Archbishop Williams roundup
Aziz P
thabet provides a comprehensive roundup of excerpted links to analysis of l'affaire Williams in the blogsphere and the media. Needless to say, the depth exceeds what you find in the jafisphere, where all they can focus on is "omfg sharia cooties". Click over to thabet's blog and take a look.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Archbishop Williams roundup
- Shari'a! Boo!
- Why, Oh Why? (Updated)
For instance, either member of a marriage made under sharia could decide during a divorce that real law is more favorable, and therefore sharia would be given no credence in the divorce court.
There may be other things that get enacted democratically into law if enough people in a society or community want it to happen. The hubbub about it strikes me as rather hysterical though.
I can't go quite that far. I think the analogy to arbitration is apt: if you agree when entering into a contract that disputes will be settled by an arbitration committee, then you can't just say "That's it, I'm out" when it comes time to go before arbitration. I don't know the details, but I know there's a process you have to go through to demonstrate why it's appropriate to change the rules after the fact. I think the rules agreed upon in advance -- whether a contract or sharia law -- are due the sort of deference given to any contract provisions: not unbreakable, but not without some weight.
No, absolutely under no circumstances can I agree with this. Religious rules are not arbitration, you cannot agree to binding religious law and still have freedom of religion.
The reality is that those that are pushing for sharia, want to impose their Islamist version, which we should resist with our every breath, and that we includes plenty of Muslims. Painting critics of Islamist sharia as islamophobes is yet another attempt to muddy the waters of debate where clarity is needed.
There's a nicely irrelevant argument. A contract which requires illegal behavior is automatically void.
Sure you can. You may change your religion as much as you want after the agreement is made, as long as you continue to honor the terms of the agreement.
We can make a contract with legal and voluntarily agreed upon terms, and that contract is binding. The idea that it becomes nonbinding because those terms are religiously derived is absurd.
Or do we legally prohibit Catholics from remarrying when they have a divorce, without permission from Catholic authorities? Nope. Guess it's non-binding, except in regards to the rules those particpating all agree to live by.
I like my way better. As I said, if you want to play Cowboys and Indians, thats fine, but when one of the Cowboys decides its more fun to play Spaceman Spiff across the street, the Indians shouldn't have any claim on his property, livelihood, or any other real considerations.
Religion is not treated as a business in the free world. It recieves protections that businesses do not, it should not be accorded similar legal contract privileges to what businesses have. Religion affects people in ways business decisions often do not. Also, minors are often considered to be of a religion that their parents introduce them to. PArents can sign legal contracts for their children, should a parent who's a strict Wahhabist, or a Scientologist, or some other such be able to make a religious agreement for their child that they forfeit property if they abandon their faith? Under your version, such an act could make it through a court of law, after all it would be a "legally binding contract."
I like my way better. It lets those participating in such groups stay out of civil courts while all parties are in agreement as to the framework, while affording each and every one of them the protection of common law should they no longer agree.
Nope. Parents can't make legally binding contracts for their children, only for themselves.
We can make a contract with legal and voluntarily agreed upon terms -- neither of which is true in the absurd example you created -- and that contract is binding. The idea that it becomes nonbinding because those terms are religiously derived continues to be absurd.
Since that stricture only prevents them from remarrying in the Catholic Church, it's irrelevant.
Game, set, and match. I win.
Which, of course, has been my entire argument, that is where they belong and only there.
Thank you, and good night.
A marriage in the Catholic Church is not a voluntary contract to have all matters of said marriage arbitrated by the Church.
If, however, two people were to enter into a prenuptial agreement that said "Spouses agree to divide all income and assets equally even in the event of a divorce until such time as the Catholic Church grants an annulment," then that agreement would have just exactly as much weight as an agreement that said "Spouses agree to divide all income and assets equally even in the event of a divorce until such time as a certified professional arbitrator declares their differences irreconcilable."
In neither case could one party say, "Sorry, I changed my mind" without first convincing a court why the agreement should be voided. The fact that the arbitrator in one case is the Church and in the other case is a professional arbitrator is utterly irrelevant.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.