What is it with Radical Muslims and beheadings?

[Niblo]

Exactly

Nice one

Have a great New Year (Decade).

 

[Notanumber]

For the record - UK prisons promoting Islamist extremism: Report

Whether legal or not, Sharia rules in UK prisons.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I thought I explained it,these courts are family disputes,nuisance neighbours etc,simple arbitration with no power to administer law.

These courts verdicts and decisions become binding under UK law or their decisions are useless. That is why they are called courts. Does England law recognize their decisions or not? If Shariah Court says this couple is divorced, what does English law say? If English Law recognizes the divorce and the Shariah court ruling, then the Shariah court is administering law.

See, 'Shariah Law UK-Current status of Islams Shariah Law' billionbibles.org/shariah/uk-shariah-law-html

See, 'The Trumpet-Invasion from within' thetrumpet.com/5793-invasion-from-within

As I said, get your wife fitted for a berka. I suspect you already own one.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

@England my lionheart

See also, 'Shariah Courts operating in Britian by Richard Edwards, Sept. 14, 2008

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Niblo]

Extracted (my emphasis throughout) from:

‘The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales - Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Command of Her Majesty - February 2018

‘To the best of our knowledge, there are no sharia councils in Scotland. For the purposes of this review we are defining sharia councils as a voluntary local association of scholars who see themselves or are seen by their communities as authorised to offer advice to Muslims principally in the field of religious marriage and divorce.

‘Sharia councils have no legal status and no legal binding authority under civil law……..Thus if any decisions or recommendations are made by a sharia council that are inconsistent with domestic law (including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010) domestic law will prevail. Sharia councils will be acting illegally should they seek to exclude domestic law………….Common misconceptions around sharia councils often perpetuate owing to the use of incorrect terms such as referring to them as ‘courts’ rather than councils or to their members as ‘judges’. These terms are used both in media articles but also on occasion by the sharia councils themselves. It is important to note that sharia councils are not courts and they should not refer to their members as judges. It is this misrepresentation of sharia councils as courts that leads to public misconceptions over the primacy of sharia over domestic law and concerns of a parallel legal system.’

Anyone wishing to dispute the highlighted passages should contact the current UK Attorney-General, the Rt Hon Geoffrey Cox QC PC MP, or his deputy, the Solicitor General, the Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC MP.

I'm sure they'll be more than happy to read what you have to say, and to benefit from your knowledge of UK Law.

 

[Earthtank]

I know it's not right to hate Islam, because it's large, and doing so is racist... So then, how do we know for sure which Muslims to hate, if that's what we're supposed to do?

That's like asking which Jew, Hindu,Christian or whatever to hate. You are asking the wrong question and the answer to you question will only breed hate and violence (since that also seems where its coming from). You should not hate any theist or atheist simply for being a theist or atheist. Rather, if you truly are bent on hate (which is followed by violence) then, you should look at individuals that have very specific actions such as, murders, rapist, pedophiles, ISIS, and so forth. Any and all religions can be misinterpreted or weaponized to breed hate, that does not mean that, that is truly what the religion/book says. I think you need to 1) Educate your hating self on Islam and 2) Stop trying to deal with everything through hate 3) Stop looking "for sure which Muslims to hate".

 

[dianaiad]

Separation is about government telling people what to believe or using religion against the population as per anti-Catholic laws in the UK created since the Reformation lasting until 1950 or so. Some practices are illegal thus separation does not cover any/all practices.

I think you have an odd idea of the concept/definition of 'separation,' if you think that 'separation is about government telling people what to believe or using religion against the population..." "separation of church and state' means precisely the opposite of that.

 

[dianaiad]

Never mentioned on this thread in any post addressed to me

You only read posts that are specifically addressed to you, in any thread? That can cause confusion.

 

[dianaiad]

I am all for state staying out of religion.
But for that to happen, religion has to stay out of state.
Good luck with that.

Well, it's hard enough to get the state to stay out of religion. In spite of the Constitution, we've had all sorts of problems with that.

