[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]I think you’ve failed to do the due diligence in researching Islam. You’ve scared yourself with various parts of Deuteronomy and Exodus, no doubt (despite their expiration in the person and work of Jesus), but you’ve failed to analyze the violent passages in the Qur’an, which are still very much in effect and morally binding. Mosaic law: fulfilled. Surah 9: not.[/quote]
Nice move - let’s leave out the sizeable and influential evangelicals who very much try to live by the whole book (all parts, including the ones the others have decided to opt of) - or rather read it in a way according to their beliefs.
Even if what you say is correct - and for some practicioners it is undoubtedly - for others it is not. I know you’ve been in quite the comfort zone here where no one checks the every day veracity of how muslims are actually practicing their religion and conduct their every day life. I do live among them, I work with them, I am friends with some of them - the assumption that some of their texts (or even all of it) makes them an army waiting to strike (or take over by fertility) is unfounded - and it isn’t supported by the any of the statistics we discussed.
[quote]If I were to bring up Surah 9:5 and how it’s a moral obligation for Muslims now, you’d happily go to the Old Testament and point out the violent mandates there, despite the fact that Christians believe those are no longer binding because of Jesus (who advocated turning the other cheek).
But that’s where your eyes would glaze over. In your liberal brain, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are equally violent, despite the actual truth claims of these individual religions and the interpretation of their texts.[/quote]
As you may have noticed, I don’t argue religiously - and I’ll spare you and myself the bible quote slinging match. Nice personal note to how my brain works though - labelling is always a cool thing to do.
Having seen how religious texts are interpreted to justify pretty much any life choice, I tend to look at what people of a specific religious persuasion actually do. We’ve covered this before - where is the evidence that Muslims create a significantly higher risk of domestic violence, and crime in general? More on that later.
Could - but doesn’t seem to be in modern British society. And - so far no one here has been able to prove the original point, that civil islamic arbitration will unhinge British society.
Not in my world - this seeming contradiction unlikely to you, is mostly a struggle against a self-proclaimed ‘moral majority’ which tends to look at what they don’t understand, come to quick conclusions and bash it (and its respective proponents), often contrary to the evidence provided.
I go to sleep for a few hours, and the thread grows by three pages?
Let’s see…so far, we heard arguments about the Daily Mail containing more truth than the massaged official British figures, Cheney’s famous evidence-absence-nosense, some argument that anything less than exhaustion was an unacceptable statistical method, racial slurs thrown around (and amazingly, one poster had the audacity to use a tu quoque when the responder clearly used the terms to illustrate how wrong it was), insults towards an Archbishop for explaining the way a certain British law works, tasteless homophobic puns, the all-Muslims-are-liars bit, the theory that Muslims are conspiring to take over Britain, etc.
It’s quite baffling, but I still think the copy/paste job from the BNP (an overtly racist organization) still takes the cake.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I go to sleep for a few hours, and the thread grows by three pages?
Let’s see…so far, we heard arguments about the Daily Mail containing more truth than the massaged official British figures, Cheney’s famous evidence-absence-nosense, some argument that anything less than exhaustion was an unacceptable statistical method, racial slurs thrown around (and amazingly, one poster had the audacity to use a tu quoque when the responder clearly used the terms to illustrate how wrong it was), insults towards an Archbishop for explaining the way a certain British law works, tasteless homophobic puns, the all-Muslims-are-liars bit, the theory that Muslims are conspiring to take over Britain, etc.
It’s quite baffling, but I still think the copy/paste job from the BNP (an overtly racist organization) still takes the cake.[/quote]
What’s not to like? Sounds like a normal day in the politics forum to me.
Except for the BNP quote obviously. But - Sifu has finally apologised for his usage of a racist term, which I find a good thing to do. You don’t see people apologise here every day, and I respect that.
I just wonder why people in the other forums look down on us here in general…
[quote]Nice move - let’s leave out the sizeable and influential evangelicals who very much try to live by the whole book (all parts, including the ones the others have decided to opt of) - or rather read it in a way according to their beliefs.
[/quote]
Evidence?
Even if what you say is true, and you so far have provided no evidence that it is, how are Evangelicals supposed to twist, “…But I say to you, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you…” into an open-ended mandate for religious war against non-believers like Surah 9:5?
So, that’s your data -your own personal experience?
