Stop sharia law in Britain

[unozero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc


Good Video and yes laws that are influenced by any religions are bad (no alcohol on sundays lol)

 

[smwScott]

This guy .. I like this guy.

 

[CptStern]

I support banning sharia law ..but I also support banning religious arbitration (which is what sharia is) altogether ..so someone has to tell the orthodox and hasidic jews in the UK that they cant practice religious arbitration like they have been for centuries ...also cant allow mormons and other christian groups theiir religious arbitration either because only picking on muslims would be hypocritical


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm


so pat will get right on a denouncing jewish family court video or does he only criticise muslims?

 

[Mech Man]

This dude speaks teh troofs imo.

 

[Kadayi]

I support banning sharia law ..but I also support banning religious arbitration (which is what sharia is) altogether ..so someone has to tell the orthodox and hasidic jews in the UK that they cant practice religious arbitration like they have been for centuries ...also cant allow mormons and other christian groups theiir religious arbitration either because only picking on muslims would be hypocritical


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm


so pat will get right on a denouncing jewish family court video or does he only criticise muslims?

You have a fair point there. Its civil arbitration by consent, not actual British law. If you are going to rally against one, you have to rally against all others.

 

[unozero]

I'm sure Pat actually does.
just watch the some of his other videos he talks aboutr all major world religions.

 

[Kadayi]

Let's see them then.

 

[unozero]

**** oh well



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2MkODdVBuU about Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vaw658Bow8 about Judaism



etc....

 

[Remus]

Pat's hate mail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcTdkGDsxk&NR=1

 

[Eejit]

We had this debate ourselves, why bring Mr Youtube into it?

 

[soulslicer]

No worries, in about 50 years they will be out of oil, and out of money..

hopefully

 

[Baserape>]

Pats hate mail video is class.

 

[jverne]

I support banning sharia law ..but I also support banning religious arbitration (which is what sharia is) altogether ..so someone has to tell the orthodox and hasidic jews in the UK that they cant practice religious arbitration like they have been for centuries ...also cant allow mormons and other christian groups theiir religious arbitration either because only picking on muslims would be hypocritical


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm


so pat will get right on a denouncing jewish family court video or does he only criticise muslims?

in theory...yes we should ban any kind of religious courts. the only law that should be enforced is a secular one. i'm of course talking about secular countries like Britain seems to be.
they are not morons for having double standards towards islam but they are idiots for not following their only legitimate (atleast in my opinion) law.
but as i said...that is my view on things.

another thing that really interests me is how will muslim women deal with community pressure when deciding what court should they choose. i guess they would have very little chance of opposing their patriarchal community.
so i believe it will really become a huge problem, time will tell.

as far as i know Britain is a member of the UN and thus must abide by the UN universal human rights declaration. so therefore every british citizen has these rights.

an amongst them

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

http://www.udhr.org/udhr/default.htm

and i have a hunch that sharia law isn't a best friend of human rights.
so this is kind of a slap to the face for england.

so the way i see it most religious laws are discriminating in one form or another thus making them undesired. but i know this is just theory.

anyway...i stand by, forbidding religious courts in a secular country.



edit:

i'm just reading the universal islamic declaration of human rights

Man is born free. No inroads shall be made on his right to liberty except under the authority and in due process of the Law.

No person shall be denied the opportunity to work or be discriminated against in any manner or exposed to greater physical risk by reason of religious belief, colour, race, origin, sex or language.

It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to the Law, no matter by whom it may be issued.

Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.

and many more in http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

i really don't know what to say about it...at times it seems to be fair but often it is contradicting. it seems a bastardization of the UN one.
anyway it's not like we see many islamic countries actually abiding by it, so i'm guessing it is just a joke.

 

[Eejit]

You'd have to get rid of ALL civil case arbitration, otherwise you're discriminating based on religion.

And that would just be silly.

