h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Yeah, and look how you interpret it.

<>

And this is the actual Q&A.


"Q10. Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia Law is introduced?
Support 40%
Oppose 41%
Refused/Don't know 19% "


It doesn't say, in certain areas of law, or to replace existing UK law, or to run alongside UK law, etc etc. Most muslims in this survey seem to feel that, while Western society 'may not be perfect but Muslims should live within it and not seek to bring it to an end', they are becoming more marginalised and society itself is becoming more polarised. Given that is the case, it's hardly a surprise that *some* muslims would like their religious law recognised. Just the way christians are doing so publically.. It doesn't say *how*, which is far more important and revealing.

There can be many interpretations of that question, so much so that one *I* would find plausible is that the Telegraph put it in there to scare their readers into thinking the brown hordes want to take over this sceptred isle. Which doesn't follow from the survey as a whole. And please note, the survey didn't ask whether Sharia law should be enforced on non-muslims, which was the point of the question I asked.

All of which seems (to me) to say that all religions are effectively the same, and singling out one of them is kinda strange.

Lets not go down the same old track again - some Muslims may want to have sharia law, but they aren't going to get it in this country so no point worrying about it.

On the other hand, the person Tony (flirting with converting for ages) has asked to look into this is Ruth Kelly, er, and he doesn't see a conflict of interest there?

>>But I do get to thinking that religious groups really ought to think things through a bit more clearly<<

Now you're having a laugh SoRB

<>

Umm, no. There is one religion that runs countries already. There is one religion that enforces it's own laws. There is one religion that demonstrates daily discrimination and intolerance.

There is one religion that makes entire cities off limits to non believers.

There is one religion that kills people every day in the name of their God.

There is one religion that is effectively *not* the same as the rest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6293503.stm

A Christian magistrate has resigned, claiming he didn't want to be put in the position of approving a gay adoption (ie - he didn't want to be put in the position of putting the law of the land into practice).
He's also claiming unfair dismissal.

If you have been hounded or otherwise manouvred into resigning, I thought you could possibly claim constructive dismissal, but surely it would take a pretty screwed-up world view to suggest the equality laws were brought in with the object of persecuting Christians?

Personally, I don't see the guy as being a great loss to the justice system.

Oh all thess dramatic falling on swords by Christians, do me a favour.

They want people to feel sorry for them. "we'd love tohelp the little Children but the government and their gay friends wont let us"

To be fair its a smart enough tactic to convince sopme people who are already religiously biased or anti-government and it will also garner support from those who dont look very deeply into it.

Its a fact that Catholics have a well earned reputation for the instutional abuse of children, they have systematically abused children sexually, emitonally and physically for hundreds of years without let or hinderence. The last great bastions of overt cultural brainwashing in the Western world are the catholic orphanages and childrens homes and they arer not going to give them up lightly bringing their adoption policiesinto line with secular society will bring the demise of the catholic hold on children one step closer. without the ability to bully and brainwash such children and control who gets to be their adoptive parents the catholic church knows it will be losing more impressionable people it can convert and keep as believers.

They make me sick.

Which brings me onto....

SWL you are still peddling your nonesense I see, had any takers yet?

Why I dont buy your arguments and others too see through your slanted views, I'd guess is this; you cant see the wood for the trees mate. We know that Muslims run countries in line with their religious laws, we know about Mecca, we know executions and terrorism inspired by what people choose to see in the Koran.

Thing is because we are smart we also see that there isnt much between them and other major religons.

I used to give you the benfit of the doubt that you couldnt grasp this because you were a bit thick. After many corrections and revelations you have ignored this truth.

We all know why that is.

one love

Blicky, if you are so smart, show me the other religion that bans people from cities? Show me the catholic priest who hangs rape victims from cranes. Show me the Buddhist who puts women into a hole in the ground and then throws stones at them until they are dead. How many Mormons are on trial at the moment for plotting mass murder?

Again, can we leave the discussions of islam to the many, many other threads where the same things are already being discussed?

Fine. Just don't try to put Islam on the same level as other religions.

That is exactly what I will do SWL....

SWL you did have a little phase where you suddenly started talking about your objection to only Islamist extremists. But now you've gone back to the more honest position of saying what you really believe.

>>Just don't try to put Islam on the same level as other religions<<

Anyway, not sure if this has been posted here yet - the CofE is now aligning itself with the catholics over this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6293115.stm

The episode of the West Wing screened on sunday happend to be the one where Bartlett takes apart an anti-gay journalist by holding up all the other things in the bible that the religious choose to ignore, and suggesting that it is good ol' fashioned bigotry that causes them to select the couple of verses that talk about homosexuality the cling on to so vehemently.

As the Cof E and Islam are now jumping on the Catholic bandwagon, secualr society, as represented by the democritically elected representatives of parliament, passing laws in their name, will be able to 'kill' 3 birds with 1 stone. And if the religious Jews also join in we can make it 4.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6294595.stm

Religious group Opus Dei complains about an unrealistic portrayal in a drama (ie, an acknowledged fiction).

But what do the Jedi Council say?

You mean the religion whose only weapon is basically an extendable, glowing, 6 foot long dildo? Hmmmm, I'll get back to you on that one.

