Ahh, the famous slippery slope. “Some people believe X, so we shouldn’t do Y.”
(For the record, I’m opposed to any official recognition of Sharia in civil disputes, including marriages.)
'Course, you should realise that by now a whole bunch of 'em came from, well, here.
I’m entirely unsurprised that you don’t care what I think of you, and it’s just as well given how seldom I do. I would have thought, however, that you might be just the slightest bit embarrassed to be being so stridently, palpably and demonstrably wrong in front of so many people. I suppose you’ll find enough idiots to join in your little crusade against a non-existent strawman to keep you happy, though.
You’re saying that there are enough hard core Muslim fundamentalists currently living in the UK that there’s a genuine danger of the country officially adopting capital punishment for Islamic religious crimes into their system of law?
Should I ask for a cite, or can I just start laughing now?
If you can draw me a line between a proposal of voluntary, conditional application of those aspects of Sharia that don’t conflict with existing law, and the public execution of, say, apostates, then I’ll listen (assuming nobody blows me over with a feather first). But no, you’ve got to work a bit harder than saying, “there are some nutters out there.” As it is there are several honking great big doors blocking the way to your supposed nightmare conclusion, and you haven’t dealt with any of them.
Why should I? I’m not the one who wants to bring in a system of laws built on systemic unfairness. The ones voluntarily submitting to this hurt not only themselves but also set precedents for hurting their daughters (speaking of which, there are probably those who don’t feel FGM should be outlawed either, would you support that, that’s not killing anyone, and billions of people can’t be wrong!)
It’s one thing to agree to a one-off agreement within the existing secular court system, quite another to give any credence to an inherently unfair system.
There’s enough of them that given enough official recognition of Sharia law I can forsee an increase in honor killings since the subjugation of women will seem more culturally condoned, even if it’s never officially adopted.
And the more you give the hardliners the more they will ask for. Just hearing about their demands reduces the tone of discourse in the nation, because while they have a right to debate their stance, having so many people agree with such a fundamentally unfree law regime just gives legitimacy to that point of view.
But while criminalizing speech would cause more harm than good, legitimizing discrimination would do so also.
I heartily congratulate chowder for his embodiment of the concepts of fair play and stiff-upper-lippedness through his neglect to read beyond the title of an article and apparent punctuation-destroying rage. It gladdens my heart, as an Englishman, when my fellow countrymen decide that - when shown their arguments are overblown, exaggerated, hyperbole - they will not admit their mistake, but rather attempt to ignore and deflect those criticisms. As a Brit I find myself in awe that a representative of my people finds it reasonable to assume that the Archibishop of Canterbury is probably in favour of floggings, beheadings and the like, and cordially invites the gentleman in question to bugger off whence he came. Presumably to Wales.
I too don’t want Sharia law in this country. But - and here’s the shocking part - i’m perfectly free to suggest that! As indeed is the Archibishop. Now, having read the article in question (apparently unlike the OP) I don’t seem to see where it is in there that he threatens an uprising of some kind, or armed insurrection. Now, in my books “calling for something to occur” does not generally mean forcing a law in against the wishes of the majority, as it appears to be being interpreted. But then hey, I guess i’m just silly like that.
If you raise a specific objection to an idea, it’s customary for you to justify it at least somewhat, rather than waving your hands at some putative nutters who will in some unspecified way gain the power to completely rewrite the very basis of our justice system. Your comments regarding increases in honour killings is already quite a backtracking from your original claim, and you’ll note also (assuming you’ve read the transcript) that the Archbishop dealt with the issue of reinforcing repressive customs in quite some depth.
Re: the hardliners, I think you’re making the same error so many make in these sorts of discussions; you’re focusing so very hard on denying things to people you dislike that you’re forgetting there’s a massive moderate middle ground. You can’t abdicate responsibility for dealing with reasonable people just because by doing so you might accidentally please some bastards. Why assume such limp-wristedness in the future? Aren’t we strong enough to separate out the discriminatory from the merely different? Why chuck the baby out with the bathwater, simply for a lack of belief that we can tell the difference?
Moreover, your characterisations of “legitimising discrimination” are wide of the mark, given that Dr Williams explicitly disavowed any intention or desire to import the chauvinistic elements of some Sharia interpretations. It’d be much easier to have this discussion if people actually addressed what he actually said, rather than running straight to the worst possible interpretation and going from there.
Williams isn’t just a man with no political power though. He’s a man in a state appointed position, and therein lies the problem of establishment. However much some don’t like it, the UK is (and pretty much always has been) a multicultural society. When one religion has a legal status denied to others, and protections denied to others, then I can quite see how people think the system is unfair to them.
The solution is to get rid of the concept of an established church. Then turn round to anyone who wants to impose any kind of theocratic law and tell them that the only way to do so is through the ballot box. If they fail there, then tough.
But I’m not in favor of theocratic legal systems even in civil law. I am also not a big fan of separate legal systems for separate parts of England, as I think the rule of law and the uniformity of that law is a very important factor in an integrated, multicultural society.
Well, no one provided a link but the ones I found did not disabuse me of the notions that he’s a pansified Chamberlain.
I don’t really see why I should be the one to prove that the ones that push an Islamic approved law would be content to stop at voluntary marital law. It’s dangerous enough and brings little enough to the table that it would be like allowing the consuption of already dead people to pacify a rabidly pro-cannibalism faction in your country. The full act of murderous cannibalism is already at the end of a whole pre existing system.
