A halal supermarket in France has been ordered to start selling pork and alcohol or face being shut down.
Good Price discount store in north-west Paris has been accused of breaching the conditions of its lease by not acting as a general food store, the local housing authority has claimed.
It argues that the local community in Colombes are not being served properly at the shop if no pork or alcohol products are sold there.
[...] The shop is allegedly prioritising a certain group within society which breaches the country's principles, the authority said.
Source: Metro
The mayor of Cannes in southern France has banned full-body swimsuits known as "burkinis" from the beach, citing public order concerns.
David Lisnard said they are a "symbol of Islamic extremism" and might spark scuffles, as France is the target of Islamist attacks.
France is on high alert following a series of incidents including July's truck attack in nearby Nice.
Anyone caught flouting the new rule could face a fine of €38 (£33). They will first be asked to change into another swimming costume or leave the beach.
Source: BBC News
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:58AM
You have a serious problem with your Christian Sharia gimmick. See, it was tossed out centuries ago. There WAS a time when judges in Europe were actually Catholic clergy. I suppose there was an interim period when Protestant judges acted as judges, in place. But, eventually, all of Europe tossed the Christian clergy judges, and put secular judges in place. Secular judges have been known to adhere to Christian standards - and they have also been known to depart wildly from Christian standards.
Here, in the US, there were no instances of Christian cleric acting as judges. If they did so, they were violating several laws, primary among them, practicing law without a license. After about 1776, the church and the state were clearly separated. "Congress may enact no laws with respect to religion".
There is no Christian Sharia, and you only make yourself sound foolish when you try to make one up. It is unfortunate that the US still has "blue laws" on the books. Without those blue laws, your claims of Christian Sharia would sound not only foolish, but ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:44PM
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about GP's analogy. But there are a bunch of problems with your claims.
See, it was tossed out centuries ago. There WAS a time when judges in Europe were actually Catholic clergy. I suppose there was an interim period when Protestant judges acted as judges, in place. But, eventually, all of Europe tossed the Christian clergy judges, and put secular judges in place. Secular judges have been known to adhere to Christian standards - and they have also been known to depart wildly from Christian standards.
I think you're confusing a lot of things here. There are these things called ecclesiastical courts [wikipedia.org], which are run by religious bodies and determine religious standards for conduct, etc. They have a long history and were generally more powerful in the Middle Ages in Europe (where they had broad purview over moral law). But most organized countries in Europe have had civil courts as well dating back to the Middle Ages and sometimes earlier, which could pass sentences for civil offenses. Ecclesiastical courts still exist in many Christian denominations, both in Europe and in the U.S. They just now have very limited jurisdiction compared to earlier times, mostly dealing with internal church matters. And as for Protestants, you may want to look into your anti-Catholic bias. (I'm not Catholic, not that it should matter.) The Protestant Reformation saw some of the worst abuses of the church taking over civil power in many areas -- quite a few Protestant church reformers essentially ruled as dictators for a while within their town or city.
Anyhow, clerics were (and are) commonly judges in ecclesiastical courts. Civil courts generally have been presided over by secular judges or local magistrates (sometimes, depending on the region of Europe, the local magistrate might have been a cleric centuries ago).
Here, in the US, there were no instances of Christian cleric acting as judges.
As noted in the link above, there are functioning ecclesiastical courts in the U.S. which have clerics as judges. They just have limited jurisdiction these days. And I'm just going to assume you're ignoring the long history of Puritan law in the colonies prior to the Revolution, which gave us things like the Salem witch trials. (However, it should be noted that even in things like the Salem witch trials, the judges were NOT clerics, but nevertheless followed the general religious laws established in the colonies of the time.)
If they did so, they were violating several laws, primary among them, practicing law without a license.
It should be noted that ecclesiastical courts determine their own qualifications for judges. And entrance to the (civil) bar in the 19th century and earlier was generally a rather casual thing, often just consisting of a conversation with a local judge in many municipalities to ensure you weren't a complete idiot. It wouldn't be hard at all for a Christian cleric at that time to gain proper credentials for practicing law, and indeed many did. (Though relatively few became judges, not because they were barred from it, but likely because being a major court judge was a full-time job, so it would take them away from church responsibilities. And in smaller towns, etc., local civil magistrates traditionally served as local judiciary for minor matters, regardless of whether they passed the bar or not.)
After about 1776, the church and the state were clearly separated. "Congress may enact no laws with respect to religion".
