Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Hitchens: To Hell With the Archbishop of Canterbury
slate.com — "..the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has cited the Beth Din as one of his reasons for believing that sharia, or Islamic law, can and should become a part of what he called "plural jurisdiction" in Britain." Christopher Hitchens makes an elegant argument about what an idiot the Archbishop is.
The3rdMan- 17 diggs
- digg it
- orangetiki, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4i'll digg it just for the " to hell with archbishop canterbury " title
- IrishJoe, on 02/11/2008, -7/+1I am no fan of sharia law and the Islamic treatment of women, but I have to say that Hitchens is full of *****. The Beth Din do not force Jews to follow its decisions, they must agree to have the Beth Din decide their cases in advance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm So if Muslim courts were set up they way Jewish Beth Din courts are, his argument of a Muslim woman in a domestic violence situation being forced to have her case decided by an Islamic court is a false argument. According to the above article (referred to in Hitchens’ own article by the way) “Both sides in a [Beth Din] dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din.”
So not only do the parties have to agree to have their cases decided by religious courts, English Law already allows third party religious courts. It’s already allowed by English law, Hitchens!
Hitchens, as usual, is lying through his teeth! He knows this as well as I do, and yet he uses the situation of a woman beaten by her husband to emotionally win over his readers. Hitchens is a staunch atheist who regularly attacks Christians who use such tactics. Isn’t this emotional blackmail the very thing he rails against when he attacks Christians who in his opinion lead their followers astray? Hitchens is therefore no better than a televangelist using emotion to sway people because his logic is lacking. Hitchens calls the Archbishop of Canterbury a “fatuous cleric,” but Hitchens has proved himself to be even more of one. Sorry, Reverend Hitchens, I call ***** on you. - The3rdMan, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4To Irish Joe: No silly man, the problem is that third party agreements are allowed but now when they are in conflict with the law of the land. Huge distinction.
- IrishJoe, on 02/12/2008, -5/+1Certainly these third party religious courts shouldn't be allowed to violate law. The same would be true if Beth Din court decisions are in conflict with the law. If the law allows Jewish courts if the parties agree to them then it has to allow Islamic courts as arbitrators as well. If not then we've established a law that favors one religion and punishes another. And that, silly The3rdMan, is what we hate in those Islamic theocracies which pass laws favoring Islam to the exclusion of other religions. Do you see the point now?
- The3rdMan, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4No - he argues that Beth Din should not be allowed nor is it acknowledged as allowable under the law (it is used in arcane Jewish disputes)...it is used without the British court's consent. You really should read the article before you criticize and jump to conclusions.
"But to speak in general, Jews in Britain consider themselves, and are considered, to be answerable to the same laws as everybody else. Should I mention any of the numerous reasons why it would be extremely nerve-racking if this were not true?"- IrishJoe, on 02/12/2008, -3/+1Oh, I see: All Jews Good -- All Muslims Bad. All Jews are of one mind and all Muslims are of another. They are not individuals, but groups and we have already decided which groups are good and which are bad.I understand your point completely, now. Forgive me if I do not wish to waste any more of my time trying to discuss things with you.
- davharrington, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2@the3rdMan
Why bother discussing ANYTHING with this guy, he is either a troll trying to provoke you or clever ZIONIST false flag sock puppet, trying to make liberals look like petty minded ignorant pricks.
If it's the latter I'd say he has definately read some of Ayn Rand's works.
- davharrington, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2@the3rdMan
- The3rdMan, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Are you seriously retarded? HITCHENS STATES CLEARLY IN THE ARTICLE THAT THE BETH DIN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!!!! It is the archbishop who cites the Beth Din to explain why he believes sharia law should be allowed. What the ***** is your problem?? Who said muslims should be treated differently than jews??
- IrishJoe, on 02/12/2008, -3/+1Oh, I see: All Jews Good -- All Muslims Bad. All Jews are of one mind and all Muslims are of another. They are not individuals, but groups and we have already decided which groups are good and which are bad.I understand your point completely, now. Forgive me if I do not wish to waste any more of my time trying to discuss things with you.
- The3rdMan, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4No - he argues that Beth Din should not be allowed nor is it acknowledged as allowable under the law (it is used in arcane Jewish disputes)...it is used without the British court's consent. You really should read the article before you criticize and jump to conclusions.
