Gov't Funded Course in Sharia Law

[Moonlight Graham]

Sharia Law is a political and religious law denoting an Islamic way of life, something not recognized here, nor should it be. While it might be interesting or beneficial to learn about other country's systems it is only the tip of the iceberg, incrementalism if you will, steps towards additional pieces of Sharia being introduced.

That's such a slippery-slope argument. First, gov't is funding sharia law just because they subsidize schooling? And this will lead to Sharia law elements in Canada? Gimme a break. I'm pretty sure you can go to any major university in Canada and take a history or religious studies course on "Islam" or a political science course on "Politics of the Middle-East" or several other similar courses focusing on Islam/middle-east, which will almost certainly will have some focus on Sharia Law.

I have 100% no problem with such things being taught. Nobody will censor the information i want to learn, and everyone should have this freedom. Now, if people learn this and want then want to implement Sharia law, then that's when i will bitch-slap them in the mouth.

[TheLastCanadian]

Government funding should never go to support a religious institution. Secularism preserves all that is good in humanity. It is not something to be chipped away at, and funding things like this Sharia law courses is the first step. By all means, learn about other faiths. It builds understanding. But do not encourage the encroachment of faith on the public sphere.

It's too bad that our level of tolerance and multiculturalism has come so far that we are willing to risk throwing people to the jaws of religious law. Take the law based in reality, not something on a work of fiction. People are better than that, and considering how incredibly outdated religious law is, it's ludicrous to even allow it, much less consider it.

The greatest danger that there can be to humanity is when law is no longer universal, when we are no longer equal and subjected to the whims of whatever law might claim authority over us. It's a slippery slope to total enslavement. It starts innocently, but soon enough, religious fascism will win the day if we allow it continued victory by way of political correctness and an idiotic level of tolerance.

It's also a slippery slope. Once we start to encourage the legitimacy of one evil religious edict through funding courses about it, others will demand the same privilege.

I thought we'd left the barbarism of religious fascism and law behind. It seems the government believes we could do to keep it sticking around.

Why do we encourage the faith that is trying to destroy us?

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Michael Hardner]

How does this fall under funding supporting a religious institution ?

And since we are a multicultural society, all faiths are part of this society. No faith is trying to destroy our society, just individuals and terrorist organizations.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's also a slippery slope. Once we start to encourage the legitimacy of one evil religious edict through funding courses about it, others will demand the same privilege.

So you think Islam is "evil"? Before you make such a bold judgment i hope you're a darn educated about Islam, and you know you're Wahhabism from your Salafism.

[TheLastCanadian]

Religious law exists from barbaric times, and carries on the tradition.

Make no mistake, Judaism and Christianity are just as evil as Islam when it comes to the legal sphere.

Any sort of religious law lends itself to an assertion over my fundamental right to equality under the law.

Anything that violates human rights is pure, unadulterated evil.

I could cite it for more than that, but I don't want to bore you with the exhaustive list.

Also, when Sharia can degenerate into what happens in Iran, with thirteen year olds being hanged, I don't see how any sane person can justify it as ok.

Islam and Christianity aren't evil. The law they speak of is, unless you'd like to tell me amputation and stoning is ok.

Here's a couple links to pics of what Sharia has done for us, check it out. Be warned, they're graphic.

http://childrenofiran.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/boys-hanging.jpg

http://change-production.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/wordpress_copies/criminaljustice/2008/10/iran_hanging1.jpg

What do you reckon they did? I'm betting they were involved in a massive violation of human rights or desertion. Maybe they killed a bunch of people! Those children are so insidious, always trying to kill everybody. Good thing sharia sees fit to string em up.

I'll bet they weren't that old either. Just as well you get them young!

Oooh! Must be a beach day:

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/286f4370.jpg

But she doesn't look too happy

She's probably just got sand in her eyes, that's all. I hate it when that happens to me too, and with my arms buried, I can't wipe them :<

If Sharia can degenerate into this, it is evil. The day I accept it as a legitimate legal system is the day I die as a human being. There is no loss in only practising fair, court sanctioned law based on the natural order and human reason, not the supernatural. Only part of Sharia law is practised you say?

Hindenburg only started with one presidential decree.

I fight it not only based on what it is, but what it has the potential to become. I will not give in to the ignorant doctrine of political correctness, for as was said by Gandhi:

"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."

If you like, I can cite a couple less poignant examples and reports on how it discriminates against women's rights, for which I'm equally apt to dislike it.

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/

@Michael: This is government money.

It falls under government, and arguably education.

If we legitimize religious law through supporting it with public funds, we shoot ourselves in the foot. If you've read the holy books, the ultimate intention is to spread the rule of their God. Religious law has the potential to destroy all we hold dear, and for that reason, I won't let it in the door.

____________________________________________________

Secularism is the sole defender of good on this Earth. To allow religious law in is to open Pandora's Box.

Look, I'm sorry if I sound hateful, but there is the potential danger here, and to risk it is simply something I will not do. I'm purposely exaggerating to make a point. Though, those photos of what religious law can become are by no means fake.

This is my central position on faith I will never be shifted from:

But we must never, for all that is good in this world, allow it to supersede the rights of others and justice in this life.

If we have religious law? My way of life and all I hold dear in this world risks being destroyed by religious fascism. No religious laws? A couple people go boo-hoo, but the world is right and we all get to live under the freedoms which make life worth anything.

To all of you who still maintain the hunky-doory illusion of religious law as something peaceable that cannot be a danger here, I hope you've woken up.

At any rate, it's an insult to the soldiers who have died in Afghanistan to undermine their efforts by bringing the evil they fight here.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Michael Hardner]

LastCanadian - I'm not going to click on a link to some gross jpegs. Make your arguments with words and logic, please, if you want to convince logical people.

Your point, I guess, is that allowing an institution to teach religious finance question is a foot in the door to religious extremism. I don't buy it. I don't know how you could stop it even if I did believe your point.

[TheLastCanadian]

Also, that wasn't part of my argument against you. The user above questioned why I would call Sharia evil. That is why. It hangs children, oppresses women, and destroys lives all in the name of a God, that, as far as I'm concerned is as real as Humpty Dumpty.

And those images are logical. While it may appeal slightly more to the emotional side of things, they still represent the reality of Sharia.

Allowing a law that can become that dangerous into society is simply not a risk I'm willing to take.

By legitimizing it through funding it, we show that we support it and what it stands for. What it stands for is one of the single greatest crimes perpetrated in the modern age, the destruction of the right to equality under the law.

You might doubt sharia can force its way through the door. Look at the desperate fight the British are waging against it on their own shores. Look at the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, to override the UDOHR, to give the Islamists a tool they need to violate the sanctity of humanity.

Sharia is no different than Nazism. It came in parts, first by winning seats in elections, then with the among the worst genocides humanity has ever seen. Nazism inched in. What's to say Sharia can't, especially given what it has already shown it wishes to do?

One Law for All is a good place to start.

Check out their reports on just how discriminatory Sharia law is.

Plus, why do we need to legitimize religious law anyhow? It doesn't have a place in this world when we have secular court systems.

There's no logical reason that we should support religious law what when have a legitimate court system based around a law which holds that everybody is equal.

It's not going to kill anyone that they can't practice religious law, especially when it is so dangerous to the rest of us.

When government funding goes to religious institutions, it is a very dangerous risk to take.

____________

It's OK for an institution to teach religion, as its an elective. The problem is that when we put government money towards it, that legitimises religious law. It strengthens the push to allow it as a legitimate system of law, which anything based on religion simply is not.

Between religion and its secular counterpart, there should be no question which one is allowed.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Remiel]

Two things:

Secularism preserves all that is good in humanity.

Secularism is not directly connected to goodness. You can easily have a completely secular " evil " society without any religious at all. It does not preserve all that is good in humanity. At best, it helps promote practices have a better chance of leading to goodness.

Anything that violates human rights is pure, unadulterated evil.

Speaking of logical, this is actually self contradictory. A human right can lead to another human right being violated. That does not make the more important right " unadultered evil " . Not by a long shot.

You really need to tone down on the hyperbole.

[Shwa]

Two things:

Secularism is not directly connected to goodness. You can easily have a completely secular " evil " society without any religious at all. It does not preserve all that is good in humanity. At best, it helps promote practices have a better chance of leading to goodness.

Speaking of logical, this is actually self contradictory. A human right can lead to another human right being violated. That does not make the more important right " unadultered evil " . Not by a long shot.

You really need to tone down on the hyperbole.

Hyperbole? What hyperbole??

What it stands for is one of the single greatest crimes perpetrated in the modern age, the destruction of the right to equality under the law.

Oh, that hyperbole.

[Borg]

Here ya go, we can now to to school to learn about Sharia Law. It seems that Sharia is becoming just another part of our pluralistic or multicultural society, so better get in on this and get learning ! #speechless-smiley-040#

The course isn't free, but all colleges are partially funded by the gov't - our tax dollars at work

Introduction to Islamic Finance & Investment

http://www.ontariolearn.com/index.php?page=course_1092

What's next, Introduction to How to Wear a Burkha :angry:

Just prepping you for the invitable.

