Islam a Race?

[BashfulAnthony]

This is a non-discussion:  Islam is a religion.

[Rhiannon]

My grandmother was a RC. She quit going to church during the war but she still lived and died a RC; it broke her heart that she couldn't practice her faith.

Why couldn't she practice it?

She was sickened by the then Pope's actions during WW11 and could no longer be a part of the church over which he presided; given the authority the Pope had/has she felt it called into question the whole of her faith. So she stopped practicing. But she never felt comfortable with Anglicanism either, even though she married an Anglican and raised my mum as one.

[Hope]

Which is in complete agreement with what I was saying

Sorry, NS, perhaps I should have made it clearer that my post was meant to be 'illustrative'.  It wasn't meant to be argumentative.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is in complete agreement with what I was saying

Sorry, NS, perhaps I should have made it clearer that my post was meant to be 'illustrative'.  It wasn't meant to be argumentative.

No problem, the deterministic position doesn't seem like your normal one

[Hope]

Every negative claim you've made about the supposed social impacts of homosexuality has been refuted.

Very few claims I've made about homosexual relationships (notice the difference from your constant misquoting) have been refuted, O.  There has been some evidence produced which suggest that, if long-term studies reflect what the short-term studies that have been done indicate, your claim might be true.  So far, no long-term studies have been done.

Even if they weren't, that still doesn't justify your erroneous assertion that people can choose their sexuality.

Whereas I believe that there is evidence to indicate that people of homosexual orientation can choose not to exercise that orientation, choosing instead to marry heterosexually very happily.  I know there is evidence, as I know several such people.  The majority have been married for over 25 years.

[Hope]

You can't be a practicing Christian and not go to church. I've tried it both ways. Church is an integral part of Christian life.

There are spiritual paths that don't require some kind of fellowship. Monotheistic religion most definitely does.

I would only partially agree, Rhi.  Whilst living in Nepal, we cam across several people who were the only believer in their village.  They would occasionally manage to make it to Kathmandu or Pokhara where they were able to attend a church service, but 95% of the time, they were isolated from such fellowship.

Don't get me wrong; this isn't Jesus' preferred system but non-attendance at church doesn't mean one can't be a believer, in the same way that attending church regularly doesn't automatically make one a believer.

[Aruntraveller]

Will you ever stop your stupid misrepresentations?

We've been through this before. When did you choose your heterosexuality?

BTW putting a  to try to make it seem like a joke or funny in some way fails. Just stop it.

Trent, I won't stop expressing my opposition to homosexual relationships until you give me uncontrovertible evidence that it is good for society.

Fine - can you supply evidence of how heterosexual or homosexual relationships are good or otherwise for society.

Can you also include what judgements, measurements and parameters you are using. I cannot see how you can make such a sweeping and generalised statement and expect intelligent people to take it seriously.

You see I can think of homosexual and heterosexual people who are brilliant for society. I can also think of homosexual and heterosexual people who are less than brilliant for society. But I am then failing to see how your judgement on relationships comes into this area. 

In my very small way I like to think I am a force for good in this society - by which I mean that most of the time I try to do the right thing by my partner, friends, family and work colleagues - but I would like you to know that I function better in my relationship with my male partner. This is surely a good thing for society?

I am sure that exactly the same thing applies to many heterosexual people - so why are you so interested in making life more difficult and trying to force people into lives that are not true to their nature. I note that once again you claim to "know" people who live in relationships as heterosexuals who are actually homosexuals - and once again I will note that you always have an anecdote for any topic that come up about homosexuality. Just saying. I would say that of the experience I have had with 2 close friends over a period of 30 years the untold misery caused to them, their, wives and their children actually trumps whatever fatuous claims you make about the positive effects of living a lie.

[Nearly Sane]

Yep, since we are doing anecdote here, I will back up trent's experiences, I know of four people who came out after many years of denying their homosexuality and they became much happier, nice, better people.

[Rhiannon]

A Christian wanting more lying and less love never ceases to sadden me.

[Nearly Sane]

While we are on this, though it seems very off topic to me, I don't ask that people show something to be good to be allowed to do it rather to stop something I would have to show that it was bad.

[Rhiannon]

Love...very bad for society, that.