 

[CptStern]

but sharia law and religious arbitration is not hearing criminal cases it's mostly about mediating religious issues like marriage or divorce. I dont doubt women's rights are curtailed when it comes to these courts but no worse than hasidic jewish religious arbitration ..they too are forced(or as is most often the case: by choice) to live by a set of archaic rules that to westerners is often repugnant or alien beyond comprehension. Anyways, part of human rights is the right to religious beliefs and the right of religion being free of state intervention; one of the fundamental rights is the right to worship what you want regardless of how illogical it may be but that's as basic as the right to education ..you often have to take the bad with the good

 

[jverne]

but sharia law and religious arbitration is not hearing criminal cases it's mostly about mediating religious issues like marriage or divorce. I dont doubt women's rights are curtailed when it comes to these courts but no worse than hasidic jewish religious arbitration ..they too are forced(or as is most often the case: by choice) to live by a set of archaic rules that to westerners is often repugnant or alien beyond comprehension

i might be wrong...but i think that British law covers adequately issues like marriage or divorce, at least our law does. so there is no need for divine intervention

as for the religious laws being strange and beyond comprehension...not at all, i do comprehend them enough to know, i don't support them, because they are based on ancient traditions and laws that the western (secular/civil/modern) society outgrew some time ago.

jews are in the same bucket of shit as muslims and christians or any other crappy dogma that want's to stone women, hang gays, ban critical thinking and science,...

Anyways, part of human rights is the right to religious beliefs and the right of religion being free of state intervention; one of the fundamental rights is the right to worship what you want regardless of how illogical it may be but that's as basic as the right to education ..you often have to take the bad with the good

well obviously giving rights to someone who doesn't like you to have the same freedom/rights is a bad idea don't you think?
it's really a self destructive logic.
ok i've might have oversimplified a bit here.
that's the thing...in a secular society you should be given the right to worship whatever you want but that should in no way interfere with established laws.

 

[nurizeko]

Its civil arbitration, it neither undermines the rule of British law nor makes a religious law binding over British subjects.

If you agree to the arbitration then thats your decision.


And since civil arbitration in British law is older then most of your countries without turning a nation into the Daily Mail's idea of an Islamic Britain I say GG, thread over.



Instead of attacking one nation for its tolerance, lets attack another for its lack of.

Iran for a start.

 

[Eejit]

i might be wrong...but i think that British law covers adequately issues like marriage or divorce, at least our law does. so there is no need for divine intervention

Divorce settlements are messy things. There are no universal hard and fast rules.

well obviously giving rights to someone who doesn't like you to have the same freedom/rights is a bad idea don't you think?
it's really a self destructive logic.

Are you ****ing serious? Only people who agree with us ger human rights lolol!

 

[jverne]

Its civil arbitration, it neither undermines the rule of British law nor makes a religious law binding over British subjects.

If you agree to the arbitration then thats your decision.

actually nobody said anything against that.

the thing i am worried how much of a choice will someone have wheen choosing what law to use when the peers put pressure on him.

i thing there can be only one law for everyone.

And since civil arbitration in British law is older then most of your countries without turning a nation into the Daily Mail's idea of an Islamic Britain I say GG, thread over.



Instead of attacking one nation for its tolerance, lets attack another for its lack of.

Iran for a start.

actually there is nothing to criticize about iran...it's widely known to be an insane country with insane leaders and those who support them.

Divorce settlements are messy things. There are no universal hard and fast rules.

how does that make religious arbitrary courts any more sensible?
why don't i have a FSM religious court if we really want to go that way?

Are you ****ing serious? Only people who agree with us ger human rights lolol!

i agree that it sounds a bit fascist and oversimplified...read again this part since i've edited before i could see your response.
it was maybe a bit imprudent of me saying that in such a vague way.
what i wanted to say with that is that it is not a safe idea to give rights to people who want to destroy our way of living.
that is why terrorists and nazis are in our view seen as criminals ...but i don't see you being outraged by that

 

[CptStern]

Divorce settlements are messy things. There are no universal hard and fast rules.

what rules?

duct tape, shovel, shotgun, long drive through the countryside

 

[Sulkdodds]

The real issue is not whether civil arbitration should be allowed - it should - but whether many British Muslims, especially Muslim women, are in a position to fairly determine their own actions. The main problem with allowing this stuff is that a lot of the time, the decisions taken within the shariah system will be problematically affected by the location of the claimants within repressive communities.

Laivasse said this in the last thread and put it better than me.