Don't worry

Be happy

Borg

[TheLastCanadian]

Two things:

Secularism is not directly connected to goodness. You can easily have a completely secular " evil " society without any religious at all. It does not preserve all that is good in humanity. At best, it helps promote practices have a better chance of leading to goodness.

Speaking of logical, this is actually self contradictory. A human right can lead to another human right being violated. That does not make the more important right " unadultered evil " . Not by a long shot.

You really need to tone down on the hyperbole.

I didn't really mean it from that exact perspective. I meant along the lines that if something is to remain good, you will not find it under a non-secular government. They all inevitably twist them to their religious edicts, most of which are extremely discriminatory in their message and equally cruel in their laws. Religious government quashes all good it encounters.

The Vatican is one exception, though they really don't have the apparatus to enforce the will of God.

Otherwise, bad things would happen.

Perhaps that was an overstatement. I'll rephrase: Any right to do with religion should never eclipse any other right an individual has. I have a right to equality under the law. This is a reasonable human right. The "right" religion gives its followers to attempt to force faith on others through undermining my right is a supernatural, irrational one.

Obviously, one should take priority over the other.

Otherwise, you get nothing short of Iran, which as I've shown, is a wonderful place with unicorns and rainbows and all things good.

You know, not child hangings, stonings, amputations, or anything silly like that.

It is an unimaginable crime to humour religion to the point it would interfere with the rationally derived rights we have as human beings through natural law. That is what I am talking about when I call it that.

Nobody is hurt by not being allowed to follow the laws of their gods. After all, the majority of them claim they are just, so if it was out of the power of their follower to practice some aspects of the faith, they should have nothing to worry about.

There's good rational and theological argument against using religious law.

If a god would not be just, well then, that just means they can't be real because that's what their books say about them.

It's a win-win. I don't risk having every freedom I hold dear being destroyed, and they can still go to the good place.

Frankly, I have very little respect for religion. If people want to believe in something so stupid and transparently false, that's up to them. But the second they try to push that bull over other people, they've crossed the line.

If given power, religion always falls into evil ways, by simple virtue of the fact that we can take it to mean whatever we like. Who's to say the LRA in Uganda is wrong about what God wants them to do? Sounds like a wonderful time to me. You get to rape, kill and murder, unleash your primal instinct, and at the end of the day you go to heaven. Sounds like a sweet gig.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[dre]

Im happy if the government stays away from officially endorsing any of the magic-sky-god myths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc) and their idiot followers.

But from what I can tell they arent endorsing anything here.

[Remiel]

There's good rational and theological argument against using religious law.

If a god would not be just, well then, that just means they can't be real because that's what their books say about them.

That is not nearly as logical an argument as you thimk. You cannot substitute your own notion of what justice is into an argument that is supposed to show an internal contradiction in a religious doctrine. For instance, it does not make sense to say " I think X is just; the Y says God likes not-X; therefore God is not just, " and " the Y says God calls not-X just; but if God likes not-X, I do not think he can be just; therefore God is not real because he is not just. " It is because there is a missing premise that " If God and I disagree on the just, my opinion prevails. " So what happens is that you substitute your idea of justice for for the doctrine says is just when making the argument that God does not exist because Y says he is just (his idea) but he is not (your idea).

Hopefully that came out complete in the right order. Which is not to say that there are not logical and rational arguments against the existence of a given God, but the particularly one that you brought up is severely flawed.

[TheLastCanadian]

That is not nearly as logical an argument as you thimk. You cannot substitute your own notion of what justice is into an argument that is supposed to show an internal contradiction in a religious doctrine. For instance, it does not make sense to say " I think X is just; the Y says God likes not-X; therefore God is not just, " and " the Y says God calls not-X just; but if God likes not-X, I do not think he can be just; therefore God is not real because he is not just. " It is because there is a missing premise that " If God and I disagree on the just, my opinion prevails. " So what happens is that you substitute your idea of justice for for the doctrine says is just when making the argument that God does not exist because Y says he is just (his idea) but he is not (your idea).

Hopefully that came out complete in the right order. Which is not to say that there are not logical and rational arguments against the existence of a given God, but the particularly one that you brought up is severely flawed.

It's God's word. If it's perfect, it should be universal and understood by all. Even if it is written down by humans, for a perfect god to get the communication so screwed up in the process is just ludicrous.

There's no definition of just in our language or any other that allows for such enormous punishment over such trivial matters. God communicated the holy works for us, so they would be written for our understanding, not so he could have his own private definitions, then when we get up to the pearly gates just say "Tricked you, funny, eh? *doing the finger pistols and winking*" before we fall down.

That would certainly be conducive to his love of human suffering though. You're right, my mistake.

