[mike777]

For all the talk of a secular Europe it is interesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, says it is inevitable that Shariah Law will be introduced in Britain.

[helene_t]

Not really, just another brain fart.

[EricK]

mike777, on Feb 12 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

For all the talk of a secular Europe it is interesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, says it is inevitable that Shariah Law will be introduced in Britain.

That's not really what he said though.

[hrothgar]

From what I could tell, the Archbishop simply noted the following:

There are any number of examples where religious groups maintain their own distinctive legal traditions. For example, in the UK Orthodox Jews have historically maintained their own court system which they use to settle "civil" matters. The same holds true here in the US.

Furthermore, many counties including the United States allow individuals to resolve civil complaints using arbitration rather than the government's court structures.

Williams made a very basic observation: A democratic society can not deny individuals the right to arbitrate civil disputes outside the official court system.

If a group of Muslims wants to govern their lives based on Sharia Law and these Laws do not conflict with any government regulations than the government has no business interferring.

[helene_t]

Oh was that what he said, then maybe it wasn't even a brain fart. Sorry.

[sceptic]

Quote

f a group of muslims wants to govern their lives based on Sharia Law and these Laws do not conflict with any government regulations than the government has no business interferring.

A government is elected to do what is right for its people (I always thought the democratic thing was do what the majority want)

In a muslim country I totally agree, they can have sharia law, they can also have as many wives as they want, they can keep thier womens rights at what we would perceive as sub standard, I would even go as far as to say sub human rights of women, I would not want any of my daughters brought up in that environment, nor would I want to let any regime or religion have a say in our country that wants to bring it into being.

Unfortunately, people with such openmindedness as the AB, generally help to erode the way of life, that I for one, quite enjoyed and was quite happy with, it is not perfect, but it is getting better in some ways

One thing you overlook is there are large factions of the muslim world, that are not quite looking for the civil agreements to be resolved via sharia law, they want the whole kit and kaboodle, give em an inch and they will take a mile, I do not trust them (this is a personal view based on my limited interaction with them)

What really pisses me off with his words, whilst he is probably a very academic person (and I have known people of this ilk, that could not tie up their own shoelaces without an instruction manual) , is when are people going to listen to us non believers and banish all bloody religions

Quote

Williams made a very basic observation: A democratic society can not deny individuals the right to arbitrate civil disputes outside the official court system.

Ok, I want to have my own set of rules to settle my own disputes I am a minority of one, does this mean I can ignore the law of the land. BS
Williams is a very intelligent halfwit who has lost touch with reality

where does it stop ths bloody PC madness, if they dont like our rules, dont come to the land of the Giro

As a side note, I would love to know what benifits we as a country would have from the introduction of sharia law, and also, what happens when there is a dispute with a non muslim and a muslim, whos laws prevail?

[TimG]

sceptic, on Feb 12 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

Ok, I want to have my own set of rules to settle my own disputes I am a minority of one, does this mean I can ignore the law of the land.

You're going to have a dispute with yourself and you'd like to settle it by your own rules? I doubt anyone would deny you that pleasure.

[sceptic]

TimG, on Feb 12 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 12 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

Ok, I want to have my own set of rules to settle my own disputes I am a minority of one, does this mean I can ignore the law of the land.

You're going to have a dispute with yourself and you'd like to settle it by your own rules? I doubt anyone would deny you that pleasure.

[sceptic]

Lets go the whole hog, allow honour killings

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Feb 12 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

If a group of Muslims wants to govern their lives based on Sharia Law and these Laws do not conflict with any government regulations than the government has no business interferring.

Not sure I understand this. Of course if both parties respect the verdict of a Sharia court and everybody is happy, then the general justice system does not need to intervene,

But suppose, for example, that a person wants to have his/her marriage annulled because it was for some reason not legal under British law (bride accepted under pressure, the man turned out already to be married, whatever). Now the Sharia court says "sorry, under Sharia law the marriage is legal". Now the person goes to a normal court and demands the marriage annulled so that he/she is released from any marital obligations and free to remarry.

[mike777]

"But while he moved to neutralise the crisis which followed his assertion that adopting certain aspects of Islamic law seemed "unavoidable", he stopped short of the full apology some critics had demanded."


Full article link below.


http://www.guardian..../religion.islam


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...2/12/do1201.xml

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Feb 13 2008, 01:27 AM, said:

Quote

f a group of muslims wants to govern their lives based on Sharia Law and these Laws do not conflict with any government regulations than the government has no business interferring.

A government is elected to do what is right for its people (I always thought the democratic thing was do what the majority want)

In a muslim country I totally agree, they can have sharia law, they can also have as many wives as they want, they can keep thier womens rights at what we would perceive as sub standard, I would even go as far as to say sub human rights of women, I would not want any of my daughters brought up in that environment, nor would I want to let any regime or religion have a say in our country that wants to bring it into being.

Unfortunately, people with such openmindedness as the AB, generally help to erode the way of life, that I for one, quite enjoyed and was quite happy with, it is not perfect, but it is getting better in some ways

One thing you overlook is there are large factions of the muslim world, that are not quite looking for the civil agreements to be resolved via sharia law, they want the whole kit and kaboodle, give em an inch and they will take a mile, I do not trust them (this is a personal view based on my limited interaction with them)

What really pisses me off with his words, whilst he is probably a very academic person (and I have known people of this ilk, that could not tie up their own shoelaces without an instruction manual) , is when are people going to listen to us non believers and banish all bloody religions

Quote

Williams made a very basic observation: A democratic society can not deny individuals the right to arbitrate civil disputes outside the official court system.

