UK and the Law.

[cherdano]

self-redacted for the moment.

well done just before I quoted you with a sarcastic reply B)

[hrothgar]

"They did not force conversion or practice indiscriminate slaughter. " So they were discriminating in their slaughter?

You can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs... More to the point, by definition military expansion is going to involve some use of force.

 

By the standards of their time, the Arabs and the Turks were more than reasonable. For example, the famous expression "Kill them all, God will know his own" didn't originate in the Middle East...

[finally17]

self-redacted for the moment.

well done just before I quoted you with a sarcastic reply B)

Well, to have a meta conversation, my original comment did say that it was "totally off-topic" and it didn't assert anything as fact. I merely said "I could see..." etc.

 

But at the time I opened the thread there was far less serious conversation going on. I didn't get around to my random off-topic comment until long after, and when I posted it there was all this debate. It seemed even more unwarranted by then.

 

It's too bad you can't just completely delete the last comment if it's yours.

[mikeh]

In response to a post by Mike777, to the effect that countries with lots of immigration tend to be more religious than those without: I frankly don't understand how you come to that opinion. The US, a country of immigrants, is admittedly close to being a theocracy, and certainly a nation in which one has no chance of being elected President without ostentious protestations of a Christian faith (one of the main problems facing Romney was that there was a huge proportion of voters who said they'd never vote for a Mormon, coupled with or based upon a concern that Mormonism isn't actually Christian at all).

 

But Canada, which is as diverse ethnically and culturally as the US, is far less religious. And the Muslim countries seem bye and large not to be centres of ethnic migration: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... countries where, if one discounts the guest workers of Saudi Arabia, are not nor have been recently, hotbeds of immigration. Look at France, with a large immigrant population: on the whole, religious belief seems to be losing ground in that nation, etc.

 

As for the AB comments, I do think, after reading his statement (thx to the poster), that the reaction may be a little overblown, but I did find his comments disturbing. In particular, he described sharia law as based on 'revealed' knowledge or rules.

 

This, of course, is at the very heart of religion: the acceptance of statements made by other humans for their own selfish purposes as being divinely 'revealed'.

 

If God said something, then, until God changes his mind, that's it: no dispute is possible, and it would literally be heresy for a legislative body to try to amend the rules. Such a system is the antithesis of a democratic way of life.

 

Furthermore, while I can understand the argument for saying that members of a religious group should be able to agree to submit to otherwise non-binding determinations by a religious court, that presupposes that the voluntary nature of the submission is truly voluntary.

 

Years ago, there was concern in the US (in particular) about cults, accused of brainwashing their acolytes. Some parents kidnapped their children and 'de-programmed' them. The Mormons indoctrinate their children in extremely powerful ways, such that few ever break free of the church.

 

Raise a young girl in a strictly muslim belief and she will almost always accept the genital mutilation, if that forms part of the belief of that sect. She will gladly accept her role as a lesser human than the males in her circle, and so on.

 

Is it therefore 'correct' that a country such as the UK, or France, or Canada, permit this type of brainwashing? Permit religious fanatics to deprive individuals of what are inherent rights for non-believers, just because they are given control of the children?

 

Factor out the pretence that these people are guided by a god, and much of their conduct towards their children and (usually) women becomes clear for what it is: a holdover to modes of conduct that are at odd with western views of the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, and equality of rights.

 

If we believe in our values, we cannot, as societies, tolerate, let alone advocate, the presence of groups who deny their members the right, the opportunity, to share those values. There is no point in BEING a society unless it is to afford protection to those within that society who are in need of it.

 

That begs a lot of questions, such as how most western countries fall far short of actually being what they claim to be, but just because we fail in some areas doesn't mean we have to stop trying in others.

[helene_t]

As usual agree 200% with Mikeh.

[mike777]

In response to a post by Mike777, to the effect that countries with lots of immigration tend to be more religious than those without: I frankly don't understand how you come to that opinion. The US, a country of immigrants, is admittedly close to being a theocracy, and certainly a nation in which one has no chance of being elected President without ostentious protestations of a Christian faith (one of the main problems facing Romney was that there was a huge proportion of voters who said they'd never vote for a Mormon, coupled with or based upon a concern that Mormonism isn't actually Christian at all).

