Sharia Law now a reality in Britain.

[In Bloom]

the point is it's a fucking horrible medieval set of laws

You won't catch me defending Sharia law, or any other religious institution, for that matter. All I'm saying is that as regards Sharia in the UK, it makes far more sense to look at areas like inheritance, child custody and domestic violence, you know, where it's actually going to be applied.

As it happens, I do think that religious courts as a form of arbitration are deeply problematic. The idea that it represents some free choice between individuals, isolated from any social or cultural pressure from within their religious group is clearly bullshit. All I'm saying is that it's nothing new, nor is it unique to Islam.

 

[isitme]

The US system is pretty fucking mediaeval. And it's a "common-law" system, just like the UK is a "common-law" system. And the UK is different.

Got it yet?

The US constitution was written in 1857, the UK laws are a mix of really old laws, European laws and modern ones. i agree that our laws are quite old fashioned in a lot of ways, but they are not medieval and they are'nt based on pleasing god by wearing silly hats. noone has been hanged to death under uk law for about 50 years, sharia law doesn't just execute people for murder it executes people in inventive ways for making god unhappy,

 

[Detroit City]

As it happens, I do think that religious courts as a form of arbitration are deeply problematic.

maybe all courts systems should be run by athiests or agnostics?

 

[isitme]

You won't catch me defending Sharia law, or any other religious institution, for that matter. All I'm saying is that as regards Sharia in the UK, it makes far more sense to look at areas like inheritance, child custody and domestic violence, you know, where it's actually going to be applied.

As it happens, I do think that religious courts as a form of arbitration are deeply problematic. The idea that it represents some free choice between individuals, isolated from any social or cultural pressure from within their religious group is clearly bullshit. All I'm saying is that it's nothing new, nor is it unique to Islam.

well exactly

i'm not sticking up for the uk laws except to say that they are a shitload better than religious courts. of course we should oppose them being allowed in the uk, just think about the phrase 'religious court' its fucking horrible and i would hate to be from a country that allows it

 

[harpo]

maybe all courts systems should be run by athiests or agnostics?

Extend that principle and you have a very good point.

 

[N_igma]

The US constitution was written in 1857

So the U.S. Constitution was written 7 years before the slaves were freed?

 

[isitme]

maybe all courts systems should be run by athiests or agnostics?

I don't understand why how people believe the universe cam to exist should reflect their competence at anything tbh

 

[isitme]

So the U.S. Constitution was written 7 years before the slaves were freed?

oh i looked it up and probably got it wrong. it wasn't written in medieval times tho

 

[harpo]

I don't understand why how people believe the universe cam to exist should reflect their competence at anything tbh

So you would teach creationism as scientific fact in schools would you?

 

[isitme]

So you would teach creationism as scientific fact in schools would you?

i don't understand how you got that from that

 

[N_igma]

So you would teach creationism as scientific fact in schools would you?

What has that got to do with the price of artichokes in Belarus?

The seperation of church and state happened long ago, Britain is one of the most secular states in the world. The personal beliefs of judges or juries is irrelevant as long as justice is done.

 

[laptop]

sharia law doesn't just execute people for murder it executes people in inventive ways for making god unhappy,

As does "common law", in the US. Even more inventive, in its way. See?

"Sharia" doesn't mean "cutting hands off and stoning people". It means "according to one reading of the Koran".

In some places that reading demands cutting hands off and stoning people. It won't here.

Sharia law was massively in advance of Christian-based law in allowing divorce.

Even the alien-seeming system of "blood money" common to many interpretations of Sharia law informs the "restorative justice" that's being tried out as a replacement for the very, very Christian concept of "retributive justice".

Yes, there are places where the local flavour of Sharia law fails to forbid female genital mutilation, etc.

And there are places where the local flavour of common law fails to forbid it, too.

 

[harpo]

i don't understand how you got that from that

You said you didn't understand how someone's view of how the universe came to be could affect their competence at something.

 

[Detroit City]

I don't understand why how people believe the universe cam to exist should reflect their competence at anything tbh

well the belief system of the judges will always affect their rulings in some way, innit? why do you think that in the US the presidents try to stack the supreme court with judges who think like themselves?

no matter how hard you try you can never totally seperate church and state

 

[harpo]

What has that got to do with the price of artichokes in Belarus?

