by the law giving their religious laws the boot, since they already ignore whatever insane shit their religion mandates, and basically fool themselves into thinking their religion actually has modern values mandated by god. The only ones affected by banning religious laws from court are the insane extremists.

Having judges check what kind of shit priests and imans and rabbis are dealing out is not insane, it's common sense. As long as what deals they make do not violate the secular laws it is ok - in that case it doesn't matter since the religious laws match the secular ones. But if there are discrepancies, then secular law should be adhered to, no matter what the religious nutcases say. Cause that's why we have such laws, to make sure women are not abused, or cheated in a divorce.