Child Abuse in African Evangelical churches

UU

Hello all!

I was watching television on Tuesday night and I saw a brilliant programme about how some African Evangelical churches practised gruesome "deliverance rituals". Basically they believe people are practising ndoki (witchcraft) and they prey mainly on young children. This doesn't just occur in parts of Africa (mainly Sudan) but also behind closed doors in the UK. In Sudan, they slit a section of the child's stomach and press hard on it to release the demons while starving them for three or more days without any food or water. It is totally sick and disturbing! :mad:

It's quite funny how these people call themselves Christians when they do abuses like this and yet they say "Oh, the Bible says it!". It's always the Bible! Why don't I go out tomorrow and shoot someone and say "Oh! It says I can in the Bible!" It's utterly crazy!

Here are two articles on the subject. They tell of a young girl found dead with 48 wounds over her body. Link 1, Link 2. Actually, it's all very scary indeed as I thought most mainstream Christian groups have moved on from rubbish like this.

larryone

You can justify almost anything by quoting the Bible.

The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.
And I can cite Shakespeare for my own.

people who do things like this are sick.

Excelsior

So neither of you believe in any kind of anthropological principle of relativism then? By what standards are you deeming it sick? They have an entirely different culture in a totally different context. Who are you to tell them they are wrong.


(Excelsior, who has looked at the Bible a bit, repudiates the witchcraft actions of these "churches" but can't resist the temptation to poke at our double standards....)

UU

Have you seen the programme, Excelsior? After seeing it I'm sure you'd change your mind completely. The spirit of Jesus certainly wasn't prevalent in their faith. Falsely accusing people of being witches and then doing these practises is totally unjust and it's abuse. There's only so much water under the bridge and sometimes one has to put a stop to something that gets out of hand.

Yes, they are wrong and as wrong as they can be. We need to speak out against people who cause CRIMES like this. Should the South American governments let the Aztec, Inca and other indigenous groups sacrifice people because it is their culture?

larryone

Performing an evil act, and claiming the moural highground...
I beat the living daylights out of him because it was the good and righteous thing to do.
By what standards do I consider acts like this to be wrong? The UN Declaration of Human rights is a good start I think.


"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

robindch

> The spirit of Jesus certainly wasn't prevalent in their faith.

Hmm... could you tell us, please, what the "spirit of Jesus" is?

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote:

> The spirit of Jesus certainly wasn't prevalent in their faith.

Hmm... could you tell us, please, what the "spirit of Jesus" is?

Why that would be jesus juice



ok I'll get my coat.

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote:

ok I'll get my coat.

Tis still early, stay and have another. I'm buying.

UU

robindch wrote:

Hmm... could you tell us, please, what the "spirit of Jesus" is?

Geesh, that's not hard to figure out. The "Spirit Of Jesus" would be described as following his teachings of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc. as told in "Sermon On The Mount" which some Christians such as the above don't seem to follow. If they claim themselves to be proper Christians they wouldn't be denying people's rights by abusing them. Jesus, himself, never told them to harm others in "deliverance rituals". Although, the programme was interesting as the man visited the rural area of Sudan where they weren't Christian at all but practised "deliverance rituals" predating Christianity. Their's involved praying for the person, giving them herbal medicine and comforting them - a huge contrast to that in the urban areas. These rural people aren't even Christian and yet they portrayed the "Spirit Of Jesus" by in large.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Who are you to tell them they are wrong.

Call me intolerant, but cutting open a childs stomach, beating them and then staving them for 3 days is sick no matter what the cultural justification for it is :rolleyes:

Puck

Saw the programme myself. I was horrified but also admired the restraint the interviewer and his crew showed when interviewing the man who carried out these acts. I don't know if I could have resisted beating him to a pulp.

I came into the progamme late so I may have missed it but I don't recall any one of these people using the Bible as justification for their actions.

archdukefranz

Wicknight wrote:

Call me intolerant, but cutting open a childs stomach, beating them and then staving them for 3 days is sick no matter what the cultural justification for it is :rolleyes:

I think you missed the point he was trying to make... read the post in full, I find it helps.

archdukefranz

Ew, just read some of the linked article. Exaclty what bit of the Bible justifies this?

wolfsbane

UU said:

Geesh, that's not hard to figure out. The "Spirit Of Jesus" would be described as following his teachings of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc. as told in "Sermon On The Mount" which some Christians such as the above don't seem to follow. If they claim themselves to be proper Christians they wouldn't be denying people's rights by abusing them. Jesus, himself, never told them to harm others in "deliverance rituals".

