Doing a Robert.

[johcaschro]

Religious freedom review appointee has argued for limited sharia law in Australia

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/15/religious-freedom-review-appointee-has-argued...

"The Turnbull government has appointed an academic who has argued that recognising religious freedom should include acceptance of a limited form of sharia law to the Ruddock review.

On Thursday the government released broad terms of reference for its religious freedom inquiry, headed by former attorney general Philip Ruddock, including the new appointment of University of Queensland constitutional law professor Nicholas Aroney to the five-person panel.

Aroney is an expert on legal pluralism, law and religion who has warned that religious freedom has become a second-class right to anti-discrimination and argued that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law within “strictly justifiable limits imposed by the general law”.

So, in an attempt to guarantee religious freedom to  people are we also to support their freedom to oppress some others in their religious community because, well, it's religious and a religious teaching and therefore we should be free to be religiously devout in our oppression of others?

As for all you infidelic unbelievers, well, you know what you can do . . . or maybe what we can do to you . . . all in the name of religious freedom, you understand?

So, as Bob would say . . . Discuss.

(and yes, you really should read the article linked to . . it won't kill you to do a little reading, after all.)

[springyzone]

I call this the thin edge of the wedge.

When it comes to law, it should be one law for all.

There has been quite a bit on TV about it in the past, enough to know that sharia law is already being applied informally in some places in Australia.

There have also been calls for the laws to be changed to allow multiple wives, but only for muslims. Again, based on their religious beliefs.

It's one thing to allow religious freedom, quite another to allow religious groups the right to decide issues of law. If someone breaks some of their rules, fair enough to expel them from their religious community or whatever.

But what we're looking at here is the possibility of people being physically punished for things that may not be a crime in our community eg being unfaithful, not wearing a hijab, maybe dating a non muslim or whatever

I would ask this. If on the one hand, we have people campaigning against violence, arguing that parents cannot hit their children etc, how on the other hand can you justify some in the community having the right to eg flog others simply based on religion.

Because that's what sharia law often requires- a physical punishment.

[not_for_sale2024]

Personally, I think we need to work backwards to address this issue. We must identify the behaviours that we will not accept and limit all religions, sects, groups etc. from practices that do not comply with our laws around these behaviours. This includes men and women of the cloth who sexually abuse our children and those religions which practice and condone physical abuse directed at children and women.

We profess to be a civilised society and have spoken loudly over recent times about domestic violence. The message seems clear to me that the average Australian is no longer prepared to tolerate these crimes and wants our Government to rectify the problem.

If religious freedom has become a licence to cause harm, injury or death, then it is a freedom that does not fit within our culture and must be removed. Surely it is time. Has humanity not progressed to the point where we have the right to question cruel practices that are not consistent with modern thinking? Or are we still fearful of the wrath that will be befall us?

[johcaschro]

Yes, I agree that working backwards to identify behaviours and even teachings which produce certain attitudes which are not accptable, is a good place to start.

Right now we have in the Catholic church, a practice called a sacrament (confession) which allows priests to be a virtual accessory to crime after the fact with no penalty to pay under the law when they fail to report their knowledge of crime comitted to the police. Should they be allowed to retain this particular religious freedom?

[go-tazz]

---

@johcaschro wrote:

Yes, I agree that working backwards to identify behaviours and even teachings which produce certain attitudes which are not accptable, is a good place to start.

Right now we have in the Catholic church, a practice called a sacrament (confession) which allows priests to be a virtual accessory to crime after the fact with no penalty to pay under the law when they fail to report their knowledge of crime comitted to the police. Should they be allowed to retain this particular religious freedom?

---

IMHO this should never have been allowed as it's basically saying that a "Christian" can commit any crime and

as long as they tell a priest,all will be forgiven and they can just get on with life.

No church is above the law but the sacrament has always meant that the Catholic church believes that they are

above the law,(which might also explain others things the church is guilty for as they "confessed" and were

forgiven so the law was ignored by the guilty parties and the priest).