(You are right we are going off topic, will look when I'm not on my phone)

[Outrider]

Every negative claim you've made about the supposed social impacts of homosexuality has been refuted.

Very few claims I've made about homosexual relationships (notice the difference from your constant misquoting) have been refuted, O.  There has been some evidence produced which suggest that, if long-term studies reflect what the short-term studies that have been done indicate, your claim might be true.  So far, no long-term studies have been done.

How long do you want? The last set I posted included reviews of up to forty or fifty years - what effects are likely to suddenly emerge after that time?

Even if they weren't, that still doesn't justify your erroneous assertion that people can choose their sexuality.

Whereas I believe that there is evidence to indicate that people of homosexual orientation can choose not to exercise that orientation, choosing instead to marry heterosexually very happily.  I know there is evidence, as I know several such people.  The majority have been married for over 25 years.

And given that sexuality is both fluid and not binary, it's more than likely such people are bisexual. That they are happy is wonderful. That you use their happiness to claim that everyone should therefore be the same is not. Yes people can choose not to act on their nature, but you need to be offering solid reasons why, and you repeatedly fail to do so.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In what way? How is it any more if a choice than anything else?

I'm a determinist - at the base level I don't think anything is actually a 'choice'. However, whilst whether or not you believe is a subconscious conclusion, adopting a particular sect, following the precepts and the like is a choice - there are enough people out there who are 'spiritual but not religious' or 'believe, but don't go to church' or 'think there's something out there, but don't know what' to know that you can just believe, you don't have to believe in a specific set of tenets.

O.

Depends on if you think a person can choose belief in monotheism, or choose to believe that suffering is a test from a supernatural entity, or choose to believe that prayer is beneficial, or choose to believe that congregational prayer is more beneficial than solitary prayer etc etc.

My understanding is that these beliefs and practices generate emotions in the individual carrying them out - what is the criteria for deciding that you will deny yourself these feelings? Maybe that part is a choice - you can choose to forgo certain behaviours and therefore the feelings those behaviours generate, in favour of other behaviours. The question for society is - in which circumstances should society require you to do so? The discrimination legislation tries to clarify this question.

[trippymonkey]

Salaam G
Good points but can we also look at the 'fact' that certain behaviours no longer have the same effect or impact they maybe once would have had say 2 thousand years ago, like homosexuality.
In fact a REDUCTION of population might be viewed as something to look seriously at. That's not saying NO gay people ever have kids or ALL hetero DO !!!

As a Muslim you have to say being gay is not good. This is part of the 'exclusive club' one subscribes to, especially if one wasn't born into it.
All or nothing - no cherry-picking ?

Nick

[Rhiannon]

https://www.nazandmattfoundation.org/homosexuality-an-islamic-perspective-with-dr-shabir-ally-video/

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Salaam G
Good points but can we also look at the 'fact' that certain behaviours no longer have the same effect or impact they maybe once would have had say 2 thousand years ago, like homosexuality.
In fact a REDUCTION of population might be viewed as something to look seriously at. That's not saying NO gay people ever have kids or ALL hetero DO !!!

I was actually referring to the protection of people from discrimination based on their religious beliefs, behaviours and practices. I was asking Outrider if he thought it was a good thing that people have the right to practice certain religious beliefs; and whether he thought it was a good thing that certain religious beliefs and practices are protected from discrimination, on the basis that people have a right to experience the feel-good factor from practising their beliefs rather than denying that aspect of themselves by not expressing it. Given that many religious people seem to see religious beliefs and practices as an integral part of their identity.

Trippy, you can compare it to sexuality if you like - since many gay people see their sexuality and their sexual practices as an integral part of their identity. I assume that is why religious practices and sexual practices come within the remit of the anti-discrimination laws.

As a Muslim you have to say being gay is not good. This is part of the 'exclusive club' one subscribes to, especially if one wasn't born into it.
All or nothing - no cherry-picking ?

Nick

From all your posts on Islam, I gather that if I disagree with your particular interpretation or take on Islam I am cherry-picking but if I agree with you I am not cherry-picking. Which makes your whole cherry-picking argument meaningless.