So yes, if God would punish on such a matter, God is not real.

Would you beg to differ that justice is a proper punishment for an offence?

This thing is a supreme being, supposedly higher than us! How is it that his standard of justice is even worse than ours?

Plus, at any rate, for the Christian God anyhow, people could just ask for forgiveness. After all, the only thing you're stuck in hell for is blasphemy against the holy spirit. That, or not believing in Christ. Pity, at least four billion people are going to burn in hell for all eternity in excruciating pain..... Six year olds, stillborns, non-believers, Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, you name it, those heathens get to enjoy their punishment!

Does that honestly sound like a God that loves us all?

That's what I thimk.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Remiel]

. . .

Your explanation just does not wash. How would you, an imperfect being, expect to understand what an infinite, omniscient, perfect being is doing? The human mind is not equipped to compute the amount of data necessary to come to an absolutely true understanding of anything, which is why we use so many heuristics bred into us over the eons. Your logic is strained. Do not take it for more than it is though: a critique of your logic, not of your beliefs.

[TheLastCanadian]

The bible is the communication of a perfect being.

As such, it should be perfect (and as stated by the Qu'ran, the holy book of Islam, it is perfect, well, the Qu'ran, anyhow).

If it is perfect, there should be no troubles in understanding it, for it would have no flaws that needed examination. It could be taken literally.

If the bible has some hung up definitions that only God is privy too, won't it be a cruel joke when a bunch of Christians land in hell simply because they didn't know he had a different definition of the word?

God is just. The bible is written for mankind. It would, as such, carry its words according to OUR definitions, as a perfect being would know that we would not have any hope of understanding his message otherwise. If it's flawed due to its human interpretation, well then, why do we take it so seriously when it's just a bunch of misguided recollections?

Your logic does not account for the fact that if the bible is to be of any use to anybody, it must be understood according to human definitions. Otherwise, how do we know what the heck we're supposed to do?

ANY WORD could have its own meaning if you want to use your logic. Thou shalt not kill could mean absolutely anything if that's the case. The bible isn't 50/50 God's definitions to our definitions. It is one or the other. If it is God's, there is no hope of understanding the bible. If it is ours, as it is intended to be by any logical assessment, then it is in our language and scope of understanding. After all, a large part of its message was gifted to us by the son of God, as a path to mankind's salvation. The rest was God appearing or sending messengers to the different writers of the books, yet again for the purpose of a doctrine to guarantee our salvation.

As it stands, justice, to humans, means a fit punishment for a crime, even in ancient times. Certainly, we think them a little excessive, but the holy books are timeless examples, or at least, to be worth anything they are.

The central flaw with your reasoning is the fact that either we are to understand the message of the bible, which would make it useful to us, or we are to mindlessly guess at faith as it is only by God's idea of its meaning that matters, which is totally useless to us because we cannot read his mind.

Oh, and just so this remains abundantly clear: I talk about this literally, but I don't think any of it is real.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Remiel]

As it stands, justice, to humans, means a fit punishment for a crime, even in ancient times. Certainly, we think them a little excessive, but the holy books are timeless examples, or at least, to be worth anything they are.

Your view of justice is impoverished. It is so much more than mere fit punishment for crimes.

[TheLastCanadian]

Sorry, caught up in the moment. You see, in context, not following God is a crime according to the bible, punishable with eternal damnation in the lake of fire.

If you really want to get particular, justice is largely considered apt consequence for an action, or something of a morally acceptable result from a given situation.

Under any of the following definitions, which constitute the majority of abstract definitions of justice, my argument holds.

jus·tice   [juhs-tis]

–noun

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.

3. the moral principle determining just conduct.

4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Not following the law of a God when it is out of your power to do so cannot justly be punished.

Fortunately, the Qu'ran even has a little bit on this. I'm afraid I can't spell it, it's some concept starting with a T which essentially allows a Muslim to disregard some aspects of the Qu'ran to protect themselves or others, so long as no harm comes to anyone. Sharia is covered under this.

So it's nothing off of their skin if they don't get to practice it.

Ultimately, your argument on the standard of justice is incorrect. For the Bible to be in any way useful, it has to be a work within the scope of human interpretation and understanding. As such, it would be in our language (more accurately, its original publishing language), within our abilities to comprehend.

If words do not mean the same in the Bible as they do in real life, which is actually impossible given the fact that the bible was written down by humans, and as such, it could only be in the scope of human language and understanding that these words can be interpreted.

We don't have a divine language of understanding that we mutually share with God. As such, it is correct to go by our definitions of words, in fact, it is the only way to go about it.

