Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 98

Thread: Religious Freedom review

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote pipbarber said View Post
    What does ‘sharia law as a private arrangement mean’? ...

    What I mean is, people consenting to follow rules within the confines of overarching secular legal frameworks. Islamic banking is an example.


    Despite widespread horror about people following sharia law on their own time, as it were, it's just like eg what Catholics used to think about eating meat on Fridays, or the views that Catholics (are supposed to have) that their marriages are indissoluble. Or, for that matter, the bylaws of a club or association.


    The reason this is worth mentioning at all, I think, is for anti-Islamaphobic clarity of discussion in the public square: it is worth keeping in mind that "sharia law" does not necessarily mean we all get forced to follow it. Conversely, there are those who do want to restrict personal/private religious practice.


    Huh? How about muslims that are as liberal as you and I? If some form of sharia law was legally recognised would that not be identical to the discriminatory views of others being forced on them?

    See my immediately preceding para. Not sure where the issue of legal recognition comes in.

    Really think religious laws are fucked, all of them. We absolutely should not recognise them in a legal sense, whatever that would mean, beyond of course protecting people right to practice their religion, which they already have. No more freedoms beyond that, I say!


    I agree, and here is where a possible objection to religious 'laws', even if not inconsistent with secular laws arises: typically, under religious laws, someone is getting the rough end of the pineapple, and that someone is usually women. But I think in general persuasion and discussion is preferable to legal prohibition.
    WAS2018

  2. Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote Darwinsbulldog said View Post


    ...

    As I see it, we first have to look at our Western laws which are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian moral and perspectives.


    ...



    I'm not sure that, on the whole, that's correct. What would you like to change?
    WAS2018

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote wearestardust said View Post
    I'm not sure that, on the whole, that's correct. What would you like to change?
    Prayers in parliament for one thing. Chaplin's for Schools, the Constitution, anti-voluntary euthanasia. Quite a lot really. We are not a republic, and constitutional monarchy is definitely a Royal thing, and royalty traditionally traced back its authority to god.
    Drug laws. How difficult was it to change the law to allow marijuana use for medical reasons!

    Crime and punishment, mostly religiously based, and includes retribution. While many of these laws [and the religious assumptions behind them], have been watered down, there is still a lot left.

    The assumption that a religious education is good, particularly if it is Xian.

    Public nudity. Bans against public nudity [even in nudist camps or free beaches] have gradually been eroded a little.

    It is not that a religious idea is necessary bad [for example the laws against murder], but stuff like this should be argued in a secular way, using evidence and reason, not religious assumptions.

    Anti-abortion laws... it goes on.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  5. Like button knowledge is power, SEG liked this post
  6. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,129

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote wearestardust said View Post
    What I mean is, people consenting to follow rules within the confines of overarching secular legal frameworks. Islamic banking is an example.


    Despite widespread horror about people following sharia law on their own time, as it were, it's just like eg what Catholics used to think about eating meat on Fridays, or the views that Catholics (are supposed to have) that their marriages are indissoluble. Or, for that matter, the bylaws of a club or association.
    If by 'sharia law' we are talking the equivalency of 'by laws' for a club or soft religious dictates like eating fish on Friday, again, what the hell has this got to do with endorsing limited sharia law? These activities are already perfectly legal. Why add a layer of apparent legitimacy to their practice?


    The reason this is worth mentioning at all, I think, is for anti-Islamaphobic clarity of discussion in the public square: it is worth keeping in mind that "sharia law" does not necessarily mean we all get forced to follow it. Conversely, there are those who do want to restrict personal/private religious practice.
    You mean anti-Muslimphobia, right? Islam is stupid beyond belief. I actively go out of my way to point out its inherent idiocy. But we have to be careful to not create bigotry and mindless prejudice against people who identify as Muslims and to that end, it seems to me, that some panel formally recognizing 'sharia law' would be an absolute boon for bigots everywhere especially given that it would essentially be meaningless.

    It would increase prejudice against Muslims and it would validate Islam and that is the exact opposite of what we should be striving for.

