Sharia is not the problem
Reason Reason:
hwacker hwacker:
Piss off, take your religion (cult) and go back to whatever slum your parents came from.
We will never have this in Canada. Oh and BTW alot of "Canadians" don't like muslims, i'm one of them please to meet you.

I don't care whether you like Muslims or not, and I don't care if someone hates anyone, since thats not the point of everything we are talking about here. This is a conversation for
$1:
bright educated minds
so please don't hurt your brain in the process of trying to join in. Thnx
If you're so "bright and educated" why can't you see we have a good system here in Canada. If you're "bright and educated" why would you even being up something that 90% of Canadians think is garbage ?
If you're so "bright and educated" why do you belong to a cult ?
Reason Reason:
Eisensapper Eisensapper:
I am not saying they are taking over either, but its VERY dangerous to let a religious organization have government control. Secular government is a VERY good idea, if you cant stand it dont live here.
I don't think a religious organization should have government control, I think the secular government should have total presence and control over these types of courts. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea even if these rulings could be made in a normal secular court, of course by the permission of the accused and defendant. I am not saying that Canadian law should be changed, all I Am trying to say is that one shoul dbe able to choose what sort of ruling they want.
Here is a example,
Muslims and Jews, only eat certain type of meat, the reason is that they want the butcher to say Gods name before the animal is slaughtered. Now, there are many shops that offer Halal or Chosur meat, which one can choose to eat without breaking the law. This is a very simple example but it points out the fact that this is something that is not against Canadian law yet it is given a different name because there is a little bit of religious aspect to it. Why can't some laws be the same way? where we can choose to go through Canadian law or Sharia law, as long as they are not in conflict?
what extra stuff do do you put into your heroin in the morning ?
How can you compare an optional practise of butchery
with the consititutionally agreed law of the land ?
you are sinking fast buddy, and you havent been here 24 hours yet,
yet already 40 posts.. do you have a secret agenda here ?
Reason Reason:
Pimpbrewski Pimpbrewski:
I made only one modification to your post.
Although, still funny that you did not quote the entire post of mine earlier. Typical, only pick and choose to fit your own theory right!
Look, Canada invites people from all over the world, the least the immigrants should do is respect our Canadian culture.
$1:
I am Canadian myself, and I rock Canadian culture all day long but I also respect the fact that some religions may view our way of living to be different, so I respect their way of living, if they choose to wear something to cover their head whether Jewish or Muslim, I respect that.
I didn't quote the "quote" only so anyone can go back and look, next time I will make sure I quote the whole thing

BS, you're a muslim. Don't try and pull the "I feel sorry for them but I'm not one of them" trick.
Brenda @ Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:17 pm
Reason Reason:
Eisensapper Eisensapper:
You have two legal systems one, as an atheist, I am not allowed to partake in. Excluding someone due to religion, race or gender, correct me if I am wrong but isnt that against the constitution? How would you qualify a jugde in both? I am guessing he would have to be Muslim since a non Muslim could not judge someone on a legal system he is not responsible to.
Well, we are not excluding someone, that someone has the choice to either go through Sharia law or Canadian law, there are no obligations put on a person because of their religion. A Muslim can choose to use Canadian law, if thats what they want so that is not against the constitution because they are not restricted in their choice.
Yes, these qualified judges would have to be Muslim bar members, that have also done extra studying to qualify in Sharia civil law.
I don't think that is what he means. I think Eis wonders if he can go through Sharia too, as an Atheist? (or Jew, or Pagan

)
Brenda @ Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:19 pm
$1:
you havent been here 24 hours yet,
yet already 40 posts.. do you have a secret agenda here ?
Hey, I had 200 posts on my fist posting day here! Whats my agenda?
Brenda Brenda:
Reason Reason:
Eisensapper Eisensapper:
You have two legal systems one, as an atheist, I am not allowed to partake in. Excluding someone due to religion, race or gender, correct me if I am wrong but isnt that against the constitution? How would you qualify a jugde in both? I am guessing he would have to be Muslim since a non Muslim could not judge someone on a legal system he is not responsible to.
Well, we are not excluding someone, that someone has the choice to either go through Sharia law or Canadian law, there are no obligations put on a person because of their religion. A Muslim can choose to use Canadian law, if thats what they want so that is not against the constitution because they are not restricted in their choice.
Yes, these qualified judges would have to be Muslim bar members, that have also done extra studying to qualify in Sharia civil law.
I don't think that is what he means. I think Eis wonders if he can go through Sharia too, as an Atheist? (or Jew, or Pagan

)
well the simple answer to that is no.. Muslims only
Infidels get a different system, and treated as second or third
class in Muslim countries.
I'm sure Shep or Bart has better details.
Brenda Brenda:
$1:
you havent been here 24 hours yet,
yet already 40 posts.. do you have a secret agenda here ?
Hey, I had 200 posts on my fist posting day here! Whats my agenda?

ummm, moving in ?
Reason Reason:
Well, we are not excluding someone, that someone has the choice to either go through Sharia law or Canadian law, there are no obligations put on a person because of their religion. A Muslim can choose to use Canadian law, if thats what they want so that is not against the constitution because they are not restricted in their choice.
Yes, these qualified judges would have to be Muslim bar members, that have also done extra studying to qualify in Sharia civil law.
So we would have to make special judges to judge these special people? Are your reading what you are typing? You shouldnt be able to choose which laws you want to follow and which you do not depending on what your imaginary friend tells you. The very fact that I cannot choose Sharia because I am an atheist is discrimination. You cannot have a law apply to someone or not apply to someone due to their religion that is not right.
exactly, so there is no need to change anything, simce the end result is the same

If the ruling is the same then why go through all that bullshit. Just stick with then Canadian court system.
Reason Reason:
hwacker hwacker:
BS, you're a muslim. Don't try and pull the "I feel sorry for them but I'm not one of them" trick.
lol my religious beliefs aren't the topic here bud, its actually quite the opposite, its our cultural beliefs is what we are debating today. Now stay focused, you are going to miss out on knowledge that people wouldn't care to search for.
Let me give you a little "Canadian Cultural Beliefs" it's never going happen. Canadians don't want it, the only people that keep bringing this up are muslims. Now live our system or go back home.
care to name a few of these countries ?
I'm going to recycle a post I wrote 2 days ago.
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.
Ok lets replace Muslim with the word Black and Sharia with Black Law and see how this looks.
Reason Reason:
Reason Reason:
Yes, these qualified judges would have to be Black bar members, that have also done extra studying to qualify in Black civil law.
Eisensapper Eisensapper:
So we would have to make special judges to judge these special people? Are your reading what you are typing? You shouldnt be able to choose which laws you want to follow and which you do not depending on what your imaginary friend tells you. The very fact that I cannot choose Black Law because I am an Atheist is discrimination. You cannot have a law apply to someone or not apply to someone due to their religion that is not right.
Reason Reason:
Once again, recognizing a ruling as Black Law or Canadian isn't discrimination. Both laws have the same result and if they don't then Canadian ruling is given preference. No one has to appoint special judges, there are more than enough judges is Canada that are Black, and if they choose to do Black law then thats their choice, no one is being forced. Secular and Black laws exists in many countries today and they do not conflict then why is it that you think that it would be any different anywhere else in the world?
Oh and to have a prerequisite for a job, where you
MUSTfollow a different set of values and beliefs from your peers, and if you do not have this set of values you cannot have the job is discriminatory.
you have got to be joking, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria are countries we should strive to be like? Are you fucking loony!