Talk:One Law for All

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

How to present the counter?[edit]

Ok, there are three major problems with this groups argument: 1) private matters, like arbitration, is not subject to the separation of church and state, since it isn't part of the state, 2) intimidating someone into entering into an arbitration is already illegal, and no one is suggesting that it be legalized, and 3) people have a right to use peer pressure on one another, even if its to do something stupid. If we're going to ban Muslims from encouraging other Muslims to enter into sharia arbitrations, we might as well ban people from offering non-smokers cigarettes while we're at it. So, should I set up a separate section for that? And would there be any need for links for stating the blatantly obvious like that?--Mustex (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion?[edit]

Would it be safe to say that this group is well-intentioned but factually mistaken? 71.182.158.210 (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Factually mistaken" about what facts?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Naive view[edit]

This page is written in a very naive way which assumes that "coercion" occurs as some aberrant behaviour practiced by a tiny minority. No, strict religion *is* coercion. The clue's in the name - Islam means Submission, i.e. Submission to God, i.e. specifically, in the case of Islam, Submission to Sharia Law. It's the same mistake as those Arab hijabis who claim that they freely chose to wear a Hijab. Well no because their whole culture is making them believe that if they don't wear a hijab, they are sluts. It's an oppressive culture.

Of course, even though Namazie is an atheist, this point of view is a little extreme, so that's why she couches it in terms of rights. But the reality is, Muslim women will only be truly free when they become apostates. Arbitration or no arbitration.--Greenrd (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)