Muslim Shariah law taking place in Australia..

Views: 558

Comment by matt.clerke on August 4, 2011 at 9:55pm

I think if an immigrant to Australia openly confesses that they hold ANY other law above the law Australia then they should be denied entry. If you want Sharia law then stay in your crappy home country and leave us alone. I just hope Australia stays true to its democratic, secular roots... I don't know where I would move if Australia became Islamic... probably Holland.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 10:01pm

Do you think for one minute that the average melanoma-riddled outback Aussie is going to accept one mandate of Sharia?

Comment by matt.clerke on August 4, 2011 at 10:07pm

No but the vast majority of Australians probably won't notice the fact that Sharia is being used at all... Once it is being used, that fact will be used as an argument that it should be legally binding. Once it is legally binding, More and more pieces of sharia will be brought in, justified by sharia's success and legal status.

 

By the time the majority of Australians realise what is happening, it may be too late to change anything.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 10:10pm

It is only being considered as a basis in third party arbitration and is of no higher status than Catholic, Jewish, or secular third party arbitration.  It's a way of saving on legal fees and court costs and in no way overrides legislated legal code.  This is all a sensationalized Islamophobic panic message.

Comment by matt.clerke on August 4, 2011 at 10:18pm

It's a way of saving on legal fees and court costs and in no way overrides legislated legal code.

And that will be fine...as long as it doesn't go further. Admittedly I don't really understand how it can coexist with Australian law. Sharia makes some sense for marriage and divorce(even though it grossly violates human rights imo) but what about other areas of the law? If someone commits a so-called 'honour killing', who decides which law they are subject to? or would they be subject to both? That certainly won't save legal fees...

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 10:38pm

I don't see what you are failing to see here.  A Catholic couple married by Catholic rites will seek in divorce court the settle their 'divorce' as an annulment through their priest.  Why are you NOT threatened by that?  What is the difference between that and a Muslim couple opting to settle their divorce through their Imam?  What is the difference between either of those and an Atheist couple opting to settle their divorce through their lifelong property attorney?

 

Where has it been suggested even for a second that the Queen's Court would differ to a spiritual counselor in determining guilt in a crown offense?  What is so compelling about this fear mongering by an irrational boob that has you so mesmerized that you are jumping the the most ridiculous conclusions?

 

Why the fuck do I even bother?  It seems that any message of hatred, no matter how poorly thought out, will pervade the human mind with ten fold the intensity of any rational discourse - even amongst a group of self-proclaimed 'free thinkers'.  It looks like this shit is just going to spread through the hatefully retarded masses until we are at a full scale never ending war in the middle east.

Comment by matt.clerke on August 4, 2011 at 10:45pm

Why are you NOT threatened by that?

As far as I am aware, Christian countries do not stone someone to death because they were raped. Alot of christians might like to, but the law of the land stops them. In islamic countries, islam is law. In islamic countries, if a woman is raped she gets charged with adultery and stoned to death. I am not AS threatened by christianity as I am by islam. Proportional response imo.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 11:02pm

What's with the red-herring?  Do you live in an Islamic country?  Are we discussing Islamic countries?  No, we aren't on both accounts.  You got caught up in some hateful rhetoric, made some completely irrational leaps of non-logic and now you have NOTHING to say to defend your position so you make a plea to emotion about a completely unrelated issue.  I realize it is too embarrassing for you to admit that here publicly so you won't just apologize for your foolishness - but at least think twice before you jump on the 'I hate this/that group' bandwagon and make such irrational post again, ok?  Thank you.

Comment by matt.clerke on August 5, 2011 at 12:23am

You asked why I was not threatened by christianity. I responded by stating why I find islam to be more of a threat to my way of life than christianity. In particular, I used islamic countries as examples of places where sharia law is used. I see no red herring. I am not trying to change the topic.

 

FYI, accusing me of using a red herring, is itself a red herring.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 5, 2011 at 12:32am

There you go again.  I did NOT ask you why you were not threatened by Christianity.  I specifically stated the case of a Catholic couple using third party arbitration to settle their divorce and asked you why you did not find that threatening.  You've continued to meander off to meaningless unrelated poppycock to avoid admitting you have misspoken and have zero grounds for thinking Sharia is any closer to being implemented in place of the QBC in Australia than Catechism.  Do you not understand what third party arbitration means?  Do you not realize that it has been an option in the Commonwealth since the 1940's?  Don't you realize that Muslims have created ZERO change to current laws but are only using existing laws to obtain the same rights under the law as other citizens?  What part of this are you too stupid to understand?

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service