Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
This sure seems a slippery slope to me.
This sure seems a slippery slope to me.
"Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'"??????????
- Thread starter Doc_Jude
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
What determines which religious group gets way and which one doesnt? How is it fair if tow people have similar legal issues but get different legal treatment based on their religion? This is a horrible idea. What happened to "equal protection under law"?
OP
OP
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
I think that this is the situation, but it's really going to have an impact on English law. I'm not looking forward to seeing the results if they do implement this.
If you move to a country, you need to follow the laws of the country, or change them for everyone through the legal process. It's one thing to have religious laws that you choose to follow above and beyond the laws of the land; it's something else - something I find discriminatory at best - to have different laws for different groups... that way lies significant social problems.
That's a good point there, Carol that had not occurred to me when I read this article.
I was busy thinking of the legal ramifications of allowing such a divisive split in how issues are handled. I also have to admit that I had a middle-aged reactionary moment too where I was thinking "If you don't want to abide by our laws then go live somewhere else!".
I had a couple of other mental meaders as well (such as pondered the woolly, overly-liberal, thinking that gets us into these messes) and I never considered that there may well be people living here that emigrated to get away from some of the more draconian elements of Sharia.
I was busy thinking of the legal ramifications of allowing such a divisive split in how issues are handled. I also have to admit that I had a middle-aged reactionary moment too where I was thinking "If you don't want to abide by our laws then go live somewhere else!".
I had a couple of other mental meaders as well (such as pondered the woolly, overly-liberal, thinking that gets us into these messes) and I never considered that there may well be people living here that emigrated to get away from some of the more draconian elements of Sharia.
OP
OP
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
Ah, the law issue is striking closer to home now, isn't it!?! We Americans aren't so crazy :uhohh:
Seriously, though, I'm scared for you, brother.
It'll be interesting, in more ways than one, to see how this moves forward, Doc.
It may well be that it wont move forward at all as the various churches have spoken out on certain issues over the years without any noticeable sign of anything changing.
If it does tho' I think that it will cause a lot more ill-feeling between cultural sub-groupings than would be provoked ensuring that the English law is enforced regardless of colour or creed.
This is especially so in some parts of the country where, without wanting to sound like an alarmist White Supremacist, some people are starting to feel like exiles in their own land.
It may well be that it wont move forward at all as the various churches have spoken out on certain issues over the years without any noticeable sign of anything changing.
If it does tho' I think that it will cause a lot more ill-feeling between cultural sub-groupings than would be provoked ensuring that the English law is enforced regardless of colour or creed.
This is especially so in some parts of the country where, without wanting to sound like an alarmist White Supremacist, some people are starting to feel like exiles in their own land.
CoryKS
Senior Master
I believe this was a point that was made when Canada was considering allowing an alternative sharia court. Muslim women, in particular, were rightfully concerned about how this would affect their rights, and were sceptical about how 'voluntary' this system would really be if their relatives coerced them into using it.
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
First let me say these statements were made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, while a respected and intelligent man, is not involved in legislature or the forming thereof.
Further he appears to be comparing the introduction of aspects of Sharia Law to the Jewish Beth Din. This is where I see two problems. Firstly, you will never be able to introduce pieces of Sharia Law, those who are proponents of this form of legal system will want all of it to apply. And secondly, the Beth Din applies to Jewish people only, as far as I can tell (may someone with better knowledge can clue me in). Under Sharia Law non-Muslim people are given a legal status (usually lesser than actual Muslims) so that the law can apply to all people in a community.
I think that Dr Williams is not really considering the reality of what he is suggesting. What he suggests conjures for me images of what is happening in Malaysia where Sharia Law now operates in parallel with proper state law. Non-Muslims are being prosecuted for ludicruous things (A Chinese couple were prosecuted for kissing in public, for instance) in a court they don't want and did not ask for. The Sharia court even has its own thugs, sorry officers, who roam about Kuala Lumpur looking for Muslims commiting crimes. They are not empowered by the state, and therefore not by the people, so under what authority do they act? "The Imam said we could," just doesn't work for me.
When are people going to stop kowtowing to aggressive and vocla minorities in society and just get on with legislating for everybody?
When are people going to learn the value of separation of Church and State? Religion has its place but it is not in legislature.