The same could happen if Sharia law was allowed to be introduced as they believe that Sharia law is above

the common law of this country,(it is not and instead it makes a mockery of any real law).

[johcaschro]

This is an age old problem. Whose law is more important to the people; the law of their sovereign State or the law of their religion?

Can people who hold very strong and sincere religious beliefs ever be fully trusted to obey the civil laws of the land in the event of a conflict of conscience, where the State requires one course of action but their religion prescribes another (and vice versa)?

[springyzone]

---

@johcaschro wrote:

Yes, I agree that working backwards to identify behaviours and even teachings which produce certain attitudes which are not accptable, is a good place to start.

Right now we have in the Catholic church, a practice called a sacrament (confession) which allows priests to be a virtual accessory to crime after the fact with no penalty to pay under the law when they fail to report their knowledge of crime comitted to the police. Should they be allowed to retain this particular religious freedom?

---

The trouble as I see it is that it is highly unlikely that the offending priests would confess it or ever confessed it. I was reading in the paper once that several priests who had worked in the same area as some of the offenders said they had never received a confession from anyone about paedophilia.

I would think the reason offenders never confessed is they didn't want anyone else to find out. Absolution is not a given, the person has to show sorrow & an effort to make reparation.

I think many of the offending priests were living a double life, trying to appear as fine upstanding priests to the outside world & their true behaviour only known to themselves or similar cronies.

The other difficulty is in the old days, confession was in separated, darkened cubicles so the priest hearing the  confession would not know who it was on the other side confessing.

It's true there is a sacrament of reconciliation as it is called now but it has changed a lot over the years & is more to discuss problems than confess sins & I would question how many catholics actually use it. I think it has virtually died out for most.

There is a clash between law/church custom if a crime happened to be confessed. I think it would be extremely rare for this to happen but as reparation, the priest could always insist the offender must go to the police.

But yes, they should have to report serious crime to the police. That should be in law, overriding church law.

People often bring up this topic of confession but I think in some ways it is a red herring. It's not comparing apples to apples. Confession as I said has mainly died out and serious offenders rarely confess to anything (maybe in jail they might, after they are caught & convicted, but that's about all). No confession of criminal activity= no conflict of interest.

On the other hand, sharia law is alive & well & kicking & would be widely used.

[johcaschro]

Offenders might not want to confess, but sometimes their victims do.

"Priest alerted fellow paedophile priest after victim came to him in confession, inquiry told

Royal commission hears paedophile priest had no qualms about ‘breaking the seal of confession’ to reveal to Father Ronald Pickering what 13-year-old boy said".

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/30/priests-victim-used-confession-to-confide-in-...

[johcaschro]

Re Sharia law, I'm not quite certain what parts of Sharia are being argued for (introduction)

There already exists in Australia Sharia-compliant financial instruments.

There is already in Australia the ability for consenting parties to have Sharia-compliant inheritance rights.

There is no legal limitation in Australia regarding how many co-habiting partners a man (or a woman, for that matter) can have.

What is being asked for when "acceptance of a limited form of sharia law" is suggested?

I don't think that any aspect of Sharia criminal law is being suggested, but aspects of Sharia civil law might be.

[springyzone]

---

@johcaschro wrote:

Offenders might not want to confess, but sometimes their victims do.

"Priest alerted fellow paedophile priest after victim came to him in confession, inquiry told

Royal commission hears paedophile priest had no qualms about ‘breaking the seal of confession’ to reveal to Father Ronald Pickering what 13-year-old boy said".

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/30/priests-victim-used-confession-to-confide-in-...

---

I hadn't seen that.

But I think the key point in that is it was what i'd call a crony- a fellow paedophile. They were already breaking the rules so had no hesitation to break another.

That was the reason behind the priest's queries about where the boy lived. He had no idea of who it was confessing but wanted to identify who the priest was in that area.

And as I said-I very much doubt serious offenders would confess to anything. Not then, not now.