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

<>

Methinks you're not being entirely fair, Math. Ed spoke specifically of financial matters and went on to distinguish them from family law.

I'm in agreement with Ed on both of his major points. Firstly, I see nothing inherently wrong with the voluntary submission in certain instances of civil, financial matters to Sharia. And secondly. the archbish was a bit of a knob to make the idiot speech he made under the circumstances. Theologian he may be; nevertheless his position is a political one, not that of a professor testing the limits of his tenure protection in a university.

He should have known better.

Math, that's possibly the most selective quote I've ever seen here. In the *next sentence* Ed says having Sharia in family matters wouldn't be a good idea.

*Do* keep up.

>>Methinks that you have not thought this through.

Hence my saying that I'm not convinced for Family Law. *In theory*, marriage contracts should be up to the individuals. In practice - they're not necessarily. I don't approve of church interference in marriage law either.

That said - while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Under Islam (aka The Cairo Decleration) enshrines misogyny, some interpretations of Sharia are more woman-oriented than is sometimes portrayed.

Hadn't read Orang Utan's or Pedro's before replying. , guys.

However...I've just recalled a Catholic friend of my mother's. She secured a secular divorce from her violent, alcoholic husband. Yet she still felt the need to seek a papal annulment (on the grounds that her husband would have been incapable of making sincere vows). My (bigoted)mother regarded this as twisting the rules. I regarded this as her own damned business.

I'm not necessarily saying that Christian vows should be considered in courts...but I am wondering if, say, Druids believe that secular courts should have a say in the validity of oaths?

OK Eddie I did bounce your statement a bit

Anyhoo, back to business...

"I'm not necessarily saying that Christian vows should be considered in courts...but I am wondering if, say, Druids believe that secular courts should have a say in the validity of oaths? "

I do wonder about Christian oaths as Jesus is reputed to have said his followers should take no vows.

As for Druids well my general default position is that religion has no place in the law - thus all oaths should likewise be secular affirmations that you understand that you are expected to tell the truth and also that you understand the consequences of not doing so.

Religion/spirituality/what-have-you is a personal matter and has no place in law, education, health or government. The quicker we disestablish the Angilacn Church, remove the monarch and set up a true secular republic the better.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>thus all oaths should likewise be secular affirmations

Good! Then they have the status of secular contracts. With the emphasasis you give to them in your credo, I was wondering if they had some kind of mystic-shit status.

Presumably, then, Druidic oaths should be subservient to the limitations placed upon them by the state? Oaths of marriage should be dissolvable by the court. Business contracts can be ruled unreasonable.

Where does that leave Sharia law, then?

At least in terms of civil, non-family, contract and business law, it's not necessarily religious. It just follows a different set of principles and the dispute resolution mechanisms operate on a different paradigm. Although inspired by the Koran, the system is workable without reference to anything that isn't completely secular.

If two or more parties choose to have their (civil, non-family) interactions established and managed under Sharia, surely that would be okay? It's fine to take the position that our familiar western concepts of jurisprudence and contract law are the best, but can't those who are unfamiliar with or mistrustful of them rely upon mechanisms they do trust?

I'm not making any firm statement, here. I'm curious as to what objections there might be.

It would depend on what Sharia principles were adopted, of course. Women's Equality, for example, isn't fundamentally incompatible with Sharia. Granted, I don't rate the Sharia-based legal systems that have been implemented around the world in this respect...but that doesn't mean they're not reformable/enactable with greater equality. Think of it this way - we've operated with the Commonwealth system for centuries, but it hasn't always been particularly female-friendly. (And arguably still isn't: read http://tinyurl.com/2u98hp)

Perhaps the argument is similar to that between the Napoleonic and Commonwealth codes?

Or between English and Scots laws? The contracts I work to specify which of these any disputes will be settled under. Might not Sharia be a suitable option?

But the beardy t**t should still have kept his nose out.

Indeed!

Hi Eddie ,

"Good! Then they have the status of secular contracts. With the emphasasis you give to them in your credo, I was wondering if they had some kind of mystic-shit status."

No, but those in our community consider our honour to be a serious thing. When you give your oath it is a big commitment, not a promise with your fingers crossed. To break your oath is to become dishonoured. Not mystic, but honest.