Well, you’ve got no problem bashing Evangelicals left and right, NARTH, and other Christian organizations, but you don’t seem to know a thing about Islam other than the Muslims you’ve met are nice to your face. If you don’t want to have a religious discussion, as you freely admit you know nothing of Islamic doctrine, the most you can claim is ignorance, right?
[quote]We’ve covered this before - where is the evidence that Muslims create a significantly higher risk of domestic violence, and crime in general? More on that later.
[/quote]
I provided some. Antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise. But still, no data is kept that breaks down hate crimes or religiously motivated crimes by religion, or even race. But now you’re just switching to demanding data, even though your hard-on for the Moslems comes from your own personal anecdotes. Some consistency would be appreciated.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I go to sleep for a few hours, and the thread grows by three pages?
Let’s see…so far, we heard arguments about the Daily Mail containing more truth than the massaged official British figures, [/quote]
Noone argued the Dailymail had more accurate figures. Only that the British government is not a reliable source of information. Just in the last year there was a big scandal when the government finally released the immigration figures which showed immigration had been in the thousands which noone believed. Then they started amending their figures with each estimate being higher than the last. Eventually after the estimates had run into the millions, the government finally admitted it really did not know what the true figure was because they have not been keeping count. [quote]
Cheney [/quote]
Oh no not Cheney he’s the boogeyman. How could they!
[quote]
's famous evidence-absence-nosense, some argument that anything less than exhaustion was an unacceptable statistical method, racial slurs thrown around (and amazingly, one poster had the audacity to use a tu quoque when the responder clearly used the terms to illustrate how wrong it was), insults towards an Archbishop for explaining the way a certain British law works, tasteless homophobic puns, the all-Muslims-are-liars bit, the theory that Muslims are conspiring to take over Britain, etc.
It’s quite baffling, but I still think the copy/paste job from the BNP (an overtly racist organization) still takes the cake.[/quote]
The BNP has changed. If they were overtly racist why did they get Jamaicans voting for them in the last By-election? The reason why I pasted their manifesto is so people could see for themselves what their positions are. Instead of having to rely on your opinion. Luckily for you the censors came to your rescue.
The BNP actually polled ahead of Labour in some of the recent by-elections and came in third behind the tories and Liberal Democrats. Because they are the only party that does not suck up to the muslims that they are gaining popularity and groups that one would not ordinarily expect to vote for them are.
If any party in Britain today deserves the mantle of racist it is the Labour party. They are the ones who have preferred groups, whose bad behaviour they turn a blind eye to.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Nice move - let’s leave out the sizeable and influential evangelicals who very much try to live by the whole book (all parts, including the ones the others have decided to opt of) - or rather read it in a way according to their beliefs.
Evidence?
Even if what you say is true, and you so far have provided no evidence that it is, how are Evangelicals supposed to twist, “…But I say to you, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you…” into an open-ended mandate for religious war against non-believers like Surah 9:5?[/quote]
You talked about how the ugly stuff from the old testament isn’t valid after Jesus anymore - I gave you examples for whom it is. Quite an influential strata of Christianity, at least in the US, if I recall as well.
I asked you for evidence where in Britain you see the practice of this open mandate for religious war is being executed - you don’t offer any. You build up a threat scenario marginalising a whole minority population for the acts - no in this case actually for the literature - of some of its representatives. Do you / can you prove this? No. So we’re all just supposed to believe that there is a ‘muslim threat’ rather than an ‘islamist threat’. Sorry, not convincing enough.
[quote] So, that’s your data -your own personal experience?
[…]Well, you’ve got no problem bashing Evangelicals left and right, NARTH, and other Christian organizations, but you don’t seem to know a thing about Islam other than the Muslims you’ve met are nice to your face. If you don’t want to have a religious discussion, as you freely admit you know nothing of Islamic doctrine, the most you can claim is ignorance, right?[/quote]
Religious doctrine is pretty irrelevant to my argument. The texts could propose any form of abuse or atrocity (which you assert they do) - as long as it is illegal by British law, it cannot be applied. End of story. Is it applied - not without the police having a say in it. But - as you’ve decided that all Muslims are a collective danger (and liars) - despite being able to give any proof of that for Britain that this actually is the case, you just plough on.