The seperation of church and state happened long ago, Britain is one of the most secular states in the world. The personal beliefs of judges or juries is irrelevant as long as justice is done.

As long as they remain personal views and there are sufficient checks and balances to stop them colouring the picture.

 

[N_igma]

well the belief system of the judges will always affect their rulings in some way, innit? why do you think that in the US the presidents try to stack the supreme court with judges who think like themselves?

no matter how hard you try you can never totally seperate church and state

The supreme court is a side show really in the U.S. judicial system. It only ever handles controversial cases, it gets tonnes and tonnes of applications for review but only a handful ever get picked.

 

[N_igma]

As long as they remain personal views and there are sufficient checks and balances to stop them colouring the picture.

You can say the same about atheists, who knows what personal views anyone has.

 

[Detroit City]

The supreme court is a side show really in the U.S. judicial system. It only ever handles controversial cases, it gets tonnes and tonnes of applications for review but only a handful ever get picked.

well i agree the supreme court is a clown show but the decisions they hand down can affect many peoples lives both in the positive and the negative...ergo, it has quite a bit of power.

 

[isitme]

well the belief system of the judges will always affect their rulings in some way, innit? why do you think that in the US the presidents try to stack the supreme court with judges who think like themselves?

no matter how hard you try you can never totally seperate church and state

but that's something else altogether

 

[harpo]

You can say the same about atheists, who knows what personal views anyone has.

Atheism doesn't obscure the picture like religion does.

 

[isitme]

You said you didn't understand how someone's view of how the universe came to be could affect their competence at something.

Oh right. I think it is fair play for a teacher or a doctor or a judge or a president or whatever to have any nutty belief they want as long as they do their job

I don't think creationism should be taught in science because it is against the founding principles of science, but I don't think teachers who believe the earth was made in 7 days or think their is a giant hamster in the middle of the earth etc should be barred from teaching for being off their tits unless it affects their teaching

 

[N_igma]

Atheism doesn't obscure the picture like religion does.

Obscure what picture? A judge could be an atheist but also a paedophile, he could be a Christain but also a paedophile. We just don't really know what personal views anyone has. I believe the judicial system in the U.K. to be secular, I don't see any religious intrusion, do you?

 

[harpo]

Obscure what picture? A judge could be an atheist but also a paedophile, he could be a Christain but also a paedophile. We just don't really know what personal views anyone has. I believe the judicial system in the U.K. to be secular, I don't see any religious intrusion, do you?

No, as I have previously said. Our legal system isn't based on religion.

 

[harpo]

Oh right. I think it is fair play for a teacher or a doctor or a judge or a president or whatever to have any nutty belief they want as long as they do their job

I don't think creationism should be taught in science because it is against the founding principles of science, but I don't think teachers who believe the earth was made in 7 days or think their is a giant hamster in the middle of the earth etc should be barred from teaching for being off their tits unless it affects their teaching

Me neither. Unless it affects their teaching.

 

[N_igma]

No, as I have previously said. Our legal system isn't based on religion.

So what difference does it make if our judges were atheist or Christain?

 

[Detroit City]

Our legal system isn't based on religion.

but many of the people running said legal system have a religion so in a sense it is. you cannot totally get rid of their bias.

 

[harpo]

So what difference does it make if our judges were atheist or Christain?

None at all, unless they bring it into it. That's a different matter and one I thought was being discussed. If a judge made a judgement because god told them to or that's what the bible said or whatever then afaic it would make them unfit.

 

[isitme]

can i just throw paedophiles into the argument

 

[harpo]

but many of the people running said legal system have a religion so in a sense it is. you cannot totally get rid of their bias.

Then the system has to ensure that that bias does not colour the picture. If a judge really can't leave their private beliefs out if it then they shoud not be in that role.

 

[laptop]

I don't see any religious intrusion, do you?

I do.

Imagine someone's murdered your sister.

Under many forms of Sharia law, if the murderer's family got together a sufficient payment to your family, that'd settle it. If they didn't, some bloody execution would likely follow. Restoration, else retribution.

Under US law, theoretically bloodless execution would follow: Old Testament "eye for an eye" retribution.

Under UK law, the murder would do penance in the form of a prison sentence, then they'd be deemed to have "paid their debt to society" - which is fucking close to a New Testament expiation of a sin.

The very fundaments of the ideas of punishment are bound up with the religious background.