[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]

sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 02:46 AM, said:

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]

Quote

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

apparently not to me, elaborate please

[mike777]

sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 03:52 AM, said:

Quote

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]

mike777, on Feb 14 2008, 08:54 AM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 03:52 AM, said:

Quote

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]

sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Feb 14 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Feb 14 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 14 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

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]

Codo, on Feb 14 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

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]

Codo, on Feb 14 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

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]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

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]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

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.