Find me a home (now focusing on biblical Israel & the talmud)

[Meneldil]

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

I don't really care about what religion we're talking about. People can practice their damn religion in private. Letting them use some outdated fairy tale book to make their own law should be a big no.

Oh, and cut the Royal family members' heads, or send them into exile. Monarchy ought to disappear with religion. Primogenitur is, as Tribesman pointed out, nothing but crap.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.

Many western countries may well have "kind of stated" that position, but the fact remains that many also have religious provisions. Shari'a is merely a system and theory of law derived from philosophies of the Islamic religion. The fact that it is subverted in some countries into an abomination does not, of itself, prove the system wrong. Legal systems throughout the world are so subverted.

I can make a fairly strong case, for example, that the death penalty in the United States, is not only barbaric in its implementation, but tends to discriminate significantly and unfairly against coloured people. Does that render the entire legal system and philosophy of the United States similarly cruel and worthy of disdain? Or by extension, the system and philosophy of the United Kingdom, from which the former structure derives?

Tribunals using Shari'a structure are available to appellants if both parties agree. These tribunals do not over-ride the statutory rights of the participants. I agree that there are concerns about ensuring women (for example) participate in a full and equal manner - but one could voice these same concerns about the conduct of rape cases, where the odds in the UK are heavily stacked in the defendant's favour. Imperfections do not invalidate the whole proceeding, and I maintain we wouldn't be having these conversations if it wasn't for "teh Muslims R eval" prejudices. There is no indication that such inclusions to an already religion-infested system signal the End of Civilisation.

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

[Fragony]

We all know that the position of islamic women is extremely vulnerable, calling it mutual agreement is way of, the state should protect them against the archaic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

Plus the Church of England has a habit of involving itself in the business of other established churches. I'm still raging at the 1712 Patronage Act, it undid all the good work of 1690.