Further he appears to be comparing the introduction of aspects of Sharia Law to the Jewish Beth Din. This is where I see two problems. Firstly, you will never be able to introduce pieces of Sharia Law, those who are proponents of this form of legal system will want all of it to apply. And secondly, the Beth Din applies to Jewish people only, as far as I can tell (may someone with better knowledge can clue me in). Under Sharia Law non-Muslim people are given a legal status (usually lesser than actual Muslims) so that the law can apply to all people in a community.
I think that Dr Williams is not really considering the reality of what he is suggesting. What he suggests conjures for me images of what is happening in Malaysia where Sharia Law now operates in parallel with proper state law. Non-Muslims are being prosecuted for ludicruous things (A Chinese couple were prosecuted for kissing in public, for instance) in a court they don't want and did not ask for. The Sharia court even has its own thugs, sorry officers, who roam about Kuala Lumpur looking for Muslims commiting crimes. They are not empowered by the state, and therefore not by the people, so under what authority do they act? "The Imam said we could," just doesn't work for me.
When are people going to stop kowtowing to aggressive and vocla minorities in society and just get on with legislating for everybody?
When are people going to learn the value of separation of Church and State? Religion has its place but it is not in legislature.
What the UK does is the UK's business, not mine.
Presuming a more general issue of whether Sharia law is, or should be, applicable in the USA..... to me, something is not evil simply because it hales from an Islamic background. Would we have the epidemic of child molestation we do if felons knew they'd face that remedy instead of revolving door/ sob for the criminals 'justice"? Well, they don't offend more than once, do they?
But is Sharia amenable to incorporation into the American legal system? Probably not.
Legal systems aren't ethnic restaurants, you can't have a variety and then pick and choose. There can be but one judicial system, what with "Equal protection" and all. One suspects a fundamental collision with basic precepts of American law.... much as I'd like to see pederasts face Islamic sanctions, I'm betting the 8th Amendment says, "No". American women would never accept - nor should they - the drastic limits imposed upon women in Islamic nations. I doubt Americans would cotton much to reporters being sentenced to death for religious offenses as we see in Afganistan..... I'm not thinking many of the media would be left standing by Sharia rules (Hey, now wait a minute....)
Sorry, but if you come to the USA, you need to abide by our laws.
Presuming a more general issue of whether Sharia law is, or should be, applicable in the USA..... to me, something is not evil simply because it hales from an Islamic background. Would we have the epidemic of child molestation we do if felons knew they'd face that remedy instead of revolving door/ sob for the criminals 'justice"? Well, they don't offend more than once, do they?
But is Sharia amenable to incorporation into the American legal system? Probably not.
Legal systems aren't ethnic restaurants, you can't have a variety and then pick and choose. There can be but one judicial system, what with "Equal protection" and all. One suspects a fundamental collision with basic precepts of American law.... much as I'd like to see pederasts face Islamic sanctions, I'm betting the 8th Amendment says, "No". American women would never accept - nor should they - the drastic limits imposed upon women in Islamic nations. I doubt Americans would cotton much to reporters being sentenced to death for religious offenses as we see in Afganistan..... I'm not thinking many of the media would be left standing by Sharia rules (Hey, now wait a minute....)
Sorry, but if you come to the USA, you need to abide by our laws.
And your last words there are exactly as it should be.
Why we over in the UK don't take the same tack as any other sensible nation on the matter of people coming to live on our soil adpating to us rather than the other way round I cannot fathom.
It will all end in tears one day if we don't sort it out.
Why we over in the UK don't take the same tack as any other sensible nation on the matter of people coming to live on our soil adpating to us rather than the other way round I cannot fathom.
It will all end in tears one day if we don't sort it out.
Steel Tiger
Senior Master
True. And in places where Bet Dins are operating at the level of a civil court, it only adjucates civil matters, and only when both parties agree to have the case heard by the Bet Din. The agreement and the judgement is then legally binding.
Firstly no one actually takes any notice of the Archbishop of Canterbury lol not even the Chirch of England parishioners.Tellner right about him!
The Beth Din in the UK only affects Orthodox Jews not the Chasidic, Reform, Liberal Reform, Lubavitch etc
The Home Secretary and politicians from all sides of the house have said it will not happen and it's not acceptable here.
Just as an interesting side note both British and American law have derived from Judaic law.
The Beth Din in the UK only affects Orthodox Jews not the Chasidic, Reform, Liberal Reform, Lubavitch etc
The Home Secretary and politicians from all sides of the house have said it will not happen and it's not acceptable here.
Just as an interesting side note both British and American law have derived from Judaic law.