"Presumably, then, Druidic oaths should be subservient to the limitations placed upon them by the state? Oaths of marriage should be dissolvable by the court. Business contracts can be ruled unreasonable."

Where those oaths are about areas covered by the secular law then yes. Some pagans go in for 'hand-fasting', which technically is a one year marriage contract. Most though tend to have civil ceremonies in the Registry Office, then off to be married in the eyes of their gods by their local pagan priestess/priest/whatever.

Any business contract between druid folk is an oath thing again. But like all contracts can be governed in dispute by the Courts as per any other contractual relationship. We see British law as being the peak of several hundred years of evolution, and it's still evolving.

Although our system of laws and our judiciary do make mistakes once in a while (mostly due to the interference of politicians with big ideas), we are very lucky in Britain. I see no advantage whatsoever in integrating an alien system into this well oiled machine.

My overall opinion is this. If you come to Britain and wish to become part of our society the onus is upon you to integrate, not for us to change our ways to accomodate you. I have lived in a total of nine countries in my life, and in each one I obeyed the local customs and laws. I didn't always like them but I did not demand they change their system, or make special provisions or exceptions for me. I felt that I had no right to ask this of my hosts. As a result I have friends across the globe who respect my ways and I theirs.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Oh good. Then it seems like Druidry is nothing special in these respects. I'm left wondering why you give such great emphasis to it, which slightly gives the impression that it is - but hey ho.

This is rather good:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4495/
The headline/sub-head are a good summary.

If he is trying to "piggyback" religion into the centre of jurisprudence, he's not really succeeding. After all most rational people who are even slightly sympathetic to his views only support the secular aspects of sharia (or christian, for that matter) law being made part of the legal system...

Hi Eddie

We never claimed to be anything special and are glad to bear that epithet, just as the Earth is 'mostly harmless' .

I "give such great emphasis to it" as it is the core of my life alongside my family and friends, a living spirituality that brings a lot to me and my friends.

It brings me the aspiration to live a honourable life, just as your own strong atheist/secular moral centre does for you.

What worries me are those millions who are brought up without the teaching in how to think about he important things in life. Which is why applaud the prject in Eastern Scotland to introduce and teach philosophy to children from primary onwards.

Somehow each of us need to find our own moral and ethical centre in our lives. Whether we do this through religion or philosophy is not that important. It gives us the capacity to be more than the walking sac of water and trace elements we were born.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

<>

With all due respect, Math, I beg to differ.

If it is done through "religion", the likelihood is that it will be at the expense of reason, logic, and scientific thinking. That, I would submit, is dangerous. I am, of course fully supportive of the movement to teach critical thinking/philosophy from the earliest years onqward

Hi darimana ,

"If it is done through "religion", the likelihood is that it will be at the expense of reason, logic, and scientific thinking."

Why? Despite all their posturing, the atheists and rationalists do not have the monopoly on reason, logic and scientific thinking.

I would put it to you that a system of ethics designed simply through reason and logic could be just as dangerous as one developed from empathy, compassion and intuition.

For instance reason and logic might conclude that any human that can no longer contribute to society should be terminated for the greater good of the race. They are a drain on limited resources.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>For instance reason and logic might conclude that any human that can no longer contribute to society should be terminated for the greater good of the race. They are a drain on limited resources.

That doesn't follow, though, does it? We observe that:
1) We each have a desire to continue living.
2) Others evidently have the same desire.
3) Mutual support in the achievement of those desires is the only way forward.

I repeat once again that 'Reason' doesn't imply 'Vulcan-like'. Our emotions are real.

<>

And what does religion/atheism have to do with compassion? I don't think that's a good argument. If reason and logic start from a compassionate base, then fine. If not, we're all in trouble.

Self-interest alone would preclude killing old and sick people.

'N' what Ed said.

But I still maintain that Math is a secret Atheist Rationalist. It's just that dressing up makes him feel special. Fair enough.

>>Self-interest alone would preclude killing old and sick people.

See also John Rawls' 'Veil of Ignorance'. It is in our best interest to structure our society in a way that assumes that we don't know whether or not will be amongst the disadvantaged.