    On the other hand, as you alluded to, the prospect of this religious freedom panel recognising sharia law may be so unappealing to the christians that no new freedoms, for any religion, will be identified, and that'd be a win.
    Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  7. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Warning! I just did a submission to the website and received no acknowledgement. It just went to another page.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  8. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote Darwinsbulldog said View Post
    ... massive snippage ...

    Ah. I initially read you as saying that the basis, as opposed to the content, of our laws are somehow inherently Christian. I broadly agree with your remarks (with a pedantic quibble about the assumption about religious education, which is a social norm, not a law. And I would say the assumption is about private education, not religious education, but it happens that because schools in Oz cannot be for profit, all or nearly all the private schools are religious schools, and the chaplaincy program which is not a law either).
    Last edited by wearestardust; 18th December 2017 at 06:23 PM.
    WAS2018

  9. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote pipbarber said View Post
    If by 'sharia law' we are talking the equivalency of 'by laws' for a club or soft religious dictates like eating fish on Friday, again, what the hell has this got to do with endorsing limited sharia law? These activities are already perfectly legal. Why add a layer of apparent legitimacy to their practice? ...

    With respect, Pip, you seem to be working very hard to read things into my comments that are not there and/or continuing some other debate elsewhere and at another time.


    I have said nothing about endorsing, or having any sort of legal recognition of, sharia law.


    I don't think the quote I was responding to says anything about these things either, except to express caution about it.
    WAS2018

  10. #18
    Loki's Avatar
    Loki is offline You get what everyone gets....you get a lifetime Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Up the creek
    Posts
    11,177

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote wearestardust said View Post
    I'm not sure I have an enormous problem with sharia law as a private arrangement provided that it does not conflict with secular law. Which effectively means, so long as it is optional and non-enforceable except by consent.
    There are a couple of issues I feel need to be sorted before the above comes into play, both of which render the above moot IMO.

    The first concerns the administration of any such scheme. Who appoints the judges and by which process is the scheme overseen and reviewed. Strikes me that religious law is likely to be administered by the religious and those appointed from within the religion and not by non-partisan arbiters.

    The second concerns those who are administered. Are all Muslims automatically to be considered under Sharia or do individuals have a say about the legal system they wish to be dealt with in? This particular issue is of concern where disputes between individual Muslims are concerned where the courts may arbitrarily weigh the testimony and rights of those before it differently, specifically thinking of divorce and family court proceedings here. Not all Muslims are fans of Sharia law (not talking about the airy-fairy feel-good definition of Sharia, talking about a codified system of enforceable laws under which actual citizens are actually judged).
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."Philip K. Dick


  11. Like button TokenSkeptic liked this post
    Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  12. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    not telling
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    Quote Loki said View Post
    There are a couple of issues I feel need to be sorted before the above comes into play, both of which render the above moot IMO.

    The first concerns the administration of any such scheme. Who appoints the judges and by which process is the scheme overseen and reviewed. Strikes me that religious law is likely to be administered by the religious and those appointed from within the religion and not by non-partisan arbiters.

    The second concerns those who are administered. Are all Muslims automatically to be considered under Sharia or do individuals have a say about the legal system they wish to be dealt with in? This particular issue is of concern where disputes between individual Muslims are concerned where the courts may arbitrarily weigh the testimony and rights of those before it differently, specifically thinking of divorce and family court proceedings here. Not all Muslims are fans of Sharia law (not talking about the airy-fairy feel-good definition of Sharia, talking about a codified system of enforceable laws under which actual citizens are actually judged).
    With the greatest of respect, I addressed all those issues directly or indirectly : please don't fall into the same trap as PB of finding views in my comments that I don't hold, or citing me while conducting a separate discussion that I'm not a part of.
    WAS2018

  13. Thank button The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  14. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,397

    Default Re: Religious Freedom review

    If there is to be any arrangement where "exotic" religious law is allowed, under the umbrella of Oz law, hopefully the same override conditions will apply to confessionals and other privileged xtian notions.
    EJB

    I’m not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


  15. Like button Darwinsbulldog liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •