Judge: Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain

[KingAlex]

Here's how it should work: You move to a country and you speak their language, respect their customs and obey their laws. The radical Muslims just think that everyone should adhere to their culture and don't understand the meaning of tolerance, while using that very word to hide behind their rape of the British people.

Ehm, no, Muslims don't expect others to live as they do. They don't expect Christians to come to mosque, and I think theyd be insulted if Christians did.
They want to live their lives according to their own culture as much as possible. This is very different from forcing others to live the same way.

With all due respect here Sander, you seem very defensive in this matter, but he said radical muslims, not muslims in general.
And even I have noticed that many radical muslims in Norway are more or less demanding thier customs and refusing norwegian culture. I find that disrespectful, I would never move to a new country and start demanding or hint to that some norwegian law should be applied there, I simply stay in the country that best suits me.
Now, this are the radicals, there are still a great many, for the lack of better words, "normal" muslims around that keeps thir faith to themselfs and attunes ot the customs of the county they live in. And that is ok, it does not bother me. But when I see radical openly preaching in the streets with megaphones with demands or sayig I will burn, I get annoyed.

But all in all this is a big debate, and it seems like many here on the forums are agitated towards each other. Lets try and keep it as civil, polite and reasonalbe as possible.

 

[BOS Man]

Salman Rushdie! That was the writer's name.

 

[Sander]

Tell that to the people of Denmark who weathered through death threats, riots, embassy bombings, and embargoes when someone outside their religion and outside of their country broke their law. Tell that to the Christian teacher who was almost beheaded when she allowed her Muslim class to name a teddy bear Mohammad. Or the writer who went into hiding for almost a decade when a fatwa was called on him for saying some unflattering things about Islam (his name escapes me at the moment). The liberal side of me really wants to believe you, but the logical side of me has seen too much insanity from these extremists to believe what you're telling me. Notice I said extremists; I realize that not all Muslims drink the Kool-Aid. There is tolerance, and then there is common sense. These Muslims expect tolerance from the rest of the world when they show none themselves.

Yes, you said extremists, but this is irrelevant for the principle of implementing Sharia in this way in the UK - since this isn't for the extremists. This is for the normal, friendly, everyday muslims who want to adhere to their religion in these matters as much as possible. The people who you also consistently heard condemning all of the above incidents.

Also, this attitude that they must accept the local culture is something that is pretty weird. Cultures are very, very fluid things. The British don't go about burning witches at the stake or going on crusades anymore. The national dish is fish & crisps, crisps being potatoes - a South-American plant. This goes for a lot of elements that are supposedly quintessentially British, Dutch, Norwegian or whatever.

Aside from that, what do you think happens when, say, Americans come to Great Britain? Did you know that American military bases in the UK have what is essentially a wallmart with purely American products?
Do you realise that Brits open British pubs in the Netherlands, and that the Brits that live here go to those pubs (if they're the type to go out)?

The only thing that makes the muslims in this matter different is that they stand out more than the foreigners in these examples.

 

[BOS Man]

It feels like your just getting into semantics now. Yes, cultures are influenced by aspects of others, but that's like saying a pizza isn't Italian because it was made from tomatoes that first grew in the New World. Regardless of a culture's origins, or how it fluctuates throughout the ages, the real concept here is that the people of said country have accepted them as their own. Your examples were all scenarios where a country saw something another country was doing and willingly accepted certain aspects of it as part of their own by their own volition. That is very different from forcing your customs or beliefs into a foreign culture and making them law, which is what this is. If you want to live in someone else's country you should respect the way they choose to live, I don't think that's unreasonable. You are free to assimilate yourself into a culture to whatever degree you need, but when you need to change the laws of your new country so that you can make it feel like your old country then you are disrespecting the indigenous inhabitants of your new home. And don't tell me that the English are not the original inhabitants of Britain, you know what I mean. And this is not the same as say, giving black people the right to vote in America. That was the righting of a social injustice left over from a less enlightened time. Times change. And also, I don't know what laws Britain specifically has regarding the separation of church and state, but historically nothing good has ever come from combining the two.

The British don't go about burning witches at the stake or going on crusades anymore.

It's funny you should mention witch burnings when Muslim countries still tolerate the public stoning of infidels. I think it weakens your argument a bit. The British gave that up long ago, but I think the Islamic world still has a lot of growing up to do before it can tell other countries how they should be run.