 

But Canada, which is as diverse ethnically and culturally as the US, is far less religious. And the Muslim countries seem bye and large not to be centres of ethnic migration: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... countries where, if one discounts the guest workers of Saudi Arabia, are not nor have been recently, hotbeds of immigration. Look at France, with a large immigrant population: on the whole, religious belief seems to be losing ground in that nation, etc.

 

As for the AB comments, I do think, after reading his statement (thx to the poster), that the reaction may be a little overblown, but I did find his comments disturbing. In particular, he described sharia law as based on 'revealed' knowledge or rules.

 

This, of course, is at the very heart of religion: the acceptance of statements made by other humans for their own selfish purposes as being divinely 'revealed'.

 

If God said something, then, until God changes his mind, that's it: no dispute is possible, and it would literally be heresy for a legislative body to try to amend the rules. Such a system is the antithesis of a democratic way of life.

 

Furthermore, while I can understand the argument for saying that members of a religious group should be able to agree to submit to otherwise non-binding determinations by a religious court, that presupposes that the voluntary nature of the submission is truly voluntary.

 

Years ago, there was concern in the US (in particular) about cults, accused of brainwashing their acolytes. Some parents kidnapped their children and 'de-programmed' them. The Mormons indoctrinate their children in extremely powerful ways, such that few ever break free of the church.

 

Raise a young girl in a strictly muslim belief and she will almost always accept the genital mutilation, if that forms part of the belief of that sect. She will gladly accept her role as a lesser human than the males in her circle, and so on.

 

Is it therefore 'correct' that a country such as the UK, or France, or Canada, permit this type of brainwashing? Permit religious fanatics to deprive individuals of what are inherent rights for non-believers, just because they are given control of the children?

 

Factor out the pretence that these people are guided by a god, and much of their conduct towards their children and (usually) women becomes clear for what it is: a holdover to modes of conduct that are at odd with western views of the rights of the individual to freedom of expression, and equality of rights.

 

If we believe in our values, we cannot, as societies, tolerate, let alone advocate, the presence of groups who deny their members the right, the opportunity, to share those values. There is no point in BEING a society unless it is to afford protection to those within that society who are in need of it.

 

That begs a lot of questions, such as how most western countries fall far short of actually being what they claim to be, but just because we fail in some areas doesn't mean we have to stop trying in others.

I used Saudi Arabia in my example. It seems to me that Saudia is more religious the more immigrants it has and becomes more secular the less it has.

 

I would say the same thing for Canada but I have no facts. Again I suppose that the more immigrants Canada has the more religious it becomes and the less immigrants it has the more secular it becomes, over time.

 

My measurement would be as immigration increases in Canada does weekly service attendance increase or does the impact of religion on politics increase?

 

Lets look at the UK. I understand that as immigration has increased that weekly religious attendence has increased.

 

It would be interesting if the same were true in the Netherlands or France or Germany.

[hrothgar]

I used Saudi Arabia in my example. It seems to me that Saudia is more religious the more immigrants it has and becomes more secular the less it has.

Do you have any valid statistics regarding

 

1. Religious intensity in Saudi Arabia?

2. The number of immigrants to Saudi Arabia?

3. The number of guest workers in Saudi Arabia?

 

or are you just making ***** up as usual...

[mike777]

If you were not so lazy, you could read my whole thread. :)

I said I had no proof, only the theory and I threw our a way to measure it.

And no I do not know how to find the evidence. :) If I did I would.

 

You are the stats geek, hopefully you can come up with some to improve the discussion with stuff other than insults. :)

 

In any event cheers and please stop with your continuing insults. Disagree with me is fine. :)

[hrothgar]

If you were not so lazy, you could read my whole thread. :)

I said I had no proof, only the theory and I threw our a way to measure it.

Maybe you're the one who needs to read their own post:

 

You stated the following

 

I would say the same thing for Canada but I have no facts. Again I suppose that the more immigrants Canada has the more religious it becomes and the less immigrants it has the more secular it becomes, over time.

 

This construction states that you have no facts about Canada, but implies a claim that you do have facts regarding Saudi Arabia

[sceptic]

Lets look at the UK. I understand that as immigration has increased that weekly religious attendence has increased.