Spot on!

Although, the programme was interesting as the man visited the rural area of Sudan where they weren't Christian at all but practised "deliverance rituals" predating Christianity. Their's involved praying for the person, giving them herbal medicine and comforting them - a huge contrast to that in the urban areas. These rural people aren't even Christian and yet they portrayed the "Spirit Of Jesus" by in large.

God's common grace to mankind ensures that kindness and compassion are found in some measure in most people. Otherwise, it would indeed be hell on earth and bring God's final day of wrath upon us.

The false religion and superstitution these poor people are involved in brings its own punishment: folk live all their lives in fear of demons (and of these false exorcists, no doubt!). But lest we look down our noses at the Third World, remember that similar charlatans peddle their nonsense around the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches in the West. No doubt some are well-intentioned and believe they are doing good in Christ's name. Certainly the excesses referred to in the program would not be tolerated in a truly Evangelical Church, here or in Africa. But the mental damage that can be done by the well-intentioned deluded exorcist is significant. Even without serious damage, the fear factor has entered many Christians' lives when they give heed modern Pentecostalism. Demons are just lurking on the stairs to trip you up, crash your car, etc. Christian folk living in fear of demons, rather than their God!

Christ calls us back to His Word, away from such error:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Excelsior wrote:

So neither of you believe in any kind of anthropological principle of relativism then? By what standards are you deeming it sick? They have an entirely different culture in a totally different context. Who are you to tell them they are wrong.


(Excelsior, who has looked at the Bible a bit, repudiates the witchcraft actions of these "churches" but can't resist the temptation to poke at our double standards....)

I tend to agree with Excelsior here. While I personally would be unable to stomach the idea of such acts, I recognise that that's just me. To a degree, this is obviously part of their culture; they're doing what they believe is right. Some of the people here condemning these acts would also be the first people to proclaim that 'no-one say what is right or wrong for someone else'.
How would they deal with the guilt of believing that there were 'demons' in the child and they had not done everything in their power to excorcise(sp?) those demons? Is making someone fast and cutting them open to remove a tumor/appendix/whatever less bad by their standards?
While I haven't seen the program (so maybe I'm misreading the situation), I think the worst they are guilty of is being foolish/misguided.

If you are permitted to // justified in criticising and campaigning for an end to this aspect of that culture, then why should right-wing 'christians' etc be any less permitted to // justified in their condemnations and campaigns against homosexuals / gay culture?

UU

scouser.tommy wrote:

If you are permitted to // justified in criticising and campaigning for an end to this aspect of that culture, then why should right-wing 'christians' etc be any less permitted to // justified in their condemnations and campaigns against homosexuals / gay culture?

Because most right wing Christians campaign openly against homosexuals but very few would ever start cutting them open! From experiences, right-wing Christians tend to be all talk and no action. They have the biggest gobs I've ever came across! A friend of mine asked one before when he was in America why they are campaigning against homosexuality. They ignored his question . . .

Back to the thread, there is only so far a culture can go before its practises get out of hand. In Iran, if you're found out to be gay or have a child out of wedlock, you are hanged or stoned to death. Is that right? No! It goes against the 'Declaration Of Human Rights'. That is their culture but it is wrong even if they think it isn't. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. We've all learnt that when we were a child. These people in places like Iran or Sudan are misguided and brainwashed since they were children so it is looked upon or socially acceptable.

I understand where you're coming from but we aren't them, we are here and are we going to allow these African Evangelical Churches abuse children behind closed doors in our society? It's all food for thought . . .

pbsuxok1znja4r

UU wrote:

Is that right? No! It goes against the 'Declaration Of Human Rights'.

So what? What do the people who promulgated the declaration of human rights know that no-one else does? You may well be punished legally for breaching that UN's declaration, but in no way does that imply that it is morally 'wrong' to breach it. Why should countries who never asked for a UN or for it's laws have any obligation to obey them?
The hilarious thing is, you yourself are evidently only too ready to take our laws as a framework for what is right/wrong, yet you criticise those countries where people can do what you think is "wrong" even though it is within the confines of their laws? If you can take one declaration/constitution as your basis of morals, why cannot others take whicever they choose as theirs?
Who is to say which laws are right or wrong? The UN's? Irans?