Do you realise that Brits open British pubs in the Netherlands, and that the Brits that live here go to those pubs (if they're the type to go out)?

You act like I've never had Chinese before. Yes, I am completely aware of this concept. I actually eat at a Middle-Eastern restaurant regularly and I think they have every right to have one there. Sharing your culture with foreigners is not the same as rewriting their book of laws to make you more comfortable.

 

[horse]

couldnt agree with you more

all i wanted to point out in this thread is the slippery-slopery that is implemented by allowing to differentiate between sharia and general british law. if you dont want to accept that this differentiation in this specific aspect could be instrumentalized, please dont try to save your 'argumentation' by corny and weak analogies or insulting people on behalf of their reading abilities.

all i am saying is that any form of appeasement policies towards islam is inherently dangerous, and it is not dangerous because of the vast majority of peaceful muslims, but the very minority of radical islamists who will use every little inch of 'religious freedom' to implement their version of 'religious freedom'. its as if the majority of muslims just accept what is happening in, say, saudi arabia. youtube is full of people ranting their arses off about gas prices or whats happening in chechenia. what is with all the things that happen in muslim countries? the only people protesting seem to be westerners, and they automatically "offend" muslims by not being muslims. there seems to be a vast, silent majority of muslims around who simply dont seem to bother. and that is what basically frightens me: not the extremists, but this silence.

 

[Sander]

all i am saying is that any form of appeasement policies towards islam is inherently dangerous, and it is not dangerous because of the vast majority of peaceful muslims, but the very minority of radical islamists who will use every little inch of 'religious freedom' to implement their version of 'religious freedom'.

So, basically, you punish the vast majority because of the very small minority that isn't even involved in the process?

It feels like your just getting into semantics now. Yes, cultures are influenced by aspects of others, but that's like saying a pizza isn't Italian because it was made from tomatoes that first grew in the New World. Regardless of a culture's origins, or how it fluctuates throughout the ages, the real concept here is that the people of said country have accepted them as their own.

And the reasons those things became part of cultures isn't that people went 'Oh noez we need to protect our precious culture', which is a simply ridiculous concept.

Your examples were all scenarios where a country saw something another country was doing and willingly accepted certain aspects of it as part of their own by their own volition.

Ehm, no they weren't. Brits coming to the Netherlands to start British pubs doesn't make those British pubs a part of Dutch culture. The fact that American military bases in the UK feature walmarts doesn't mean that walmart is suddenly British either.

If you want to live in someone else's country you should respect the way they choose to live, I don't think that's unreasonable.

So, how does the principle of belonging to a religion mess with this? Muslims belong to a religion that wants them to live their lives in a certain way, to facilitate this they simply want the option to make these unofficial rules official rules - as an opt-in choice, purely for *themselves*. They still respect British law, they don't want to break it, they don't get to break it. They want to add onto it by allowing *themselves* (and not anyone else) to live how they want.
As has been stated over and over again throughout this thread, what they want is a social contract amongst themselves. Where, exactly, is the problem with that?

And also, I don't know what laws Britain specifically has regarding the separation of church and state, but historically nothing good has ever come from combining the two.

Wheeeeee Church of England, your point is moot.
Other than that, as I have also explained over and over again throughout this thread, seperation of church and state is *not* about disallowing certain principles just because they are backed by a church. It means not allowing a religion to *directly* interfere in the legislative process.

It's funny you should mention witch burnings when Muslim countries still tolerate the public stoning of infidels. I think it weakens your argument a bit. The British gave that up long ago, but I think the Islamic world still has a lot of growing up to do before it can tell other countries how they should be run.

Yes, because the Iranians that fled Iran because of persecution are somehow responsible for that, how?

The fact that someone is a muslim doesn't make them responsible for what happens in countries run by completely different muslims.

This is like saying the the entire Western world should not be allowed to be speak about morals because a bunch of German morons (who were very much part of the Western world) decided to wipe out the Jews 60 years ago (yeah, fuck Godwin).
Or, less controversially, it's like claiming that the British should give up all claims of moral superiority because hey, their relatives started South African apartheid.

You act like I've never had Chinese before. Yes, I am completely aware of this concept. I actually eat at a Middle-Eastern restaurant regularly and I think they have every right to have one there.

Wo why is it okay for them to bring along that part of their culture, but not the part that actually influences their day-to-day lives?

Sharing your culture with foreigners is not the same as rewriting their book of laws to make you more comfortable.

That's not what they want to do.