As a Muslim I don't think I am qualified to have a judgement on people's states of being - being gay, being asexual, being tall, being short, being black, being brown, being white, being transgender etc etc. I don't  even have a judgement about being in a state of submission - I have no idea who is in submission and who isn't.

I, along with the rest of the individuals in society, can form my own opinion on behaviours and the consequences I perceive to those behaviours, and then form an opinion on whether I want to legislate to protect the right to behave in a certain way or not or to protect a person's right to express their identity in a certain way.

 

[Outrider]

Depends on if you think a person can choose belief in monotheism, or choose to believe that suffering is a test from a supernatural entity, or choose to believe that prayer is beneficial, or choose to believe that congregational prayer is more beneficial than solitary prayer etc etc.

I think whether you believe or not isn't something that you can directly control. What form the 'practice' of your belief takes - if any - that's something that you can control.

My understanding is that these beliefs and practices generate emotions in the individual carrying them out - what is the criteria for deciding that you will deny yourself these feelings? Maybe that part is a choice - you can choose to forgo certain behaviours and therefore the feelings those behaviours generate, in favour of other behaviours.

You can. If you think being religious makes you a good human being, but it does so at the expense of other people's dignity, freedom or life, then your religion isn't actually making you a good human being. Those are the criteria - some of them, at least - that should occur to you when choosing which particular expression of your faith you want to belong with. I appreciate that within vast expanses such as Islam and Christianity there is a range of thought and practice, I'm not suggesting that there is a definitively 'right' version of either, but that which sect or cult within that someone chooses has implications.

The question for society is - in which circumstances should society require you to do so? The discrimination legislation tries to clarify this question.

There is no circumstance in which society should require you not to practice your faith until and unless that practice directly interferes with someone else's freedom to live their life as they choose. Where you have a conflict of choices, you have the courts to make judgements, and those are difficult choices. Where you have a conflict between someone's choices and something they simply are, though, in that instance the choice is easy.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Depends on if you think a person can choose belief in monotheism, or choose to believe that suffering is a test from a supernatural entity, or choose to believe that prayer is beneficial, or choose to believe that congregational prayer is more beneficial than solitary prayer etc etc.

I think whether you believe or not isn't something that you can directly control. What form the 'practice' of your belief takes - if any - that's something that you can control.

My understanding is that these beliefs and practices generate emotions in the individual carrying them out - what is the criteria for deciding that you will deny yourself these feelings? Maybe that part is a choice - you can choose to forgo certain behaviours and therefore the feelings those behaviours generate, in favour of other behaviours.

You can. If you think being religious makes you a good human being, but it does so at the expense of other people's dignity, freedom or life, then your religion isn't actually making you a good human being

Firstly I would ask - is it only religious people who seek to be "good" human beings? Don't people in general try to choose moral values and ethics that make them "good" human beings? 

Secondly. that's is the conflict that laws seek to clarify - in the case of the UK it is Parliament and the courts that seek to resolve question of how much freedom individuals have - to carry on from Trippy's point they have currently decided that same sex marriage is a status and freedom that should be recognised by the courts, institutions and society but polygamy is a freedom that is not legally recognised by the courts and institutions and society. How does society decide that protecting one type is making them good human beings and the other is not? 

[Outrider]

Firstly I would ask - is it only religious people who seek to be "good" human beings? Don't people in general try to choose moral values and ethics that make them "good" human beings?

I'd like to think they did - certainly the comment's made on that presumption - but unfortunately I get the feeling sometimes that too many don't.

Secondly. that's is the conflict that laws seek to clarify - in the case of the UK it is Parliament and the courts that seek to resolve question of how much freedom individuals have - to carry on from Trippy's point they have currently decided that same sex marriage is a status and freedom that should be recognised by the courts, institutions and society but polygamy is a freedom that is not legally recognised by the courts and institutions and society. How does society decide that protecting one type is making them good human beings and the other is not?

It doesn't, that's not the point of the law. Being a good person is not unduly interfering in anyone's life in a negative way - the law should only be intervening when it thinks that's happening. Marriage was about marking out ownership, initially, and became a socially regarded institution with time. To deny people access to that institution because of particular tenets of the religious faith that you chose but they didn't was deemed to be wrong, and I'd agree with that decision - but I wouldn't agree with a decision that because people feel that way we should ban their religious practice, we just shouldn't enshrine it in the law.