 

The increase in church going public, would appear to me to be, Africans and Polish, it does not appear to be naturalised British, This is my take on things based not on fact but observation of people, whilst this may not be scientific enough for some of you to agree with, I doubt the statistics would prove me wrong. (The one thing I do know, is statistics are effective in helping the person making the point as you can pay any idiot to produce stats that assist an agruement)

 

Also let a camel get its nose in the tent, just about sums up my personal fears, whilst again some of you probably scoff at this and I am sure the great thinkers of the world like the AB would dismiss this as irrational fear or as someone pointed out, an opinion made by someone less (or badly) versed in muslim history, you cannot always think your way around a problem, some times you just need to say NO

 

Once Sharia law is accepted into this country, you are now in danger of alienating the mainstream, I am sure that Brussels can provide us with some guidance, maybe the solution is for all women to go back to being subserviant, they fought hard for something they deserve and it is still not 100% equal, I for one do not want my daughters to have anything but the best opportunity in life and I respect other people enough to know, that given the freedom that western woman have got, let the muslim women taste that freedom and then ask them to go back to the old ways

 

I actually have discussed this with some asian women and life for them is double standards, double standards they really do not want, maybe we should concentrate on their rights, I am sure if we solve that one for them, integration will be a lot easier for all of us to accept.

 

I do not see many interpretations of the Koran made by women NOT men (again I may be ignorant here and woman may indeed have interpreted the Koran, for their menfolk, but I kind of doubt that)

[sceptic]

Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion

[mike777]

Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion

I thought the benefits and the social cohesion are easily apparent.

 

If you want to spend all your time, money and energy fighting the will of the majority ok......if not......learn to go along.

 

If you have a family and want them to fight fight fight ok....Death/honor/ or Liberty.

If you want them to get along ok......

[sceptic]

I thought the benefits and the social cohesion are easily apparent.

 

apparently not to me, elaborate please

[mike777]

I thought the benefits and the social cohesion are easily apparent.

 

apparently not to me, elaborate please

I did see rest of my post.

[sceptic]

I thought the benefits and the social cohesion are easily apparent.

 

apparently not to me, elaborate please

I did see rest of my post.

still don't make no sense to me

[hrothgar]

Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion

You are framing the conversation the wrong way...

 

This is an argument about freedom of religion, not the advantages/disadvantages of Sharia Law.

 

Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that

 

1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary

2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures

 

the government should have no interest in an individual's decision to follow Sharia law.

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm incredibly skeptical about organized religion. I think that religious fundamentalist are a bunch of idiots. I think that its almost laughable that people believe in this stuff. However...

 

I get very worried when people start advocating that the government should discriminate against different religions. Moreover, I recognize that most of these religious groups thrive on persecution. They do best when they are united by an external foe...

 

I have enormous faith in the corrosive nature of modern secular humanist culture. Sit back and grab a brewski. It might take a few years, but the children and grand children of those immigrants will soon be doing the same.

[Codo]

This is an argument about freedom of religion, not the advantages/disadvantages of Sharia Law.

 

Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that

 

1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary

2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures

 

the government should have no interest in an individuals decision to follow Sharia Law law.

In the same context you can discuss the advantages of the earth being a plate, it is just theoretical, no practical evidence.

 

There is no way that the Sharia is part of our culture if you want you two points to be taken into account:

 

1. I would claim that it is impossible to follow any given set of laws freely. If I am free to follow the laws or not, I have no laws ar all.

If you have laws, they must be there for anybody and there must be a something/someone who forces you to follow them. (Police, justice, your priest, parents, god, whatever.)

We may discuss if it is possible for most people to follow some ethics without the fear uf punishment if they don´t, but I am quite sure about the laws.

 

2. If your surronding (Parents, relatives, friends etc) all follow the same codex, you will have a very hard way to find another codex usefull. Somebody else gave the example of asian women living abroad. They meet one way of living at home and see another in dayly life. It is very hard for them to overcome their old habbits and follow the rules of the western world. So, if the Sharia is a living codex in your enviroment, it will be very hard to take a clear view about the western culture and to life a western live.

 

3. Sharia laws simply DO violate common laws.

 

4. We had the discussion before: The western world and christianity deveopled "together". The western world is still a christian world. Our ethics are christian. (This does by no means say that these ethics are superior, nor that the christian churches are always the place for the mostl ethical behaviour).