PS: Throughout your entire diatribe you act as if these muslims somehow aren't UK citizens. They are.

 

[horse]

i punish nobody, i am just stating an opinion on an internet forum. otoh, i am unsure if the majority of british muslims have voiced that they needed this law. sadly, i couldnt find any sauce on this. if they did so, then i still would like to know why. if they are only allowed to use sharia law when it does not contradict british law... wouldnt that mean that british and sharia law (up to a degree) are similar? then, why the fuzz - and dont say they wanted more of their culture in their new country? and, what minorities and majorities are you talking about? i for my part am unable to deliver numbers on how muslims in western civilizations are activists in regards to their islamic backgrounds, or are sympathetic to radical-islamistic goals. if there are numbers, there might be the chance those numbers are unreliable for several reasons. so basically, i think you go down a very dangerous path if you just take things for granted. i am unable to take anything for granted in this area, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, and would very much enjoy any efforts on your side to back your argumentation with any sauce.

secondly, i do not know how a muslim organization of any kind is structured - so, if some imam is voicing his <strike>or her</strike> concern, to what degree is this concern democratically relevant? i ask this because if an organization tries to influence a democratic society, i would like to know if that organization applies the same democratic rules to itself.

 

[Yoshi525]

As a practising Muslim, i can only support the notion of Sharia law.

 

[Tagaziel]

Long as UK Law will be absolutely superior over Sharia I have no problem with it.

Of course, it should be revoked the instant any abuses happen.

 

[BOS Man]

I enjoy a good argument. I think nothing is more intellectually stimulating than a debate of philosophies. Unfortunately, few people share my opinion and tend to take arguments personally. You seem to be getting a bit agitated by this and your comments are getting nastier. I don't think it's wise we keep this going much longer. When one person gets angry then it is no longer fun and I may lose interest in this soon.

So, basically, you punish the vast majority because of the very small minority that isn't even involved in the process?

Oh, the minority is quite involved. That is indeed my point. In every situation like this it is always a vocal minority that takes it upon itself to speak on the behalf of a silent majority who may not agree with them. These radicals claim to be speaking for the majority of Muslims, and the English government believes it, but that is like saying that Fred Phelps speaks for the majority of Christians. Making social change is often less about how numerous you are and more about how loud you are.

And the reasons those things became part of cultures isn't that people went 'Oh noez we need to protect our precious culture', which is a simply ridiculous concept.

Though I am understanding that many of them are saying that in this case of introducing foreign laws into their legal system.

So, how does the principle of belonging to a religion mess with this? Muslims belong to a religion that wants them to live their lives in a certain way, to facilitate this they simply want the option to make these unofficial rules official rules - as an opt-in choice, purely for *themselves*. They still respect British law, they don't want to break it, they don't get to break it. They want to add onto it by allowing *themselves* (and not anyone else) to live how they want.

I understand that, but it hardly seems fair that a set of laws should only apply to one group of people. Let's say there is an aspect of Sharia law that a Christian man thinks should apply to him. He can't have it because he's not a Muslim. That is called discrimination. Creating laws specific to one group that don't apply to another puts the foot in the door of what could become a dangerous trend. Even if it is harmless in this case, where does it end? What is to stop them from making laws that only apply to women or blacks or homosexuals? We have enough dividing us as a people, we don't need to be separated further thought legal means. I realize that there are laws like that in the States even, like Affirmative Action, though I see that as a bit different but I still have conflicted feelings about it. A law permitting gay marriage is also different because in this case it allows a group of people to be treated no differently by the law than anyone else.

Wheeeeee Church of England, your point is moot.

I forgot about them. But it doesn't make my point moot as my point is that combining religion and politics is never a good idea, not that it doesn't happen.

Yes, because the Iranians that fled Iran because of persecution are somehow responsible for that, how?

The fact that someone is a muslim doesn't make them responsible for what happens in countries run by completely different muslims.

What I don't understand is that if you flee a country to escape it's oppressions than why would you want laws to make it more like that country? Give them one law from their old country and the radicals will start pushing for more. And extremists will go to any length to get what they want. Soon they may expect themselves to be legally allowed to stone women who were clothing that offends them. And when they are denied, what then? It won't be as bad as some "protests" in the Middle-East, but there will be a handful of maniacs who will see this as a holy cause and decide to turn violent. Again, I don't believe all Muslims would take this road, but Muslims are typically more devout than other religions and the more devout someone is the greater they risk becoming a zealot, who always view violence as a necessary evil because they think that God demands it. It's just the law of averages.