UU wrote:

That is their culture but it is wrong even if they think it isn't.

Says you. What basis have you for believing that your own notions of wrong should be applied to anyone other than yourself, let alone people in another culture entirely?

UU wrote:

You don't have to be a genius to figure out what is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

Well, in that case, it shouldn't take you very long to explain it to me, eh? What is the difference?

UU wrote:

We've all learnt that when we were a child. These people in places like Iran or Sudan are misguided and brainwashed since they were children so it is looked upon or socially acceptable.

So how are we any different from Iran and Sudan, in that case?
You say we "learned" it as children*, but they were "brainwashed" as children? What is the big distinction? Both probably sat being dictated to, and whether by force or by apathy, neither probably ever questioned it.
Again, just like I said with the declaration of rights, I find it funny that you are so adamant that what we were told as children is somehow more objectively correct than what they were told.


(*and I'm inclined to ask you what the hell you're even saying there, because I don't recall that lesson as a child, and given the behaviour of most adults in our society, I'm not so sure anyone else learned it either...or maybe I just feel that way because I alone never learned it? )

UU

Okay . . . I cannot conceive you. Please mend your speech a little and I may comprehend somehow.

Goodness, UU, way to miss the point entirely.
And throw in some strawmen if I'm not mistaken.

Calm down and listen to st's actual point, eh?

Murder is wrong. Full stop!

Naturally, since it's a legal term.

robindch

> Human instinct is enough to tell us what is right and what is wrong.

No, it's not. Especially when there are conflicting impulses over which course of action to take and particularly when the choices available are all unpleasant in some way or other. While people, in general, won't act in an antisocial way without some cause to do so, there are still plenty of (knowingly or unknowingly) malignant people out there who'll produce a reason, be it religious, political, ideaological or otherwise, if they think that somebody else will listen to it and act upon it.

In this unpleasant case, the natural urge to help kids was successfully overridden by the natural urge to do what one's told by one's leaders in line with some religious rubbish the parents had been exposed to.

If you'd like to read up some more on how normal, helpful, decent people can be subverted, try the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment (35th anniversary this year!), which showed just how quick and easy it is to do:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

UU

robindch wrote:

> Human instinct is enough to tell us what is right and what is wrong.

No, it's not. Especially when there are conflicting impulses over which course of action to take and particularly when the choices available are all unpleasant in some way or other. While people, in general, won't act in an antisocial way without some cause to do so, there are still plenty of (knowingly or unknowingly) malignant people out there who'll produce a reason, be it religious, political, ideaological or otherwise, if they think that somebody else will listen to it and act upon it.

In this unpleasant case, the natural urge to help kids was successfully overridden by the natural urge to do what one's told by one's leaders in line with some religious rubbish the parents had been exposed to.

If you'd like to read up some more on how normal, helpful, decent people can be subverted, try the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment (35th anniversary this year!), which showed just how quick and easy it is to do:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Well perhaps you're right but then what is it that tells us that it is? I suppose if one thinks about it it is evident that certain murderers do kill whereas their human instinct leads them to believe their action is right. The workings of the human mind is fascinating. If I had time in my life, I'd surely study it further. Perhaps religions need to get more involved with science and psychiatry as they are dealing with humans too.

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

Perhaps religions need to get more involved with science and psychiatry as they are dealing with humans too.
Science and religion aren't enemies but rather allies. They are two different languages telling the same story, a story of symmetry and balance. Both science and religion are joined by God's symmetry.

UU, you often come out with some great thoughts and then out of the blue you throw in some idea that really does not stand up. Ask any creationist if the statement of yours above was correct. I think you will not be surprised by the answer. Science and creationism most definitely do NOT tell the same story: go to page one in your Bible and you are already up to your neck in conflict with science. If in any further doubt go and read the 70 page monster thread in this group. In addition, there have been many religions and cults that have used psychiatry very much towards their own ends. To name but a few cults, Charles Manson Family, David Korish in Waco Texas, The Aum cult in Japan. Moving on to religions, all of the major religions in some way or another have at some time during their growth, while some still are, guilty of the same actions. Honestly, fear and playing mental games with people are a hallmark of religion. I dont mean to offend anyone here but this is true. You yourself pointed this out in many of your past posts. I wont ramble on on this subject because it would eventually also lead to the Pedophile issue that is really a vey clear example of mental manipulation of the innocent. and your pet subject, homosexuality, You would then feel compelled to launch into a diatribe on these issues also, which you have by the way over the months already gone into in great depth here on the boards.