It's a LOT easier to get 'the church' to stay out of 'the state.' there is, after all, no 'state religion.' Unless you are suggesting that anybody who happens to have some sort of belief regarding deity should be disallowed from participating in government? That would pretty much eliminate everybody, y'know

 

[dianaiad]

I think....there may be some confusion as to the basic premise of Sharia law and church courts...or rather, those who are defending the idea of Sharia law are equivocating more than a little bit.

Catholic church courts, Eclesiastical courts (including LDS and every other....) courts, pretty much everywhere, have no, repeat, NO, legal force. No decision by them can result in jail time, enforceable fines, or indeed any other punishment; the most serious of disciplines is expulsion from the group holding the court. This is no different from being, er...kicked out of the country club or the Lady's auxiliary of whatever. There are no legal consequences that can be leveled by these courts, and the Catholics, the Protestant church councils, etc, KNOW this. If legal consequences are desired, they are sought through civil and/or criminal courts, which do have this power of enforcement.

What seems to be happening here is that some of you are saying that Sharia law is the same as the above sorts of religious courts, and that those who support it want nothing more than the power those courts have.

But that's not what is happening. When Muslims say that Sharia law should be held above the US constitution, they aren't saying that Sharia only applies within the religious community and it's decisions are not legally enforceable. They are saying that they want Sharia law to BE the 'law of the land' instead of the Constitution. It's a very different thing.

.....and having any nation recognize Sharia law as enforceable is a very bad idea. Having a nation recognize, as legally enforceable, ANY decision by ANY religious court is a bad idea.

I understand that the UK allows religious wedding ceremonies, complete with vow taking and all the bells and whistles. Shoot, didn't everybody in the (at least) western world see the wedding of William and Kate?

However, no matter how impressive that ceremony was (and it was) and how much the members of the Church of England counted it as valid, William and Kate were not actually legally married until they went in back to a private room and signed the appropriate paperwork, so that the GOVERNMENT said they were married.

I read something in this thread that stated that the UK recognizes divorces when declared by Sharia law. If this is true, that is a very, very, VERY bad thing.

Catholics do not recognize divorce; a divorced person has a really difficult time remarrying in the Catholic faith. That's his/her problem, and enforceable within the context of the CHURCH....but the government will recognize both divorce and remarriage. The two concepts are separate, and they SHOULD be.

Do not equate private church courts with the law of the land.

 

[McBell]

Well, it's hard enough to get the state to stay out of religion. In spite of the Constitution, we've had all sorts of problems with that.

It's a LOT easier to get 'the church' to stay out of 'the state.' there is, after all, no 'state religion.' Unless you are suggesting that anybody who happens to have some sort of belief regarding deity should be disallowed from participating in government? That would pretty much eliminate everybody, y'know

Actually, I am flat out saying that religion needs to keep its nose out of state if religion wants the state to keep its nose out of religion.
I am saying it is a two way street.
Prop * is a prime example of religion sticking its nose into state.
All these asinine abortion laws are yet another example.
Banning same sex marriage yet another.

So yeah, religion is all the time sticking its nose into state and then whining when its nose gets smacked.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, I am flat out saying that religion needs to keep its nose out of state if religion wants the state to keep its nose out of religion.
I am saying it is a two way street.
Prop * is a prime example of religion sticking its nose into state.
All these asinine abortion laws are yet another example.
Banning same sex marriage yet another.

So yeah, religion is all the time sticking its nose into state and then whining when its nose gets smacked.

....and WHICH religion is doing all this?

Tell me: isn't your opposition to Prop 8, abortion laws and banning same sex marriage an example of YOU sticking YOUR opinions regarding religion into the state politics?

Every single one of us votes according to our opinions and philosophical or religious beliefs. Theists do include their opinions in their votes, and ATHEISTS include their opinions in THEIR votes. If someone promoting abortion is not an example of a religion sticking its 'nose into state,' then neither is a religion sticking its nose into the state if a theist has a different opinion and votes that way. If a specific religion/church tells its congregation to vote one way or another (something my own belief system DOES NOT DO), then even that is not 'religion sticking its nose into state,' any more than American Atheists is sticking IT'S 'nose into state' when it promotes a certain political agenda...by asking its members to vote a certain way.

