A 5 second google search could tell you that this is totally wrong. They're arbitrations, governed in the same way as any arbitration under the Arbitration Act, and are binding as any other arbitration is. That being said, it's still voluntary for the parties to submit to arbitration. But the ruling is absolutely binding, you can't "choose to ignore it", and in general, arbitral decisions are quite hard to appeal, so getting it in front of a regular if you don't like the outcome is an uphill battle.
That only pertains to commercial disputes, and is still, as you say, utterly voluntary.
I could see some places trying to set up Sharia courts, but I can't see how they're legally binding in any way whatsoever. Socially binding maybe, but legally? How?
A devout Muslim immigrant oppresses his wife, won't let his daughter learn about birth control, and denounces homosexuals as depraved degenerates. In the eyes of modern progressives he is a thread in the rich tapestry of cultural diversity, and the only possible explanation for denouncing him is bigotry.
Yeah, I think that's a massive generalization. Even someone like me, who thinks that Western foreign policy has had a massive effect on radicalization doesn't deny the religious element of it. I think what I'm arguing is that religion alone can't solely be the factor, or that I want a better explanation of why Islam is much more effective at radicalizing people than other religions. It just doesn't make sense to me that scripture alone could be responsible for that.
Another side of that is seeing the violence perpetrated against moderate Muslims by Westerners based on rhetoric that paints all Muslims as potentially dangerous and regressive extremists. I don't disagree that we're seeing a massive over-correction by some progressives but I also question if some of the absolutist language used by some opponents of Islam hasn't partially contributed to that.
The other big elephant in the room that no one really wants to get into is the whole liberal concept of freedom of religion. If you've been raised to believe that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. are paramount to a free society then you're going to see attacks and calls for bans on certain faiths as antithetical to that. And there's the logistical element to deal with. How do you actually defeat an ideology like this? Clearly bombing the crap out of them isn't working and appears to have made the situation worse. Rational discourse likely isn't the solution unless you honestly believe that the true believers haven't been exposed to the dialogue and arguments against radical Islam. What you have is an ideology that is completely incompatible with modernity when practiced in taught in its most literal form, but how do you quash it without compromising the liberal values that you claim are essential to your society?
The other big elephant in the room that no one really wants to get into is the whole liberal concept of freedom of religion. If you've been raised to believe that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. are paramount to a free society then you're going to see attacks and calls for bans on certain faiths as antithetical to that.
Um yes. Yes you are. Where's the problem with this? There's absolutely no tension between freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Quote:
And there's the logistical element to deal with. How do you actually defeat an ideology like this? Clearly bombing the crap out of them isn't working and appears to have made the situation worse. Rational discourse likely isn't the solution unless you honestly believe that the true believers haven't been exposed to the dialogue and arguments against radical Islam. What you have is an ideology that is completely incompatible with modernity when practiced in taught in its most literal form, but how do you quash it without compromising the liberal values that you claim are essential to your society?
Really difficult question, but the only likely answer is a reformation of the faith by Muslims, led by people like Maajid Nawaz. The moderates basically have to win, but they can't do it without confronting the problems with non-moderate, extreme views (be they holy war, death to apostates, death to gays, oppression of women or otherwise right down the line) and engaging with the people who hold those views, and not pretending that they're pulling their crazy views out of thin air or that they have nothing to do with the texts. That's the only way to fix it. Can't be done from the outside.
The unfortunately completely fair response from many such moderate Muslims is, "I'm not an Islamist; I'm practicing my religion in a totally benign way that's completely consistent with modern secular society. Why is it up to me to police Islamists?" It's not. But if that internal reformation doesn't happen, things are not going to get better. Probably will get worse.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-09-2016 at 03:40 PM.
The other big elephant in the room that no one really wants to get into is the whole liberal concept of freedom of religion. If you've been raised to believe that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. are paramount to a free society then you're going to see attacks and calls for bans on certain faiths as antithetical to that. And there's the logistical element to deal with. How do you actually defeat an ideology like this? Clearly bombing the crap out of them isn't working and appears to have made the situation worse. Rational discourse likely isn't the solution unless you honestly believe that the true believers haven't been exposed to the dialogue and arguments against radical Islam. What you have is an ideology that is completely incompatible with modernity when practiced in taught in its most literal form, but how do you quash it without compromising the liberal values that you claim are essential to your society?
In Canada, when religion comes into conflict with secular laws, religion loses. That's why we don't allow polygamy, and why parents who refuse medical treatment to for their children on religious grounds can be prosecuted. I have never heard any serious person call for a ban on entire religious faiths.
Beyond the law, we have the social give and take of conservative versus liberal approaches to behaviour and values. Should girls be raised to aspire only to being wives and mothers, or should they be encouraged to pursue the same freedoms and opportunities as boys. How much sexual freedom should individuals have. How easily should we have access to birth control. How should we regard homosexuality. How should religion itself be treated in public school.
We hash this stuff out in public forums. During elections, at school council meetings, in the editorial pages of newspapers, on forums like this. People being instinctively tribal, with a strong tendency to think in binary terms, we tend to turn this into a left versus right political struggle. AKA the Culture Wars.
The curious thing is how a religiously conservative Muslim will be defended by progressives, or at least tolerated with silence. As I stated above, I believe this is because in the hierarchy of power that the identity politics left subscribes to, conservative Muslims are not regarded as conservatives, but as brown people. And to them, brown people are lower in status (and therefore higher in sympathy) than the white establishment. So race trumps religion in Culture Wars.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The curious thing is how a religiously conservative Muslim will be defended by progressives, or at least tolerated with silence. As I stated above, I believe this is because in the hierarchy of power that the identity politics left subscribes to, conservative Muslims are not regarded as conservatives, but as brown people. And to them, brown people are lower in status (and therefore higher in sympathy) than the white establishment. So race trumps religion in Culture Wars.