PS: Throughout your entire diatribe you act as if these muslims somehow aren't UK citizens. They are.

You're obviously getting agitated, but that's below the belt; You insulted my integrity with that comment. Again, I bring up my argument that there is too much dividing us. Suggesting that there should be laws that only apply to them says to me that they think they should be treated different from other UK citizens, and it's like they think of themselves as foreigners, and something about that bothers me.

As a practising Muslim, i can only support the notion of Sharia law.

Fascinating. I'd really like to hear your opinion in this argument further. How does having a law that says you may practice your religion affect how you were already practicing it? Hypothetically speaking, unless you belong to a religion that requires you to break the law, I don't see how it should make a difference. It strikes me as unnecessary paperwork. Do you believe other groups of people should have laws that only apply to them? Do you understand how I'm saying that writing one such law for benign reasons may later lead to different officials writing laws that harm a certain group of people?

 

[Sander]

i punish nobody, i am just stating an opinion on an internet forum. otoh, i am unsure if the majority of british muslims have voiced that they needed this law. sadly, i couldnt find any sauce on this. if they did so, then i still would like to know why. if they are only allowed to use sharia law when it does not contradict british law... wouldnt that mean that british and sharia law (up to a degree) are similar? then, why the fuzz - and dont say they wanted more of their culture in their new country?

Because they want it legalised to give them a way to officially regulate this instead of saying 'That's bad, mmmkay' and then leaving it at that.

and, what minorities and majorities are you talking about? i for my part am unable to deliver numbers on how muslims in western civilizations are activists in regards to their islamic backgrounds, or are sympathetic to radical-islamistic goals. if there are numbers, there might be the chance those numbers are unreliable for several reasons. so basically, i think you go down a very dangerous path if you just take things for granted. i am unable to take anything for granted in this area, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, and would very much enjoy any efforts on your side to back your argumentation with any sauce.

No one has those numbers.
But, there are several facts supporting the idea that most muslims don't support terrorism. There's the fact that terrorist attacks in Western societies are exceedingly rare and when committed by muslims, almost always by foreigners.
I also believe that almost all polls amongst muslims taken after terrorist attacks obviously condemn said attacks.

secondly, i do not know how a muslim organization of any kind is structured - so, if some imam is voicing his <strike>or her</strike> concern, to what degree is this concern democratically relevant? i ask this because if an organization tries to influence a democratic society, i would like to know if that organization applies the same democratic rules to itself.

I don't actually see how this would be relevant, really. Most organisations involved in governmental processes don't adhere to a democratic principle either.

I enjoy a good argument. I think nothing is more intellectually stimulating than a debate of philosophies. Unfortunately, few people share my opinion and tend to take arguments personally. You seem to be getting a bit agitated by this and your comments are getting nastier. I don't think it's wise we keep this going much longer. When one person gets angry then it is no longer fun and I may lose interest in this soon.

You think I'm angry? You must not be used to the intardwebs.

Oh, the minority is quite involved. That is indeed my point. In every situation like this it is always a vocal minority that takes it upon itself to speak on the behalf of a silent majority who may not agree with them. These radicals claim to be speaking for the majority of Muslims, and the English government believes it, but that is like saying that Fred Phelps speaks for the majority of Christians. Making social change is often less about how numerous you are and more about how loud you are.

This isn't the point. Whether or not a majority of muslims are involved in the process isn't relevant (since muslims won't be forced to adhere to these rules unless they opt-in). You were implying that the muslims vying for this were extremists involved in basically terrorist actions, fatwahs and the like. While the people wanting this may be more radical than other muslims (and note that this is simply an assumption on your side as well), that doesn't make them violent extremists.

I understand that, but it hardly seems fair that a set of laws should only apply to one group of people. Let's say there is an aspect of Sharia law that a Christian man thinks should apply to him. He can't have it because he's not a Muslim. That is called discrimination. Creating laws specific to one group that don't apply to another puts the foot in the door of what could become a dangerous trend. Even if it is harmless in this case, where does it end? What is to stop them from making laws that only apply to women or blacks or homosexuals? We have enough dividing us as a people, we don't need to be separated further thought legal means. I realize that there are laws like that in the States even, like Affirmative Action, though I see that as a bit different but I still have conflicted feelings about it. A law permitting gay marriage is also different because in this case it allows a group of people to be treated no differently by the law than anyone else.

