Judge: Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain

[Sander]

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.

Yes, but then your point was 'don't implement things in a democratic society which which the majority of people don't agree'.
Which is a universal democratic principle, and has nothing to do with the religious aspect.

Yes, but who gets to chose what is right and wrong form a religious text, the text clearly has more thenone 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.

Yes, that's the basis of a democratic society. But that's irrelevant here. I'm not arguing that religious principles get implemented just because they're religious principles. I'm arguing that the principle of seperation of church and state has no bearing on the implementing of viewpoints supported by a church.

 

[KingAlex]

[
Yes, that's the basis of a democratic society. But that's irrelevant here. I'm not arguing that religious principles get implemented just because they're religious principles. I'm arguing that the principle of seperation of church and state has no bearing on the implementing of viewpoints supported by a church.

That is where I do not get you, I agree that sometimes a church viewpoint can be of general interest. But surely, most of their view poits are religious motivated? Otherwise the church would not promote them. and that is where I feel that the principle of seperation of church and state is most applicable.

I guess we can agree to disagree?

 

[Sander]

That is where I do not get you, I agree that sometimes a church viewpoint can be of general interest. But surely, most of their view poits are religious motivated? Otherwise the church would not promote them. and that is where I feel that the principle of seperation of church and state is most applicable.

How does the fact that a religion supports a viewpoint suddenly disqualify this viewpoint?
Please try to explain this.

 

[KingAlex]

That is where I do not get you, I agree that sometimes a church viewpoint can be of general interest. But surely, most of their view poits are religious motivated? Otherwise the church would not promote them. and that is where I feel that the principle of seperation of church and state is most applicable.

How does the fact that a religion supports a viewpoint suddenly disqualify this viewpoint?
Please try to explain this.

I never said it disqualifys it completly did I? I said: "I agree that sometimes a church viewpoint can be of general interest."

But this is all in regards to the sharia law. And as I understand sharia law, it is very much religious motivated. And it is my opinion that all things motivated by religion as the reson, should be looked upon very sceptical in regards to goverment and law making desicions.

But in general I would say that almost all viewpoints (well, in regards to political and laws of course, I thougth that was implied by the nature of this discussion) of a church is religious motivated, and should therefore be critically view upon in regards to political and govermenta decissions. Now, in humane and spirutal matters it is different, but that is a whole other subject.

I hold the same views in regards to support as you mentioned.

 

[Sander]

But this is all in regards to the sharia law. And as I understand sharia law, it is very much religious motivated. And it is my opinion that all things motivated by religion as the reson, should be looked upon very sceptical in regards to goverment and law making desicions.

How is this different from saying that a viewpoint supported by a church is suspect?
How do you define religious reasons?
Would you automatically disqualify a law that, say, bans euthanasia because a majority of people are Christian and their religion doesn't allow euthanasia?

 

[BOS Man]

Implementing the common morals that are shared by a religion is fine, such as condemning murder, religion does not have a monopoly on that ideal. But implementing the dogmatic rules into a modern legal system can cause problems. Saudi Arabia uses the Koran as a book of laws. The Koran states that someone who steals should have his hands cut off. Guess what the Saudis do to thieves? That's an extreme example, but while outlawing things such as murder and theft are okay, I fail to see the use of throwing someone in jail for eating meat on a Friday or using the lord's name in vain. Sharia law strikes me as being along the same lines as this.

 

[Sander]

Implementing the common morals that are shared by a religion is fine, such as condemning murder, religion does not have a monopoly on that ideal. But implementing the dogmatic rules into a modern legal system can cause problems. Saudi Arabia uses the Koran as a book of laws. The Koran states that someone who steals should have his hands cut off. Guess what the Saudis do to thieves?

Why is this a problem if a majority of people would agree with this in a democratic society?

Note: I don't know anything about the Saudi governmental system, so view this as a hypothetical situation.

 

[Zaij]

Why is this a problem if a majority of people would agree with this in a democratic society?

Because most, if not all, western countries are Liberal-Democracies which allow for the protection of minority interests.

 

[BOS Man]

Why is this a problem if a majority of people would agree with this in a democratic society?

Having a punishment for thievery is one thing, but something as drastic and cruel as dismemberment simply because a book that was written in the Dark Ages says it's a good idea strikes me as a human rights violation. Society needs to evolve with modern times to keep up with modern ideals and it's updated sense of morality. Many ideals stated by religion are outdated and indeed, barbaric. You say that this is fine because the Saudi people agree with these laws in a democratic system. First of all: Saudi Arabia is not a democracy but a monarchy, so the people have little say in what passes for law. Second, just because the majority votes for something does not means it's right. Need I remind you that Hitler was voted into office in a free and democratic election.

 

[Jotisz]

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.

Sorry for the long delay in my reply.
I put identity in " ", cause I didn't wanted to use it just like self-identity I wanted to merge it with the national identity. I see your points that if you go and live in another country then there is a chance (and quite a big one) that you change cause you have to live up to some new circumstances but it doesn't mean you have to assimilate. For example I can speak about myself I'm Greek but I was born here in Hungary and I like this place but I'm belong to Grece and I plan to go back there. Also we shouldn't forget that there are a plenty of people who were forced to leave their home and live in other country. Though I have to say you have some point about the differences but Sharia law is already used by the muslims and they just want to make it legal and I wouldn't have any problems if other groups would like to make their unofficial law to official as long as it will be a voluntary accapted thing.

You said that you think laws based on religious should be never official it sounds a bit nonsense to me don't want to offend but nearly every law based on religious (It just because in the past the churches put down the first stones in the process of building the moral values, and laws are based on common moral values)

 

[Sander]

Because most, if not all, western countries are Liberal-Democracies which allow for the protection of minority interests.

Que? I wasn't talking about minority interests, unless you want to define thieves as a minority with rights.

Having a punishment for thievery is one thing, but something as drastic and cruel as dismemberment simply because a book that was written in the Dark Ages says it's a good idea strikes me as a human rights violation.

Imprisonment is a human rights violation, you know. So is the death penalty. And one could argue that breaking the law means giving up any claim to human rights.

Society needs to evolve with modern times to keep up with modern ideals and it's updated sense of morality. Many ideals stated by religion are outdated and indeed, barbaric.

You say society needs to evolve with an updated sense of morality, even in the case where said society does not have this 'updated sense of morality' (as seems to be the case with, say, Iran)? This seems directly contradictory to what your previous argument hinged on, which is that muslims need to adhere to the common (fluid) morality of the country they move to.

Instead, you're now moving into the area of absolute morality and deciding that this form of living is better than another form of living for this group of people you've never even met.

You say that this is fine because the Saudi people agree with these laws in a democratic system. First of all: Saudi Arabia is not a democracy but a monarchy, so the people have little say in what passes for law.

Neat how you skipped over 1 of 2 sentences in my post:
"Note: I don't know anything about the Saudi governmental system, so view this as a hypothetical situation."

Second, just because the majority votes for something does not means it's right. Need I remind you that Hitler was voted into office in a free and democratic election.

He didn't get the majority of voters behind him, nor could you call his rise to power anything resembling fair.

Aside from that, whether or not democracy is a good system is completely beside the point, as Western society (which you thus far have paraded around as superior, and in fact suggested that muslims moving into Western societies should abide by this principle (which I do not disagree with)) is built around the democratic principle. You can go 'Democracy is bullshit' all you want, but then most of the rest of your arguments become moot.