quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:
Oh blimey: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".

ARRGGH! NO! It's the cornerstone of a properly established legal system you...

. . .

He really isn't that bright. He looks quite bright, and we'd all like him to be bright, but eventually we have to face up to the evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
He really isn't that bright. He looks quite bright, and we'd all like him to be bright, but eventually we have to face up to the evidence.

I don't know how bright he is, but he is obviously a dangerous freak, like most religious people.

He fails to understand the virtues of the idea of one law for everybody and believes that people's superstitions should allow them to be above the law -or, rather, to be judgeed according to the judicial system orchestrated by their organized superstitions. The idea is just preposterous. Williams should apologize and resign right away.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
He really isn't that bright. He looks quite bright, and we'd all like him to be bright, but eventually we have to face up to the evidence.

From what I understand, Dr Williams isn't suggesting that anybody's religious practices should be above the law. Therefore, I don't see what the problem is. In fact, there might be benefit to be had from people hashing out civil issues among themselves before they go and clog up the courts. Talking and coming to an agreement isn't against the law, or against 'British values', is it? If people who happen to be Muslims can come to an agreement in advance so that when they get to court proceedings run more smoothly, I can't see anything wrong in that. Isn't this what Dr Williams was suggesting?

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:


How do you have a relationship with an omniscient God, since he/ she/ it must already know everything about you?

I knew you were going to pray that!

quote:

From what I understand, Dr Williams isn't suggesting that anybody's religious practices should be above the law. Therefore, I don't see what the problem is. In fact, there might be benefit to be had from people hashing out civil issues among themselves before they go and clog up the courts. Talking and coming to an agreement isn't against the law, or against 'British values', is it? If people who happen to be Muslims can come to an agreement in advance so that when they get to court proceedings run more smoothly, I can't see anything wrong in that. Isn't this what Dr Williams was suggesting?

Yes I agree and I think that is what he is suggesting...however it is a hair brained idea that should draw your attention to exactly why law should be left to lawyers...

You can't have a system of law that treats sectors of the public differantly. Law works because it is common to all and treats everyone exactly the same making it fair and propper...

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
He really isn't that bright. He looks quite bright, and we'd all like him to be bright, but eventually we have to face up to the evidence.

From what I understand, Dr Williams isn't suggesting that anybody's religious practices should be above the law. Therefore, I don't see what the problem is. In fact, there might be benefit to be had from people hashing out civil issues among themselves before they go and clog up the courts. Talking and coming to an agreement isn't against the law, or against 'British values', is it? If people who happen to be Muslims can come to an agreement in advance so that when they get to court proceedings run more smoothly, I can't see anything wrong in that. Isn't this what Dr Williams was suggesting?

Dr Williams, as usual, is rather vague and ambiguous. I guess this oleaginousness comes with the job. However, he says clearly in the interview that "an approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" and he says that the law should "accommodate" religious sensibilities, etc etc. So, I fail to see how Williams can have it both ways. Either there is a law for everybody or there is not. And if there is not then it is a free for all, and anybody can claim to have their own law based on their own religion.

If Williams' crazy idea happens to come to fruition, as a member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I will claim to be judged only by Pastafarian courts.

Regards

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
In fact, there might be benefit to be had from people hashing out civil issues among themselves before they go and clog up the courts. Talking and coming to an agreement isn't against the law, or against 'British values', is it? If people who happen to be Muslims can come to an agreement in advance so that when they get to court proceedings run more smoothly, I can't see anything wrong in that. Isn't this what Dr Williams was suggesting?

The BBC news says

quote:

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

This is quite different to 'coming to an agreement in advance' of a regular court case.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with community based reconciliation and arbitration where both parties agree to be bound by the judgment of the arbitrator in the same way that ACAS works.
This is not what Dr Williams appears to be suggesting though.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
He really isn't that bright. He looks quite bright, and we'd all like him to be bright, but eventually we have to face up to the evidence.

From what I understand, Dr Williams isn't suggesting that anybody's religious practices should be above the law. Therefore, I don't see what the problem is. In fact, there might be benefit to be had from people hashing out civil issues among themselves before they go and clog up the courts. Talking and coming to an agreement isn't against the law, or against 'British values', is it? If people who happen to be Muslims can come to an agreement in advance so that when they get to court proceedings run more smoothly, I can't see anything wrong in that. Isn't this what Dr Williams was suggesting?

