Active Users:730 Time:13/07/2024 01:55:12 PM
Sweet. So, I'll make a religion with no punishment for theft... The Logic Ninja - 29/04/2004 02:52:56 PM

Of course you could... what you would find difficult is convincing other people to submit to your judgements. If you want to judge yourself, go ahead.
...and judge myself in my own religious court for stealing things, and not be punished.

The point that Muslim women might be pressured into submitting to these courts is valid, and that is a cause for concern. But something that perhaps not everyone gets is that the law of the land isn't affected by this. You can choose to have your case heard by an arbitrator, but you can decide not to. No Jew can (legally) compel another Jew to have their disputes settled by a rabbi. So it doesn't violate any rights or laws.
The law of the land is affected in that it is subverted--people are being tried, though consentually, under a different legal system. People should not be able, for better or for worse, to avoid the legal system just because of their beliefs.

Societal pressure is another matter entirely, and that's what Muslim women are concerned about.
That's also a concern, since what I know of Sharia law isn't exactly pleasant, but the whole thing is a bad idea.

Aerocontrols, they would have to allow Christians this privilege too, if they desired it. I'm from India, and in our country this whole thing is taken a step further. We have different civil laws for members of different communities. They are judged in the same courts, but according to a different set of laws for each religion. For example, the laws relating to divorce are different for Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. The criminal code is, of course, uniform. (Note to The Logic Ninja: This is what you disagree with, right? Here, the law of the land is not the law of the land. If you got married according to the rules of your new religion, you could use whatever divorce laws you wanted to. This isn't what Canada is doing, though)
That's ridiculous. For one thing, it panders to the large religions and screws the smaller ones--what's a wiccan going to do for divorce? And I'm an atheist, do they have to have special laws for me? And there's thousands of branches of major religions, many very different--laws for each of them, too?
If you're passing a law, it should be because that law *should be there* on a national scale. Splitting it up between the major religions ain't right.

What's funny is that here, some members of the majority community (Hindus) feel that this is unfair to them. They insist that we have a Uniform Civil Code. That might be fair, but the position that many fundamentalists take is not that a reasonable consensus should be evolved. Rather, everybody should follow the rules of the traditional Hindu community, because they're the majority. Some political parties have tried to make this an election issue, but thankfully the average Indian voter doesn't seem interested.
There SHOULD be a Uniform Civil Code. It certainly shouldn't be based on anybody's religion, though.


I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.




View/create new replies Sign up for a premium account to add posts to a list of favourites!
Sharia in Canada - 28/04/2004 02:51:39 PM 168 Views
Cute. *NM* - 28/04/2004 02:57:02 PM 7 Views
That's a rather puzzling response. *NM* - 28/04/2004 02:58:05 PM 5 Views
It's Snuggly legislation if I've ever seen it *NM* - 28/04/2004 03:01:34 PM 2 Views
I skimmed thorugh the article (reading it again now) but... - 28/04/2004 03:07:01 PM 18 Views
I now am registered at... - 28/04/2004 03:27:09 PM 15 Views
Didn't used to have to register at WaPost. - 28/04/2004 03:30:25 PM 7 Views
I guess the real test for those who would support the law - 28/04/2004 03:29:39 PM 20 Views
Good point. - 28/04/2004 03:32:33 PM 24 Views
Lots of stuff, Avi - 28/04/2004 03:40:12 PM 23 Views
I would argue... - 28/04/2004 04:05:41 PM 15 Views
Re: Lots of stuff, Avi - 28/04/2004 04:05:45 PM 12 Views
Yes, I know. - 28/04/2004 04:32:13 PM 15 Views
Re: Yes, I know. - 28/04/2004 04:40:58 PM 12 Views
- 28/04/2004 05:13:13 PM 17 Views
I don't read your replies. Ever. *NM* - 28/04/2004 06:16:08 PM 3 Views
*blink* *NM* - 28/04/2004 06:16:50 PM 4 Views
I didn't see that. *NM* - 28/04/2004 06:34:12 PM 2 Views
Re: Good point. - 28/04/2004 03:42:21 PM 11 Views
Well the article says... - 28/04/2004 03:33:02 PM 12 Views
That was my initial thought, too. *NM* - 28/04/2004 03:40:00 PM 2 Views
I don't support either. The law of the land is the law of the land. - 28/04/2004 04:23:53 PM 21 Views
Don't/Can't all individuals do that? *NM* - 28/04/2004 04:25:14 PM 5 Views
Re: I don't support either. The law of the land is the law of the land. - 29/04/2004 07:23:54 AM 10 Views
Very interesting and well said. *NM* - 29/04/2004 10:02:44 AM 2 Views
Sweet. So, I'll make a religion with no punishment for theft... - 29/04/2004 02:52:56 PM 6 Views
The law of the land is determined by social values, - 29/04/2004 04:11:55 PM 8 Views
This is wrong. - 28/04/2004 06:55:29 PM 14 Views
I agree. *NM* - 28/04/2004 11:30:23 PM 2 Views