Pages: 1 2

 

2010-08-06 11:36:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Get back with me when extreme Christianism gets a foothold and people start to use Christ as an excuse to kill the masses. "Right wing bias" is against a religion that is polar opposite of our society, and when Christianity become the polar opposite to what we believe in, it will get its due attention.
Well, Christianity already got its fill of that throughout history.  The only difference is that certain elements of Islam are still stuck in that mindset.  Granted, there are Christians in Africa that kill for Christ (see the Lord's Resistance Army).

One of the main reasons why Islam is so violent in its extremism is the fact that it hasn't established itself as a dominant force here.  If they were the majority and Christians were the minority, then you'd probably see more of it coming from Christians instead.

It doesn't excuse their violence, but it helps to explain why some groups are more violent than others.  Fringe elements of a minority group have less to lose through violence (especially when their belief systems involve an afterlife that is a paradise), and nonviolent methods are often less potent for their cause than they would be for an already dominant group.
2010-08-06 11:47:28
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6952

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Get back with me when extreme Christianism gets a foothold and people start to use Christ as an excuse to kill the masses. "Right wing bias" is against a religion that is polar opposite of our society, and when Christianity become the polar opposite to what we believe in, it will get its due attention.
Well, Christianity already got its fill of that throughout history.  The only difference is that certain elements of Islam are still stuck in that mindset.  Granted, there are Christians in Africa that kill for Christ (see the Lord's Resistance Army).

One of the main reasons why Islam is so violent in its extremism is the fact that it hasn't established itself as a dominant force here.  If they were the majority and Christians were the minority, then you'd probably see more of it coming from Christians instead.

It doesn't excuse their violence, but it helps to explain why some groups are more violent than others.  Fringe elements of a minority group have less to lose through violence (especially when their belief systems involve an afterlife that is a paradise), and nonviolent methods are often less potent for their cause than they would be for an already dominant group.
Please name some extremist Christian terrorist groups living in a Middle East Muslim dominated country.
2010-08-06 11:52:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Ilocano wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Get back with me when extreme Christianism gets a foothold and people start to use Christ as an excuse to kill the masses. "Right wing bias" is against a religion that is polar opposite of our society, and when Christianity become the polar opposite to what we believe in, it will get its due attention.
Well, Christianity already got its fill of that throughout history.  The only difference is that certain elements of Islam are still stuck in that mindset.  Granted, there are Christians in Africa that kill for Christ (see the Lord's Resistance Army).

One of the main reasons why Islam is so violent in its extremism is the fact that it hasn't established itself as a dominant force here.  If they were the majority and Christians were the minority, then you'd probably see more of it coming from Christians instead.

It doesn't excuse their violence, but it helps to explain why some groups are more violent than others.  Fringe elements of a minority group have less to lose through violence (especially when their belief systems involve an afterlife that is a paradise), and nonviolent methods are often less potent for their cause than they would be for an already dominant group.
Please name some extremist Christian terrorist groups living in a Middle East Muslim dominated country.
Why can't I use Africa as an example?  There are a couple Muslim majority countries there where Christian minorities have terror groups.

Look, I'm the first to admit that a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that Mohammed was a warlord and Christ was a pacifist, but as far as history goes, both religions have had significant violent elements.
2010-08-06 11:58:54
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6866|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

That said, Shariah Law is entirely incompatible with Western ideals
No it isn't. The bulk of it is perfectly compatible with Western ideals.

It's just that only the crazy parts ever get picked up on because they're the ones most publicised. Most of it is extremely mundane stuff. The more extreme backward elements are blocked by legal systems in more developed countries - including some Muslim countries.


In the UK Sharia law can be used for resolving legal issues when both parties agree to do so and when it does not conflict with local laws. Saves on court costs.

This example is terrible though. It's a clear violation of local laws and the man should've been convicted of multiple counts of rape.
2010-08-06 12:16:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That said, Shariah Law is entirely incompatible with Western ideals
No it isn't. The bulk of it is perfectly compatible with Western ideals.

It's just that only the crazy parts ever get picked up on because they're the ones most publicised. Most of it is extremely mundane stuff. The more extreme backward elements are blocked by legal systems in more developed countries - including some Muslim countries.


In the UK Sharia law can be used for resolving legal issues when both parties agree to do so and when it does not conflict with local laws. Saves on court costs.

This example is terrible though. It's a clear violation of local laws and the man should've been convicted of multiple counts of rape.
When you open the door to one part, you open it to all parts.  It's never good to have parallel legal systems based around religion in a country where secular law is supposed to be paramount.

I think this also applies to orthodox Jewish law systems.  Those should also be banned.