But monoganism, monotheism did spread with christianity, so did the ten commitments of course too.

Equal rights are a baby of the french revolution but the lutherian church was a spearhead to spread these thoughts. You can compare the rights women have with the degree of lutherians in a community and find that there is an easy to find correlation.

 

The Sharia has its roots in a very different world. And people in these parts of the world may or may not follow this set of rules. I do not like them, because for me the Sharia is too harsh and does not give many thoughts about equal rights. The Sharia looks quite backwards from my limited knowledge.

But I cannot judge what is right for Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia or whoever wants these old set of rules to be the current law system. They may use it. But there is no place on our continent for this. It does not fit here.

[helene_t]

Can some one tell me, the advantadges of Sahria Law, how it will effect us and what beneifts it will have to social cohesion

You are framing the conversation the wrong way...

 

This is an argument about freedom of religion, not the advantages/disadvantages of Sharia Law.

 

Individuals should be allowed the right to practice their religion without the interference from the government. To the extent that

 

1. The decision to follow Sharia Law is voluntary

2. Sharia Law does not violate federal statures

 

the government should have no interest in an individual's decision to follow Sharia Law law.

I'm not convinced. A "law" is, to me, something that is imposed upon people.

 

Then again, it's not clear to me what Williams said. Maybe he just meant that people have the freedom not to eat pigmeat. In that case it's no problem. But then he would hardly have said that Sharia will "become" part of British law, rather that it is and has been for a long time.

[hrothgar]

3. Sharia laws simply DO violate common laws.

As I mentioned repeastedly, I believe that federal law should prevail in those examples where federal laws and sharia law come into conflict.

 

To me, the critical issue is not whether an individual is applying the traditions of Sharia, but rather, whether or not they are breaking a Federal statutue.

[hrothgar]

4. We had the discussion before: The western world and christianity deveopled "together". The western world is still a christian world. Our ethics are christian. (This does by no means say that these ethics are superior, nor that the christian churches are always the place for the mostl ethical behaviour).

But monoganism, monotheism did spread with christianity, so did the ten commitments of course too.

 

The Sharia has its roots in a very different world. And people in these parts of the world may or may not follow this set of rules. I do not like them, because for me the Sharia is too harsh and does not give many thoughts about equal rights. The Sharia looks quite backwards from my limited knowledge.

But I cannot judge what is right for Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia or whoever wants these old set of rules to be the current law system. They may use it. But there is no place on our continent for this. It does not fit here.

The irony of this all is that Islam is a monotheistic religion which follows the 10 commandments.

 

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all incredibly closely related. They are all founded on the same books and religious traditions. At the core, all three religions are extremely nasty and incredibly misogynistic.

[helene_t]

Richard, I have no clue what you are aiming at. Don't we all agree that it's not government's business if some people don't want to eat pigmeat? Don't we all agree that it is the government's business is some group breaks the law, whether or not they justify their behavior with reference to their religion?

[hrothgar]

Richard, I have no clue what you are aiming at. Don't we all agree that it's not government's business if some people don't want to eat pigmeat? Don't we all agree that it is the government's business is some group breaks the law, whether or not they justify their behavior with reference to their religion?

I am in complete agreement with these statements...

I expect that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be as well

[sceptic]

actually I think we are all in some way in agreement, we differ in how we present our opinions or how philosophical we decide to be (but I could be wrong)

 

The Arch Bishop of Canterbury (this is probably a misspelling) is a complete out of touch moron, who needs to get an interest outside of his higher intelectual plain

[mike777]

Richard, I have no clue what you are aiming at. Don't we all agree that it's not government's business if some people don't want to eat pigmeat? Don't we all agree that it is the government's business is some group breaks the law, whether or not they justify their behavior with reference to their religion?

If the government is allowed to stop you from buying certain drugs or buying sex I don't see why they cannot stop you from buying pigmeat to consume. Governments outlaw the selling for consumption all kinds of meats.

 

IF some group is breaking the law and selling/consuming pigmeat they are breaking the law. Just pass the law. :)

 

I hope no one says arrest people for not breaking the law, just change the law and made it illegal. :)