Jump to content

British courts facilitating middle eastern religious extremism


Recommended Posts


We need to become more secular as a state, although we appear to be heading in the other direction.

I wonder if some politicians see declaring and going on about their religion as a way of showing they are good people when really it shows nothing of the sort.

In the case here I suspect the judge is trying to show deviations from that families pattern, but surely doing so doesn't allow for people to grow and change, and in this case become more moderate in their beliefs and enlightened in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the point you are making Craig. However I think the judge was trying to make a fair judgment within the context of a particular society. She had concern that the children may become confused by conflicting information.

Also I think secular Jews do have concerns about extremism within their faith, especially demographic. It is more of an issue in Israel where seculars worry they don't share the burden of citizenship.

I suspect the reason why people are not as interested in reading about the Haredi community is because they are very small in number relatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the point you are making Craig. However I think the judge was trying to make a fair judgment within the context of a particular society.

 

Yes but that society is England 2016, not 19th century Germany and Poland. (where the Haredim started.) The Judge is part of the present English judicial system. Does England have a clause in any of the major constitutional documents comparable to Section 116 of the Aust Constitution:  The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, .....

 

 

She had concern that the children may become confused by conflicting information.

 

Next she'll be criticising parents who tell their children the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist. What happens if the kids go to school and half their fellow students follow LUFC and the other half Everton? Wouldn't that also be confusing? For a 5-year-old, lots of things should be confusing.

Also I think secular Jews do have concerns about extremism within their faith, especially demographic. It is more of an issue in Israel where seculars worry they don't share the burden of citizenship.

 

Yes but their concerns are pretty flexible. They aren't worried, for instance, about Israel being used as a safe haven for child molesters from within the Australian Chabad community.

 

I suspect the reason why people are not as interested in reading about the Haredi community is because they are very small in number relatively.

 

No I think the main reason they don't get the requisite exposure is because people know their careers can be extinguished by the immediate avalanche of anti-semite, holocaust denier allegations they will receive if they ever imply that any Jewish or Israeli thing, person, belief or action is slightly less than perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personally prefer a complete separation of church and state in real terms. The Queen could still be Sovereign and Head of the CofE because in reality she weilds little actual power in these roles.

Issues like marriage would be taken out of the states hands and given to the religious authorities. Civil partnership or whatever ot would be called would replace marriage from the states perspective in terms of taxation for example; whilst religious groups would be able to decide for themselves what marriage constitutes.

Religion just seems ostensibly to be too much of a grey area, especially where extreme versions exist. I don't think the rest of society has quite learned how to interact with these people (the 'prevent' program most certainly is not it!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Issues like marriage would be taken out of the states hands and given to the religious authorities.)

Even France a Catholic country has taken the church out of marriage.

The less contact I have with the church of any weird persuasion the better.

Ron Banks

Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Describe Muslims in the way the article has described these Orthodox Jews and there would be hell to pay on here!  You'd be Islamaphobic in an instant.

 

I thought the judge was doing a good job at providing a balanced view of what is a very personal and difficult situation, not only because the mother seems to have a stricter interpretation of their denomination than the father but because of the relationship between the parents which, based on the judge's reported comments, appears to be a difficult one.  The mother has primary responsibility for the children and therefore the father should respect that.  However, the mother also needs to bear in mind the father's position for the sake of the children.  But the same old problem that arises in many separations appears to be arising here: the children become a bit of a battle ground for the parents and I think it was that which the judge was trying to address.  Such a situation isn't the sole preserve of a religious couple; that happens in relationship breakdowns within secular relationships as well as those holding to less strict interpretations of a faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personally prefer a complete separation of church and state in real terms. The Queen could still be Sovereign and Head of the CofE because in reality she weilds little actual power in these roles.

Issues like marriage would be taken out of the states hands and given to the religious authorities. Civil partnership or whatever ot would be called would replace marriage from the states perspective in terms of taxation for example; whilst religious groups would be able to decide for themselves what marriage constitutes.

Religion just seems ostensibly to be too much of a grey area, especially where extreme versions exist. I don't think the rest of society has quite learned how to interact with these people (the 'prevent' program most certainly is not it!)

We've had state marriages in this country for decades.  Have one of those marriages and you aren't allowed to make any mention of faith of any kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had state marriages in this country for decades.  Have one of those marriages and you aren't allowed to make any mention of faith of any kind.

We've had Govt control of marriage and divorce from Day One. It's very clear in the OZ Constitution:

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51

Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]

                   The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

 

..............

(xxi)  marriage;

(xxii)  divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;

 

 

In our civil weddings you can throw in any extras you like as long as you cover the basics:

 

Marriage Act 1961

No. 12, 1961 as amended

 

45. Form of ceremony            

(1)  Where a marriage is solemnised by or in the presence of an authorised celebrant, being a minister of religion, it may be solemnised according to any form and ceremony recognised as sufficient for the purpose by the religious body or organisation of which he or she is a minister.

 

(2)  Where a marriage is solemnised by or in the presence of an authorised celebrant, not being a minister of religion, it is sufficient if each of the parties says to the other, in the presence of the authorised celebrant and the witnesses, the words:

“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. (or C.D.), take thee, C.D. (or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband)”;

or words to that effect.

 

 

I got married in a Thai restaurant in Balmain (yes, I know but back then, Thai restaurants weren't as cliched and passe as they are now.) We ordered dinner, celebrant turned up, went "Blah, blah, blah," we signed a few forms then the food arrived.

 

 

In this case, the answer is bleedingly obvious: the power of the State must never be used to force or coerce any form of religious observance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had state marriages in this country for decades. Have one of those marriages and you aren't allowed to make any mention of faith of any kind.

To me, a state union of some sort would be what me and my partner engage in to be recognised by the state for the benefits that brings.

A marriage would be a contract me and my partner make in the eyes of God and is personal to us and our own faith. Separate to any state benefits.

Therefore, for example, two men should be able to recieve a state union, that is equal to the union of a man and a woman, but the state should not be able to compel a religion to perform a religious marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.