I think you are not understanding the principle of an opt-in social contract. No one is going to force muslims to adhere to Sharia law unless they opt-in. Hence, it is not discriminatory nor is it a dangerous precedent for these things since it's voluntary.

I forgot about them. But it doesn't make my point moot as my point is that combining religion and politics is never a good idea, not that it doesn't happen.

Actually, it does make your point moot since we were talking about Britain and how this is a detriment to their culture, even though the Church of England is embedded pretty solidly in their culture.

Aside from that, religion getting involved in politics isn't a recepy for disaster at all. Again: just because a church backs a certain point of view, doesn't mean you get to go 'seperation of church and state' and automatically dismiss that point. Religion is simply a moral insititution in most cases, and whether voters get their principles from religion or some other source doesn't matter in a democratic society.

It's only when one church gets directly involved in the process that it becomes dangerous, as now the problem of corrupting the legislature squarely in favour of one religion comes up.

What I don't understand is that if you flee a country to escape it's oppressions than why would you want laws to make it more like that country?

Because people don't need to hate everything from the country they fled? If someone is gay he may flee Iran but still be happy with everything else that happened in Iran 'cept for the gay-killing.

What I don't understand is that if you flee a country to escape it's oppressions than why would you want laws to make it more like that country? Give them one law from their old country and the radicals will start pushing for more. And extremists will go to any length to get what they want.

Ehm, they're going to do that anyway. Whether or not this gets passed isn't exactly relevant to the type of violent extremist you're talking about.
Moreover, this is a rather silly slippery slope argument. Allowing euthanasia doesn't mean that people are going to want the right to outright murder someone either. Allowing one type of drugs based on harmful effects doesn't mean that suddenly we're going to be allowing more harmful drugs.

Soon they may expect themselves to be legally allowed to stone women who were clothing that offends them. And when they are denied, what then? It won't be as bad as some "protests" in the Middle-East, but there will be a handful of maniacs who will see this as a holy cause and decide to turn violent.

What makes you think that this law would trigger this kind of behaviour? Hell, if anything, denying this idea would trigger that behaviour sooner.

You're obviously getting agitated, but that's below the belt; You insulted my integrity with that comment.

Ehm, I did? I was making an observation based on your argumentation that is basically hinged on the idea that because there are extremists, those extremists don't get anything.

 

[BOS Man]

I just realized I've completely lost interest in this argument and it feels like it's going in circles. I think I'm tapped anyway; I've stated my opinion and I don't know how many other ways I can put it. I should note that I am basing my opinions on what I heard about Sharia law from what I thought to be reputable sources. I've seen vlogs and I've read news stories and so I pieced it together from that, which I thought was accurate. Nowhere in your arguments did you try to explain how I was wrong in my knowledge of it, but rather why I was wrong in my reasoning for believing it. One of those arguments is futile and could go on forever. This whole "opt-in" thing is new to me and if true changes my opinion somewhat. That's not to say I agree with everything you've stated, we seem to have very different world views, my argument mostly being that no one should be given special treatment by the law because of their religion, but we've been arguing for days I'm getting bored with this. Honestly, I never cared enough about this to write the essay it has become. I've got girls on my Yahoo Personals page I could be flirting with. Until we get some fresh angles on this debate I think I'm done with this for now. I'd like to hear more from the Muslim, myself. In the meantime, I may go and research this subject further and see if I've got all my facts straight.

You think I'm angry? You must not be used to the intardwebs.

Oh, no. I've been on Chans. I have seen the blackest souls of humanity that spawn from true anonymity. Agitated is not the same thing as angry. You seemed a bit wound up and made a few spiteful or cocky comments, which you hadn't been doing before. It seemed slightly less civil is all and I'm not the first to notice that you seemed to be taking this personal. The friendly debate turned shouting match is something I am too familiar with. Though I keep a cool head, I can not always say that about my opponent.

Ehm, I did? I was making an observation based on your argumentation that is basically hinged on the idea that because there are extremists, those extremists don't get anything.

*sigh* The comment about me assuming they're not UK citizens insults my integrity because it suggests that I believe that they are somehow beneath legitimate citizens and therefore do not have the same rights as people. Either that or that I'm stupid for not realizing we were discussing legal citizens, which I thought was obvious. I never doubted they were citizens, but I believe expecting special treatment above other citizens for any reason is wrong in general. It makes an accusation that is against the moral fiber of my character and what I think about other human beings, to suggest that I think that one person is more important than another, which is quite the contrary to my argument. In fact, here in the States I believe all illegal immigrants from South America should be allowed citizenship, though I still think it's not unreasonable that they should learn English if they want to live here. I'm not upset about it, indeed it takes a lot to upset me, but I noticed is all.