As for Christian organisations - I see them as deluded as any other religion (including Islam): if they stick to the scientific evidence when professing knowledge on scientific issues (in case of my pet topic LGBT rights), fine. In the case of NARTH et al., they don’t. I criticise them for the disinformation - and I use evidence and sources for that. Show me an islamic source on the issue, I’ll be happy to bash it.
You are contradicting your own posted source, and ignore the figures:
Number of anti-semitic hate crimes ‘reaches high’. Here’s a big clue as to who’s doing it, from the article:
" The transfer of tensions in the Middle East to the streets of Britain has resulted in an unprecedented level of anti-Semitic incidents "
Oh, so the Jews in the UK are somehow going out and provoking these hate crimes, or the Muslims are just doing them? No explanation is given on that front. So, there’s some data, at least."]
[Makkun: From your article: “We believe that the similarity of figures now indicates that both organisations are becoming effective in identifying and recording anti-Semitism, rather than necessarily reflecting a sudden major rise across the country,” Mr Beckley said.]
So - no rise, the usual thing that happens when complaints become more common. That’s from the article you posted.
And I’m happy to post again: “[…]Muslims were the victims in 22 of 44 prosecutions in the year to April 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service said. […] The CPS said the “perceived or actual” religion was Muslim in 22 of the prosecutions, eight were Christian, five Jewish, three Hindu, two Sikh, one Jehovah’s Witness and the remainder unknown.[…]” http://news.bbc.co.uk/.../uk/4184931.stm
So, in 2004, Muslims were in half the cases the victims of religious hate crimes prosecuted by the CPS. So in the end, they do break the numbers up a bit - just not in your favour.
Evangelicals want to enforce the Law of Moses? Can you provide some representative churches or denominations that I might research this further?
How about the 7/7 bombings of 2005? How about the gang arrested last year for trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic? How about the guys that attacked Glasgow airport? How about this group:
The examples are there for anyone with eyes to see. The “Islamist” threat and the “Muslim” threat are one in the same. The “Islamists” are just acting out Surah 9:5 and taking seriously the actions of Mohammed, who was the prototypical jihadist - an excellent model of conduct(Surah 33:21). It’s right there in the Qur’an.
Fascinating. Religious doctrine is pretty relevant to the Muslims. They’re not atheists. What do your beliefs have to do with their beliefs?
What do criminals care what a law states? Are the Muslims expected to respect British law when they’ve got one of their own that they believe has been handed down from Allah? Did the 7/7 terrorists say to themselves, “Gee, bombing subways is against the law, we’d better not do it,” or did they believe all of Mohammed’s statements in the Qur’an and Hadith assuring Paradise to jihad martyrs? I know what I think, how about you?
[quote]So, in 2004, Muslims were in half the cases the victims of religious hate crimes prosecuted by the CPS. So in the end, they do break the numbers up a bit - just not in your favour.
[/quote]
Yet, fast-forward one year and they managed to kill 52 people in a single day out of religious hate. Oh, right, right, they were misunderstanders of their own religion. Islam is a Religion of Peace because NuLabour says so.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Evangelicals want to enforce the Law of Moses? Can you provide some representative churches or denominations that I might research this further?[/quote]
Didn’t say that - so I don’t have to. I just pointed out that not for all Christians the OT and its uglies are irrelevant.
[quote]How about the 7/7 bombings of 2005? How about the gang arrested last year for trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic? How about the guys that attacked Glasgow airport? How about this group:
The examples are there for anyone with eyes to see. The “Islamist” threat and the “Muslim” threat are one in the same. The “Islamists” are just acting out Surah 9:5 and taking seriously the actions of Mohammed, who was the prototypical jihadist - an excellent model of conduct(Surah 33:21). It’s right there in the Qur’an.[/quote]
No one in their right mind argues that there is no islamist terrorist threat. I recognise that - I was in London when 7/7 and 21/7 happened - the 30 Bus exploded not too far from where I worked.
But you argue that muslim = islamist, which doesn’t seem to be the stance of the UK or even the US government and their anti-terrorist forces. And for the UK - you haven’t been able to deliver evidence of this - or for the fertility conspiracy, or other sinister collective plans. So - I rather go with what our courts, MI5, the CPS, yes - even our crappy government - say. And in the context of this thread - British law supercedes voluntary religious arbitration, the safeguards are in place and seem to be working.
