Previous  1  2  3

No question that religion has created great art. But the essence of religious freedom is that our society is not run by religious dogma.

   

I was thinking all the stories born as a result of all the great conflicts fostered by religious differences.

   

Thank God for those differences. Living in a society run by a religion would be, like, hell on earth.

   

The muslims in the UK vs the muslims in Canada. UK muslims = bums of their land. Canadian muslims = the more affluent and better educated.

You should see what happens when a people tries to live under a completetely different set of rules in a country from the rest of the populace. Wiki/google - "Ottoman Empire, Armenians," or "Ottoman empire Orthodox Christians".

   

Well, I'd have to know more about what their expectations are before I take a firm position on the issue. If what they are proposing is similar to what the RC church does then I don't really see the big deal but the part that has me scratching my head is if it is similar to that why you would need the government to pass legislation to allow it. If it's mutually agreeable why does the government even need to be involved?

Like I mentioned, even if you are married in the RC church you can still get a legal divorce. To me it sounds like what they are proposing is that Sharia law be given the same weight as the regular legal system. So the question I have is that if you disagree with the Sharia courts findings or feel that you haven't been given a fair shake can you still turn to the regular legal system over ride the Sharia court? Is Sharia law is going to be given the same legal standing as common law?

People keep referring to the fact that the RC church all ready has this but to be honest with you I can only draw a blank when I try to think of what they are referring to. Judaism may be different but I don’t know squat about it so I’m not really in a position to comment on it.

The other thing that kind of bugs me is the whole issue of women’s rights. Now I may be being a bit xenophobic here but say if my wife wanted a divorce and I turned to her and said "No way, and the church will back me up on that" I can pretty much tell you that all hell would break lose. That woman would have me up in front of judge so fast that it would make my head spin . I don't personally feel that Muslim women share that sense of empowerment and if Sharia is given the same standing as common law I would be afraid that it would lead to an erosion of their rights and freedoms.

Again, I don't know much about the whole subject but those are a few things that pop into my mind when the issue does come up. I wouldn't mind having some clarification on those questions before I give it a ya or a nay.

   

In Muslim eyes, a Sharia decision would have the same status as a civil court judgement and would not be subject to appeal to regular courts.

   

sharia law in britain would be much more serious than "civil disputes". It really would be a society within a society-one of the inherent flaws of multiculturalism. A british police officer infiltrated a large mosque and the imam was trying to pass sharia law so that the muslims could attain their goal of living in a different society all together. Its completely retarded. I understand that this does not by any means encompass the views of all muslims, but the "moderate" muslims are the ones that the fundamentalists hide behind. A separate society like that would be like a cancer to the rest of britain, which will grow and grow until it is either cut out or it destroys the host.

   

What an a hole... Britain should be ashamed of themselves.. this judge is probably afraid of being offed..

   

When I can live in Saudi,Iran etc as examples, under my Canadian Law then I will be comfortable affording them the same privilege here.

   

   

The problem here is that muslems want the sharia laws to superseed the UK laws. Where with all other religions in the UK the UK laws superseed their religous laws. What the muslims are asking for is for you take the governing of judical procedures out of the courts and put it in the hands of their church, giving them the final say on the legal matters dealing with the muslim population in the UK.

Thus you end up with two competeing court systems one for muslims one for everyone else.

   

No No No No No No And No!!!!!!

It's not that Islam is backwards. It's that Muslims did the fatal mistake any people could do, they allowed the religious fundamentalists to rise in political power. This is due to the fact that Persian and Arabic civilizations has always been oppressive. They had active slavery until the early 20s in most Middle eastern countries, and slavery is still prevalent is modern muslim African nations.

This injustice led to the rise of political religious groups who exploited this societal chink to progress their own agenda. The religious conservatives have promised the upholding of religious laws, and equality as taught by the prophet. Most people of the lower class (which constitutes a large percentage of the arab and persian populations) were happy to embrace these religious exploiters, as recently as the 2006 Hamas election campaign.

Of course, not all countries have allowed this to happen. Dubai, a shining beacon on Arab progression has remained a dictatorship, with a very liberal leadership that does not uphold muslim law, but rather more westernized quasi-constitutional law based on tradition (albeit how our constitution and laws are based on OUR traditions).

Egypt is a good example of why Muslim extremism has manifested so deep in that part of the world. Power, wealth and politics go hand in hand, and the rich business-men are considered untouchable and can literally get away murder. This causes resentment amongst the lower classes. I don't need to continue most reading are intelligent to connect the dots from here. A link below is an example of Business men in Egypt almost getting away with cold blooded murder.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/ ... newssearch



Now, this brings us back to the topic of UK public justice institutions allowing Muslims to implement some form of Sharia law amongst their own constituents. This is wrong. Mixing religion with public institutions is a slippery slope to a cold dark place Europe just emerged from (dark ages). It took 400 years to undo the damage the Christian Church did after the fall of the Roman Empire. Why jump back?

That being said, religion has made a resurgence with a vengeance.

Whether it is British Arch-bishops giving a thumbs up for sharia law, leaders of certain nations calling on others to be wiped out as per the scriptures, or white supremacist bible thumping fetus worshiping puppets like Hawcker, they are all as dangerous as each other. If either idea were given the chance to rise to power, it would be disastrous, as with nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or dark ages Europe.


Religion and our public institutions should be kept apart. Europe was not scientifically more advanced because people with less skin pigmentation are genetically somehow more superior, it is because they adopted a great system of governance and free speech, philosophy, science and criticism, all of which go hand in hand.

   

lots of luck there..you wouldn't have a chance.. a doctor friend of mine went to work in Saudi.. he is an orthopedic surgeon.. his wife was not allowed to leave the compound and if it was absolutely necessary, she had to wear the burka outfit and cover her head and face.. he on the other hand could wear shorts, sandles and a T shirt.. they were under strict adherance to the law of the land and there was a no tolerance for ignorance of their laws.. they dont want to accept our laws they want to change them and this would have a profound effect on our society... so no f----n way!

   

Previous  1  2  3