This is probably the most questionable of all of your claims. First of all, the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) wasn't adopted until 1791. Second, the text reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the early U.S., the Bill of Rights was only perceived as applying to the FEDERAL government, so this was taken (and MEANT) literally by the Founders of the U.S.: CONGRESS (i.e., the federal government) shall not make a law ESTABLISHING a religion (or regarding whether or not it could be established for that matter). A few states thus maintained official established religions for decades after the Constitution was enacted -- Massachusetts was perhaps the last to repeal its official Congregationalist religious affiliation in the 1830s. (Note that during this period, state law required all Massachusetts residents to attend a local parish church, as chosen by the majority of the town residents. Technically, the church's denomination could be chosen to be different by the town leaders, but in Massachusetts it was almost solely Congregationalist. The last state to officially have a statewide established religion was Connecticut, which disestablished its Congregationalist affiliation in 1818.)
It wasn't until Everson v. Board of Education [wikipedia.org] in 1947 that the Establishment Clause was officially ruled to apply to state and local governments. Prior to that, many states had all sorts of laws relating to religious stuff. Some states maintained religious tests for public office for decades after they official disestablished their churches -- North Carolina, for example, allowed only Protestants to hold public office until 1835 and required office-holders to be Christians until 1876. Another area of prominent religious policy for states and local governments was in the public schools. My father still tells stories of how his public elementary school principal used to read from the Bible at a weekly assembly devoted essentially to prayer and Christian religious teachings (this was prior to the SCOTUS decision mentioned; he also remembers when it suddenly stopped).
Anyhow, yeah, today there's a pretty clear separation. It just happened over 150 years after you said it did. And one could argue that the influence of religious moral law still reaches far into secular law in the U.S., with arbitrary moral laws against homosexuality for example only recently being overturned. That's a prominent example, but there are plenty of other remnants of Christian teachings enshrined in legal statutes in the U.S.
Again, obviously that has a very different standing and scope that Sharia law, but pretending our legal system and government has always been completely separated from Christian religion just isn't true.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:38PM
Good, you have a much better understanding of religious law history than I do.
But, pretty much everything I've read here essentially agrees with me - Christianity hasn't had the authority to put people to death in this country for - how long, exactly? A long time, right?
Now, compare to Sharia courts, where death sentences are routinely handed down by imams.
And, that's what kills me about "progressives". They fight so hard against Christian law - but then they want to permit the Muslims to establish their own Sharia in our land. They seem to believe that a Sharia court is equal to the ecclesiastical courts you mention. In fact, the Christian ecclesiastical courts amount to little more than a regulating board for "club members". If you're a member of the club, or church, you agree to abide by the rules of the club. No death sentences though. They can't confiscate your property. The worst they can do, is to excommunicate you from the church. Am I right?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 15 2016, @11:18PM
Ha!! Got ya, Runaway1956!
And, that's what kills me about "progressives". They fight so hard against Christian law - but then they want to permit the Muslims to establish their own Sharia in our land.
No, progressives don't want to establish sharia law, we just want yokels like yourself to think we do so you will crap your pants in fear because it is so darn funny! Sometimes we even encourage the right-wing nut-job delusion that the President of the United States would somehow have the legal ability to establish a national religion. You know, like when JFK was going to make all Americans be Catholic? When if same-sex marriage was legalized, we would have to all get gay married? But then, these are the people who ran Romney, a know proponent of religious law and special underwear from behind the Zion Curtain!! All of these are paranoid right-wing fantasies. Why do conservatives get so much pleasure out of being so afraid? Boo!! Look out, there's a sharia behind you! Ha ha!!!
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:21PM
There might not be a Christian "sharia" law per se, but we are inflicted with many laws because True Christians™ pass stupid laws to make everyone else comply with their idea of morality.
Some years ago, I was living in Bexar County (San Antonio, TX) and on Sunday you could not buy anything at the supermarket but food; no tools, alcohol, clothes, etc.
A while ago, under pressure from businessmen the law was reduced to no sale of alcohol on Sunday, except in restaurants or hotels. See Ordinance [localalcohollaws.com]
The "sharia" is what some old men want everyone to do, regardless of the people's opinion about it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:33PM
So by your own observations, the church is LOSING GROUND. I believe I mentioned above that there are "blue laws" still on the books. Some of them have been repealed when challenged in various parts of the country. The prohibition on the sales of alcohol on Sundays will be the last of those to go, but it's coming.
Obviously, there are no Christian Sharia laws left - the clergy can't haul you in off the street and have you hanged, stoned, beheaded, or thrown off the top of the tallest building around.