 

[nurizeko]

what rules?

duct tape, shovel, shotgun, long drive through the countryside

The only problem with that Stern is you triggered FBI monitoring so your probably on a watch list for when you decide you and your missus have irreconcilable differences.

 

[Mech Man]

Pat's hate mail

*vid-snip*

How the jesus-nuggets can you hit some one slowly with a hammer anyway? Wouldnt that like , not hurt at all? :dozey:

Edit : i Rofl'd at the "A.I.D's truck" though.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I like how he says mentally ill but in truth it applies to all religion as the form of 'brainwashing shit from birth'

 

[Eejit]

how does that make religious arbitrary courts any more sensible?
why don't i have a FSM religious court if we really want to go that way?

I'm defending arbitration in general. You can't just ban one way of working it, that would be religious discrimination.

 

[Sulkdodds]

rofl, jverne.

Arbitration =/= arbitrary/

 

[jverne]

I'm defending arbitration in general. You can't just ban one way of working it, that would be religious discrimination.

who said anything about banning just islamic courts?

rofl, jverne.

Arbitration =/= arbitrary/

ups...my bad

 

[Eejit]

Banning all civil arbitration would not be a Good Thing.

It's not just used by the religious fyi...

 

[jverne]

Banning all civil arbitration would not be a Good Thing.

It's not just used by the religious fyi...

emm...who said all civil arbitration courts? i mean all the religious. as for the other non religious i can't really comment for now.

 

[Eejit]

... that's still religious discrimination.

 

[jverne]

... that's still religious discrimination.

tell that to the US atheists...

oh and from my POV, religion shouldn't really have any bigger role in society other than being amusing fiction stories which anyone can freely believe in their own home and nowhere else.

but you know...that's just me.

 

[Eejit]

Yeah, that is a minority opinion. So why try to force it on everyone else? Is freedom of belief meaningless to you?

 

[jverne]

Yeah, that is a minority opinion. So why try to force it on everyone else? Is freedom of belief meaningless to you?

well excuse me if i want proper science to be taught in public schools...instead of some fictional guy walking on water. silly me for not bowing down to the majority.


freedom of belief is an essential aspect of being a modern culture...it's just hard of being passive about it when God tells Bush to invade Iraq or when the only legitimate presidential candidates are Obama the God fearing islamic terrorist and McCain the second cumming of Christ.
let me not start on the creationism being taught in schools thingie...













oh and i apologize for being a bit condescending

 

[Mech Man]

Freedom of belief is cool and all , but i just dont like other people beliefs being forced in our faces day in , day out until we finally give up and say "f**k this i'll join". Its just not right , it goes against the first point , what gave those people the freedom in the first place .I would even go as far as saying its hypocrisy.

 

[Eejit]

Uh yeah you're forgiven for missing the point jverne, as usual.

Freedom of belief has nothing to do with the teaching of science.

 

[jverne]

Uh yeah you're forgiven for missing the point jverne, as usual.

Freedom of belief has nothing to do with the teaching of science.

i think i didn't miss the point.

what you say goes for in true secular countries.

when the majority believes in a religion it is bound to have a effect on lawmaking and society.

explain to me how is that not interconnected or at least not correlated?

 

[Eejit]

Yeah, isn't it called democracy?

 

[jverne]

Yeah, isn't it called democracy?

well i must agree with you... a "democracy" of idiots it's still a democracy. (not that the two party US system is democratic)

actually i've run out of arguments, because you're right. if the majority of idiots want to teach creationism in school instead of evolution well...it's their democratic right. which is in a way sad but ok...i give you that. not that i will ever uncritically conform to such standards.

in this case the none believers become the discriminated against...so we're kind of stuck in a closed loop.

oh and i don't imply that freedom of belief is wrong (that would be insane), i'm just saying it has it's critical shortcomings.

maybe it would be wiser to debate who is allowed to to vote and who is not...but yeah, that is also a bit silly.

 

[Eejit]

I agree the situation isn't ideal (esp. creationism in science class), but sometimes you just have to take the bad with the good in a democrazy.

 

[jverne]

I agree the situation isn't ideal (esp. creationism in science class), but sometimes you just have to take the bad with the good in a democrazy.

yes...i agree on that