I don’t see from the quotations from Muslim groups any disavowment of the worst aspects of Sharia, and unlike most instances this IS appropriate because they are advocating for part of the system. But even if they did, you are allowed to mask your true intentions if you are living under infidel law until you are powerful enough to make all the changes you really want.
Post 16.
No doubt, many UK Muslims would want to press for the full medieval theocratic bundle. The point you seem to be missing is that the chances of this actually happen are so small they can only be measured by electron microscope. It’s not a rational basis from which one can argue against this proposal, because there’s no rational way one can argue that Muslim radicals in the UK will ever be in a position of sufficient power to enact such sweeping changes to UK law.
Wait-wouldn’t that just make it more dangerous? Because they’d probably be out drinking all over the streets, or whatever, rather than being confined in the bars.
'Cuz ya know, there’s just absolutely no historical precedent whatsoever for Muslims displacing and/or dominating Christians and other non-Muslims. It’s just never happened anywhere. Of course, the French have compiled a list of “751 sensitive urban zones,” Muslim neighborhoods and communities of which the French government has simply lost control, but I guess anyone who takes note of facts such as that is just a xenophobe. Or an Islamophobe. Or some kind of phobe. :rolleyes:
I’m just going to let this analogy breathe for a bit - like a nicely corked bottle of red that you’ve been saving for just the right occasion, it’s going to take a minute or two for its full ghastliness to be apparent.
You don’t have to; indeed, I’m sure some wouldn’t be. You do have to prove that they would be able to overcome the positively enormous hurdles that would be required to introduce the changes you fear, though. You haven’t done remotely done so. If you’re arguing a slippery slope, you have to demonstrate its plausibility. It’s not sufficient to simply say that some people might want to do something bad, because you’re completely ignoring the reasons behind Williams’ proposals, its very clear limits and the manifest obstacles to going further. If it makes you happy to debate entirely outwith the context of the discussion at hand, fine, but it’s not really going to get you anywhere.
Here (again) is the full text of Williams’ address. I challenge you to describe the thoughtful, reasoned arguments contained therein as pandering or appeasement. You may very well disagree with them (I do), but the grounds on which you are doing so are facile and unjustified.
It makes you someone who lacks the wit to connect these areas with, say, the Projects in the US or any other high-density, low-employment housing developments across the world, and notice that the common factor is poverty and disaffection, not race or religion.
Whether this lack of critical faculty is a result of prejudice or mere intellectual inadequacy is pretty much immaterial.
Well that was a wasted 10 minutes. Inasmuch as it said anything, it was a half-embrace of the worst aspects of the cultural relativists. But it was tempered somewhat in that aspect by not saying much of anything.
Again, in the full text there is nothing to disabuse me of the notion that there are not enough people who want to take this too far that giving them a little bit would be too much.
English law or Sharia law?
But why should it? Why do you let your fear of idiots prevent you from engaging with reasonable people? Do you deny that there exist reasonable Muslims? Do you deny that there are any aspects of Sharia law that might possibly be uncontroversial? We already have Sharia banks, you know, and to the best of my knowledge not one patron has been stoned to death for filling out form 57(b) wrong.
Did the Fed recently balk at cutting interest rates because they feared it might be pandering to opponents of “fiat money”, and that the inescapable conclusion would be the abolishment of such, followed by a return to the gold standard? No. Why, then, should possibly reasonable cultural concessions be written off in toto because of a fear that we might find ourselves cutting off our right hands to avoid spiting a nutter? Are we really that weak-willed that we’re afraid to countenance anything for fear that our critical faculties will desert us?
Personally I’m all for this one - given the highly secular nature of the bulk of the population the fact that we still have an established Church is tantamount to anachronism.
Whilst I agree that there is nothing to be feared from suggesting that Sharia law could be applied in certain circumstances (mainly because it’s so very unlikely to happen), it’s still not a very smart thing for Williams to be doing in the current climate. Furthermore plurality of legal systems is not a good idea in my book - it has the dilute the principle of equality before the law (and is also a serious bitch to apply practically).
Exactly right. For example, if we have an internet forum with open subscriptions, which allow anyone to join and speak their mind, there’s a very real risk that LonesomePolecat will post. None the less, this is not a sufficient argument for closing down the SDMB.
Well, in this regard I again can only feel sympathy for him. He consistently overestimates this country’s capacity for intelligent debate, certainly, but this is a failing I’m willing to forgive indefinitely. In a climate where idiots like the OP are willing to think no further about an issue than what stupid cliche to hurl at the filthy Muzzers this time, he should really be commended for giving genuine thought to what a society is, what implications individual communities have, and how coexistence can be managed without compromising the foundations they’re all based on. Not his fault that he’s surrounded by morons who think all the Muslims are fresh off the boat and demanding McDonald’s serve only halal meat by Friday.
I completely agree with you re: establishment, however. I just think that as regards Williams’ point today, we can abstract away religion altogether. I see no reason why citizens should not be able to nominate extra-judicial mediation services in certain situations, as long as both parties are entirely free to resort to established law should they feel the need. I don’t care if they’re resolving their divorce on Sharia principles or on the basis of Inverse Analising Teaspoon Theory, as long as both parties freely consent to it. I don’t really see how this is any different from regular divorce mediation*, as long as there’s no coercive element involved.
*Indeed many would argue that current divorces are run according to the IATT…