Nothing, pretty much. My argument in this thread concentrates on the legal and social implications of voluntary civil arbitration services provided by religious organisations. Just for the record again - I’m opposed to that in general; but I can only see the general anti-muslim argument as invalid so far.
Yes, they are, by our laws. If these individuals don’t, they end up in jail.
Yes, I’m pretty sure they believed that - but that doesn’t make the majority of muslims islamists.
I think a label like ‘religion of peace’ is similarly stupid as any other label one can come up with. Religions are powerful belief systems that can have all types of positive and adverse effects - depending on how they are used. Islam is being used in some cases to radicalise some individuals - hence the terms ‘islamist terrorism’. It doesn’t make all Muslims Islamists. Too sad to see that you can’t seem to make that distinction.
No Christian church or organization I know of, either now or in history, wants to enforce the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law, which are the “ugly” aspects to which you refer. In order for your assertion to hold any water you would have to demonstrate that one exists. This standard atheist assertion that “all religions are equally violent” or “no religion is more violent than another” needs at least some evidence. What people dwelling in reality see is Islamic terrorism in India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, north Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Britain, the US, Canada, Russia, Germany… almost no country or ethnicity is excluded from the Islamic jihad mandated in Surah 9 and supported by each of the Four Schools of Sunni jurisprudence and both schools of Shi’a jurisprudence. Until we see Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists planning and executing similar operations on a large scale (or even a small scale), it’s time to lay the aforementioned atheistic moral equivalence to rest as the nonsense it is.
What does that matter? If the US or UK government told you it was a Good Thing to go jump off a cliff, would you believe them?
[quote]Oh, and one more nugget from the Home Office hate crime website:
“The typical hate offender is a young white male (most homophobic offenders are aged 16-20, and most race hate offenders under 30).” http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/...ime/hate-crime/ [/quote]
Yeah. Be sure to beware those perfidious “Young White Males” blowing themselves up screaming “Allahu Akbar!”
Like I said, at the end of the day, all of these moral equivalences you assert may be hazardous to your health, as they were to Danny Pearl and other empty-headed Westerners who drank the PC kool-aid and tried to ride the tiger.
Hopefully, none of the demographic predictions will come true, but even if they don’t there are still enough Muslims in Europe to be a permanent thorn in the side of the Europeans. There would be no need for Home Office counter-terrorism efforts if there were no Muslims. The Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians aren’t the ones raising hell in the UK, and everyone knows it. Europe shot itself in the head in 1914 anyway, so maybe a big fall is inevitable anyway though.
Makkun’s critising other religions is a diversionary move that has been tried repeatedly on this board.
He displays a distinct lack of intellectual honesty or a poor appreciation of the aggravating factors in Islam that are driving it to be more violent than the other religions.
While we are on the subject of rising attacks on Jews in Britain, I would like to point out that this phenomena is also happening in France. PRCaldude maybe you can ask him how that and see if he explains it away as the French also improving their reporting.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]No Christian church or organization I know of, either now or in history, wants to enforce the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law, which are the “ugly” aspects to which you refer. In order for your assertion to hold any water you would have to demonstrate that one exists.[/quote]
I grant you, it took me some time , as I haven’t ventured into Christian territory for a while, but here we go. And they are, admittedly, a bit of a fringe group. The are called Christian Reconstructionists, and their “that every area dominated by sin must be ‘reconstructed’ in terms of the Bible.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
Central to their beliefs is:
Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free of error. […]
The 613 laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures’ Mosaic Code can be divided into two classes: moral and ceremonial. Christians are not required to follow the ceremonial laws, because Jesus has liberated them from that responsibility. However, all persons must follow those moral laws which were not specifically modified or cancelled by further revelation […]
In contrast:
Non-reconstructionist Christians generally divide these laws into three classes: moral, civil and ceremonial law, and generally believe that most Old Testament laws are no longer binding on Christians.[…]
The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect of God’s character, which is unchangeable. Most of the laws are intended for all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the present time. However, there are a few laws, in such areas as personal safety and sanitation, which are no longer applicable because of changes in architecture and sewage disposal. These do not need to be obeyed.[…]
Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible’s moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.
Following Karl Popper, I’ve just shown you your ‘black swan’: there are (fringe) christian groups (albeit heavily criticised by other christian groups) who support the idea of applying the uglies from of Mosaic laws. Now I concede that they don’t talk of enforcing these by the sword - but as but of dominionism there is a keen interest in shaping politics and society:
“Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy’s television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of ‘dominion’ language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he ‘would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,’ as well as when he later wrote, ‘There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.’ And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, ‘I don’t call myself [a Reconstructionist],’ but ‘A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God’s standard of morality . . . in all points of history . . . and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike. . . . It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.’ He added, ‘There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership James Kennedy is one of them-who don’t go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.’”
Now before you go out and attack Wikipedia and Religious Tolerance as biased sources (which they undoubtedly are), I think I’ve just proven that there are Christian organisations who do believe in applying (if perhaps not enforcing) Mosaic law. Wikipedia gives a list of authors (see above) for further reading. I’ve started on http://www.chalcedon.edu/vision.php .
So qed - but I’d say let’s bring the discussion back to the issue at hand: how does religious civil arbitration compromise or supercede British law?
Feel free to post evidence that I said that.
Do what you like - my argument so far has been legal, political and sociological. You’ve just added the moral equivalence argument - based on … which statement of mine?
No. I just argue that I trust the experts in the field, who are trying to protect us from terrorism and other threats more than the anti-muslim assertions of someone from the Internet. No offense, nothing personal. Just a question of respect for professionalism.
Sure, and in the last decades my chances of being blown to bits would have most probably been accompanied by cries for Northern Irish independence. People who use violence to reach their political or social goals by violence are arseholes - whatever they shout. It just has little to do with voluntary civil arbitration.
Oookeyyy. That was quite far fetched. Don’t really know what to say, except that I think the argument stretches a bit.
That last assertion shows how little you seem to know about UK politics and security threats. Look up ‘the troubles’ and the ‘IRA’ and start counting the dead.
Sure - we’re doing so badly that everyone seems to be wanting to join our little club though. But that we’ve covered in other threads before.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]No Christian church or organization I know of, either now or in history, wants to enforce the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law, which are the “ugly” aspects to which you refer. In order for your assertion to hold any water you would have to demonstrate that one exists.
I grant you, it took me some time , as I haven’t ventured into Christian territory for a while, but here we go. And they are, admittedly, a bit of a fringe group. The are called Christian Reconstructionists, and their “that every area dominated by sin must be ‘reconstructed’ in terms of the Bible.”
Central to their beliefs is:
Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free of error. […]
The 613 laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures’ Mosaic Code can be divided into two classes: moral and ceremonial. Christians are not required to follow the ceremonial laws, because Jesus has liberated them from that responsibility. However, all persons must follow those moral laws which were not specifically modified or cancelled by further revelation […]
In contrast:
Non-reconstructionist Christians generally divide these laws into three classes: moral, civil and ceremonial law, and generally believe that most Old Testament laws are no longer binding on Christians.[…]
The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect of God’s character, which is unchangeable. Most of the laws are intended for all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the present time. However, there are a few laws, in such areas as personal safety and sanitation, which are no longer applicable because of changes in architecture and sewage disposal. These do not need to be obeyed.[…]
Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible’s moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.
Following Karl Popper, I’ve just shown you your ‘black swan’: there are (fringe) christian groups (albeit heavily criticised by other christian groups) who support the idea of applying the uglies from of Mosaic laws. Now I concede that they don’t talk of enforcing these by the sword - but as but of dominionism there is a keen interest in shaping politics and society:
“Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy’s television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of ‘dominion’ language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he ‘would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,’ as well as when he later wrote, ‘There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.’ And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, ‘I don’t call myself [a Reconstructionist],’ but ‘A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God’s standard of morality . . . in all points of history . . . and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike. . . . It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.’ He added, ‘There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership James Kennedy is one of them-who don’t go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.’”
Now before you go out and attack Wikipedia and Religious Tolerance as biased sources (which they undoubtedly are), I think I’ve just proven that there are Christian organisations who do believe in applying (if perhaps not enforcing) Mosaic law. Wikipedia gives a list of authors (see above) for further reading. I’ve started on http://www.chalcedon.edu/vision.php .
So qed - but I’d say let’s bring the discussion back to the issue at hand: how does religious civil arbitration compromise or supercede British law?
This standard atheist assertion that “all religions are equally violent” or “no religion is more violent than another” needs at least some evidence.
Feel free to post evidence that I said that.