As to polygamy, I don't have any particular issue with it, though it's not for me, but there are purely pragmatic issues about how it would be reflected in current law: inheritance, divorce, who exactly is married to whom etc. I'd be fully in support of law being reviewed with an eye to allowing multiple marriages, I have no inherent problem with it whatsoever.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I get the impression that society views marriage as being about more than ownership and property rights and inheritance - the ethics of marriage leads to the law intervening on people's freedoms. Currently you need grounds e.g. adultery for the legal dissolution of your marriage  suggesting that society deems divorce and adultery to have detrimental effects that justify the law intervening in restricting our freedom to divorce.

The ethical question of whether a law (whether based on religious beliefs or based on non-religious moral beliefs) is unduly interfering in someone's life to restrict their rights or freedoms to marry, to divorce etc is obviously one that can't be answered objectively. People marry for all kinds of reasons - there must be lots of elements that go into the decision to commit to, care about, and have sexual relations with another individual or individuals, whereby you want that decision recognised by law.

Other societies have found workable solutions to take into account divorce, inheritance etc in polygamous marriages - it just depends on whether these solutions and any other consequences of polygamy are something Parliament or the majority of UK society find acceptable or not.

I think the issue is where the law chooses to regulate behaviours - whether it is in relation to marriage and its effects on society or religious practice and its effects on society.

[Outrider]

I get the impression that society views marriage as being about more than ownership and property rights and inheritance - the ethics of marriage leads to the law intervening on people's freedoms.

Historically, the law has been about the transfer of ownership of property (including the wife!), but only the language and traditions of it still carry those connotations, the actual interpretation of the law and the demands of it no longer do.

These days, from 'officialdom's point of view, marriage is a stabilising influence on society, or at least that's the way it's painted.

Currently you need grounds e.g. adultery for the legal dissolution of your marriage  suggesting that society deems divorce and adultery to have detrimental effects that justify the law intervening in restricting our freedom to divorce.

Actually, though it's typically the way, there is a path to 'no fault' divorces, at least in this country.

The ethical question of whether a law (whether based on religious beliefs or based on non-religious moral beliefs) is unduly interfering in someone's life to restrict their rights or freedoms to marry, to divorce etc is obviously one that can't be answered objectively.

Sometimes it really can. The whole 'gay marriage' debate, for instance, was objectively nonsense. There were no valid reasons for denying gay people access to the institution of civil marriage, yet there were still recidivists campaigning to make it the case.

People marry for all kinds of reasons - there must be lots of elements that go into the decision to commit to, care about, and have sexual relations with another individual or individuals, whereby you want that decision recognised by law.

For instance, it's implicit in your commentary there that at some level you link marriage and sex - whilst it's common for married people to expect to be sexually involved with (and only with) each other, it's neither required nor enforced. There are people with open marriages who are quite happy, and there are people who aren't married who are in long-lasting and exclusive sexual relations, as well as all sorts of other combinations. Sex and marriage are no longer intrinsically linked.

Other societies have found workable solutions to take into account divorce, inheritance etc in polygamous marriages - it just depends on whether these solutions and any other consequences of polygamy are something Parliament or the majority of UK society find acceptable or not.

I don't disagree

I think the issue is where the law chooses to regulate behaviours - whether it is in relation to marriage and its effects on society or religious practice and its effects on society.

In principle, the law shouldn't get involved until and unless someone puts their hand up and says 'This isn't fair'.

O.

[trippymonkey]

I was actually referring to the protection of people from discrimination based on their religious beliefs, behaviours and practices. I was asking Outrider if he thought it was a good thing that people have the right to practice certain religious beliefs; and whether he thought it was a good thing that certain religious beliefs and practices are protected from discrimination, on the basis that people have a right to experience the feel-good factor from practising their beliefs rather than denying that aspect of themselves by not expressing it. Given that many religious people seem to see religious beliefs and practices as an integral part of their identity.

So are you allowing a rapist to 'enjoy' THEIR right to rape etc? I'm sure you don't!!

Trippy, you can compare it to sexuality if you like - since many gay people see their sexuality and their sexual practices as an integral part of their identity. I assume that is why religious practices and sexual practices come within the remit of the anti-discrimination laws.

