I was watching this program on the BBC about women in Islam and the marriage laws of Islam (called Sharia). These people argued for an hour about submitting to God's law and it bothered me that they never once seemed to ask themselves if this supernatural agent exists in the first place, and why a man has to communicate his laws to them instead of God doing it himself.

In the West, during the age of enlightenment, we learned that we needed to separate religion and state because 1. there was no justification for the belief in divine revelation, and 2. theocratic societies never come close to building a just society. It bothers me that people still allow beliefs in divine revelation to pervade their law systems.

hue, I don't think we agree all that often but...

is a great line. I only wish more people thought like this. I really feel it is time for us to shed our bronze age backwards thinking and transcend our ignorance of the invisible friend. Why can't humanity stand without this need?

TT

Transcend theology.

That people do not tangent off into discussing whether or not God exists while discussing religious law should not be a surprise, or even a bother - these people are applying religious law, and thus they come to the table with the assumption that God does exist. Discussing whether or not God exists while discussing religious law is off topic.

Actually, those two reasons were not the impetus for the separation of church and state in the west. The primary reason for separating church and state in the west was to insure the free practice of religion for people of different faiths.

Okay.

What needs to be understood is that in some countries, like the UK, people can voluntarily take certain legal issues into Sharia Court. It is completely optional. If two parties with a disagreement freely consent to have their disagreement arbitrated in a religious court, denying them such an option is denying them their free expression of religion (which, in turn, is the reason we have church and state separated in the first place).

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

So it's off topic to question the foundation of religious law when religious law is discussed. That's a cop out.

Yes, freedom of religion was a reason, but read the literature of the enlightenment. Theocratic dictatorship was another reason, and the rise of deism in the west questioned the claim of divine revelation, which is what theocracy is predicated on.

The fact that the UK, which has a dogmatic conception of social liberalism, have allowed Sharia the co-exist with western law is beside the point. My point is that we shouldn't allow supernatural beliefs to pervade our law systems. Not only is it unjustified, but the consequences can be disastrous. That's what humanism and the enlightenment was all about. Humans can justify and decide what is or isn't right without the claim of divine authority.

Freedom to express religion is fine as long as that religious practice doesn't negatively affect the well being of others. What if it's religious practice to molest children or cut off an unfaithful follower's head?

No, the foundation is already assumed. If the foundation were not assumed, there would be no reason to discuss the religion law in the first place - you would still be concerned over the foundation.

Yes, read the literature. Read those letters of Jefferson. Read the Federalist Papers. Freedom of religious expression was the impetus, fear of a theocratic dictatorship was little more than imagining the extreme reverse of free religious expression.

I agree with most of what you say. But I think you have missed my point. My point is that religious law can co-exist with secular law. Case in point: Sharia in the UK. Denying consenting parties the ability to have their disagreement arbitrated in a Sharia court is denying those consenting parties free religious expression - a religious expression that does not cause harm to anyone (were not talking about eating babies, here).

What if it's a secular law to have children molested and cut off religious people's heads?

Obviously, those practices are denied based on long standing tradition. However, when the practice does not harm others (as is the case with Sharia in the UK) then there is no reason to disallow the practice. Consenting parties, no one is harmed. To deny it is oppressive.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel | Video Tutorials | Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"A word to the wise is infuriating."

I understand that the foundation is already assumed. I'm saying that they should question that foundation if they care about the legitimacy of their beliefs.

The separation of religion and state in the west was inspired by the writings of enlightenment philosophers like Thomas Paine, and the humanism movement of the enlightenment. I'm not saying that freedom of religious practice wasn't the impetus; I'm saying that is was inspired by scientific skepticism and enlightenment humanism.

My point was that you can't justify a law based on freedom of religious practice if it violates equal rights, and you seem to agree.

What if the law is changed so that only Mormon men can have more than one wife, and so that they can marry underage girls because it's their freedom of religion?

DT. How can a state do that? That state is made up of people. People have their different faiths. Agreed there are different tenets and beliefs and perceptions, but having a faith has it’s rules to "live" by. How can a statesman become a statesman and deny his faith. If he can deny his faith then he doesn’t have faith in that faith. I guess what I am saying is the impetus to become a statesman must be so strong if he is to abandon his faith to become a statesman. There is a disconnect here. The only way there can be a perfect union, or state is to completely abandon all faith.
Now we have to govern people of faith and if people of no faith that do the governing how can they govern the people of faith if their faithless governing goes against those faiths of those they are governing. That means the faith of those they are governing must not be taken into consideration. Or, ELIMINATE THE FAITH IN THOSE YOU ARE GOVERNING. How in the hell can that be done. That means there is no such thing a freedom of religion. It can't be. The only way is to eliminate all faith both in state and the people you are governing.
William

__________________
It is not so important to prove our immortality, but it is imperative to believe as though we are.

DT: Now take the above post and substitute the word morality for faith.
William

__________________
It is not so important to prove our immortality, but it is imperative to believe as though we are.

I oppose any religious courts,sharia courts in the uk undermine the secular courts by setting a precedent and who knows how the individual is not being coerced into attending them.Its faith driven agenda by stealth.

Xris, That is what I am saying. it is religious interpretations that have cause so much of the problems in the world. That's why I used the word faith and then morality and was eventually going to subsititute that to good. I guess what I am saying to know "what is good" is the root of all religions. And it is in those so varied intrepretations, we learn to hate. If we could substitute the word "good" for what is religion, then we could evolve from religion entirely. All religions have "some good" to them. You just can't discount all of what they say and just trash it. I find inspiring thought from all of them but I belong to none of them. None!
Now apply the good in my post and what does that tell you? If a governing body has to be totally neutral and dismiss their own feelings as to what is good in order to govern. What does that mean? How can we eliminate that which is "bad" when we have to eliminate any concept any governing individual has regarding what they think is good.

William

__________________
It is not so important to prove our immortality, but it is imperative to believe as though we are.