What people dwelling in reality see is Islamic terrorism in India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, north Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Britain, the US, Canada, Russia, Germany… almost no country or ethnicity is excluded from the Islamic jihad mandated in Surah 9 and supported by each of the Four Schools of Sunni jurisprudence and both schools of Shi’a jurisprudence. Until we see Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists planning and executing similar operations on a large scale (or even a small scale), it’s time to lay the aforementioned atheistic moral equivalence to rest as the nonsense it is.
Do what you like - my argument so far has been legal, political and sociological. You’ve just added the moral equivalence argument - based on … which statement of mine?
[…]What does that matter? If the US or UK government told you it was a Good Thing to go jump off a cliff, would you believe them?
No. I just argue that I trust the experts in the field, who are trying to protect us from terrorism and other threats more than the anti-muslim assertions of someone from the Internet. No offense, nothing personal. Just a question of respect for professionalism.
[…]Yeah. Be sure to beware those perfidious “Young White Males” blowing themselves up screaming “Allahu Akbar!”
Sure, and in the last decades my chances of being blown to bits would have most probably been accompanied by cries for Northern Irish independence. People who use violence to reach their political or social goals by violence are arseholes - whatever they shout. It just has little to do with voluntary civil arbitration.
Like I said, at the end of the day, all of these moral equivalences you assert may be hazardous to your health, as they were to Danny Pearl and other empty-headed Westerners who drank the PC kool-aid and tried to ride the tiger.
Oookeyyy. That was quite far fetched. Don’t really know what to say, except that I think the argument stretches a bit.
Hopefully, none of the demographic predictions will come true, but even if they don’t there are still enough Muslims in Europe to be a permanent thorn in the side of the Europeans. There would be no need for Home Office counter-terrorism efforts if there were no Muslims.
That last assertion shows how little you seem to know about UK politics and security threats. Look up ‘the troubles’ and the ‘IRA’ and start counting the dead.
The Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians aren’t the ones raising hell in the UK, and everyone knows it. Europe shot itself in the head in 1914 anyway, so maybe a big fall is inevitable anyway though.
Sure - we’re doing so badly that everyone seems to be wanting to join our little club though. But that we’ve covered in other threads before.
Makkun[/quote]
Evidently, if one is a wife beater that adheres to sharia law, they’s probably be chomping at the bit to get in your country.
You’re saying you don’t see the obvious down side to this?
If you read my posts, you’ll see that I do have a problem with it - I think there should be no religious based alternative arbitration, as it indeed increases the possibility of legal conflict and abuse. That is a massive downside.
If you’d asked me, I would get rid of both sharia and beth din arbitration. And of course faith schools and state support for ‘faith based initiatives’. State and religion should be separated, religious membership legally controlled like membership to a club - no special rights whatsoever.
But - if given to one religion (beth din) under the current legal view, it has to be given to others as well. I just don’t take the ‘all muslims are evil and want to take over the world’ stance serious - it doesn’t help address or solve any of the complex problems faced in a practical way.
And I find the ‘moral outrage’ over the existence of sharia based arbitration quite problematic, as it concentrates on doom mongering based on a fear of the perceived dangers of that specific religion - while not dealing with the root causes of what gets people into arbitration in the first place.
I’d be much less critical if the Independent and the Daily Mail, and some posters here for that matter, were known for supporting the rights and quality of disadvantaged migrant women who may in the end be suffering under this system. But no - the focus is on outrage, not constructive criticism. I hope that makes sense.
[quote]makkun wrote:
If you read my posts, you’ll see that I do have a problem with it - I think there should be no religious based alternative arbitration, as it indeed increases the possibility of legal conflict and abuse. That is a massive downside.
If you’d asked me, I would get rid of both sharia and beth din arbitration. And of course faith schools and state support for ‘faith based initiatives’. State and religion should be separated, religious membership legally controlled like membership to a club - no special rights whatsoever.[/quote]
Excellent points.
Also true.
So getting rid of any and all all religious interference in law would be best, no? (This question is not directed at Makkun)
Of course he does not see a down side to it. He’s a German, he only lives in Britain. He can go back to the fatherland any time. It is not his family that is stuck in a country that has taken a step towards becoming a sharia state.
It also bears pointing out that the historical status of women in Germany has not been the same as that in Britain. So of course Makkun does not have a problem with sharia because it merely secures a more “traditional” role for women.