I'm sorry, but I get REALLY annoyed when a non-theist figures that BECAUSE s/he is a non-theist, that his/her political beliefs are better than a theist BECAUSE his/her opinions are based in 'other than theist' foundations.

Opposition to abortion is NOT 'religion sticking its nose into state.' My objection to abortion is NOT because of my religion, for instance.
Opposition to same sex marriage is NOT 'religion sticking its "nose into state." Quite the opposite. Back when California was debating Prop 8, EVERY single gay or lesbian I spoke to insisted that their purpose was not to get marriage rights for themselves (at the time, California gave more rights to same sex partners than married couples had). Their purpose was to force the religions to recognize same sex marriages eclesiastically; WITHIN THEIR RELIGIONS, so that, for instance, same sex couples would have the right to be married in LDS Temples.

that isn't what happened...at least not yet, but that was their declared intention. Now WHICH group was 'sticking its nose' anywhere? They were out to get the state to interfere in a religion.

It would have been the same as if the state told Catholics that will they, nil they, they HAD to allow divorced people to get married in Catholic ceremonies by Catholic clergy, and have Catholicism recognize their marriages religiously.

No. "Religion' isn't sticking its 'nose into state.' there is no state religion dictating anything to you. Theists who vote are NOT 'religion dictating to the state.'

 

[McBell]

No. "Religion' isn't sticking its 'nose into state.' there is no state religion dictating anything to you. Theists who vote are NOT 'religion dictating to the state.'

Bull ****.
When religions try to get laws passed based solely on their beliefs, it is religion sticking its nose into state.

Prop 8 was just that.

 

[dianaiad]

Bull ****.
When religions try to get laws passed based solely on their beliefs, it is religion sticking its nose into state.

Prop 8 was just that.

I was there. I KNOW what Prop 8 was about. We weren't attempting to get anything passed based solely on our beliefs. We were attempting to prevent the state from telling our religion what they had to do...RELIGIOUSLY.

remember; we had NO problems with the domestic partnership thing, where same sex couples had MORE rights as couple, legally, than married couples. We had no problem with them having rights. It was the rights they were attempting to take away from US that was the problem....and every single gay marriage advocate I spoke to at the time was VERY clear that it was forcing religious acceptance of same sex marriage that was the goal.

Now some churches do that. good for them. No problem. the government does that. Fine. but when you guys want to make religions accept same sex marriage WITHIN THEIR FAITHS, that is NOT religion dictating to the state, now, is it?

Any more than when THE STATE sent half its armed services to attack Utah because the Mormons practiced polygamy.

 

[McBell]

I was there. I KNOW what Prop 8 was about. We weren't attempting to get anything passed based solely on our beliefs. We were attempting to prevent the state from telling our religion what they had to do...RELIGIOUSLY.

remember; we had NO problems with the domestic partnership thing, where same sex couples had MORE rights as couple, legally, than married couples. We had no problem with them having rights. It was the rights they were attempting to take away from US that was the problem....and every single gay marriage advocate I spoke to at the time was VERY clear that it was forcing religious acceptance of same sex marriage that was the goal.

Now some churches do that. good for them. No problem. the government does that. Fine. but when you guys want to make religions accept same sex marriage WITHIN THEIR FAITHS, that is NOT religion dictating to the state, now, is it?

Any more than when THE STATE sent half its armed services to attack Utah because the Mormons practiced polygamy.

Prop 8 was religion trying desperately to hold onto a word they lost control of centuries previous.
There is no law in the USA that requires a church to marry people.
To the best of my knowledge, there never has been.
So your claim of "protection" is nothing more than a sad attempt at self martyrdom.
Self martyrdom that rightfully failed.

