Active Users:147 Time:13/07/2024 03:01:18 PM
Re: Sweet. So, I'll make a religion with no punishment for theft... Nitish - 29/04/2004 11:40:48 PM

...and judge myself in my own religious court for stealing things, and not be punished.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear... you can't judge yourself under your own court unless the victim of the theft agrees to that. If you were the victim, you could't judge the case unless the thief also agreed to it. The only time you could be at an advantage would be if you're sueing yourself!

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.

No, no... in Canada, it's the SAME legal system. Look, it's like this. Assume my neighbour and I are both Jewish. I get into some minor dispute with him and we can't resolve it amicably. One solution is to go to court. But then there's a huge loss of time and money, plus the fact that I don't really want to sue my neighbour and humiliate him, and maybe I don't want to risk being humiliated in public. Perhaps he feels the same way. So we go to our neighbourhood rabbi, who has been trained in the Canadian legal system and in arbitration. He listens to our case and tries to solve the problem by dealing with it on the legal merits and his knowledge of human nature. He may, in addition, draw on any religous scriptures we both acknowledge to convince us that
his decision was wise. He may NOT, though, pass a judgement that violates the rights guaranteed to us under Canadian law. In any case, if we're dissatisfied, we can appeal his decision.

Also, Mediators / arbitrators often work out compromises, which is a different role from that of judges. For example, Norway is (or was) mediating between the government and rebels in Sri Lanka. The US should be mediating between Israel and Palestine.

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?

The laws aren't all that different. Mostly it's just a minor change in response to religous sensibilities. Still may not be a good thing, though.

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.

There SHOULD be a Uniform Civil Code. It certainly shouldn't be based on anybody's religion, though.
Glad we agree on this one

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
Re: Sweet. So, I'll make a religion with no punishment for theft... - 29/04/2004 11:40:48 PM 6 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