Should religious sects have the right to live according to their own religious laws rather than the laws of the country they live in?
There are many religious sects with what many of us in the developed world would consider odd customs. As they appear so out of place the Mormons in the US are perhaps an obvious example, however should such societies have different laws from the country they are in? If they are an autonomous group are they not entitled to autonomy? This issue ranges from the very small scale, such as policies of religious schools right up to the international level. Islamists the world over demand to live under sharia law no matter where they live, and in some countries such as Nigeria they get their way, the Christians live under one set of laws, Muslims under another.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Equality in multi cultural societies is needed
How can a country call itself multi cultural when the laws that are set are catered towards the main religion of that country? Even in Britain, the laws come from a Christian perspective. The laws are based around the 10 commandments. We can also see that as Christians have become more secular, so have the laws of Britain. Adultery is rife these days (watch Jeremy Kyle for confirmation of this) and adultery is no longer illegal. Homosexuality was illegal, in the last 50 years this has changed and Christianity can be seen as more accepting of homosexuality these days. So whilst the laws have followed Christianity, other, more stringent religions, have become more and more displaced from the laws of Britain and therefore society in general. Laws should be relevant to who they apply to. Therefore, a separate set of laws should apply to Muslims than to Christians.
I don't agree because the laws of the UK are the laws of the UK. If people want to come here they can abide by UK laws. It's multicultural enough letting people practice their own religions but why should their be two sets of laws? In Nigeria this is the case and it has created an "us and them" society. If such a society was defined, this would lead to more cultural and religious clashes. Maybe the UK doesn't want to be full secular, perhaps the majority quite like things as they are. I don't see Dubai or Saudi-Arabia bending over backwards to please other religions!
And Christianity has NOT beocme more secular. It has simply been abandoned by society and the government. That is why the laws of this country have moved away from Christianity.
In Saudi-Arabia a woman must wear a burkha but she can go to a shopping mall and by a mini-skirt. That's not Islam being secular, that is simply attitudes changing, she still has to wear the burkha.
Two separate laws means two separate societies and the point of multiculturalism is surely to unite under one constitution?
Respect for other people's values
Different religions value different things and laws should apply to those things that people value and how they value them. For instance, Jehovah witnesses should be able to reject medical treatment for their children. They value life in a different way to Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is correct. Forcing people to live according to the majority's values is an oligarchical community, not a democratic one. To respect everyone, even minority groups, they need to be allowed the freedom to live according to their own laws.
So you believe that a child should die because their parents believe in an unprovable being that has commanded them to in effect kill there children.
I don;t need to 'respect' unfounded beliefs if they actively harm people. Equally I don;t need to respect unfounded beliefs.
such religious laws can compliment national law
A separate religious code can compliment the national legislation and this has been working in South East London where a Somali court exists. This court allows for arbitration by a third party. The two disputing parties can choose which law their dispute is settled under. No party can be forced to settle under these conditions but they can agree to it. This is the perfect solution to religious integration. The national law should allow for consenting parties to agree their dispute under a different legal code based on religious or cultural codes. As long as no party is forced into one of these religious courts, there should be no trouble for national law to recognise these courts as legally binding.
This still creates issues regarding which law is superior. It would seem pointless in such courts existing if a natioanl court could over turn these minority court decisions. However, surely for our society we need the national courts to have control over all aspects of justice administration. National law should be able to ensure that these arbitration courts are being 'reasonable'; and reasonable is one standard that everyone in society is expected to attain. Surely this negates the whole point of having dual legal systems. Therefore, we should keep one legal system that is mindful of the wishes of the conflicting parties; this is the compromise.
Laws should unify, not segregate
The whole point of having laws that tell us what we cannot do, is that they allow us all to live by common standards whilst allowing us to live how we like inside what the law posts that are set. If we started having different laws for different communities, different religions in society would not be able to mix. This would cause conflicts. How can we keep the same people in one society who are all following different laws. It simply is not viable.
it would cause legal conflicts
How could different sets of laws for different religions be regulated? What if a Christian had a dispute with a Muslim and the matter went to court. How could the two sets of laws be administered? It would simply be too difficult and neither party would be happy with the outcome. By trying to please all and creating different laws for different religions, you would in fact please no one. If we looked at Shariah law, when would this apply? If a Muslim committed a crime against a Christian, would they receive the punishment under Shariah law or Christian law - the Shariah punishment obviously being more severe? The other way around it is equally confusing; what if a Christian committed a crime against a Muslim, which punishment would they receive? The controversy that this would cause is simply not worth it.
This can easily be resolved by national law regulating the conduct of religious courts. National law can prescribe the conditions which need to be fulfilled before a religious court is used. One of these conditions would reasonably be that parties have to agree to use the appointed court. That way, if the conflict is between people of different religions, the natioanl courts would be used instead of religious courts. In this way, Muslims would be able to agree to both use the Muslim court to settle their dispute. That way, they are allowed to keep to the rules of their religion and live life by their own code.
anyone can create a set of values and call it a 'religion'
The aim of creating different laws for different religions would be to respect other people's values. However, with this aim in mind, every single person could create their own set of values according to how they wish to live, classify it as a 'religion' and demand that their values should be recognised by the legal system. There is no definition of a religion and therefore this could be easily done. The only way around it would be to only allow different laws for mainstream religions. But then we are back to the original problem of not respecting other people's values in the legal system simply because they do not form part of the majority.
laws should be religiously and culturally unbiased
Religion already causes so much conflict and discord in society; creating different legal systems to accommodate different religions would cause even more conflict. Protest groups would be formed of people who thoroughly disagree with the laws of other religions. The whole point of law is that it is a standard that everyone has to maintain in order for society to function. The whole concept of a legal system would not work if different people were allowed to follow different systems. Instead of trying to create laws that are specific to every religion, we should instead try to attain a legal system that sets the bare minimum standard that is humane and unbiased.
when you follow the law of your country
well things is better h=when we follow the law of the country overall so research the law of your country and u will see ok bye !!!!!
this is no reason my opponents to say tht u should follow the rules research and then talk to us the proposition again ok thank you
What do you think?