12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau KThe real question should then be how the law gets implemented. For example:
I pointed this out previously, but no one seemed to care. There is no canonical Sharia law. Instead, there is a diverse collection of sayings and interpretations each developed in separate schools of thought. There are some more progressive Muslims who do not believe that Sharia recommends that men be lashed or that gays be stoned to death.
1 Suppose some British laws are modified by the normal process to better match sharia law.
2. Some issues are dealt with in special 'Islamic' courts and the judgments are either at the discretion of some religious leaders.
Keep in mind that the current laws in the UK do include a few religious laws.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by MexicoExactly.
He makes a valid point: lets play role reversal here for a minute. If instead of predominantly white Christian societies being the dominant people on the planet, we had mainly Islamic/sharia law societies in control of global politics. And trust me from their perspective we're vile, and our laws a immoral. Would it be just for them to impose their laws on the ...[text shortened]... 't then they suck it up or move somewhere that is closer to the way of life they want.....
We are not the holders of truth or morale. (Although Christians think they're morale is the right one).
That's why there exist different countries. So that people that think way too different don't have to clash. Each one lives in their own country with their people, and everyone is happy.
The only reason there's so much hate towards western world is exactly our interference with so many countries. Most (all?) of them not for humanitarian reasons, but for economical or political ones. So, stop criticizing them and taking them according to your "superior" standards.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are a lot of other ways to deal with it than simply war or embargo. There are many forms of political pressure and most of them start with a statement by various people that they do not approve of a given practice.
I was trying to be simple and reductive to make the point.
Laws are not based solely on the constitution.
1. The constitution provides methods for people to enact laws.
2. The laws enacted must remain compatible with the constitution.
However the vast majority of laws are not specifically dictated by the constitution.
I am sure that a significant proportion of sharia law could be enacted in the UK without violating the constitution.
Ok... I mean the law + what majority of people wants. As long as a minority wishes do to something that doens't interfere with the freedom and wellfare of the rest of the population, I think they have the right to do so. Application of Sharia (even to muslims only) is not the case.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoNo, that is not why we live in different countries and no, everyone is not happy.
That's why there exist different countries. So that people that think way too different don't have to clash. Each one lives in their own country with their people, and everyone is happy.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're though. I have to be more precise making my comments.
No, that is not why we live in different countries and no, everyone is not happy.
When I say "why", I intend to say that on average, it was similarities (cultural, political, whatsoever) that led countries to aggregate like they are. People in a country have something in common (well... in most countries, at least). It there's not union or the divergences are too big, the tendency is to be a separative movement and form a new country.
Of course it's not like this, again I try to simplify and generalize...
I correct "if everyone (I'm talking about foreign politics) lived in their own countries respecting differences and leaving other countries alone, everyone would be happier"
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI stand corrected; your ivanhoe tactics are the epitome of intelligence.
False. I am not dense at all.
The point of my retort was that any ideology is fundamentally and grossly flawed if you compliment it by noting that its more progressive adherents don't believe that gays ought to be stoned.
Your retort makes so many dubious assumptions it just isn't worth getting into. So ignore me and carry on doing what you do best.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat? No one was enthusiastic. I took a lot of crap in that thread from the usual debate forum right wingers, who universally wrung their hands and chanted their old mantra that "it would never work."
I recall that not long ago, Rwingett started a thread about "panarchism" where each person is allowed their own personal system of government. Many people were enthusiastic about that. Williams seems to have proposed a weaker version of this.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettMaybe I didn't read very critically. But what I felt the general consensus was "good in theory, but totally impractical."
What? No one was enthusiastic. I took a lot of crap in that thread from the usual debate forum right wingers, who universally wrung their hands and chanted their old mantra that "it would never work."
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't oppose what Archbishop Williams was talking about i.e. leaving Muslims free to agree to arbitrate using Sharia Law certain areas of civil law in case of dispute. That's quite a bit different from wanting gays stoned or adulterers beheaded.
I believe the introduction of Sharia law must be opposed in Britain, but not because I'm fearful of Muslims or any rubbish pertaining to Islam taking over. It should be opposed for two reasons, firstly because, as no1 points out it places theocracy over democracy. Law is and should remain a secular affair, one that is in no way decided by religious instit ...[text shortened]... ishments, like stoning for crimes of adultery and as such is shamefully barbaric and primitive.