Ok, I want to have my own set of rules to settle my own disputes I am a minority of one, does this mean I can ignore the law of the land. BS
Williams is a very intelligent halfwit who has lost touch with reality

where does it stop ths bloody PC madness, if they dont like our rules, dont come to the land of the Giro

As a side note, I would love to know what benifits we as a country would have from the introduction of sharia law, and also, what happens when there is a dispute with a non muslim and a muslim, whos laws prevail?

Here's how I would frame the issue:

Sharia law or Orthodox Jewish courts or whatever is welcome to grow and flourish to the extent that it does not conflict with official government statutes.

Here is a simple example: Suppose that a Jew wants to open a Kosher butcher shop and have this certified by a Rabbi. Why should the government care? Let me extend the example, suppose that the methods that the butcher uses to slaughter his cattle violates FDA codes. Here, the government should take action and the butcher should not expect to be exempt from FDA regulations based on what some Rabbi might say.

In a similar vein, if a Sharia banks wants to lend money without charging interest so be it...

If a Mormon wants to pay 10% to his income to the church as a tax, so be it...

The key issue is that these are voluntary agreement outside the scope of government regulations.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 01:46 AM, said:

Not sure I understand this. Of course if both parties respect the verdict of a Sharia court and everybody is happy, then the general justice system does not need to intervene,

But suppose, for example, that a person wants to have his/her marriage annulled because it was for some reason not legal under British law (bride accepted under pressure, the man turned out already to be married, whatever). Now the Sharia court says "sorry, under Sharia law the marriage is legal". Now the person goes to a normal court and demands the marriage annulled so that he/she is released from any marital obligations and free to remarry.

As I noted before, I think that its idiotic to mix religious ceremonies like marriage with property rights...

[helene_t]

The examples you give are quite acceptable, Richard. But the Guardian article is very vague. It is not clear to me what this archbishop meant.

Quote

As I noted before, I think that its idiotic to mix religious ceremonies like marriage with property rights...

You think so, and I think so, but does Williams think so? Do islamic legal schollars think so?

Sharia is not restricted to purely religious things such as how to define halal meat. It deals with a lot of other issues and it seems unavoidable to me that it would come into conflict with society.

[mike777]

Of course the government regulates all sorts of voluntary agreements.

There is always great tension between what vountary agreements the government should regulate and which they should not.


In any event this just seems to be one tiny piece of evidence that the more immigration a country, over time, the more religion plays a role in society . And viceversa, the less immigration a country has the more secular the government grows over time.

I just wonder if even a country such as Saudi Arabia will grow more secular with less immigration but more religious with increased immigration.

I wonder if immigration makes the USA a more religious country compared to European countries with less immigration.

I use the term religious in the sense of weekly attendance or influence in Gov. policy.

[sceptic]

I agree with your examples 100%, BUT

In a similar vein, if a Sharia banks wants to lend money without charging interest so be it...

great no issue here

If a Mormon wants to pay 10% to his income to the church as a tax, so be it...

I believe that there is regulation or at least tax relief for this ( so it is within government regulation )

The key issue is that these are voluntary agreement outside the scope of government regulations.

so honour killings, arranged (forced) marriages, stoning, amputation, these are voluntry agreements (I personally would call them law) if you follow the faith you have to embrace the whole good and bad. my issue here is that if we allow some, then when they break our laws, some smart ass lawyer will defend them in our courts and use a defence like " we they believed sharia law was allowed in their community, so they are inoccent.... I really think we are on a slippery slope if we allow it, there is anther point to be made, what if a muslim, rejects sharia law and then is ostrascised in his community, where do we stand, we are just opening the floodgates for more complex problems in the future

what if the muslims ever get so fanatical they want sharia law to be the main law of the land, this may sound absurd, but I am sure that is akin to some meglamaniac trying to enforce democracy to every country in the world. it COULD happen

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

The examples you give are quite acceptable, Richard. But the Guardian article is very vague. It is not clear to me what this archbishop meant.

You might want to consider whether the Guardian has an agenda...

Here in the US, nearly all the coverage of the debate is coming from so-called Orthodox Anglicans who already have severe issues with the Archbishop over gay rights.

Check out the following as a representative site:
http://www.virtueonl...ortal/index.php

There's plenty of other people who trying to political hay rather than play up the religious aspect...

[mike777]

sceptic, on Feb 12 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

Lets go the whole hog, allow honour killings

At the very least honour killings should not be subject to the death penalty.
And in Denmark conspiracy to do honour killings is not a crime.

I think in many countries the honour killers get off with a hard slap to the wrist.

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Feb 13 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

so honour killings, arranged (forced) marriages, stoning, amputation, these are voluntry agreements (I personally would call them law) if you follow the faith you have to embrace the whole good and bad.

Honor killing, amputation, stoning, and the like all violate criminal statutes.

I haven't seen anyone claim that individuals should be exempted from criminal prosecution based on religious conviction.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 01:20 AM, said:

You might want to consider whether the Guardian has an agenda...

The Guardian is comparable to New York Times, I think. It's by far my favorite newspaper. It may have an agenda but it is certainly not anti-gay.

Quote

I haven't seen anyone claim that individuals should be exempted from criminal prosecution based on religious conviction.

Welcome to the real World, Richard. Both in Denmark and Netherlands, people have been found not guilty of seeding hatred solely on the basis of this disgusting concept of "freedom of religion". You cannot promote violence against gays on the basis of free speech, but you can do so on the basis of freedom of religion.

Dawkins' "The God Delusion" gives a number of similar examples from the U.S. For example, there was a church who got permission to use canabis for ceremonies. (Not that I'm arguing that canabis smoking is comparably to bigotry, it's just that both are otherwise criminal behaviour).