UU

Well it's sort of like a dream that cannot be, eh? In my signiture I've quoted from Einstein "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind". I'll stick by what I think and that's all that matters to me. I'll just say one thing though, God created the Earth so he too created science . . .

Anyhow, we're all free thinkers who are complelled to find the mysteries of the universe. It is human nature, ya know!

Back to the thread, how is it that certain churches seem to be going backwards and others are moving forward?

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

Back to the thread, how is it that certain churches seem to be going backwards and others are moving forward?

UU, you always raise such interesting questions in your post:) . So, if you really want to go down this road let start with your opinions of the following.

Einstein said "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind". Explain just what you think this statement says. Hint; never take Einstein at face value, this was one very intelligent dude who did not believe in wasting words.
***Actually I will open this question to anyone that cares to put forth an opinion****

God created the Earth so he too created science. Again, explain what you mean by that. I have heard of the Bible and the many real or otherwise Gospels, but never any God-directed books on science written by any of the founders. We owe most of the info on science to those clever Greeks and Mid Eastern thinkers, none of which were Christian I might add, though I am open to being corrected on this as I am not an expert. I do not need to remind you of the Catholic persecution of scientists and great thinkers do I? So how do you account for this persecution if God made Science?

and finally;
Certain churches seem to be going backwards and others are moving forward? Again, explain what you mean by that, what churches, and how are they going forward or backward. It is considered polite to back a statement with some evidenve

pbsuxok1znja4r

UU wrote:

Okay . . . I cannot conceive you. Please mend your speech a little and I may comprehend somehow.

My, my, that was quite a hefty edit! Anyway, em...I'm not quite sure what the problem could possibly be with my 'speech'. It's pretty error-free...
Especially considering you had a long reply written out to my post earlier, but now I'm incomprehensible?

But yeah, Einstein; an insightful dude indeed.

UU:

You feel certain things are wrong and back this up with what you were taught as a child.
They don't feel it's wrong, and again you agree they were taught certain things as children.

So why should your morality be universal and theirs not? What's the difference, if it's all "I feel x and was taught this as a child'?
Remember, 'it's just wrong' isn't going to suffice as the counter can easily be 'well I don't think it is'.

UU

Asiaprod wrote:

UU, you always raise such interesting questions in your post:) . So, if you really want to go down this road let start with your opinions of the following.

Einstein said "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind". Explain just what you think this statement says. Hint; never take Einstein at face value, this was one very intelligent dude who did not believe in wasting words.
***Actually I will open this question to anyone that cares to put forth an opinion****

God created the Earth so he too created science. Again, explain what you mean by that. I have heard of the Bible and the many real or otherwise Gospels, but never any God-directed books on science written by any of the founders. We owe most of the info on science to those clever Greeks and Mid Eastern thinkers, none of which were Christian I might add, though I am open to being corrected on this as I am not an expert. I do not need to remind you of the Catholic persecution of scientists and great thinkers do I? So how do you account for this persecution if God made Science?

and finally;
Certain churches seem to be going backwards and others are moving forward? Again, explain what you mean by that, what churches, and how are they going forward or backward. It is considered polite to back a statement with some evidenve

Well I'd usually say we should discuss this elsewhere but I'll cave in......Many scientists were actually quite religious (or even religiouse). Galileo was a devout Catholic, Einstein was Jewish, Gregor Mendel, the discoverer of the basic laws of genetics was a monk and Darwin was going to become a church minister before he voyaged and discovered Evolution.

Science without religion is lame. Without it, there is no ethic side to it and that can become very shallow and cold. Also, Religion needs a certain amount of discovery of the world in which in is very much a part of or it becomes almost segregated from reality, hence if a religion deals without humans, it needs to know about humans. An example is Scientology who have little science and live in their own little world.