Maybe, but there does come a time when a crime is such that its penalties cannot be decided by mutual agreement and has to be dealt with in a way that is appropriate to the crime in the eyes of most people.

Of course, when it comes to such things as divorce, arbitration can be entred into before the legal system is called upon. People are free to choose to press charges or not and come to mutual agreement outside the legal system.

The Archbishop asks, for instance, that divorce settlements be arbitrated through Sharia law, but obviously the Sharia interpretation is heavily biased to the man and no woman in her right mind would think that this is a fair way to decide divorce outcomes. Yet he is calling for decisions like this to become binding.

So how, for instance, would we not know that the woman is not being pressured by her family and community to be "A good Muslim" and accept the rulings of Sharia court?

People suggesting this simply won't accept this ever happens or ignore it altogether.

So the Archbishop is suggesting that we, as a country, make anti-discrimination laws entirely voluntary - because it suits some people to do so. As we know, voluntary legislation is often the same as no legislation.

Not a particularly Christian attitude (although some would say, it is a particularly Christian attitude).

According to the Archbishop - although why he seeks to regard himself as their spokesman, the law that has been modified over centuries by case law and by Parliament, just isn't good enough for Britain's Muslims and just alienates them.

quote:

Originally posted by ugetmi:

The Archbishop asks, for instance, that divorce settlements be arbitrated through Sharia law, but obviously the Sharia interpretation is heavily biased to the man and no woman in her right mind would think that this is a fair way to decide divorce outcomes. Yet he is calling for decisions like this to become binding.

So how, for instance, would we not know that the woman is not being pressured by her family and community to be "A good Muslim" and accept the rulings of Sharia court?

I think that if you're starting from the basis that Islam is inherently a 'bad' religion for women you're going to have problems not just with Dr Williams' suggestions, but also with the very presence of Muslims in British society. This attitude obviously isn't going to improve 'cohesion', because you can't stop people from being Muslims, and you can't going around telling Muslim women that Islam is bad for them.

I feel that Dr Williams was thinking aloud. He was not putting down bullet points as to how the implementation of Sharia law might work. That would have been the next stage, in collaboration with a whole host of people - Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, young and old, lawyers, polititians,etc. As it is, he has been shouted down and that debate may not happen now.

Did Dr Williams say that anti-discrimination law should be made volunary? I don't think he said it, and I doubt that he meant it. Arbitration is not arbritration if the parties involved don't agree. If we believe that Muslims are inherently unable to cope with the concepts of arbitration and agreement, that's not saying much for us or them, is it?

But arguing for the inclusion of Sharia law on various legal matters, is not going to lead to social cohesion either.

He did say that the inclusion of some aspects of Sharia law into British justice was inevitable.

I don't have a problem with Muslims being in British society, however, I do have a problem with religious people believing that they can and should opt out of serious aspects of British law that they don't morally agree with.

For instance, I don't happen to agree with rule by Monarchy, but I can't opt out of that.

Religion is just a set of ideas and learned morality, and as such, is not based on anything that anyone can prove actually exists.

Therefore, I don't think being of a religion is a sufficient reason or excuse to opt out of serious laws and obligations - such as equality legislation.

Muslims (or anyone else) are free to stand as or vote for a pro Sharia Law Parliamentary/Council candidate. Or maybe a candidate who supports similar legislation but on secular grounds.

True, the Archbishop did not say that anti-discriminatory law be made voluntary, but the end result would be that anti-discriminatory law would be volutary - so therefore irrelevant.

There are no two ways to read or interpret what Williams said in the interview. He said it very clearly: He is willing to sacrifice the principle of equality before the law.

And he is willing to do it simply to appease a medieval superstition.

And the guy says he is shocked that his views triggered such a row! He claims he is indeed surprised. Is he such a deluded idiot?

He should resign now.

ugetmi


Are you basically saying that Muslim women would be forced to do what they don't want to do because British Muslims can't under any circumstances be trusted to abide by a framework of human rights and equality?

I don't think the issue is whether or not Islam has been proven to be true to your or my satisfaction. The issue is whether we are at ease with self-determination in our society. Maybe we all need more arbitration! Look at all the mess we have over sorting out what should happen in 'non-religious' divorce cases! We should probably all have more help in sorting out our problems calmly before heading for the courts. This wouldn't mean dispensing with English law, and presumably it wouldn't mean that women were automatically going to be treated unfairly.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
ugetmi


Are you basically saying that Muslim women would be forced to do what they don't want to do because British Muslims can't under any circumstances be trusted to abide by a framework of human rights and equality?

