Should we deport those who support Sharia Law in Australia?

Well let's look at a scenario.

You have children & you invite a child to come & play with your children. The child immediately starts to bash your children, wreck their toys & badmouth them. You intervene & ask the child to stop his bad behaviour. He then badmouths you & tells you he's allowed to behave like that at home so he has the right to behave badly at your house.

What do you do?

a. Say, Please don't behave badly here, but it's Ok if you don't.

b. Say, Ok then, carry on behaving badly & tell your children to accept that child's bad behaviour.

c. Send the child home & tell the child never to come back.

I know what I would do. How about you.

Of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam and Judaeism are both law-giving ones that tell adherents how to behave and both religions are equally dismissive of non-believers.

Sharia Law is not part of our legal system as is never will to be so why all the scaremongering fuss?

Perhaps it's just another excuse for intolerant people and racists to hide behind.

rache, "Sharia Law is not part of our legal system as is never will to be so why all the scaremongering fuss?"

You had better whip off urgent letters to the federal and State Departments of Primary industry and to other interested parties like the RSPCA who are apparently under the illusion that Islamic ritual slaughter is commonly performed in Australia. The regulations were changed to suit Islamic demands and what was already happening.

RSPCA,
http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-halal-slaughter-in-australia_116.html

Now I challenge you to find anyone outside of the said religious fundamentalists, which must include the so-called moderates too, who would support ritual slaughter.

Rache, I doubt that Sharia Law would be formally acknowledged in our legal system but there are some legitimate discussions we should be having around the types of exceptions that should be made on the basis of religious belief. Some of themselves trivial other than as a precedent and others more about fair dealing.

Generally I'm of the view that if society is able to relax a law on the basis of religion we didn't need it anyway and its unreasonable to impose it on those who may not agree with it for reasons other than religion.

I don't though have a lot of objection to adults who are part of a religion being able to live by their religions rules as long as that does not impose on or restrict those not part of the religion. There are some issues issues though around children and the role parents beliefs should play (eg parents refusing basic medical treatment for children on the basis of beliefs - including the anti vacs crowd).

Also those who want to pick and choose which bits of their faith the state can interfere with, should someone who demands the right to have their face covered on the basis of a contested view of their faiths teachings be entitled to protection by the state from their faiths regulations on divorce?

R0bert

Gee Loudmouth, you seem to have chased Poirot away. direct questions have a habit of doing that.

What will it take for the supporters of evil to change their minds. Perhaps a rampaging truck heading through circular quay, or the Brisbane mall killing as many as possible. My bet would be that they would find some excuse not to blame Islam.

Yeah, Hanson was beautifully set up by Tony, like a duck in a barrel: bam ! bam ! Very clever.

Suse, can you try to understand that Islam is not a race: our Muslim MPs are a mixture and one day, I hope, they will include a sub-Saharan African.

Thanks Toni:

// //Then to quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law should govern the society; not man's."//

If you change Allah for God, he sounds uncannily similar to runner.//

Yes, but perhaps without the current terrorism. So you have sympathetic feelings for runner's position now ? Would you be prepared to criticise, or even condemn, anybody who had even more violent and backward thoughts than runner ?

I think runner was hinting at the superiority of democracy over the religious dictatorship that Qutb was supporting sixty years ago [yes, Islamist extremism has been around for a long time, a hell of a lot longer than sixty years but feel free to bash the Yanks] and I think he is right. Would you rather support runner or Qutb ?

Cheers,

Joe