- IrishJoe, on 02/12/2008, -5/+1Certainly these third party religious courts shouldn't be allowed to violate law. The same would be true if Beth Din court decisions are in conflict with the law. If the law allows Jewish courts if the parties agree to them then it has to allow Islamic courts as arbitrators as well. If not then we've established a law that favors one religion and punishes another. And that, silly The3rdMan, is what we hate in those Islamic theocracies which pass laws favoring Islam to the exclusion of other religions. Do you see the point now?
- mloger, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2IrishJoe i think some mis communication. from page you mention "The service provided by the Beth Din is best described as binding civil arbitration, and they do not seek to replace the state's civil courts." The second point from the page "And in the case of divorce, the parties must still obtain a civil divorce alongside the religious one." I don't know what civil solutions Muslim courts would use that would be legal. That form of law is incompatible with modern western law.
- IrishJoe, on 02/12/2008, -2/+1Have you read the Babylonian Talmud on which much of Beth Din is based? And yet Beth Din seem to be allowed and function well within the limits imposed by civil law. Islamic courts should be should be similarly limited by civil law, but given the latitude that civil law allows. Binding civil arbitration would be the best candidate as you say. Other issues that are matters of religion but not contrary to prevailing civil law could be addressed by these as well. Marriage and divorce are areas where civil and religious laws need to work together.
When I married my wife I got a marriage license from the state and it was filed with the state. In my religion, Roman Catholicism, I would not be married unless it was presided over by a priest (regardless of whether the state considered me married), otherwise the Catholic Church would consider me still single. So we had a priest perform the ceremony. If I choose to divorce my wife, I can do so, but only the state will recognize it. My church will consider me still married since it does not recognize divorce regardless of whether the state does. The state doesn't care that my church doesn't recognize divorce, though. They agree to disagree on this point. British civil law already allows for British Muslims to go to an Islamic court to arbitrate disagreements. If a Muslim couple gets a divorce from the Islamic courts but does not file the necessary papers, English law will probably not recognize the divorce until they do. Much like if my church married my wife and I without our having a license filed showing that the marriage took place. Or if I belonged to a religion that did recognize divorce and they divorced me without my seeking a civil divorce. It wouldn’t count as far as the state is concerned.
Religious groups have to live within the bounds of the civil laws they find themselves in. If they don't their decisions won't be recognized as legal by the state. If Islamic courts don’t play by the rules of civil law they don’t get to play. If Beth Din courts don’t play by the rules of civil law they don’t get to play either. Some passages of the Koran and the Babylonian Talmud are not compatible with western civil law and must take a back seat to civil law if followers wish to remain part of the society having those civil laws. If we say some parts of the Koran are not compatible with western civil law therefore no Islamic courts can be allowed we would have to say the same for Beth Din.
I’m sure that this comment will end up with -4 points or more like my other comments because I didn’t say let’s hate all the Muslims. Just as comments in defense of African-Americans were ridiculed 50 years ago. I am proud to be down-voted for this, and I thank those who have done so.- mloger, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I think we are on the same page. my concern is can they keep it within the bounds of civil law.
Oh and i like Hitchens but he is over zealous most of the time.- IrishJoe, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I agree with you completely, Mloger. Also, I just bumped your comment score from zero up to 1. I think The3rdMan, down voted you to zero because you said something critical of Saint Christopher (Hitchens) whom he worships as a god ironically. I’m glad we’re on the same page. No religion deserves to be above the law. No person (even one in high governmental office) deserves to be above the law. Religious zealots of any stripe can be very dangerous. And it seams even atheistic zealots are worth keeping an eye on. Thanks for the post.
- mloger, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I think we are on the same page. my concern is can they keep it within the bounds of civil law.
- IrishJoe, on 02/12/2008, -2/+1Have you read the Babylonian Talmud on which much of Beth Din is based? And yet Beth Din seem to be allowed and function well within the limits imposed by civil law. Islamic courts should be should be similarly limited by civil law, but given the latitude that civil law allows. Binding civil arbitration would be the best candidate as you say. Other issues that are matters of religion but not contrary to prevailing civil law could be addressed by these as well. Marriage and divorce are areas where civil and religious laws need to work together.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by