Is this really the case though on a widespread basis? Most feminists, etc., that I know are pretty quick to denounce Islam as patriarchal and regressive. I think it's more of a cognitive inability to properly discern between an argument that is critical of Islam and one that is critical of Muslims. There's also the whole "those in glass houses" business where you have a lot of white liberals who don't want to be seen as signalling out Islam for something they feel Christianity is also culpable of, regardless of the scale or frequency. I'm not saying it's a good response or anything, just disputing the simplistic terms you've framed it in.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
That only pertains to commercial disputes, and is still, as you say, utterly voluntary.
Yes you are technically correct, nothing is binding.
However the important and key part to these is that the women are in communities surrounded by others who would be ostracized if they ignore these rulings, they are bound by this ideology in a way that can't be understated.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I think that's a massive generalization. Even someone like me, who thinks that Western foreign policy has had a massive effect on radicalization doesn't deny the religious element of it. I think what I'm arguing is that religion alone can't solely be the factor, or that I want a better explanation of why Islam is much more effective at radicalizing people than other religions. It just doesn't make sense to me that scripture alone could be responsible for that.
Another side of that is seeing the violence perpetrated against moderate Muslims by Westerners based on rhetoric that paints all Muslims as potentially dangerous and regressive extremists. I don't disagree that we're seeing a massive over-correction by some progressives but I also question if some of the absolutist language used by some opponents of Islam hasn't partially contributed to that.
The other big elephant in the room that no one really wants to get into is the whole liberal concept of freedom of religion. If you've been raised to believe that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. are paramount to a free society then you're going to see attacks and calls for bans on certain faiths as antithetical to that. And there's the logistical element to deal with. How do you actually defeat an ideology like this? Clearly bombing the crap out of them isn't working and appears to have made the situation worse. Rational discourse likely isn't the solution unless you honestly believe that the true believers haven't been exposed to the dialogue and arguments against radical Islam. What you have is an ideology that is completely incompatible with modernity when practiced in taught in its most literal form, but how do you quash it without compromising the liberal values that you claim are essential to your society?
There is only one way I can think of to do so.
1. Accept as many refugees and immigrants into our country as we safely can - do not let them form isolated communities, but instead demand that they spread out among the population.
2. Integrate as many of these individuals into our society as we possibly can - the only way they can understand how great our society really is is if they get to experience it.
3. Encourage these individuals to help regain stability and rule of law in their home countries - this may take time.
4. Encourage these individuals to return to their home countries, to gradually help change these societies to a better way.
5. The entire time - advertisement. The Voice of America, Movies, Television, ect. should have at least some element of education and teaching to these people. It's amazing what watching TV can do to make people accept something as "normal".
1. Accept as many refugees and immigrants into our country as we safely can - do not let them form isolated communities, but instead demand that they spread out among the population.
2. Integrate as many of these individuals into our society as we possibly can - the only way they can understand how great our society really is is if they get to experience it.
3. Encourage these individuals to help regain stability and rule of law in their home countries - this may take time.
4. Encourage these individuals to return to their home countries, to gradually help change these societies to a better way.
5. The entire time - advertisement. The Voice of America, Movies, Television, ect. should have at least some element of education and teaching to these people. It's amazing what watching TV can do to make people accept something as "normal".
In other words, time should do it.
I agree with you in theory...in theory communism works...in theory...
But seriously though, how do you forcefully integrate people or stop them from forming communities. Your plan of letting people watch re-runs of Friends and hoping for the best seems a little half baked.
The funny thing is the two parts of that sentence work against each other. If you take in a huge influx, you're increasing the chances they start to gel into their own communities. A slow trickle is more likely to integrate into the larger society.
Iceland's 3rd biggest paper today, I don't think I need to translate.
Iceland's population is only .3% Muslim. The non-European population is also less than 1%. That's not really a model for countries that are dealing with 10-20% Muslim populations that number in the millions.
Yes you are technically correct, nothing is binding.
However the important and key part to these is that the women are in communities surrounded by others who would be ostracized if they ignore these rulings, they are bound by this ideology in a way that can't be understated.
All of which equally applies to orthodox Jewish women or bizarre Mormon sects etc. the world is full of repugnant wack job faiths that crap on women.
1. Accept as many refugees and immigrants into our country as we safely can - do not let them form isolated communities, but instead demand that they spread out among the population.
2. Integrate as many of these individuals into our society as we possibly can - the only way they can understand how great our society really is is if they get to experience it.
Yikes. I guess it depends what you mean by the amount we could let in "safely" - there are other issues at play here than national security and seeing extremists get through the border. That's sort of a paper tiger; there are other ways they could get in just as easily. But look at what happened in Sweden. Look what's happened in Germany. This open borders thing has not gone particularly smoothly for them.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
This type of obfuscation is infuriating. Total cognitive dissonance.
Go back and re read the post And Thors comments it was in response to Peter, then explain how life in Bountiful if you've been shunned is any different.
Go back and re read the post And Thors comments it was in response to Peter, then explain how life in Bountiful if you've been shunned is any different.
This is precisely the problem. Totally unrelated situations.
This is precisely the problem. Totally unrelated situations.
However the important and key part to these is that the women are in communities surrounded by others who would be ostracized if they ignore these rulings, they are bound by this ideology in a way that can't be understated.
However the important and key part to these is that the women are in communities surrounded by others who would be ostracized them if they ignore these rulings, they are bound by this ideology in a way that can't be understated.
This is a text book definition of shunning.
I think peter's point is that we're talking about Islam at the moment, so whatever Jews and Mormons are doing is irrelevant to the current topic at hand. Going tu quoque on the discussion isn't constructive.
