[vmann7]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

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

Nope, can't stand Rush. While you and your friends don't like fundamentialist Islam I get the impression from our Journalistic friends that they see Christianity as more of a threat to our society than Islam.

My original point to the title of the thread and my thought process is that Liberals try to be all things to all people. In this case the application of any type of religious law whether it be civil or criminal is inappropriate. England like the United States is having an immigration issue with many of the immigrants failing to assimilate to the culture to which they call home, instead they insist their new country accomodate their views. That's wrong in England and its wrong here.

While I don't think it would ever come to this point, one does need to consider Afganistan and the Taliban. That was a society completely run by Sharia.

[PJL]

Originally Posted by vmann7

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

We're talking about two completely separate cultures here, though. You're using English society - which has relatively few Christian fundamentalists (they all left for the Americas in the 17th century) - to draw an analogy to American society - which has the largest population of Christian fundamentalists in the world. And the fact is, in the US, it's the Christian fundamentalists who are trying to change our laws to reflect their values. So while I'm not all for Islam by any means, I do think that in the US, Christians have a much bigger opportunity for doing damage to our secular society, especially since, as you pointed out, Christianity is predominant in our country. So if a Muslim group tried to change American social policy to match sharia law, they'd find very little support outside of their own cloistered community. Same thing with the Hasidim -- everyone is saying "those lunatics!" But Christians trying to change our social policies to fit their sensibilities find a lot of support and are generally pandered to by socially conservative politicians. Why do you think the evolution v. creationism argument exists at all, or the school prayer debate exists? Who do you think was responsible for the Prohibition movement? It's not secularists or moderates who are pushing these programs; it's fundamentalist Christians. They may not dress funny like Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Muslims, but they're just as crazy.

[MarkoPo]

Originally Posted by PJL

It's not secularists or moderates who are pushing these programs; it's fundamentalist Christians. They may not dress funny like Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Muslims, but they're just as crazy.

That's kind of sterotyping don't ya think? There are plenty of fundamental Christians in this country who arn't crazy. They have set ways and beliefs and try as hard as they can to live by them. Take the Amish for example, they set themselves apart from "the Englishmen" as much as they can, but never try to push their beliefs on anyone. I wouldn't consider everyone who doesn't believe in abortion a fundamentalist would you? There are plenty of moderates who like to stir things up just as much. Just my observations.

[Kyoseki]

Originally Posted by vmann7

Nope, can't stand Rush. While you and your friends don't like fundamentialist Islam I get the impression from our Journalistic friends that they see Christianity as more of a threat to our society than Islam.

Islam is no significant threat to our society, regardless of how backwards fundamentalist Islam may be, it has neither the political nor military power here to alter our society as a whole (certainly not in a way that's favorable to Islam).

Fundamentalist Christians have a great deal more political clout in this country than any Muslim lobby, they are far more likely to enact laws (and indeed have done so) pursuant to their beliefs.

Originally Posted by vmann7

While I don't think it would ever come to this point, one does need to consider Afganistan and the Taliban. That was a society completely run by Sharia.

Yep, completely backwards, but it's never going to happen here.

I'm concerned about this ruling in the UK, but as long as the courts remain essentially voluntary and subordinate to actual courts of law, I guess I can live with it.

[vmann7]

Originally Posted by PJL

it's fundamentalist Christians. They may not dress funny like Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Muslims, but they're just as crazy.

You are absolutley correct but it dosen't change the fact they don't see fundamentalist Islam as the threat to the world that it is. The Islamic fundamentalists want to establish a "one world caliphate". They are not just wacko's as some of the Christian fundamentalists in this country are. They have a following and their brand of religion is among the most intolerant, again I'll refer to the Taliban as an example.

[mpd8488]

We have something Similar in the U.S. It's called Judge Judy. These courts are arbitrators to disputes. Both parties enter into a legal obligation to abide by what the judge decides. That legal agreement is what gives them their authority.

Personally I think Judge Judy and Sharia Courts are terrible for society. They both provide a place for wackos who exist outside of mainstream society to settle their disputes without subjecting themselves to the centuries of due process rights that are an integral part of the freedom we all enjoy.

[PJL]

Originally Posted by mpd8488

Personally I think Judge Judy and Sharia Courts are terrible for society. They both provide a place for wackos who exist outside of mainstream society to settle their disputes without subjecting themselves to the centuries of due process rights that are an integral part of the freedom we all enjoy.

How are they exempt from due process rights? You don't have the right to a trial by jury in small claims court, which is what these shows like Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown deal with. Likewise, the sharia law system is like getting binding arbitration for any other type of dispute -- two parties willingly allow an arbiter to decide their case and the law upholds the decision. Explain to me what due process right is violated in any of that.

[mpd8488]

Originally Posted by PJL

How are they exempt from due process rights? You don't have the right to a trial by jury in small claims court, which is what these shows like Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown deal with. Likewise, the people who agree to Sharia law arbitration have the English appeals system. It's like getting binding arbitration for any other type of dispute -- two parties willingly allow an arbiter to decide their case and the law upholds the decision. Explain to me what due process right is violated in any of that.

I should have worded that better.

Everyone shares equality under the law. As citizens we all have an understanding that the courts have power in civil and criminal cases. Our courts are bound by centuries of common law, due process, and the legal code that is enacted by our elected representatives. Why should certain subsets of society be able to simply reject that and have their own special courts? Judge Judy and other T.V. judges don't go too far outside of how civil courts rule, but Sharia courts completely reject the English legal system's norms. Even if the parties are willing, it shows that they reject the so called social contract that we have entered with the state. I only bring up the T.V. court case to show that even in our legal system, this time of thing is possible. Mixing religious institutions into a legal system sets a bad precedent and undermines secularism.

[vmann7]

Originally Posted by Kyoseki

.

Yep, completely backwards, but it's never going to happen here.

I'm concerned about this ruling in the UK, but as long as the courts remain essentially voluntary and subordinate to actual courts of law, I guess I can live with it.

Not here, but the chink is in the armor in the UK. Who just happens to be one of our strongest allies. Can France and Germany be far behind, they both have sizeable Muslim populations. What happens overseas especially in europe has an effect here.

[martinsburgjeep]

Originally Posted by vmann7

This is the same law that calls for stoning of women. . . .

If Roller hears this, he might get a sex change and convert

[Grimscale]

Originally Posted by MarkoPo

There are plenty of fundamental Christians in this country who arn't crazy.

And then there are the ones that stand out on the corner of a busy intersection, during the morning commute, with signs proclaiming that we are all going to hell unless we devote our lives to the love of Jesus Christ.

Doesn't this guy have a job? Can't he find something more constructive to do with his time other than insult everyone that drives past by stating that they're living their life wrong?

[vmann7]

Originally Posted by Grimscale

And then there are the ones that stand out on the corner of a busy intersection, during the morning commute, with signs proclaiming that we are all going to hell unless we devote our lives to the love of Jesus Christ.

Doesn't this guy have a job? Can't he find something more constructive to do with his time other than insult everyone that drives past by stating that they're living their life wrong?

That's my main issue with all Fundamentalists, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim. The premise behind the fundamentialist thought is they are right and everyone else is wrong. It boils down to telling others what to think and how to view the world.

FWIW the far left and right have the same issue, telling others what to think.