Well I suppose it was humans who created science but it was God who created the physical universe and its dynamics. For example, genetics is the study of genes and DNA. I believe God created these materials - DNA, genetics as he created humans. But was it God who persecuted scientists or other people? Other people did who wished not be proved wrong, who craved power and dominance. Every part of this world is God's creation. God created us with the nature of questioning and discovery - his gift of free will to our benefit.

Certain churches such as these in this thread are indeed going backwards. Wasn't it but centuries ago when the Roman Church were accusing people of practising witchcraft and burning them on stake? They no longer do this as,like society, they too have evolved and are slowly becoming much more liberal than they once were. These evangelical are reminiscent in ways the the Catholic Churches all those 100 years ago and appear to forget the ethic part of Christianity in which Jesus laid down quite clearly.

Thanks for a nice discussion Asiaprod! It's always a pleasure to talk with you. I look forward to your post.

UU

scouser.tommy wrote:

My, my, that was quite a hefty edit! Anyway, em...I'm not quite sure what the problem could possibly be with my 'speech'. It's pretty error-free...
Especially considering you had a long reply written out to my post earlier, but now I'm incomprehensible?

But yeah, Einstein; an insightful dude indeed.

Well, I misread your post twice and still don't understand what you were rambling on about. You don't understand either - methinks we're on the same boat (lol)

UU

bluewolf wrote:

UU:

You feel certain things are wrong and back this up with what you were taught as a child.
They don't feel it's wrong, and again you agree they were taught certain things as children.

So why should your morality be universal and theirs not? What's the difference, if it's all "I feel x and was taught this as a child'?
Remember, 'it's just wrong' isn't going to suffice as the counter can easily be 'well I don't think it is'.

Hello bluewolf! Nice to talk to you!

I do understand were you are coming from and I can see how you hold such a view.

The way it is, Ireland and many other countries are becoming very multicultural where there is melting pots of various races and cultures. Some of these culture have practises which aren't accepted nor tolerated in our society. Perhaps, in Sudan it is acceptable but not in Ireland. If one chooses to abuse children for these practises they must be punished and can't use "Oh! But its my culture" excuse to avoid this. I don't agree with these practises but they do. I can't tolerate what they are doing. Full stop. Just as I can't tolerate what the Nazis did.

Now, lets change the characters. Just say its Nazis who are killing Jews and I don't agree with it. Whose mortality is right? Mine, theirs, neither or both? But the question is "What is right?" Is killing right? Is raping right? Is torturing somebody right? There has to be a right and a wrong. That's why we have laws. There has to be barriers and limits in society which ensures peace and justice. Unfortunately, there are many societies where people's rights are denied.

Remember, that not everyone will agree with you and you won't agree with everyone else. After all, God did create diversity...

Talk for your questions. I look forward to chatting soon.

robindch

> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -
> Albert Einstein

You're selectively quoting Einstein in a way that I don't think he would approve of. While his use of the term "religion" in that well-known quote was intentional, it wasn't really the right term to use, since he meant something quite different from the "religion" familiar to the average church-goer. There's a list of relevant quotes from Einstein's writing (teachings?) here and probably the best one is this:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Which doesn't have very much to do with the sense of the word "religious" as it's used by most people.

> Science without religion is lame. Without it, there is no ethic side to it
> and that can become very shallow and cold.

Applying Einstein's meaning to his quote, you can get something which makes a bit more sense, and probably a lot closer to what he actually meant:

Knowledge without an sense of wonder is lame and a sense of wonder without knowledge is blind

And, in my own experience, knowlege of the world, together with a sense of wonder, lead towards a strong ethical side, never away from it, and never towards anything either shallow or cold.

UU

UU wrote:

Hello bluewolf! Nice to talk to you!

I do understand were you are coming from and I can see how you hold such a view.

The way it is, Ireland and many other countries are becoming very multicultural where there is melting pots of various races and cultures. Some of these culture have practises which aren't accepted nor tolerated in our society. Perhaps, in Sudan it is acceptable but not in Ireland. If one chooses to abuse children for these practises they must be punished and can't use "Oh! But its my culture" excuse to avoid this. I don't agree with these practises but they do. I can't tolerate what they are doing. Full stop. Just as I can't tolerate what the Nazis did.

