Animal cruelty as a religious freedom?

Or the religion can evolve with the times, just like everyone else. After all, if you did everything you read in the bible, you'd be thrown in jail as well. And where does it stop, especially when you consider that groups like Scientologists can spring up and call themselves a new religion.

Perhaps we should make an exception to enforce this against adulterers: "Bring a mob against them and give them over to terror and plunder. The mob will stone them and cut them down with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn down their houses." Personally, I'm not too keen on stoning people and killing their children. *shrugs*

And while we're at it, lets just start enforcing Sharia Law on all Muslims. Its really none of our business to interfere with honor killings, after all, you have to respect the religious belief.

The Bible is just a story book written by man (and we all know man is fallible) so I'm sure there are many inaccuracies so I personally won't quote passages of said book. I'm also sure there are those who believe every word that is written and, again, as long as they aren't hurting me or others, let them believe as they wish. Scientologists should be free to believe what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone who doesn't believe.

As for Sharia Law, as long as they live in their own country let them practice their religion to meet the laws and rules of their country. If they wish to live in North America then they must certainly abide by the laws and rules of this country which would most definitely include our interference with honour killings.

Both are Abrahamic religions so share some similarity, but the difference is that Western nations either have complete separation of Church and state or at least to the extent that secular law is not directly linked to the Church.

Basically, because many Muslim states are theocracies, the texts in the Quran are state law, where Western influence is banned and many crimes are punished by beheadings, stoning to death and amputation as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran for example.

Now you may think, well, clearly this has nothing to do with me and no Western nation would be ruled by such nonsense, but leave it to liberal politicians in the UK to have actually enacted Sharia law... no, I'm not kidding, this has already happened. Sharia courts/tribunals have been setup and given authority in the UK to enact and enforce family and criminal law, so UK law for the people of the country is no longer absolute and there are parallel legal systems. The results are legally binding, there is no requirement for legal representation, no requirement for holding court documents, no appeal system, etc.

So for example, if you're a Christian woman and are beat by your husband or are due inheritance or there is a question of child custody, the husband would be subject to battery charges and you'd be due an equal share with your siblings and the child's interests would be taken into account on a case-by-case basis. If you're a Muslim woman, the husband is most likely just required to take anger management courses assuming the female can convince the courts it wasn't justified, you would get only half as much as your male siblings, and the child is given to the father at a preset age regardless of circumstances per Sharia. There are reports by wives that were forced into arranged marriages overseas that immigrate to the UK and seek divorce after suffering verbal and physical abuse by their husbands, that await decision by Imams. And recall that since it is a woman placing the complaint, unlike a man's, it has to be corroborated by another person to be admissible evidence, which also has little weight unless that person is male. And there is a push now to have Sharia Law expanded to allow civil punishments such as the removal of hands for convicted criminals.

So if you think that parallel legal systems are a great idea, then definitely set one animal cruelty law for some people of society and supersede it with another set of rules for another.
That is a very pleasant fantasy. It is always nice to have positive aspirations... IMO there is a reason they have been partially banned as a dangerous cult in Germany and last I heard of are under constant surveillance after trying to infiltrate and subvert the government there, something founding members were already convicted of in the US.

I am not a religious person, so really have no preference for one over the other, but I will admit that I am frightened by some of the more militant groups and support the US policy of separation of church and state.

Just because Germany considers them dangerous does not make it so. But, I repeat, folks will believe what they wish, nay or yay whether it be fact, propaganda, or just plain lies.

I personally subscribe to the idea that, at least among younger people that aren't yet indoctrinated, most are reasonable and weigh all available evidence before coming to a conclusion based on reasoned logic. See wikipedia sources and wikileaks for more information on Scientology documents if you do want to witness evidence to come to your own conclusion, as anyone should IMO.

But to stay more on topic, the main point is whether or not we should allow religions to supersede national law, and what kind of slippery slope that represents.

After all, if you say, here is a law for everyone... except group A. Then what do you tell group B when they want THEIR own laws to overrule that of everyone else. You've set a precedent, which can then be used as evidence of discrimination in the courts as you can't very well show religious favoritism, and you know that's how creative lawyers will spin it.

It would seem that we actually agree on something.

There must be some mistake... hold on, I may need to adjust my position accordingly to maintain balance in the Force and keep this forum feng shui.

AFAIK, Judge Judy is not government endorsed and is not a court of law nor does she have a current law license (says so in the disclaimer on the show), and can only mediate over small claims cases up to five grand. Judge Judy would not be able to handle the several cases of domestic violence assaults where the victim may suffer intimidation or community pressure to abide by Muslim law rather than be afforded state protection or inheritance disputes and the like as Sharia courts have under the Arbitration Act which carries the same enforcement as high court since the law change.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4749183.ece

But in any case, the government allowing the bypass of animal cruelty laws for one religious group would open a precedent for other religious groups, such as Sharia Courts, to request equal treatment and have other federal laws bypassed for religious reasons. Either something is animal cruelty, or its not animal cruelty, the religious beliefs of the individual doesn't have a bearing on that judgement call. Seems everyone agrees on that fact at least.