 

[dianaiad]

Prop 8 was religion trying desperately to hold onto a word they lost control of centuries previous.
There is no law in the USA that requires a church to marry people.
To the best of my knowledge, there never has been.
So your claim of "protection" is nothing more than a sad attempt at self martyrdom.
Self martyrdom that rightfully failed.

It was, specifically, the goal of the homosexuals who talked to me to force religions to accept...and marry...within the doctrines and dogma of our beliefs. For US, it was specifically that same sex couples would be able to 'be sealed' within our Temples. That was the stated goal. That was what they wanted.

That they haven't got that one yet is not the result of their attempts.

As for me, I have no problem with gays marrying one another, civilly and in the eyes of the government. I don't have a problem with any religion recognizing that marriage within their faiths. I have a very big problem with the government forcing a religion to recognize a civil marriage within its doctrine.

Oddly enough, nobody is up in arms about the Catholics not recognizing the marriages of divorced people, even when the government does.

In the UK, as I have mentioned before, there are two forms of marriage; a religious one which the government does not recognize, and the civil one, which religions may or may not recognize religiously. Within our faith, a couple must marry civilly first, and THEN they may enter a temple and 'be sealed.' In our case, the government does not recognize the religious ceremony as being legally binding. Clerics do not perform marriages recognized by the government, for the purpose of any rights.

Here in the USA, clerics may perform legal marriages. IF they have permission from the government. What the gays during the Prop 8 thing wanted....and they made VERY clear to me....was that they wanted religious leaders to be compelled by the government to recognize gay marriage ecclesiastically.

A religion which chooses to do that? Fine. No problem. Gay couples who marry and have all the rights the government can give them? Fine. No problem. Having the government force it's rules upon eclesiastical practice? Not fine, and do NOT tell a MORMON that the government has not, cannot, and will not do that. It has, and it will, if we allow it. You do what you want....but you simply canNOT tell me that forcing a religion to comply with the rules of the GOVERNMENT in terms of marriage is religion interfering with the state.

After all, what earthly difference does it make to YOU what some other religion recognizes?

 

[McBell]

After all, what earthly difference does it make to YOU what some other religion recognizes?

I don't give a crickets fart what religion does and does not recognize.
Until they try to make it law....

 

[dianaiad]

I don't give a crickets fart what religion does and does not recognize.
Until they try to make it law....

attempting to keep someone else from forcing the state to impose things on a religion is NOT an attempt of the religion to impose something on the state.

Please learn the difference.

 

[McBell]

attempting to keep someone else from forcing the state to impose things on a religion is NOT an attempt of the religion to impose something on the state.

Please learn the difference.

I do know the difference.
Seems you should take your own advice.

 

[dianaiad]

I do know the difference.
Seems you should take your own advice.

Excuse me.

Would you kindly explain how...for instance...sending half the armed services to confiscate all the property of the Mormons who lived in Utah, and to arrest their leader BECAUSE THEY PRACTICED POLYGAMY in a territory OUTSIDE the state boundaries, is NOT the state interfering in religion?

Or....as it was very clearly told me by the gays during the whole Prop 8 thing, how the government forcing a religion to accept gay marriage ecclesiastically, and to actually perform them upon demand, NOT the state interfering with religion?

How is either example, above, a religion imposing anything upon the state?

You have things very upside down here.

BTW, I think that civil marriage, being a civil contract, should be handled ENTIRELY by the state, and that religions should be allowed to manage their opinions of marriage (which ones are recognized religiously) without any interference by the state. AT ALL.

...and if that was the aim of the gays who were after ME during the California Prop 8 thing, I would have been with them. However, their aim was, almost universally, to force ECCLESIASTICAL acceptance of gay marriage, within their dogmas and doctrines.

And since we Mormon types had very personal, and very clear, evidence that the state not only has, but can and will if it gets the chance, interfere with how a religion views marriage within it's belief systems, we were, understandably, willing to believe the gays when they said that was their goal.

It still is, for many. I'm HOPING that's calming down, but I've run into enough of 'em to be leery, still.