As a Muslim you have to say being gay is not good. This is part of the 'exclusive club' one subscribes to, especially if one wasn't born into it.
All or nothing - no cherry-picking ?

Nick

From all your posts on Islam, I gather that if I disagree with your particular interpretation or take on Islam I am cherry-picking but if I agree with you I am not cherry-picking. Which makes your whole cherry-picking argument meaningless.

As a Muslim I don't think I am qualified to have a judgement on people's states of being - being gay, being asexual, being tall, being short, being black, being brown, being white, being transgender etc etc. I don't  even have a judgement about being in a state of submission - I have no idea who is in submission and who isn't.

I, along with the rest of the individuals in society, can form my own opinion on behaviours and the consequences I perceive to those behaviours, and then form an opinion on whether I want to legislate to protect the right to behave in a certain way or not or to protect a person's right to express their identity in a certain way.
[/quote]

Don't try to wriggle out of this G please ?!!!?
You know damn well what Islam says about gays & homosexuality & what should be done to those doing it !!!!!!

You going on to say ' well I don't have or, indeed, want to give any opinion on it. I (kinda) mind my own business on these kinds of issues' will NOT wash & is cherry-picking of the nastiest order.

Do you have practising gay friends? I might presume not IF you're a good Muslim that is ?!?!!?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I get the impression that society views marriage as being about more than ownership and property rights and inheritance - the ethics of marriage leads to the law intervening on people's freedoms.

Historically, the law has been about the transfer of ownership of property (including the wife!), but only the language and traditions of it still carry those connotations, the actual interpretation of the law and the demands of it no longer do.

These days, from 'officialdom's point of view, marriage is a stabilising influence on society, or at least that's the way it's painted.

And that moral, subjective dimension that society projected on the institution of marriage is what lead to the arguments around same sex marriage or polygamy - differing opinions on  what constitutes 'stability' and whether diversity leads to more stability or less, and if there is less stability whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, and if it is a bad thing is it sufficiently compensated by some other moral benefit that makes the loss of stability acceptable.

Currently you need grounds e.g. adultery for the legal dissolution of your marriage  suggesting that society deems divorce and adultery to have detrimental effects that justify the law intervening in restricting our freedom to divorce.

Actually, though it's typically the way, there is a path to 'no fault' divorces, at least in this country.

You still need to jump through some hoops to get a divorce - either adultery, or unreasonable behaviour or separation for 2 years - so society is interfering with our freedom to divorce. Maybe at some point in the future divorce will not require evidence of this criteria.

The ethical question of whether a law (whether based on religious beliefs or based on non-religious moral beliefs) is unduly interfering in someone's life to restrict their rights or freedoms to marry, to divorce etc is obviously one that can't be answered objectively.

Sometimes it really can. The whole 'gay marriage' debate, for instance, was objectively nonsense. There were no valid reasons for denying gay people access to the institution of civil marriage, yet there were still recidivists campaigning to make it the case.

Except of course it wasn't objectively nonsense to disagree on the definition of civil marriage, given it has a subjective moral dimension in society's eyes. And your assessment of "valid" is obviously subjective. 

People marry for all kinds of reasons - there must be lots of elements that go into the decision to commit to, care about, and have sexual relations with another individual or individuals, whereby you want that decision recognised by law.

For instance, it's implicit in your commentary there that at some level you link marriage and sex - whilst it's common for married people to expect to be sexually involved with (and only with) each other, it's neither required nor enforced. There are people with open marriages who are quite happy, and there are people who aren't married who are in long-lasting and exclusive sexual relations, as well as all sorts of other combinations. Sex and marriage are no longer intrinsically linked.

Yes I put a sexual element in because currently siblings can't have a civil marriage even if they have lived together for decades and want to pass their property to each other in a tax efficient way. So currently the state still expects some possibility of sexual relations in a marriage. If this changes and the state no longer interferes with the right of siblings to be in committed relationships with each other that are recognised by the law by allowing them to marry then you might have a valid point about the sex part.

[Outrider]

You still need to jump through some hoops to get a divorce - either adultery, or unreasonable behaviour or separation for 2 years - so society is interfering with our freedom to divorce. Maybe at some point in the future divorce will not require evidence of this criteria.