 

[Jotisz]

Personally I think its completely okey.
If the muslims want to use the Sharia law officially then they should be able to do it and as I read it it says its not compulsory it just an option for them but I guess most of them would take it.
I think its an important thing to keep and practice the national traditions, cultures especially you live abroad from your home then its your only way to keep your "identity" and not forget your roots.

 

[KingAlex]

"You think I'm angry? You must not be used to the intardwebs. "

That is a stupid remark. It is based on so many things non-reasonable (and I suspect 4chan or similar sites). Posting on a forum is no reason not to be polite and use reason. Being rude on chans is something esle, oter places most folk want to have a good discussion.

And I admire BOS Man for his patience and discussion technique, but you Sander seem only interested to tear down his comments and remarks wiht no reason other than that he is taking another view then you (no offence, but that is how you come across to the casual readers of this thread, or maby just me).

Jotisz, I disagree. Even if I lived somewhere else I would still keep my indentity, and I might even change it if I take a liking to the things I see at new places. It is my expreiance that everything is in cinstant change, so its ok to be guided by the past, but don't let it bind you. That is when things go wrong, and often take a turn for the worse. Implementing a law officially for only one group of people is never a good idea, it is discriminatig and unfair. Why do not the muslims just une thier Shaira law unofficially? It changes nothing other then promoting the difference of the muslims and the rest. In one unified countly everybody should have the same laws apply to them, regardless. If you do not like that you move. Now, I do not know this Sharia law in detail, and do not care to know it, but I know that implementing it for just one group will cause trouble, then what if the christians suddenly want to have thier own law, should they? Adn then what if another non-religious group wants one, should they be allowed? No, making ones own laws will not be good, even tho the British law still stand above the other laws. In the long run it promotes the differences rather then trying to integrate the people on the country.

As a side point, I think that laws based on religion should never be official, I am a strong beliver in the seperation of the goverment and law form religion and its doctrines.

 

[Sander]

my argument mostly being that no one should be given special treatment by the law because of their religion

Ehm, I don't think they should either. And this is not what this law will do if it goes into effect. It won't give people any special treatment based on their religion, it will give people the option to enter into a social contract voluntarily.

It seemed slightly less civil is all and I'm not the first to notice that you seemed to be taking this personal.

I don't take things like this personally, since it isn't about me personally.

*sigh* The comment about me assuming they're not UK citizens insults my integrity because it suggests that I believe that they are somehow beneath legitimate citizens and therefore do not have the same rights as people. Either that or that I'm stupid for not realizing we were discussing legal citizens, which I thought was obvious. I never doubted they were citizens, but I believe expecting special treatment above other citizens for any reason is wrong in general. It makes an accusation that is against the moral fiber of my character and what I think about other human beings, to suggest that I think that one person is more important than another, which is quite the contrary to my argument. In fact, here in the States I believe all illegal immigrants from South America should be allowed citizenship, though I still think it's not unreasonable that they should learn English if they want to live here. I'm not upset about it, indeed it takes a lot to upset me, but I noticed is all.

Well, I apologise for insulting your integrity, since that wasn't my point nor my intention.

That is a stupid remark. It is based on so many things non-reasonable (and I suspect 4chan or similar sites). Posting on a forum is no reason not to be polite and use reason. Being rude on chans is something esle, oter places most folk want to have a good discussion.

I don't frequent 4chan or anything even remotely similar.
It isn't about being polite, either, the fact that I use some swearing words or emphasis here and there has nothing to do with personal insults, anger or agitation.

And I admire BOS Man for his patience and discussion technique, but you Sander seem only interested to tear down his comments and remarks wiht no reason other than that he is taking another view then you (no offence, but that is how you come across to the casual readers of this thread, or maby just me).

Ehm, so you're saying that I'm arguing with BOS Man because I disagree with him?
Well, I sure wouldn't be arguing with him if I agreed with him so I don't know what the hell this is about.

As a side point, I think that laws based on religion should never be official, I am a strong beliver in the seperation of the goverment and law form religion and its doctrines.