Good afternoon Pedro,

Now with more time I will try to answer your post. ( What is a Stooshie btw ? )

Since I posted this morning I see that SWL and others have climbed onto the old bandwagon again. More is the pity since it simply clouds the issue, which in my mind is not about religion at all.

On a recent thread I pointed out that when my partner and I were still 'bikers', we frequently came across pubs and/or cafes with prominent sign saying NO BIKERS. We didn't get het up over it , we didn't start a pressure group demanding NO rejudice against bikers, we just took our money to places where it was happily accepted.

So my take the debate ref Catholic Adoption Agencies is simple.

The Laws ( as you pointed out ) to prevent discrimination against gays, was passed on the back of the HRA and joins the other laws stopping discrimination against race , creed, or colour groups , as well as the disabled. As such these laws are sensible and good, though they won't change the mindset of certain individuals. What they have done is to codify the behaviour of all of us towards minority groups, though it is probable that those of a 'normal' mindset would have complied anyway.

The problem arise when we forget that one mans Human Rights are sometimes another mans burdens. I go back to the argument about the B&B owner being able to choose who he has in his house, or the right of a publican to refuse a service, or a shop to equally refuse to do business with any particular member of the public.

In my book the rights of aome should not become a cross for others to bear. An apt phrase here because of the subject. I don't believe that the law should be brought to bear to force persons or a group, to do something which is fundamentally against their beliefs. No one should be compelled to provide a service or a product on the basis that not to provide it becomes an illegal act of discrimination.

If the law as it stands achieves a humane and common sense approach on both sides, it will not be necessary to bring it into play. Any sensible gay couple, ( in the case in point ) would not approach a Catholic Agency in the first place, so both side can observe the law by default.

The anti - religion brigade have had much to say on this subject, as usual with a greater degree of intolerance than that shown by believers.
Give some people a case to get het up about and they will, often regardless of the actual subject matter.

Incidentally , if there was one law I could repeal it would be the HRA , and I would replace it with one having the same initials, namely The Human Responsibilities Act. The Rights would then follow.

Novo

Not a Catholic, Not Gay, not even religious

Novo, note the paragraph in the article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6292315.stm

>>"It says if they are not granted an exemption, local authorities would no longer be able to use Catholic agencies, and they would not be financially viable."

In other words, it would seem to be a case of people expecting the state to fund [supposedly] religious-based intolerance, though to the extent that the intolerance *is* religious, it is apparently the result of cherry-picking out of the Bible, by people lacking the honesty to admit that that is what they have done.

>>"No one should be compelled to provide a service or a product on the basis that not to provide it becomes an illegal act of discrimination."

Should the state be obliged to go along with and fund some group's prejudices just because they pretend they're a matter of religion?

Unfortunately you are starting your argument off from a faulty position Novo.

Fault number 1:
Shops, pubs and the like can only legally bar people with a justifiable reason. If you are trying to break the law and purchase drinks for minors or shoplifiting for example they cant just say "There is something about the way you lead your life, which while not being illegal, bothers me so bugger off"

Fault number 2:
Now you keep saying that B&B owners have things they dont like happening in their houses thye dont. Desptite the fact that they live there their B&B whether they own or rent the property is a business premises, because they are running a business and becuase they are running a business they have to irresepective of their religion comply to the laws of this land.

Fault number 3:
I know this wasnt mentioned in your most recent post but you've brought it up before. While individuals do get some latitude under the law to live within the teachings of their religion they have to treat other people legally. So for the oft mentioned Sihk bikers it is OK to wear a turban but no helmet but if he were a motorcylce riding instructor it would be illegal for him to tell me its OK for me not to wear one. Its about your legal duties to others under the law.

Fault number 4:
Why should your willingness to accept other peoples unfair discrimination against you mean that others should? I never dring coffe does that mean that no one else should? I wouldnt mind if terrestrial TV channels started to air the most bizzare and eyewateringly strong adults only films after 9:00 pm but I dont expect everyone else to have my weird sense of humour about such things and appetite for skin flicks.

Why do you assume that your innabiltity to get a mug of coffe some how equates to a loving couples inability to access normal family services.

one love

Hello Potholer,

I think you are missing my point here. I am not a catholic, I am not anti gay. I have no personal axe to grind about the ideas / belief / disbelief / invention or whatever of the two protagonist groups in the case under discussion.

If we want to discuss gays, fine. If we want to discuss religion / faith , fine.

The point I have been trying to make is that the anti discriminatory laws, whilst absolutely right and proper in intent and in most cases, can actually end up denying the rights of others. The various merits of each side are irrelevant. The fact is that if specific groups are subject to specific laws, then another group - who are not members of the first - will have their choices denied or limited.

I am not saying the law should be repealed. I would say that the Sex Discrimination Act , though laudable in its original intent creates untold problems in terms of Employment.( I can expand that if required ), and the knock on effects are not as were intended.

We have something like 700 new laws under the current administration. Many were badly thought out and equally badly drafted. The Law of Unintended Consequences was often not even considered.

I just wish that common sense could rule in these matters, not the Law.

Finally, any religious group has ideas which to them are not invented prejudices at all. They are a matter of their beliefs. It isn't for you or I to deny them such beliefs, no matter how ludicrous we may think them.