Definitely. I agree on that. And I wouldn't for a second suggest that we should contemplate adopting any religious inspired laws. Nor should we have seperate laws for any group of adults compared with any other group of adults. It's just important that we don't use every event where some nutter says something stupid about a religion to demonise ethnic groups, which is what a lot of discussions along the lines of this one seem to decend into. Justify that, or retract it. Or appear to be a moron. Choice is up to you.
Well, there's a provoking headline. What happens when two people have an altercation and one is, say, Shi'a, and the other Sunni? But yes! Splendid wheeze old boy. Give everyone the option of avoiding the British legal system simply because they are religious! Genius! We'll have a muslim, christian, jewish, and sikh court, because they all deserve special treatment. I can see just how those divorce settlements will turn out. Man: Take the lot, god smiles upon you. Woman: Death sentence for daring to exist. Cool, I'm all for it, just as soon as women expats in bikinis are welcome in down-town Riyadh having opted for western cultural loyalty. Wait. No. +1
Have any Muslims called for Sharia law to be implemented, or is this similar to the Christmas decoration thing in which a stodgy old non-Muslim speaks for the Muslim crowd? -monkey
I never said it didn't happen, but if I was to move to spain I'd make sure I could speak enough to get by before I got there and then learn as much as possible as quickly as possible. It really annoys me when people say one thing but then won't follow their advice/recommendations.
Right. My point was only that we should make sure if we're going to start slinging mud at pakistani immigrants (let's face it, it's that group that's being demonised pretty much constantly) then we should be throwing the same mud at English people in the south of Spain. I doubt that'll happen though.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with the Sharia marriage laws and why our (British peoples') Christianity-based ones are better? Surely that's what would happen if this were to go forward?
We are not a Islamist state. Most of their laws are archaic at best. Tho that can be said for Christanity laws but that said we are in a Christian country.
In truth I don't understand why marriage is a legal term in the first place, marriage in my opinion should hold absolutely no legal standing. It is a personal matter between two people. I do not want laws to have any religious connotation what so ever, I want our legal system to be 100% secular.
****ing joke to be quite honest, and on the BBC News they said that the majority of Muslims will be against this, and that's pretty bang on to be honest. My Dad (who used to be a proper Muslim, now he is a wannabe, heh, eats pork, doesn't pray etc) was going quite nuts about this, saying this is a ****ing joke, and whoever thought of the idea should be shot (well along those guidlines anyway). PC is nowat a point where it's actually a laughing stock, it started off correct, but the term PC is being abused, a lot.
They're not (well, not all that much) but divorce law in the UK is secular. Both husband and wife can file, no justification required, commonality of goods applies. In any case, don't get blinded by the Muslim aspect of this. Here we have an Archbishop of the Anglican church saying how nice it would be if people could have the option to follow their own religious laws rather than secular law: This is in the wake of Catholic adoption agencies refusing to consider homosexual parents, a refusal of gay marriage, protests against stem cell research and the split in the church caused by the notion of female priests, to name a few examples. We already see the results of fundamental religion interfering in democratic secular rule in the US. Trust me, Dr Williams is batting for his own team.
Too true, too often the loud minority groups are able to bully smaller interest groups because the silent majority just sits at home and watches American Idle.
Lets take that one step further. These people are citizens in a democrtatic state. They have axactly the same rights to petition for a change in the laws to better suit their views of how things should be. If they can convince the majority to support those changes, or the majority consents through their apathy, then the changes become law. This is called democracy. Nowhere does it say you have a right to live someplace where things never change.
Making legal exemptions/options for various religious faiths is a slippery slope I hope most democratic nations avoid. By the same token, it is the inherent responsibility for citizens of a democratic nation to be involved in the process, making their opinions known through voting and other means. It is a shame how many foolish ideas are made into policy through the apathy of people.
+1 If the duly elected representatives of the population vote to allow Sharia law and the people disagree then the people are perfectly capable of voting for someone else who will overturn the changes. The land we stand on has no religious or ideological viewpoints it is merely where we live. As soon as someone has citizenship they gain the right to a say in how the land is run, as an individual living here you have no right to expect the land to continue to be run how you think it should.
Technically I'm an Immigrant, I was born is South Africa. My farther is English and my mother was South African (she is now an English citizen). From the moment I was born my legal nationality has been English, due to my fathers nationality, and I have lived in England since the age of 2. I have no memories of the country of my birth and I have never been there since coming to england. As far as I am concerned I am 100% English, just the same as you. My opinions on immigration are quite strong, having had to put up with a lot of hassle from both the British and South African Governments in getting a passport and proving my nationality. I think immigration is a very good thing, but it gets my goat when people can come over here and are given money and housing for doing nothing. England is seen as an easy target for freeloaders and it is this aspect of immigration that I feel needs to be sorted first and foremost, even if it is only a small percentage of immigrants who do this. When It comes to changing a countries laws to fit your needs/beliefs, then you need to find a new country. I live here and I must adhere to this countries laws, not the laws of my country of birth. I would love to emigrate to Germany and if I was to do so then I fully agree with the requirements that Germany has for immigrants to live there, such as registering your address with the local government/police department and carrying an ID card. Why should I petition to change their laws if I am going to live there of my own accord? I'm strongly against ID cards in the UK, but if I want to live in Germany then it is a condition that I have to accept. As to specofdust's coments on the south of Spain with the ex-pats not learning the local language and not integrating into the community, I personally put this down to general British ignorance of foreign cultures and the lack of foreign language education in schools. One of my main regrets is that I can only speak English, I would love to have had the chance to learn another language, fluently, at school. Schools across Europe do this as standard, why cant we? I always feel a bit of a c-nut being in a foreign country and not being able to say more than a few phrases (and badly at that). Yes I could learn a new language now, but at the moment I just can not fit it in with my current commitments. Gonna stop ranting now as it's gone a bit off topic me thinks. </rant>
+1 Absolutely spot on! EDIT: I was just doing my morning news catch up when i came across this on the bbc site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm And a bit later in the article
