Originally Posted by milsum

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Finally, it is a tautology to ask whether human rights are for people. However, it does not follow that sharia law has no place from that premise. Its the equivalent of saying chewing gum tastes nice so we should ban nuclear weapons. I don't see how one directly causes the other to make sense. Maybe I never will.

No it's not. If you're going to follow logic... Hardliners often defend their right to practice their religion as they see fit as their 'human rights', as defined by our own liberality.

To put freedom to practice religion above or equal to freedom itself in its most basic definition, is incorrect. I would say rights as a human are more fundamental than these 'human rights', and something we would wish to preserve the supremacy of.

If you accept that some aspects of Sharia law impinge on basic human rights, that is, the right to freedom from oppression, it should be unlawful if we live in a society that values those human rights. Now, I have taken that as a given, I'd like to hear someone argue that bring raped, starved, beaten for fear of worse, especially when it can't be proven in your Sharia court, is not in some way fundamentally unfair.

No, I have already stated, quite clearly that my view is that people should be allowed to follow their religious doctrines up to the limit where engaging in their religion harms another sentient being. Therefore if individuals want to solve a business difference by reference to a sharia court, I don't see what the problem is. I am happy for you to explain to me what the problem with that is. But you seem to believe that by arguing to allow these low level religious arbitrations we are supporting rape and beatings. That is just hogwash.

You seem to be confusing "needs" with "rights" (if you are not, then apologies). We need water, shelter, food. We don't have any right to them. We take them or are given them.

Finally, how do we grade what freedoms come first. Particularly if an individual sees freedom to worship his god as more important than his freedom to watch porn?

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Horseshit.

Well, that has certainly cleared that up. Thanks, I hadn't considered that point of view before.

You don't really think that civil, criminal, military etc etc etc law all come from

The ten passed to Moses, and christian teaching. What our government has done over the years is then consider what parts of the book it wants to keep and where it disagrees with church doctrine

...... do you?

Ok. My grading of these needs is pretty simple. But then I would rather die than live under such a repressive regime.

As you're a philosopher, I would argue that I'm coming at this from a practical rather than theoretical stand point. Anything is possible and acceptable, until it is real. If you seriously think that Sharia courts can function in this country arbitrating on things like inheritance, matrimonial matters and public/private conduct of women, and think that women might not in some way be significantly disadvantaged by it, then I think you're wrong, plane and simple. And since arbitration by this means is not often a matter of choice (if one doesn't get to choose one's husband, they probably won't get the option to 'opt out' of a Sharia court hearing), it is detrimental to allow its practice. I cannot see how you could police this, monitor it, or stop some very bad things happening to a number of individuals. If one lives in this country, one has the right to enjoy its freedoms. With Sharia courts, I'd argue some will be barred from doing so.

Originally Posted by tattybadger

You don't really think that civil, criminal, military etc etc etc law all come from

The ten passed to Moses, and christian teaching. What our government has done over the years is then consider what parts of the book it wants to keep and where it disagrees with church doctrine

...... do you?

Nah, I wouldn't for one, there are huge swathes of the law that have evovled out of previous legal codes laid down by the Britons, Saxons, Danes, Picts, Normans, purloined from the Continent and so forth. I think the jist of the argument is that all legal codes find their roots in religion, it forms a major part of its moral structure and justification.

Originally Posted by rampant

Nah, I wouldn't for one, there are huge swathes of the law that have evovled out of previous legal codes laid down by the Britons, Saxons, Danes, Picts, Normans, purloined from the Continent and so forth. I think the jist of the argument is that all legal codes find their roots in religion, it forms a major part of its moral structure and justification.

It depends on whether you are talking proximate cause of laws or root cause of laws. But yes, effectively, this was my point.

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by tattybadger

You don't really think that civil, criminal, military etc etc etc law all come from

The ten passed to Moses, and christian teaching. What our government has done over the years is then consider what parts of the book it wants to keep and where it disagrees with church doctrine

...... do you?

Nah, I wouldn't for one, there are huge swathes of the law that have evovled out of previous legal codes laid down by the Britons, Saxons, Danes, Picts, Normans, purloined from the Continent and so forth. I think the jist of the argument is that all legal codes find their roots in religion, it forms a major part of its moral structure and justification.

I would suggest that any roots of moral structures came not from religion, which simply codified the structures and then claimed it all as their very own, but from liberal Greeks, Romans, Chinese etc etc etc. Which is one of the reasons why religion should be totally and irrevocably divorced from any influence over the state and parliament in any shape or form.


In fact, I'd ban it all together, because it's divisive and claptrap.

Originally Posted by milsum

And since arbitration by this means is not often a matter of choice (if one doesn't get to choose one's husband, they probably won't get the option to 'opt out' of a Sharia court hearing), it is detrimental to allow its practice. I cannot see how you could police this, monitor it, or stop some very bad things happening to a number of individuals. If one lives in this country, one has the right to enjoy its freedoms. With Sharia courts, I'd argue some will be barred from doing so.

No. If one lives in this country and chooses to listen to their family and remain part of their community they may then choose to forgoe some of their basic rights that are protected by law.

That is the distinction. The only possible difference would be physical coercion - i.e. where someone is tied / imprisoned within a house and has no way of reaching the authorities to help them.

A lot of people choose their family and culture over these rights - but make no mistake, it is THEIR choice. They just prefer it to the alternative.

NB - one tale. A friend of mine from many years ago was kidnapped and taken to India and forced into marriage against her will. She was then drugged up whilst in India, and was even allowed on the plane back still drugged up. The horrors she went through were really indescribable. But she managed to escape her prison and went to the authorities. She knew that this would mean never seeing her family again, but she chose that course. She now denounces her faith (Hinduism). It is achievable.

Originally Posted by tattybadger

I would suggest that any roots of moral structures came not from religion, which simply codified the structures and then claimed it all as their very own, but from liberal Greeks, Romans, Chinese etc etc etc. Which is one of the reasons why religion should be totally and irrevocably divorced from any influence over the state and parliament in any shape or form.


In fact, I'd ban it all together, because it's divisive and claptrap.

Really? Give us an example of one of these Greeks OR Romans OR Chinese who weren't influenced by religion in their formulation of our laws, and the laws we take from them. I would be fascinated by such an example.

EDITED TO ADD: Not that it would be impossible to have a world where there was no religion and still have moral codes. That is not my point. But in this case (i.e. our earth), empirically, I do not believe that to be the case. Just before I get grouped in with the religious nutters.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Horseshit.

Well, that has certainly cleared that up. Thanks, I hadn't considered that point of view before.

You wouldn't be the artist formerly known as Ashie would you?
Your posting tone is similar as is your debating style

To say it is entirely their choice in all circumstances is a bit of stretch of the word 'choice'.

It would be a shame if we invited a system (that isn't fully established at present) that might make it harder for such people. Sharia courts would.