Now, lets change the characters. Just say its Nazis who are killing Jews and I don't agree with it. Whose mortality is right? Mine, theirs, neither or both? But the question is "What is right?" Is killing right? Is raping right? Is torturing somebody right? There has to be a right and a wrong. That's why we have laws. There has to be barriers and limits in society which ensures peace and justice. Unfortunately, there are many societies where people's rights are denied.

Remember, that not everyone will agree with you and you won't agree with everyone else. After all, God did create diversity...

Talk for your questions. I look forward to chatting soon.

No. That wasn't my view! I was trying to explain scouser tommy's points.
I think you're slightly avoiding this but when my bf and I were discussing it he insists one can judge whether an action is good or bad based on its effects on society. Which is close enough I suppose.

pbsuxok1znja4r

UU wrote:

Now, lets change the characters. Just say its Nazis who are killing Jews and I don't agree with it. Whose mortality is right? Mine, theirs, neither or both? But the question is "What is right?" Is killing right? Is raping right? Is torturing somebody right? There has to be a right and a wrong. That's why we have laws. There has to be barriers and limits in society which ensures peace and justice. Unfortunately, there are many societies where people's rights are denied.

Technically, I fully agree that there is, in existence, an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. I'm talking about natural law. But from the way you put your points forward, you give no reason for the reader to believe that 'right' and 'wrong' are anything more than your own personal preferences. All this time I've been arguing it with you was solely to make you aware of that. You have apparently arrived at truth by entirely the wrong routes, as people often do.

I believe it would be a nearly impossible task to analyse all the world's civilisations and societies in such a way as to definitely detect the underlying, oft-thwarted influence of natural law; and an even more impossible task to document it. For this reason, I believe natural law is something you can never fully prove; you can put forth only so much indicative evidence etc, and at the end of the day you either believe in it or you don't.

BrianCalgary

UU wrote:

Now, lets change the characters. Just say its Nazis who are killing Jews and I don't agree with it. Whose mortality is right? Mine, theirs, neither or both? But the question is "What is right?" Is killing right? Is raping right? Is torturing somebody right? There has to be a right and a wrong. That's why we have laws. There has to be barriers and limits in society which ensures peace and justice. Unfortunately, there are many societies where people's rights are denied.

The problem with this approach is: Who's opinion of what is right and wrong do we use?
Do we use the Christian Bibles morality?
Do we use Hell's Angel's morality?
How about Mormon?
Or the communist parties?
Or the Human Rights commissions?

They all have different views on the subject. I think that is why our Canadian society is the way it is today. We have been so multi cultural and pluralistic for so long that you can really do whatever you like as long as you can justify it with a cultural or religious excuse.

There is a crowd in Ontario wanting to apply Sari'a law to their community outside of the laws of the jurisdiction. Is that right?

robindch

> you can really do whatever you like as long as you can justify it
> with a cultural or religious excuse.

Yes, you're quite right here. And that's exactly why most (all?) constitutions in the western democracies are human-rights-based, and not religious, "moral", "cultural" based, because, as you rightly point out, if your basis is religious, cultural or whatever else you might want it to be, then you can make laws to do whatever you want to and nobody will, legally, be able to do a single thing to stop you (and, unhappily, leaving armed insurrection against the legislature as the only course of action).

Or, to put it another way, constitutions define the rights of human beings, together with a legislative framework, then leave it up to the legislators to legislate whatever they like, roughly in accordance with the wishes of the people who elect them, as long as enacted laws do not deny any of the fundamental human rights defined in the constitution.

As I said in an almost-identical posting a month or two back, it's a deceptively simple and powerful system which has evolved simply because it produces more successful and stable socities than ones which don't use it.

> There is a crowd in Ontario wanting to apply Sari'a law to their
> community outside of the laws of the jurisdiction. Is that right?

I don't know what you mean by "right" here, but if the Sharia law denies any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to Canadian citizens and others on its territory, then the Sharia law is, ipso facto, unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. Much and all as you seem to detest it, the Human Rights Commission sounds like the body to contact here if you're aware of any instances of rights denials, though I'm sure they're already familar with the situation in Ontario.

pbsuxok1znja4r

BrianCalgary wrote:

Do we use Hell's Angel's morality?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Yes, you're quite right here. .

