The General Politics Thread

Goat

stevelovesmoonspell wrote
So long as the immigrant body abides in the laws and contributes to the overall economic soundness, wellbeing, and maintains the community at an exemplary level than relinquishing old customs seems a non-issue.

This comes closest to my views on the matter. Why should some state-backed 'culture' be forced on any individual who wishes to live his own life as he pleases? As long as the law is kept, what does it matter? And why should people be forced to, for example, 'play an active role in the community'? What does that even mean? "Inflicting cultural values" is something the host country is more likely to do to the immigrant that the other way around.

Let's also point out that sharia law does not just mean throwing acid in people's faces. Beth Dins used to have the power to carry out capital punishments, they don't any more.

stevelovesmoonspell

Goat wrote
stevelovesmoonspell wrote
So long as the immigrant body abides in the laws and contributes to the overall economic soundness, wellbeing, and maintains the community at an exemplary level than relinquishing old customs seems a non-issue.
This comes closest to my views on the matter. Why should some state-backed 'culture' be forced on any individual who wishes to live his own life as he pleases? As long as the law is kept, what does it matter? And why should people be forced to, for example, 'play an active role in the community'? What does that even mean? "Inflicting cultural values" is something the host country is more likely to do to the immigrant that the other way around.Let's also point out that sharia law does not just mean throwing acid in people's faces. Beth Dins used to have the power to carry out capital punishments, they don't any more.

I think what he was aiming at and as always the directive of Dead's post being his own personal qualms with Islamic society, is their refusal to let their own laws fall secondary to that of the state they occupy. This is not an idea I am inherently opposed to as they are immigrants, and in accordance with the law of the land, they should fall into compliance. The fundamental differences with Sharia law and secular Western law, being that Sharia governs not only crime but also matters of a personal nature. Which if fully implemented as advocated by Islamic radicals, and passively ignored by most Muslims would subjugate a democratic nature to their whim. From what I understand about the religion the status of Dhimmi or "People of the book" affords a sort of protective status for monotheists, but for atheists such as myself and and Dead, the other possibility for offenses would be death? That doesn't sound very democratic, does it?

I think largely when it comes to immigration, they like other immigrants to a country should be compliant with secular law. That means complete relinquishing of their tribalistic bullshit AKA sharia, and full observance of human rights, which Islam as a whole has a notoriously dismal track record for observing.

Goat

I don't disagree - the rule of law doesn't mean the rule of religious law! I do think, however, that they should be free to do whatever Jews can do with Beth Dins from a principle of simple equality and religious freedom. Clearly, when religious law clashes with a country's law, there's no question about which takes precedence.

Karmakosmonaut

Goat wrote
Clearly, when religious law clashes with a country's law, there's no question about which takes precedence.

What if a country's law can be considered less ethical than a religious law? Entirely hypothetical of course, as one would be hard-pressed to find an example these days, but think of 19th century France and such.

Goat

Karmakosmonaut wrote
Goat wrote
Clearly, when religious law clashes with a country's law, there's no question about which takes precedence.
What if a country's law can be considered less ethical than a religious law? Entirely hypothetical of course, as one would be hard-pressed to find an example these days, but think of 19th century France and such.

Don't know much about 19C France... a modern example could be national law vs EU law I suppose, heh.

C_Chulainn

Karmakosmonaut wrote
Goat wrote
Clearly, when religious law clashes with a country's law, there's no question about which takes precedence.
What if a country's law can be considered less ethical than a religious law? Entirely hypothetical of course, as one would be hard-pressed to find an example these days, but think of 19th century France and such.

Unlikely, as secular law (i.e. country's rule of law as opposed to religious law) appeared by definition from a realization of the need to abandon religious law or religious influence in law. The separation of Church and State is THAT basic.

Karmakosmonaut

FrigidSymphony wrote
The separation of Church and State is THAT basic.

Gross oversimplification of post-1789 history. But maybe.

Although coughlegalisedabortioncough. To me that's less ethical than what would be considered religiously dogmatic, as an example. But we've probably talked that to death before.

Goat

Depends on your viewpoint. If we accept that whatever happens, abortions are going to take place, it's far more ethical to have them in a safe, controlled medical environment than in some filthy back street. Laws should be made around the actual everyday behaviour of mankind, not around what an imaginary god says life should be like.

Karmakosmonaut

Goat wrote
Laws should be made around the actual everyday behaviour of mankind, not around what an imaginary god says life should be like.

Then again, many Bible/Quran (for example) laws were built around everyday behaviour of mankind in that day, and while to us 21st century folk there's a lot of shenanigans in there, some of the ideas can still ring true after two thousand years.

Goat

What, like "don't kill"? I'm not saying the Bible never made any sense. Not that the Bible deserves credit for that.

dead1

stevelovesmoonspell wrote
I think largely when it comes to immigration, they like other immigrants to a country should be compliant with secular law. That means complete relinquishing of their tribalistic bullshit AKA sharia, and full observance of human rights, which Islam as a whole has a notoriously dismal track record for observing.

