I applaud the end of government enforced religious law
Reader comment on article: Enforce Islamic Law in Canada?

Submitted by AV (United States), Sep 27, 2005 at 13:40

I applaud McGuinty's decision to end the government's enforcement of religious laws. I sent him an email thanking him as soon as I read the news.

Religions often continue archaic 'sacred' laws that are hostile to human rights. For examples, besides the extreme problems of Islamic sharia, even Jewish halakhah and Catholic canon law frequently assault the authority of women and the equality of homosexuals, and promote nondemocratic, totalitarian, and dictatorial organizational structures. The government has no business promoting this kind of antihuman legislation.

On the other hand, if two people *voluntarily* consent to some religious code, then it's fine because it's a mutually freewill decision. If the two disputants are pious, they will follow the result of the religious arbitration voluntarily. If one of the disputants no longer wishes to submit to the religious code, then it should not be binding anyway. Spirituality must be voluntary. So again, the government has no business using state sanctioned violence (in the form of police officers, court orders, legal fines, or whatever) to impose religious codes.

Secular law that vigorously enforces the freedom of spirituality for everyone is better. Religious law that enforces the freedom of spirituality is best. Spirituality requires freewill.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.