This threw me.

robindch wrote:

Or, to put it another way, constitutions define the rights of human beings, together with a legislative framework, then leave it up to the legislators to legislate whatever they like, roughly in accordance with the wishes of the people who elect them, as long as enacted laws do not deny any of the fundamental human rights defined in the constitution.

As I said in an almost-identical posting a month or two back, it's a deceptively simple and powerful system which has evolved simply because it produces more successful and stable socities than ones which don't use it.

I don't know what you mean by "right" here, but if the Sharia law denies any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to Canadian citizens and others on its territory, then the Sharia law is, ipso facto, unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. Much and all as you seem to detest it, the Human Rights Commission sounds like the body to contact here if you're aware of any instances of rights denials, though I'm sure they're already familar with the situation in Ontario.

And this is the problem. The elected legislators and the people of the province say no to such a set-up. How can two sets of laws work for different groups living next door to one another. The Human Rights Commission is fighting for the rights of the minority (Muslims) who want to be ruled by Shari'a law and are demanded that right to do so. (I am open to being corrected on the exact details as this was front page news in 2005)

The question then begs: Who's law and morality do we use?

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

The question then begs: Who's law and morality do we use?

I am totally confused here.
I read robindch's post to say that IF there were a denial of rights the Human rights commission would blah blah blah, which is fine.

But there is not a denial. Canada is Canada with its own laws and morality. If a Sharia abiding individual wishes to live in Canada then they have to accept Canadian laws. If they don't like the laws then move to a country that observes Sharia Law. You come to Japan and tell the Government to observe Irish Law and you will be on the next plane to Dublin compliments of the Japanese Government, and you will be expected to pay for your own ticket.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Human Rights Commission is fighting for the rights of the minority (Muslims) who want to be ruled by Shari'a law and are demanded that right to do so. (I am open to being corrected on the exact details as this was front page news in 2005)

Details are slightly incorrect -

Under the 1991 Ontario Arbitration Act the Islamic Instinution of Civil Justice (is that what you mean by human right commission) won the right to conduct civil legal actions involving things like marriage and business under Shari law.

The act allows religious or customary laws to decide disputes over things like inheritence. As far as I know Jews and Christians have been able to do that since 1991. Its not really something new, its just that Islamic law is now included along with Jewish and Christian law.

AFAIK it doesn't extend to crimal proceedings, and all parties have to agree to have Islamic law used, and any decision must fit into the Canadan charter of rights, and decision can be appealed to an appeal court.

TBH it sounds like an religious Judge Judy.

[EDIT] BTW, I don't think it is a very good idea at all, but I imagine a lot of people would apprecate using their religious laws in these matter [/EDIT]

Eru

If the person that the action is being performed on objects, is offended or does not wish the act too be performed then its wrong. If the person that the act is being performed on encourages, wants the act and/or enjoys the act then so be it.

simple

Unfortunately this is not as simple with children.On that basis I would work on the basis, is the act in the best interest of the child and its development and/or life?

robindch

Under Shariah law, marriage isn't a "sacrament", but a legally-binding contract between a two people and is often negotiated with the help of a marriage lawyer who negotiates an "all-areas" deal between the people being married. This tends to make it more of a legally-regulated and clearly-delineated institution within muslims than it is between similarly inclined christians where marriage-contracts are regarded as something of a deal-killer.

And as wicknight said, the whole shebang only applies if all parties agree to it beforehand, which ultimately makes it a private agreement between consenting parties, just the way it should be, assuming rights aren't abridged. Can't see what's anti-social about that.

BrianCalgary

I believe that womens groups were quite concerned abou t this. That women are viewed as objects and are not legal entities within the Muslim world. Therefore they would not have a choice as to whether or not they participated in the Shari'a law ro the Canadian Law.

My objection to it is pretty simple. You left your country of origin, that operates under Shari'a law to come for a better life in Canada. Then live under the laws of the country you are moving to. If Shari'a law is the answer, there are a number of countries in the world where you could live secure in th eknowledge that Shari'a law prevails.

Quand vous etes en Rome, comme faites des Romains.

UU

Certainement Brian!

Je pense que les musulmans Canadiens sont doué!

The Shi'a Law is harsh and cruel. It certainly contrasts the liberal Canadian laws. For example, in Northern Nigeria one can get killed for being gay, in Canada there are same-sex marriages!

I really can't imagine many of these Muslims liking these laws if they choose to emigrate!