Also, keep in mind that the King James, one of the most widely used bibles/translations in Christendom (which in theory would also constitute it as one of the most accurate and widely accepted), was originally published in English, so we can be quite sure of its meaning.

Edited July 5, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Shwa]

For the Bible Art to be in any way useful, it has to be a work within the scope of human interpretation and understanding. As such, it would be in our language (more accurately, its original publishing language), within our abilities to comprehend.

If words do not mean the same in the Bible Art as they do in real life, which is actually impossible given the fact that the bible was written down Art was created by humans, and as such, it could only be in the scope of human language and understanding that these words can be interpreted.

We don't have a divine language of understanding that we mutually share with God the Artist. As such, it is correct to go by our definitions of words, in fact, it is the only way to go about it.

So tell me then, is Art just? In other words, is Art in someway flawed that makes its meaning incomprehensible to a person or group of persons?

[Remiel]

So tell me then, is Art just? In other words, is Art in someway flawed that makes its meaning incomprehensible to a person or group of persons?

Ummm, Shwa... What are you trying to do? Your substitution does not contain as a precept a perfect artist, does it?

[Remiel]

Sorry, caught up in the moment. You see, in context, not following God is a crime according to the bible, punishable with eternal damnation in the lake of fire.

Not exactly true, as far as I know... According to my understanding, the Lake of Fire is where you end up if you were not saved from your sins by God. God does not punish you by sending you there on purpose.

If you really want to get particular, justice is largely considered apt consequence for an action, or something of a morally acceptable result from a given situation.

Under any of the following definitions, which constitute the majority of abstract definitions of justice, my argument holds.

jus·tice   [juhs-tis]

noun

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.

3. the moral principle determining just conduct.

4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Dictionary definitions are virtually worthless when it comes to difficult and abstract concepts such as justice. You still do not get the whole picture by associating it with consequences of actions.

Ultimately, your argument on the standard of justice is incorrect. For the Bible to be in any way useful, it has to be a work within the scope of human interpretation and understanding. As such, it would be in our language (more accurately, its original publishing language), within our abilities to comprehend.

If words do not mean the same in the Bible as they do in real life, which is actually impossible given the fact that the bible was written down by humans, and as such, it could only be in the scope of human language and understanding that these words can be interpreted.

Meanings shift all the time. Take the word " gay " for instance. Everyone knows that example though. " Justice " would be a good example too. Many Ancient Greeks thought that justice was the interest of the stronger, like Thrasymachus did. However, this very common notion was the subject of much criticism by Socrates. Two people in the same city and the same time did not mean the same thing by " justice " . It should not be such a leap to consider than in thousands of years, with many different version and translations, that something can be lost.

Moreover, I think you are too wrapped up in what you think a perfect (ly good) God must do. What you think and what is actually the case on that matter are vastly different things.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Remiel

[Shwa]

Ummm, Shwa... What are you trying to do? Your substitution does not contain as a precept a perfect artist, does it?

I dunno, does it?

Actually, you would have to revisit your defintion of "perfect" and then relate it to the question at hand, especially my use of the word "flawed."

[CANADIEN]

Religious law have no place in the resolution of civil law disputes in our society.

That being said, teaching a course on the economic side of a religion-based law system is hardly endorsing it or implementing it.

Fact is, Sharia law is the basis for the economic system in many countries. From that perspective alone, teaching it makes as much sense as teaching courses on the Chinese economic and business law systems - or is that promoting communism?

As for the "risk" of people conducting their economic activites on the basis of the Sharia - as long as no Canadian law is being violated, so what? One fundamental tenet of Sharia law 9and of Jewish law, btw0 is the prohibition on interest. So, we have seen in the past few years the creation of some financial institutions that operates on these principles. Is anyone here arguing that we should force them to charge interests?

[Kanadischer]

Sharia law, along with Islam, does not belong in Canada. Their culture, along with their religion and laws are extremely different from our Canadian way of life. Bringing over Muslims will only have us begging at their feet in the next 20 years. Once they become majority, do you honestly believe they will abide by our rules and customs? Who are you kidding? We will be forced to convert to Islam, or die by the sword, which eventually will turn this wonderful country into a third world crap hole.

[Remiel]

Sharia law, along with Islam, does not belong in Canada. Their culture, along with their religion and laws are extremely different from our Canadian way of life. Bringing over Muslims will only have us begging at their feet in the next 20 years. Once they become majority, do you honestly believe they will abide by our rules and customs? Who are you kidding? We will be forced to convert to Islam, or die by the sword, which eventually will turn this wonderful country into a third world crap hole.

You are mistaken in thinking that " your " way of life is the same as the " Canadian " way of life.