A bit of lively discussion about religious Law.....

[Still Kate]

.... thought this was quite relevant in this day and age .... what do you all think?

On the news last night in England the Arch Bishop of Canterbury stated that we should introduce Muslim Law into our culture . For example allow Muslims to govern themselves with regards to Lawful practices, I presumme.  
I think they are ommitting stonings women committing adultery, public floggings (though that wouldn't be a bad idea for some of the little wotsits who mug old ladies, including the English ones)  and chopping hands off for stealing but the majority of it is being looked into.

If this happens then I think all religions and laws must be taken into account,( Jewish, Hindu, Buddist .....) however, my point of view is "When in Rome...."

Thought I pop this one up for a good discussion.

Blessings
Kate. xx

[RedRonin]

The problem I'd see in that is that the zealots, regardless of denomination, wouldn't be content with enforcing their laws on their own kind.

As is the case now, when religion takes too big a part in governing, they begin to think everyone should be subject to their laws, regardless of belief system.  I have no interest in going to my favorite nudie bar and seeing the women in burkas.  It just wrecks the whole atmosphere............

[Jennie]

A strictly secular civil society is the only one that can allow true freedom of religion. If enforcement of religious laws is allowed in contravention of civil laws, who determines what portions of religious law are relevant, and to whom they apply? If a woman born to a Muslim family converts to the Church of England, should her family or former clerics be allowed to punish her as an infidel? If the grown child of Orthodox Jews eats a shrimp cocktail, should the family  be allowed to apply Biblical penalties for participating in this abomination? The issue of religious jurisdiction is an impossible one to solve, unless a state religion is established.  Once a state religion is established, one of two things happens: the civil authorities take control of the religion (a bad idea), or the religious authorities take control of the civil government and establish a theocracy (a worse idea). It presupposes that a certain group of humans not only has special insight into Divine will, but are empowered to act as representatives of the divine in passing judgment and meting out punishment. Once you conflate civil authority with Divine authority, the potential for religious freedom vanishes, and the danger of megalomaniacal tyranny increases exponentially. Religious leaders are not elected - they are ordained. When leaders claim that they speak for the Divine, or that their actions are based on religious law, people who oppose their policies or methods are not critics, they are heretics. It is a trap that can be extremely difficult to escape from once it has been sprung on the populace - even if a majority says it is what they want, they usually haven't thought through the implications.

[Lark]

What I find disturbing is that it was England which gave the world the concept of having a single system of law which applied to all equally, rich/poor, native/foreigner, Christian/Jew/Muslin/Whatever.  To go to what he has proposed would undo some eight centuries of Common Law and make people unequal under the law again.  Laws would become totally unenforceable and anarchy would result. No, I think the best system, even with all the flaws it has, is one in which the law is blind to the differences in religious belief and treats everyone in the same impartial fashion.

-Lark-

[Zenon]

Any law based on divine scripture is strictly to the interest of the poor soul who wants to submit to supposed divine revelation.

It has no place in civil society whatsoever.    All citizens must be weighed in equal terms in the eyes of the law.

Anything else would be racism (which is valuing a person because of his race, origin, creed, not because of his own self worth as a rational human being).

Would you make differences between the judgement of two people of different creeds in a court of law?  Would you for example, pardon someone that has slandered you, just because his religious law permits him to slander people who are "heretics"?  How about a bunch of muslims dragging a muslim woman to english court because she refuses to wear a burka?

If the Arch Bishop gets his way then it means Law is based on whatever is in the Koran, Bible, or the Bishop's BOS.  In that moment we should remove our brains and cast them into the sea, we will have no need for rational thinking.

In my own opinion anyone who submits to Muslim Law is either helplessly crazy, or living in Iran.

Accepting different cultures doesn't mean people should accept the imposing of prehistorical practices based on hate and intolerance.

[Still Kate]

Well, I have been reading up on this over the past few days....... should England enforce Muslim law if the man has more than 1 wife and claims benefit( welfare) to help suport the other wives when the Muslim Law states that a man can take as many wives (up to 4) that he can support on his own ...... ??    Is that Muslim Law or just taking the mickey out of our benefit system ?

I have a feeling England is seen as a soft touch for imigrants, with housing and money etc and thats what this all boils down to in the soup..... how much money can be had and probably a bit more when other Laws are enforced as they will become part of the constitution and people will be able to sue if they aren't treated accordingly.

Blessings Kate. xx

[RedRonin]

But if the muslim law has the limitation that he can only take as many wives as he can support, then isn't he going against that law by letting the government perform his manly duty for him?

[Still Kate]

Exactly!