French politics are characterised by two politically opposed groupings: one left-wing, centred around the French Socialist Party, and the…

I thought Sid raised some really interesting points here. I was somewhat disappointed that it never appeared on Liberal Conspiracy, but I guess Sid had the last word on that.

I think what i have a problem with is the lack of debate around democracy and religious laws.

Is this not the very place for these discussions?

I think it is, ’cause it is usually quite a friendly place.

Don, I totally agree with the protection of minorities. Again i’m not saying this exists at the moment or that it will be easy to implement, given the vast array of different opinions…there are actually quite a few areas where ulema disagree, therefore the “law” can appear to be quite arbitrary. Not an ideal at all, which is where many problems arise. I refuse to use saudi arabia as some sort of perfect model cuz frankly it isn’t. I’m not sure who mentioned the whole women not driving etc, but it is important for us to try and support women and men out there who are trying to bring about change within their own difficult circumstances. It is easy to compare cultures and communities but in reality this is not always fair as each culture develops at its own pace.

Voter franchise is not enough, but it’s a fucking good start.

I don’t think we disagree in essence, but I do think it important to emphasise that protecting the rights of minorities is not something a religious democracy ‘could also’ do.

It’s not a bolt-on, it’s a pre-requisite.

A secular democracy must, by definition, ensure that no one religious belief is either exalted or down-trodden. The extent to which it fails to do that is the extent to which it has failed to become a truly secular democracy.

In the UK that is a process which is not yet complete, although the worst excesses are long past and most of what remains are doomed anomalies. Obviously, the Archbishop would like to see this process reversed. As Sid said, it’s a line in the sand.

In a secular society if a minority religion is unfairly treated, that is a serious flaw which must be urgently addressed.

In a religious society if a minority religion is treated fairly, that is a favour which can be arbitrarily withdrawn.

I think the UK has done well in terms of the number of religions that operate well, and the inter-faith work that takes place.

All those bashing what has been achieved should look at Europe.

Of course no society is perfect. We have racism and fear ‘the other’ everywhere. But do you agree with the above?

ensure personal liberty and equality for individuals irrespective of which sub groups you may belong to which a religious state cannot even begin to comprehend

yep.. and the key thing here i’d say is that the religious state seeks to privilege the “group” i.e. which consists of believers of that particular religion, so straight away, if you’re not part of that group, you’re second best.

From my limited knowledge of sharia I don’t remember claiming otherwise, its discriminates against women, non believers, is puritanical and makes a big deal of adultery, sex and morality and sanctions barbaric practices like public hangings and stonings. Not surprisingly this is something most religions based on societies thousands of years ago will have in some element. The caveman may have been our ancestor but we don’t have to live like him. We have 5000 years on knowledge to make better decisions than he could ever conceive. Don’t insult him and your intelligence. Every generation has a responsibility to progress and move ahead. That’s the human spirit. We have moved on but some of us clearly hanker for the good old days.

Anyway like I said in my first post nobody claims western secular society is perfect, there is always room for improvement and progress and its happening all the time, but it a start to ensure personal liberty and equality for individuals irrespective of which sub groups you may belong to which a religious state cannot even begin to comprehend, its existence based on other concepts.

I may not know much about sharia but I know my history to understand the savagery a religion or self appointed moral majority can bring to any society. Current sharia states are evidence of this. If we all believe in freedom, equality, liberalism I don’t see the need for this argument. Only a secular state can guarantee this

Muslim majority states with few exceptions impose sharia on all citizens and we can see the results of that so majority rules is not always a good thing. Moreover thinking of it as minority, majority or groups cannot give you an equal socity, address the individual and you have something teneble. That’s why you need a constitution to uphold basic inalienable rights. Current western societies haven’t evolved overnight.

You do not believe in full Shariah, only bits and pieces?

So you are a pick and choose Muslim.

Thank you so much for clarifying.

“well that is the point I was eventually trying to get to…a democracy choosing to live by religious laws could also protect the right of the minorities…”

Very unlikely. In practical terms, the state can protect all religious minorities if it is neutral to any type of religion. And you don’t really want to mix state with religion for gazillion reasons that have been explored so many times here, even if 100% of the people adhere to one religion.

I would love to hear an example. The most enlightened states based upon religious laws were the Islamic during the time of the Caliphate, but of course there “Kafir” were still essentially second class citizens.

There are no real “religious laws” other than the 10 Commandments and Islam. And Islamic law is quite precise, is it not?