[kenberg]

Maybe the Bishop, or those supporting the Bishop, could be clearer about what he does and does not recommend. To my mind, his speech looks to be written by someone who has read too much philosophy.

It seems that the gist of his argument is along the lines of: Our laws reflect our values, these values are, or historically were, often based on religious principle, and religions differ so laws should accommodate that difference. At some level, people agree. I don't schedule exams on major Jewish holidays and if an exam inadvertently causes conflict with a religion (anyone's religion) we work it out. At another level, almost no one agrees. I don't care what someone's religion says, in this country they do not get to stone women to death for adultery. So where, on this continuum, do the Bishop's views lie? No doubt he feels he is being clear. The fact that his speech has led to a furor could be due to him not being as clear as he could be. Or it could be due to the fact that people who are upset understand him correctly.

[csdenmark]

kenberg, on Feb 13 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Maybe the Bishop, or those supporting the Bishop, could be clearer about what he does and does not recommend. To my mind, his speech looks to be written by someone who has read too much philosophy.

It seems that the gist of his argument is along the lines of: Our laws reflect out values, these values are, or historically were,  often based on religious principle, and religions differ so laws should accommodate that difference. At some level, people agree. I don't schedule exams on major Jewish holidays and if an exam inadvertently causes conflict with a religion (anyone's religion)  we work it out. At another level, almost no one agrees. I don't care what someone's religion says, in this country they do not get to stone women to death for adultery. So where, on this continuum, do the Bishop's views lie? No doubt he feels he is being clear. The fact that his speech has led to a furor could be due to him not being as clear as he could be. Or it could be due to the fact that people who are upset understand him correctly.

It has been voiced that the archbishop is very well educated in Philosophy. Just as the pope Kardinal Ratzinger and most clericals I assume. I doubt very much there is anything to blame them for lack of knowledge.

The problem is in fact not what he said - but that he said something at all. Thats the evidence that he intent some changes in favour of religion. That is what is dangerous.

The real intensions will never be revealed - such comes as a thief during the night. They put pressure on society - in the same way as the catholic inquisition was able to do for hundreds of years som hundred years ago.

When will we hear from P2 again?

[blackshoe]

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that one of the tenets of Shariah is that if a Muslim encounters an unbeliever, that unbeliever shall be converted to Islam. By persuasion if possible, by force if necessary - and if he cannot be converted, he should be killed.

This is hardly a basis for a free society.

The parts of Shariah that deal solely with contracts between individuals might be acceptable - but if you let the camel get its nose into the tent...

I agree with Gerben regarding the Ten Commandments, particularly the last one he mentions. Marriage is (should be) a civil contract between individuals. Adultery may be a breach of that contract - but that's between the parties to the contract. Neither secular nor religious authorities have any business in it, unless the parties agree to have those authorities (or one of them) arbitrate the dispute.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Feb 13 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that one of the tenets of Shariah is that if a Muslim encounters an unbeliever, that unbeliever shall be converted to Islam. By persuasion if possible, by force if necessary - and if he cannot be converted, he should be killed.

This is hardly a basis for a free society.

The parts of Shariah that deal solely with contracts between individuals might be acceptable - but if you let the camel get its nose into the tent...

I agree with Gerben regarding the Ten Commandments, particularly the last one he mentions. Marriage is (should be) a civil contract between individuals. Adultery may be a breach of that contract - but that's between the parties to the contract. Neither secular nor religious authorities have any business in it, unless the parties agree to have those authorities (or one of them) arbitrate the dispute.

There is no compulsion in religion.



I think the above is a quote from the Quran.
Quran 2:256

[blackshoe]

You quoted correctly. I looked it up.

Still, is there no possibility that one part of the Qu'ran contradicts another?

Qu'ran 2:291 said:

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Qu'ran 9:123 said:

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qu'ran 25:52 said:

So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 13 2008, 10:10 PM, said:

You quoted correctly. I looked it up.

Still, is there no possibility that one part of the Qu'ran contradicts another?