No, if both parties agree and are amicable about it there is no more minimum requirement than that. There are processes that need to be completed, it's true, you have a legal contract that needs to be terminated after all.

Except of course it wasn't objectively nonsense to disagree on the definition of civil marriage, given it has a subjective moral dimension in society's eyes. And your assessment of "valid" is obviously subjective.

Yes, it was objectively nonsense to disagree on the definition of civil marriage, the point being that society can define it however it wishes and update it however it wishes. If there were any arguments put forward that required subjective opinion then it would have been - like there are in the abortion debate, or the assisted dying debate - but with the gay marriage debate there was absolutely no valid reason to deny people access to it whatsoever.

Yes I put a sexual element in because currently siblings can't have a civil marriage even if they have lived together for decades and want to pass their property to each other in a tax efficient way. So currently the state still expects some possibility of sexual relations in a marriage.

I understood that the prohibition against siblings marrying was more about the possibility of undue influence, but that's just my take on the reasoning, not something I've read.

If this changes and the state no longer interferes with the right of siblings to be in committed relationships with each other that are recognised by the law by allowing them to marry then you might have a valid point about the sex part.

No, it's still not about sex - there's no check on sexual activity, it's perfectly possible to have a celibate marriage. Siblings are prohibited from sexual activity by legislation outside of the Marriage Act, though the Marriage Act does reinforce that prohibition by preventing marriage as well (that's why I think that prohibition is more about the possibility of undue influence).

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You still need to jump through some hoops to get a divorce - either adultery, or unreasonable behaviour or separation for 2 years - so society is interfering with our freedom to divorce. Maybe at some point in the future divorce will not require evidence of this criteria.

No, if both parties agree and are amicable about it there is no more minimum requirement than that. There are processes that need to be completed, it's true, you have a legal contract that needs to be terminated after all.

Yes there are requirements.
What do you have to prove to get a divorce

The court will grant a divorce if you or your partner can show that the marriage has permanently broken down. Legally, this is called an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. For a marriage to have irretrievably broken down, one of the following things must be proved:

adultery
your partner has behaved unreasonably
your partner deserted you at least two years ago
you've lived apart for at least two years if you both agree to the divorce
you've lived apart for at least five years if one of you doesn’t agree to the divorce.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/relationship-problems/ending-a-marriage/

Yes, it was objectively nonsense to disagree on the definition of civil marriage, the point being that society can define it however it wishes and update it however it wishes.

Which is why it wasn't objectively nonsense to disagree on the definition of civil marriage. Society is made up of people and people disagree with each other - the whole point of a democracy is for people to disagree and debate on how civil laws should be drafted and, in the case of the British Parliament, the majority vote in the House of Commons and House of Lords will prevail. People are still free to disagree with the current definition of civil marriage and push for a change in the definition - that's the nature of democracy in the UK - and because that is how a democracy works it still won't be objectively nonsense to disagree with the current definition.   

If there were any arguments put forward that required subjective opinion then it would have been - like there are in the abortion debate, or the assisted dying debate - but with the gay marriage debate there was absolutely no valid reason to deny people access to it whatsoever.

Whether there is a valid reason depends on if marriage is viewed as a mechanism or institution for social control or not. If some people viewed marriage as an institution for social control, they would then have an opinion on what kind of behaviour a particular society should seek to control using the institution of marriage.

I understood that the prohibition against siblings marrying was more about the possibility of undue influence, but that's just my take on the reasoning, not something I've read.

Wouldn't apply where siblings have not grown up in the same family, yet they are not permitted to marry even if they are consenting adults who meet and fall in love as adults. 

No, it's still not about sex - there's no check on sexual activity, it's perfectly possible to have a celibate marriage. Siblings are prohibited from sexual activity by legislation outside of the Marriage Act, though the Marriage Act does reinforce that prohibition by preventing marriage as well (that's why I think that prohibition is more about the possibility of undue influence).

O.

I think the prohibition of sibling marriage is about culture and morals - both of which are subject to change over time. Siblings married in the past in different cultures. So when we have a debate about proposed changes redefining civil marriage to allow siblings to marry, it still won't be objectively nonsense in a democracy to disagree with updating the definition.