[vmann7]

I just came across this piece from England. They have officially recognized Sharia Law for Muslims. This is the same law that calls for stoning of women. The Brits used to be a relatively conservative bunch twenty years ago when I was stationed there. But the Liberals have slowly taken over and this is what happens.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

If you think the US press is in the tank for Obama, google "British newspapers". Its an Obama love fest, especially at The Guardian.

[PJL]

^ Orthodox Jews have had their own courts in England for centuries, referred to as the Beth Din. Observation of sharia law in England isn't new, either, it's just that now, if both parties agree to the sharia court acting as arbiter, it's legally binding, whereas previously it wasn't. Also, the scope of sharia law is limited to civil cases. So the Muslim courts are simply being given the same respect as the Orthodox Jewish courts have been given for generations. I don't see what the big deal is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

The Jewish courts actually date back to the mid 18th Century:

http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/

Those damned liberals from 250 years ago!

This is a rather well laid out explanation of the practical application of sharia law:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7234870.stm

I personally think it's a great idea. It lets the religiously conservative oppress themselves and keeps them from trying to polute secular institutions with their morality.

[LandRover]

Originally Posted by PJL

I personally think it's a great idea. It lets the religiously conservative oppress themselves and keeps them from trying to polute secular institutions with their morality.

We wouldn't want morals creeping into the mainstream of society.

[Rob99]

My favourite country singer is Sharia Twain. She's hot!! and she's Canadian.

[PJL]

Originally Posted by LandRover

We wouldn't want morals creeping into the mainstream of society.

Well, at what point do you draw the line? Look at the issue in NYC that the Hasids are having with women bicyclers. Should other people who don't believe that people of the opposite sex can't look at one another unless they're covered head-to-toe in black have to kowtow to these people? If you let purely religious morality permeate a secular governing system, at what point do you draw the line at what's acceptable and what's crazy?

[LandRover]

Originally Posted by PJL

Well, at what point do you draw the line? Look at the issue in NYC that the Hasids are having with women bicyclers. Should other people who don't believe that people of the opposite sex can't look at one another unless they're covered head-to-toe in black be able to inflict other people with their opinions?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you to a point...that was just a funny way of summarizing it.

To make it easy though, the simple solution would be for ME to decide what is over the line and what isn't. If everyone would just think like me, the world would be such a better place.

[PJL]

^ Well, at least you have a solution. I'm in.

[vmann7]

Originally Posted by PJL

I personally think it's a great idea. It lets the religiously conservative oppress themselves and keeps them from trying to polute secular institutions with their morality.

Great point with the Orthodox Jews having their own system but I don't believe a religious "court" whether it be Christian, Jewish or Muslim has a place in a free democratic society. The idea of a democracy is the laws apply to all, not a segment of the population.

The piece on an explination of Sharia was also informative but seemed to skirt the issue on the more controversial aspects especially when it comes to women.

[mgramann]

From what it sounds like, all a person has to do is not acknowledge the courts authority, and its basically useless. This makes it completely separate from public courts, so I see no problem with it.

[SmithersGS]

Originally Posted by PJL

Well, at what point do you draw the line? Look at the issue in NYC that the Hasids are having with women bicyclers. Should other people who don't believe that people of the opposite sex can't look at one another unless they're covered head-to-toe in black have to kowtow to these people? If you let purely religious morality permeate a secular governing system, at what point do you draw the line at what's acceptable and what's crazy?

I'd like to pay a bunch of strippers to get butt-naked on the street and dogpile a group of Hasidim. That'd be laughs right there.

[Poor Boy]

that's nothing! look what happens when conservatives run the show!

no more sexy wimmens!

[winkosmosis]

Apparently you missed the memo about Sharia Law being extremely conservative...

[vmann7]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Apparently you missed the memo about Sharia Law being extremely conservative...

Nah, My point is while Liberals generally have a distaste for Christianity they're all for Islam.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by vmann7

Nah, My point is while Liberals generally have a distaste for Christianity they're all for Islam.

I don't know what Rush has been telling you but we don't like fundamentalist Islam.

[mgramann]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

I don't know what Rush has been telling you but we're don't like fundamentalist Islam.

By definition, liberals dislike the status quo. Some manage to reign it in to only politics, but unfortunately many do not. As a result, the most popular religion in a country is constantly under attack by many liberals, even if the majority of that religion is in compliance of church and state laws... For example, I am a Christian, but while I attended public school, a very liberal school board member brought in a Buddhist priest to teach his religion. My sister failed an assignment because she wrote God Bless You in a Holiday card. Ironic...