I don't think the issue is whether or not Islam has been proven to be true to your or my satisfaction. The issue is whether we are at ease with self-determination in our society. Maybe we all need more arbitration! Look at all the mess we have over sorting out what should happen in 'non-religious' divorce cases! We should probably all have more help in sorting out our problems calmly before heading for the courts. This wouldn't mean dispensing with English law, and presumably it wouldn't mean that women were automatically going to be treated unfairly.

I think you have to be realistic. There are peer presures, communities and cultural pressures on women within the Muslim community.

But to deny that some women face pressures to be 'good Muslims' is to be wilfully naive.

When you say "Muslims can't under any circumstances be trusted to abide by a framework of human rights and equality" I think you're being a little misrepresentative of my views.

In a way that's like saying we have legislation on health and safety, equality and fair pay because ALL businesses would discriminate on race or sexual grounds and provide dangerous workplaces, otherwise. That's plainly ridiculous. But we have the legislation all the same - and it's not optional - because we know that some businesses would not bother.

This isn't just about the rights of women. This is also about whether crimes are crimes or whether they are crimes just because a person of religion believes they ought to be crimes.

The UK has protection for the rights of gay people. Islam regards homosexuality as a sin. Sharia law therefore believes that homosexuality is a crime to be punished. By condoning one part of Sharia law it legitimises the whole and will surely lead to demands for other aspects of this law to be introduced.

Even a liberal interpretation of Sharia law would still regard homosexuality as a sin meriting some sort punishment. BTW I'm suggesting that anything close to the death penalty would be applied through Sharia law in this country, like it is in Saudi Arabia. Although I'm certain a many radicalised UK Muslims would think it should be.

So here is a situation where a Muslim community may seek to apply a penalty for something that the law does not even regard as a crime. Who is to say that Muslim won't be cojoled into accepting a Sharia court judgement from his or her community?

quote:

Originally posted by ugetmi:

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:
ugetmi


Are you basically saying that Muslim women would be forced to do what they don't want to do because British Muslims can't under any circumstances be trusted to abide by a framework of human rights and equality?

I don't think the issue is whether or not Islam has been proven to be true to your or my satisfaction. The issue is whether we are at ease with self-determination in our society. Maybe we all need more arbitration! Look at all the mess we have over sorting out what should happen in 'non-religious' divorce cases! We should probably all have more help in sorting out our problems calmly before heading for the courts. This wouldn't mean dispensing with English law, and presumably it wouldn't mean that women were automatically going to be treated unfairly.

I think you have to be realistic. There are peer presures, communities and cultural pressures on women within the Muslim community.

But to deny that some women face pressures to be 'good Muslims' is to be wilfully naive.

When you say "Muslims can't under any circumstances be trusted to abide by a framework of human rights and equality" I think you're being a little misrepresentative of my views.

In a way that's like saying we have legislation on health and safety, equality and fair pay because ALL businesses would discriminate on race or sexual grounds and provide dangerous workplaces, otherwise. That's plainly ridiculous. But we have the legislation all the same - and it's not optional - because we know that some businesses would not bother.

This isn't just about the rights of women. This is also about whether crimes are crimes or whether they are crimes just because a person of religion believes they ought to be crimes.

The UK has protection for the rights of gay people. Islam regards homosexuality as a sin. Sharia law therefore believes that homosexuality is a crime to be punished. By condoning one part of Sharia law it legitimises the whole and will surely lead to demands for other aspects of this law to be introduced.

Even a liberal interpretation of Sharia law would still regard homosexuality as a sin meriting some sort punishment. BTW I'm not suggesting that anything close to the death penalty would be applied through Sharia law in this country, like it is in Saudi Arabia. Although I'm certain that many radicalised UK Muslims would think it should be.

So here is a situation where a Muslim community may seek to apply a penalty for something that the law does not even regard as a crime. Who is to say that Muslim won't be cojoled into accepting a Sharia court judgement from his or her community?

Sorry that should read 'not'.

It's a pity that he didn't have the balls to create such a stir by commenting upon something more worthy; like abortion law, for instance.
Or religious hatred.
Or homophobia.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
It's a pity that he didn't have the balls to create such a stir by commenting upon something more worthy; like abortion law, for instance.
Or religious hatred.
Or homophobia.