This is my main beef with Islam.

In Australia we're having more and more issues with both moderate and firebrand Muslim leaders calling for greater Islamification of the country.

Muslims are 1.7% of Australia. There are more Buddhists (2.1%) and Eastern Orthodox Christians (2.7%) in the country.

These other religions are not calling for themselves to be given greater power. Even the mainstream Christians are relatively quiet when it comes to increased church power.

So why are the Muslims so antagonistic towards the society in which they live in, while most other religious/ethnic communities have for the most part managed to become part of the widespread community?

And note that this started long before 9-11.

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
Goat wrote
Laws should be made around the actual everyday behaviour of mankind, not around what an imaginary god says life should be like.
Then again, many Bible/Quran (for example) laws were built around everyday behaviour of mankind in that day, and while to us 21st century folk there's a lot of shenanigans in there, some of the ideas can still ring true after two thousand years.

Are you defending Sharia law? I figured you would be all "assimilate or die!".

GeneralDiomedes

dead1 wrote
So why are the Muslims so antagonistic towards the society in which they live in, while most other religious/ethnic communities have for the most part managed to become part of the widespread community?

Canada has struggled with this in the past.

Ontario actually has an Arbitration Act which allows parties to voluntarily enter into binding arbitration under a religious authority. It is apparently used by a variety of religions.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam ... h-law.html</a>

I still have some reservations about this.

Women are usually the less powerful of the two parties and could easily be forced or coerced into agreeing to arbitration.

Also, I fail to understand why the parties cannot also voluntarily choose to abide by the rulings issued by religious authorities. My guess is that the decisions are often in violation of women's rights and that the men in these communities wish to prevent women or government agencies from having any ability to appeal or overturn discriminatory decisions.

So I guess the short answer is .. most religions fit in because their practises are relatively benign, while Sharia practises are relatively extreme.

cry_of_the_banshee

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1338789&position=1">http://www.bostonherald.com/news/region ... position=1</a>

“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit

“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote.

“Newspapers don’t have to be unbiased to get access. You can’t just let only the newspapers you want in,” said Boston University journalism professor Fred Bayles

Karmakosmonaut

traptunderice wrote
Karmakosmonaut wrote
Goat wrote
Laws should be made around the actual everyday behaviour of mankind, not around what an imaginary god says life should be like.
Then again, many Bible/Quran (for example) laws were built around everyday behaviour of mankind in that day, and while to us 21st century folk there's a lot of shenanigans in there, some of the ideas can still ring true after two thousand years.
Are you defending Sharia law? I figured you would be all "assimilate or die!".

I haven't read the Hadith and such, but yes, I could perfectly defend sensible, moderate passages of the Quran. If you were sensible and moderate in your views of religion, maybe you'd be able to as well.

stevelovesmoonspell

Hey COTB, have you heard or seen any of Jack Hunter's videos AKA the Southernavenger on Youtube? A lot of what he says is spot on IMO, and anyone who calls out scum like Levin and Limbaugh are good in my book. Check out his stuff sometime.

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
traptunderice wrote
Karmakosmonaut wrote
Goat wrote
Laws should be made around the actual everyday behaviour of mankind, not around what an imaginary god says life should be like.
Then again, many Bible/Quran (for example) laws were built around everyday behaviour of mankind in that day, and while to us 21st century folk there's a lot of shenanigans in there, some of the ideas can still ring true after two thousand years.
Are you defending Sharia law? I figured you would be all "assimilate or die!".
I haven't read the Hadith and such, but yes, I could perfectly defend sensible, moderate passages of the Quran. If you were sensible and moderate in your views of religion, maybe you'd be able to as well.

I don't mind Islam; I'm just surprised you don't either.

cry_of_the_banshee

stevelovesmoonspell wrote
Hey COTB, have you heard or seen any of Jack Hunter's videos AKA the Southernavenger on Youtube? A lot of what he says is spot on IMO, and anyone who calls out scum like Levin and Limbaugh are good in my book. Check out his stuff sometime.

Thanks, Steve.
I'll look him up.

stevelovesmoonspell

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_jWv6SdIsU&feature=channel_video_title">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_jWv6Sd ... ideo_title</a>

Patriot Act to be extended for another four years, with the same tired and trite point of support being "we are living in the war on terror". What makes it even better is that Boehner openly supported the bill, and that as usual the neocons slipped one under the rug, while the economy sings further into the abyss.

Karmakosmonaut

traptunderice wrote
I don't mind Islam; I'm just surprised you don't either.

But you do mind Christianity. Hypocrite.

Anyway, purely as a bundle of ethics and morality I still prefer the New Testament, both in the relative amount of sensible messages themselves and how they are conveyed as opposed to the Quran. Couple that with the historic importance of Christianity - for good or worse - in shaping Europe's socio-cultural landscape and you arrive at my opinion of Islam having little reason to exist here in our countries. Its collection of ethics is alien and backwards to us, and historically its followers are inimical to say the least.

« Previous Page Next Page »