Many apparant contradictions reflect ignorance on the part of the reader

Back when I was an undergrad, I took a couple years of Middle Eastern history. One of the basic points that was drilled into our heads was that various sections of the Koran are highly contex specific. It's not always apparant whether a specific sura is speaking about

1. Any non muslim
2. People who are not of "the book"
2. A specific group of non muslims (for example, the tribes of Mecca)

There is an enormous amount of scholarship devoted to reading and interpreting the Torah. There is a hell of a lot more focused on the Koran... Obviously, rational people will be able to find grounds on which the disagree. I would hardly expect a sufi to be in lockstep with a wahabbist. (Me, I don't believe that any book is "perfect" and I think that different folks will always be able to project their unique beliefs on most anything)

Regardless, its been a long time since I studied any of this seriously, so I'm not going to go out on a limb and offer my own interpetations. The one thing that I will state is that I see enormous amounts of ignorant crap published by yokels who don't have any background in this area.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Feb 13 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that one of the tenets of Shariah is that if a Muslim encounters an unbeliever, that unbeliever shall be converted to Islam. By persuasion if possible, by force if necessary - and if he cannot be converted, he should be killed.

My knowledge of Sharia Law does not go far beyond the information in this thread, which is to say it is severely limited. But, I have read a bit of Bernard Lewis's The Muslim Discovery of Europe which gives me some knowledge of how Muslims interacted with the Western World centuries ago. My impression is that Muslims seldom attempted to impose their views or religions on the Western peoples they met and lived amongst. Admittedly, some of this was due to a Muslim belief that the Westerners that they met were not worthy of being converted.

At any rate, it would seem to me that Westerners have been far more zealous (and brutal) in their attempts to convert the locals.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Feb 13 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

My knowledge of Sharia Law does not go far beyond the information in this thread, which is to say it is severely limited. But, I have read a bit of Bernard Lewis's The Muslim Discovery of Europe which gives me some knowledge of how Muslims interacted with the Western World centuries ago. My impression is that Muslims seldom attempted to impose their views or religions on the Western peoples they met and lived amongst. Admittedly, some of this was due to a Muslim belief that the Westerners that they met were not worthy of being converted.

At any rate, it would seem to me that Westerners have been far more zealous (and brutal) in their attempts to convert the locals.

Muslim's consider Christians and Jews to be "People of the Book" and generally did not force conversion or practice indiscriminate slaughter.

However, there was typically institutional discrimination against non-muslims, particularly with respect to taxation policy and ability to build/repair churches.

[finally17]

self-redacted for the moment.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 13 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

My knowledge of Sharia Law does not go far beyond the information in this thread, which is to say it is severely limited.  But, I have read a bit of Bernard Lewis's The Muslim Discovery of Europe which gives me some knowledge of how Muslims interacted with the Western World centuries ago.  My impression is that Muslims seldom attempted to impose their views or religions on the Western peoples they met and lived amongst.  Admittedly, some of this was due to a Muslim belief that the Westerners that they met were not worthy of being converted.

At any rate, it would seem to me that Westerners have been far more zealous (and brutal) in their attempts to convert the locals.

Muslim's consider Christians and Jews to be "People of the Book" and generally did not force conversion or practice indiscriminate slaughter.

However, there was typically institutional discrimination against non-muslims, particularly with respect to taxation policy and ability to build/repair churches.

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

I have no interest whatsoever in whether someone regards me as "by the book" or "not by the book" except, if being "not by the book" (probably the case) means that I have to be killed, that would concern me. Especially if the Archbishop thinks that since it is part of someone's religious beliefs we should accept it.

This whole thing sounds nuts. Regardless of the particular faith, I don't think much of arguments that go "Oh, it's OK for him to stone his wife, kill people who aren't by the book, no problem, it's his religion".

Religious leaders often have an exaggerated view of their own importance and I think we would all be better off if we told the lot of them to take a flying leap. Apparently, in the case of the Archbishop, there is considerable support for doing just that.

[cherdano]

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

self-redacted for the moment.

well done just before I quoted you with a sarcastic reply

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Feb 13 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

"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]

cherdano, on Feb 13 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

self-redacted for the moment.

well done just before I quoted you with a sarcastic reply

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]

mikeh, on Feb 13 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Feb 14 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

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]

mike777, on Feb 14 2008, 03:23 AM, said:

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

Quote

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]

Quote

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)