Or how it is possible for an intelligent person to believe in the Christian mythology in the 21st century without committing intellectual suicide. That would be interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
It's a pity that he didn't have the balls to create such a stir by commenting upon something more worthy; like abortion law, for instance.
Or religious hatred.
Or homophobia.

Or how it is possible for an intelligent person to believe in the Christian mythology in the 21st century without committing intellectual suicide. That would be interesting.

That mankind has, arguably, on average, become slightly more highly educated than was previously the case, does nothing to diminish the truth of the Gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
That mankind has, arguably, on average, become slightly more highly educated than was previously the case,

No thanks to religion.

quote:

does nothing to diminish the truth of the Gospel.

What truth? - Prove the gospels are true and not some man-made fiction before claiming them as such. Making such statements as you do is a form of lying. Naughty little sinner, you.

[/QUOTE] "I can't see how religious law can or should co-exist with secular law. For one thing, you can't have twin legal systems.

What if I commit a crime that under Sharia law demands one year of prison but in secular law demands five years in prison?"

Sorry you have missed the whole point. If you read my proposition you will see that Sharia will ONLY apply to PERSONAL law ... and only when ALL parties to the dispute are agreed [without any compulsion]!! It is just like seeking ARBITRATION which.

If the parties do not agree to Sharia arbitration, the Law of the Land, will obviously apply. In any event Sharia courts cannot award any punishment that conflicts with the secular law. This happens all over the world ... even in overseas terretories under British rule. Thus amputation, flogging etc are not permissible. Sharia will only apply in CONTRACTUAL matters which include marriage, finance inheritance etc. And watch my lips, "ONLY where ALL parties so opt.

Criminal law (in any shape and form)is outwith personal Law.

quote:

Originally posted by Tazx:

"I can't see how religious law can or should co-exist with secular law. For one thing, you can't have twin legal systems.

What if I commit a crime that under Sharia law demands one year of prison but in secular law demands five years in prison?"

Sorry you have missed the whole point. If you read my proposition you will see that Sharia will ONLY apply to PERSONAL law ... and only when ALL parties to the dispute are agreed [without any compulsion]!! It is just like seeking ARBITRATION which.

If the parties do not agree to Sharia arbitration, the Law of the Land, will obviously apply. In any event Sharia courts cannot award any punishment that conflicts with the secular law. This happens all over the world ... even in overseas terretories under British rule. Thus amputation, flogging etc are not permissible. Sharia will only apply in CONTRACTUAL matters which include marriage, finance inheritance etc. And watch my lips, "ONLY where ALL parties so opt.

Criminal law (in any shape and form)is outwith personal Law.[/QUOTE]

I think you're replying to my post so here it is in full


Back to the original question.

I can't see how religious law can or should co-exist with secular law. For one thing, you can't have twin legal systems.

What if I commit a crime that under Sharia law demands one year of prison but in secular law demands five years in prison? Obviously, I'd 'become' a Muslim overnight. It's a bit like people in prison who claim to have 'found' Christ or atheists who attend church for 3 months before their church wedding and 3 weeks after.

Of course Muslim men who want to divorce their wives would want Sharia law to be legally binding. I'd bet many non-Muslim men would as well! Because it's clearly biased and unfair to their wives.

Indulge one religion, then there really wouldn't be a just cause to not indulge any other. Maybe there could be a cut off percentage of population where your religion couldn't demand it's own special laws?

It's a ridiculous request.

I've made this point in previous posts, but how do you prove no compulsion?

The premise of the question was "Should religious courts be recognised as part of the British legal system?"

Clearly, in the case of the Sharia approach to divorce, Sharia law is very biased towards the interest of men. So what we're really saying is people should be able to opt out of secular equality legislation - for cultural reasons!

That law is there to protect everyone and particularly important to provide protection to those who are culturally disadvantaged.

It's convienant for supporters of this to say, but no one will be compelled, but the real world sadly doesn't work like that!

Regarding the comments about flogging etc, read my other posts, where I've never implied that. However, what I have said is that certain things are considered punishable under religious law and intrinsically 'wrong' - such as homosexuality, and I think that once you acknowledge religious law as being appropriate in one area, you don't have the justification to say it isn't suitable in other areas.

Religious law is l