The UK is supposed to be secular.

These are not the marks of a secular nation.

Yikes. Both of these instances are perfect examples of why we need separation of church and state.

But as for the three statements to vote on... I guess I'm not really ready to commit myself to such extreme statements.

In the case of #1, how could we ever know if there is or is not a God? I'm really not religious and do not feel compelled by religion at all. But I think it's kind of arrogant to say that you know there is no God. It's like stating unequivocally that there is no life in any other galaxies or universes. How could you ever know that? What evidence could you have on either side? I think it's more honest and realistic to say that if there is a God, you don't know about him/her and are unsure of how you could ever have experienced him/her, since s/he doesn't seem to reveal him/herself to you. That's how I feel. I've never had a religious experience (despite growing up in a conservative church that emphasized personal religious experiences), so if there is a God out there, s/he is certainly not interested in communicating with me, but that doesn't mean that I can say with certainty that s/he doesn't exist. S/he may exist, but I have no evidence of it, and s/he is certainly irrelevant in my life, anyway.

As for #2, I guess in many cases this seems true. There are religious leaders who are concerned with social justice and with displaying "the spirit of Christ" in their actions. I assume this means dropping the whole judgemental vibe and being loving and kind. But, of course, generally speaking religion is used to bolster and justify a person's pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. People realize that it can be a very powerful weapon in acheiving their ends. And in many cases it serves to flatter and inflate the often already-problematic male ego. But I'm not really sure how to judge who's got it right and who's got it wrong in this case. Many different interpretations can be imposed on religious (and any) texts, so generally speaking I think people see what they want to see. And there's so much variation among religious leaders that it's hard to make a blanket statement.

And who can say about #3? If s/he created them than s/he shouldn't hate on 'em... No, it seems to me like the male religious leaders and writers who have "spoken for God" throughout history fear the vagina, and that gives rise to all this sexist bullshit. Poor little men, so afraid of the big, mean, threatening vagina. It must be hard to live such a narrow, frightened existence...

OK, I'm just turning into a total smart-ass here, so I'll stop now. =)

Cruella,

This is a sort of taboo thing to admit, I think, but I feel at this point in my life I have every right to say 'I respect your right to religious expression, but I don't respect your religion.' I might get some heat for this, but as an atheist and a woman I feel like I am bombarded with instances of domestic and international oppression of women in the name of god. I know there are lots of great people who love god and are seeking the truth, not trying to hurt anyone, just looking for answers, but it seems to me that any time religion leaves the personal sphere and enters the public sphere, with the POSSIBLE exception of charity work (don't get me started on evangelical mission work) there's somebody whose rights are getting taken away, somebody getting stoned to death, somebody bombing a clinic, etc.

I absolutely do not believe in god, which makes the world seem like an insane, absurd, and hopeless place at times. The thought of a man beating his daughter to death, the expression "god hates fags," the idiotic crusade against abortion rights and sex ed against all evidence indicating these things are good for women; what am I supposed to make of that? Am I supposed to say 'you go your way, I'll go mine?' I would never want to prevent anyone from worshiping anyone they chose or practicing religion, but the moment your beliefs conflict with my rights or the human rights of another woman, I'm not going to waste words being respectful and politically correct. If your holy book says that women should submit to their husbands, then sorry, it sucks. I hate going on rants, which I totally just did, but I wish there was more public dialogue about the religious right's campaign against women (it's not about little babies, ya'll) and the dangers of ignoring the violent, domestic aspects of fundamental Islam to be practiced without intervention in communities that want to turn a blind eye because the battered women involved are of a different race or because intervening seems religiously insensitive.

Sorry for going on. What I'm getting at is that we should start a club called "God-hating feminist against traditional family values." My presbyterian republican mom would be, like, so proud.

WOW! I had no idea this was going on in England! How has this even been allowed?Regardless of their beliefs about seperation of church and state this is clearly unnacceptable! Its also what I believe to be culturally unnacceptable. You cant have a seperate court for every culture and religion. That would place women as second citizens in every country,as religion, particularly orthodox expression of religion, is always oppressive and misogynistic. There shouldnt be a second law system that works within the main governmental system. I always thought that the calls by radical muslims (similar to our radical christians) for a sharia law system were ignored. I cant believe they actually listened!

The most disturbing part of that was the classification of domestic violence as a "trivial crime." It's ASSAULT, sometimes RAPE. Unless they let these ridiculous "Sharia Courts" handle any assault and battery cases between two Muslims, regardless of the individual's gender and relation to each other, they have no business letting them have a say in domestic violence cases.

That is scary. Domestic violence is ASSAULT! How hard is that for lawmakers to understand?

Excuse me, but how is domestic violence a trivial crime? And what about equal justice under the law?

"What I'm getting at is that we should start a club called "God-hating feminist against traditional family values." My presbyterian republican mom would be, like, so proud."

I feel you on much of what you say, feminanimal, but I think that identifying in this way just plays into their hands. And who gets to determine what family values are? I'm sick of the religious right claiming that they're the only ones with family values, when the rest of us are here everyday doing whatever needs to be done for the health and well-being of our kids no matter how tired and stressed out we are. Fuck that. My values are family values, and they can't take that away or associate family values with some religious or political position that I would have to agree with. So maybe "Family Values" is something we have to reclaim.

That's really nice, people are working day and night to change those inheritance, divorce, domestic violence laws in Iran! and UK is reinstating them?! OH MY GOD. I'm speechless. and really sad :(

this is outrageous. women get killed in these situations.

do the women get to go to a regular court if they are not happy with the verdict?

I don't understand why the UK does not cut off hands for robbery then! isn't that a less serious crime than domestic violence?

what the hell!?

feminanimal, you asked: "Am I supposed to say 'you go your way, I'll go mine?"

as someone who inevitably works in an area where religion is very involved with people's lives (Iranian women's rights), I have a response to this. You MUST speak out on what you think is harmful, of course without being condescending. AND you should remind them that it's "their version" of christianity/islam/etc that has such problems. because there are ALWAYS people who have adapted religion to realities of the society (and their numbers are usually higher anyway).

so if you are not trying to change people's minds about religion, but you want things to change at least on real-life issues, you can remind people that they don't need to give up their religion to support women's rights. they just need to look at other religious people who believe in equality and are also religious.

(this is just a practical point and not an ideological point of view)

Racially, wouldnt this also be discriminatory and oppressive to Arab women? Wouldnt this keep them locked into these oppressive cultural rules? If their familys all use this sharia system as a symbol of their cultural difference to the Europeans, then wouldnt this alienate those women who didnt want to use it? Wouldnt they be ostracized from their communitys? Wouldnt this only feed into resistance to integrate within the UK and serve those who are opposed to modernity? Is this the new standard for a country now? We just have religious governments operating within the main one? What happens when the religious ones want to overthrow the main one? Are they going to set one up for Christians, Jews and Hindus too? This is insane!

Cruella

Interesting post. Could you please give some more examples of cases?

Thanks
khw

Gopher: the UK has had Jewish Beth Din courts operating for years now. Both this and the Sharia court are classified as arbitration boards under UK law. In order to rule on a case, both parties have to agree to have the case heard. Obviously, this raises questions as to women's autonomy and free decision in choosing to refer their cases to the authority of arbitration.

Surely this is the real question, rather than lowest-denominator questions that assume religion, or Islam, is inherently evil. Why can't feminists work with moderate elements of religious authorities and courts to develop fair case law that still reflects the tenents of their faith?