Do people not read this thread or what? For the umpteenth time: this is not what seperation of church and state is about.

 

[KingAlex]

Sander, I am not saying you are, I am saying it seems to me you are . Pherhaps my skills at realying what I mean in english is not too good, but I meant that you seem only to tear down his arguments with no real argumetns yourself, kind of like disceting his posts and denying what he says, or ridiculing it. Kind of defencive if you don't mind me saying so. (Not that its wrong to be defencive about something you belive in, just try to not seem to rude about it )

Oh, and as for my side point, I think the implementation of religious Shaira law is in fact a case of implementing religion in official state laws. So it is a valid point to make in regards to the agrument, at least the argument I was making. The topic reads "Judge: Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain", and I think not with my reasonig that sate and religion should be separate (even tho it may not be 100% now, but lets not make it more integrated). Using Shaira law unofficialy does not bother my tho, that is free choise, as long as it does not break the laws of the country.

Now, this is clearly a hot topic for many of us, and many seem to strongly disagree, so maby the best thing would be to let i go? (I have to admit, I myself am getting worked up in regards to this topic , I have a rather strong view in this case). I would aslo apoligize if I have offended you with my posts Sander, but I was just saying what I think based on what I have read. And well, I hope non of this will "leave" this thread and tranish other posts in other threads.

 

[Sander]

Oh, and as for my side point, I think the implementation of religious Shaira law is in fact a case of implementing religion in official state laws.

Again: the fact that a viewpoint is based on religion doesn't disqualify it from being used legally. It is only when a law gives religion a direct say in legal matters that this becomes a problem.

Similarly, the fact that the Old Testament thinks murder is a bad thing doesn't mean that suddenly we shouldn't allow murder.

 

[KingAlex]

Again: the fact that a viewpoint is based on religion doesn't disqualify it from being used legally. It is only when a law gives religion a direct say in legal matters that this becomes a problem.

I semi agree, if a religious view point can be applied to common non-religon reason, it might be good, but I am under the impression that Sharia laws are very much religious and dictated by religion, and I think it therefor should not be applied officially. Using it personally as guiding principels is fine tho.

Similarly, the fact that the Old Testament thinks murder is a bad thing doesn't mean that suddenly we shouldn't allow murder.

Well, of course not, that very notion is crazy (you did mean should and not shouldn't, right?), but I do not think the old testament is the true source for a law regarding murder anyways. I do not belive in the old testament, but I do not murder folks since it is ethically wrong. I do not quite get your point in this statement. Cause the old testament also says that one should execute people who eat shrims since shrimps are abominations, but that part is not used today.

I think laws governing our society should be made out of a common moral concensus, not based on religious belives. We all know killing is bad, but don't need that stated in a religious document to make it true, even tho most religions have it as a part f the scripts/doctrines/text. And if a certin religous statement can be generalizd and everybody (from all religions and groups and members of the society) thinks it is good and should be used, it is ok if it gets adapted into the sate laws, but it should be applied to everybody, not just one part of the society.

 

[Sander]

I think laws governing our society should be made out of a common moral concensus, not based on religious belives.

Ehm, what exactly do you think religion is if not a common moral consensus?

I do not quite get your point in this statement. Cause the old testament also says that one should execute people who eat shrims since shrimps are abominations, but that part is not used today.

It's an example to illustrate that jthe fact that a religion sponsors a viewpoint doesn't mean that that is suddenly an invalid viewpoint.

 

[KingAlex]

I think laws governing our society should be made out of a common moral concensus, not based on religious belives.

Ehm, what exactly do you think religion is if not a common moral consensus?

[/quote]

Is it? I do not agree that it is, it is common among the followers, but not the others. By common I mean all the people, not just one group. So a common moral concensus is that killing is wrong, and that is cross religion and goes for all non-religious folks as well.

I do not quite get your point in this statement. Cause the old testament also says that one should execute people who eat shrims since shrimps are abominations, but that part is not used today.

It's an example to illustrate that jthe fact that a religion sponsors a viewpoint doesn't mean that that is suddenly an invalid viewpoint.

Yes, but who gets to chose what is right and wrong form a religious text, the text clearly has more then one view point, so do we just pick and chose what suits us? You can't have a text that you say you follow,and just follow part of it? That does not make sense to me.
That is where to common concensus comes in, if everyone in a country (or the vast majoirty) accepts a certin paragraf form a religious text, then ok, but it needs to be rooted in more then religion alone.