You have the freedom of religion -- but you don't have the freedom to create your own law systems in competition with secular common law.
2010-08-06 12:27:46
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6952

Don't get me started with CC&R / Homeowner's Association laws...
2010-08-06 12:35:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6866|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That said, Shariah Law is entirely incompatible with Western ideals
No it isn't. The bulk of it is perfectly compatible with Western ideals.

It's just that only the crazy parts ever get picked up on because they're the ones most publicised. Most of it is extremely mundane stuff. The more extreme backward elements are blocked by legal systems in more developed countries - including some Muslim countries.


In the UK Sharia law can be used for resolving legal issues when both parties agree to do so and when it does not conflict with local laws. Saves on court costs.

This example is terrible though. It's a clear violation of local laws and the man should've been convicted of multiple counts of rape.
When you open the door to one part, you open it to all parts.  It's never good to have parallel legal systems based around religion in a country where secular law is supposed to be paramount.
Bullshit.

Religious civil law is absolutely fine. The extreme would be to say that priests/vicars etc. have no legal authority to marry people.

When it comes to criminal cases, which is what this is, then of course this does not apply.
2010-08-06 13:58:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


No it isn't. The bulk of it is perfectly compatible with Western ideals.

It's just that only the crazy parts ever get picked up on because they're the ones most publicised. Most of it is extremely mundane stuff. The more extreme backward elements are blocked by legal systems in more developed countries - including some Muslim countries.


In the UK Sharia law can be used for resolving legal issues when both parties agree to do so and when it does not conflict with local laws. Saves on court costs.

This example is terrible though. It's a clear violation of local laws and the man should've been convicted of multiple counts of rape.
When you open the door to one part, you open it to all parts.  It's never good to have parallel legal systems based around religion in a country where secular law is supposed to be paramount.
Bullshit.

Religious civil law is absolutely fine. The extreme would be to say that priests/vicars etc. have no legal authority to marry people.

When it comes to criminal cases, which is what this is, then of course this does not apply.
If you allow the civil side of it, the permittance of the criminal side will always be pushed for -- especially as immigration trends that pertain to cultures that prefer Sharia law continue.

In short, by allowing the civil side, you invite a gradual creep of the criminal side into your system.

Turkey seems to have taken this issue head on -- it's kind of sad that more Western nations haven't done so themselves.

On the one hand, there is much common ground between shari'a and democracy: for example, both value electoral procedure. On the other hand, several official institutions in democratic countries, such as the European Court of Human Rights, argue that Sharia is incompatible with a democratic state. These incompatibilities have been clarified in several legal disputes.

In 1998 the Constitutional Court of Turkey banned and dissolved Turkey's Refah Party on the grounds that the "rules of sharia", which Refah sought to introduce, "were incompatible with the democratic regime," stating that "Democracy is the antithesis of sharia." On appeal by Refah the European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy". Refah's Sharia based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy". It was further ruled that, according to Christian Moe:

[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. [...] It is difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

On the other side, legal scholar L. Ali Khan concludes "that constitutional orders founded on the principles of Sharia are fully compatible with democracy, provided that religious minorities are protected and the incumbent Islamic leadership remains committed to the right to recall". However, Christian Pippan argues, that this contradicts the political reality in most Islamic states. "While constitutional arrangements to ensure that political authority is exercised within the boundaries of Sharia vary greatly among those nations", most existing models of political Islam have so far grossly failed to accept any meaningful political competition of the kind that Khan himself has identified as essential for even a limited conception of democracy. Khan, writes Pippan, dismisses verdicts as from the European Court of Human Rights or the Turkish Constitutional Court "as an expression of purely national or regional preferences."

Several major, predominantly Muslim countries criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Iran claimed that the UDHR was a "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. Therefore the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a group representing all Muslim majority nations, adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which diverges from the UDHR substantially, affirming Sharia as the sole source of human rights. This declaration was severely criticized by the International Commission of Jurists for allegedly gravely threatening the inter-cultural consensus, introducing intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, restricting fundamental rights and freedoms, and attacking the integrity and dignity of the human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
2010-08-06 15:54:53
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6279|Truthistan
I think you guys might be a little off on this one. it looks like a divorce case not a criminal case. She was asking the court for an injunction to keep her ex away from her because during the marriage he raped her. His story is that that was his right because she was his wife and he can do what he wants. without going into how the husband rules the wife is so absurdly ozzie and harriet 1950's, the fact that the guy did what he did because they were married does not necessarily translate to him continuing to rape her after they are divorced.

But, anyway, I'm no fan of cultural defenses, or in using a cultural defense as a back door to create an exception to permit discrimination in law, which is what that Cairo declaration appears to be.

anyway, in this particular case, I really don't see the harm in granting her the injunction even though it might not be necessary or warranted unless she could show that he intends to rape her after the divorce.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard