I wonder if they will pray for the liberation of Muslim women and their deliverance from medieval oppression and status of second-class citizens?

Makes you wonder why they didn't make it Saturday the 8th which is after all International Women's Day and a day when more working women would be able to attend.

Although Iran (Persia) was the birth place of Zoroastrianism several thousand years ago it now has quite a considerable Muslim polulation who I believe are far more emancipated than westerners would understand, especially Roy Stockdill

Bit of a waste of time ladies - religion is a load of made up, superstitious nonsense from the dark ages to control the masses.

Instead of praying to a god who won't hear you as he doesn't exist, why not actually go out and help someone?

Igloo wrote:
Makes you wonder why they didn't make it Saturday the 8th which is after all International Women's Day and a day when more working women would be able to attend. Although Iran (Persia) was the birth place of Zoroastrianism several thousand years ago it now has quite a considerable Muslim polulation who I believe are far more emancipated than westerners would understand, especially Roy Stockdill

Igloo: Whilst I do not agree entirely with Roy, please give us some examples (including countries) where you feel Muslim, in particular women, are emancipated.

I'm not saying I do not agree with you in some ways, but I would like some examples as you have stated your opinion.

I readily admit I am not familiar with Iran, but there are Muslim countries where women are not permitted to be educated, not allowed to drive a car, not allowed to be seen in public with a man except one who is a close relative, and can be stoned to death for adultery. If that isn't suppression and subjection, I would like to know what is!
It's not just Muslim countries, either - I am told there are Muslim women in Watford who have been here 30 years and more and still can't speak a word of English because their men won't allow them to - being terrified that once they learn English and become educated their womenfolk will rise up and demand their rights. Moreover, isn't being forced to wear those hideous black binliners that cover everything except the eyes also a form of oppression? Personally, I find the sight of Muslim women so attired, on our streets, offensive and totally alien to British culture. However, in this politically correct age we are not permitted to be offended by medieval practices that are centuries behind us, are we? We are told we must accept them and we, the indigenous people, have no rights any more! We even have to listen to the batty Archbishop of Canterbury (the bearded Welsh windbag) tell us we should accept shariah law.

Roy Stockdill wrote:
I readily admit I am not familiar with Iran, but there are Muslim countries where women are not permitted to be educated, not allowed to drive a car, not allowed to be seen in public with a man except one who is a close relative, and can be stoned to death for adultery. If that isn't suppression and subjection, I would like to know what is! It's not just Muslim countries, either - I am told there are Muslim women in Watford who have been here 30 years and more and still can't speak a word of English because their men won't allow them to - being terrified that once they learn English and become educated their womenfolk will rise up and demand their rights. Moreover, isn't being forced to wear those hideous black binliners that cover everything except the eyes also a form of oppression? Personally, I find the sight of Muslim women so attired, on our streets, offensive and totally alien to British culture. However, in this politically correct age we are not permitted to be offended by medieval practices that are centuries behind us, are we? We are told we must accept them and we, the indigenous people, have no rights any more! We even have to listen to the batty Archbishop of Canterbury (the bearded Welsh windbag) tell us we should accept shariah law.

We seem to have to accept the authority of the Beth Din (Rabinical Court) in certain matters concerning consenting Jewry in this country, why not a similar arrangement for the same kind of things affecting consenting Muslims?

>We seem to have to accept the authority of the Beth Din (Rabinical Court) in certain matters concerning consenting Jewry in this country, why not a similar arrangement for the same kind of things affecting consenting Muslims?<

As I understand it, the views of these courts can be taken into account and accepted by the parties on a voluntary basis, but they do NOT over-ride the laws of the land, nor must they ever be allowed to. Perhaps you think so-called "Honour killings" - i.e. murders - should be left to Muslim courts to deal with? Absolutely no way!!!
Priests and other religious figures long ago ceased to have anything to do with the way we organise our legal system and we do not want a return to the days when the Church of Rome, England, or any other religion could tell us what to do. This has been a SECULAR country for a very long time and will remain so always.

Roy Stockdill wrote:
>We seem to have to accept the authority of the Beth Din (Rabinical Court) in certain matters concerning consenting Jewry in this country, why not a similar arrangement for the same kind of things affecting consenting Muslims?< As I understand it, the views of these courts can be taken into account and accepted by the parties on a voluntary basis, but they do NOT over-ride the laws of the land, nor must they ever be allowed to. Perhaps you think so-called "Honour killings" - i.e. murders - should be left to Muslim courts to deal with? Absolutely no way!!! Priests and other religious figures long ago ceased to have anything to do with the way we organise our legal system and we do not want a return to the days when the Church of Rome, England, or any other religion could tell us what to do. This has been a SECULAR country for a very long time and will remain so always.

The ultimate court of legal appeal is the house of lords - I believe a number of Church of England Bishops have seats there. The current blasphemy laws only cover the Church of England - hardly "SECULAR" don't you think Roy?

I think you will find, Arthur, if you do some serious research, that only elected law judges, and not bishops, are permitted to hear appeals to the House of Lords. We should, of course, get rid of the bishops from the House of Lords and we must disestablish the Church of England from the state. And the blasphemy laws are an antiquated institution that should also be done away with. We must reject ALL religious laws, movements and institutions that hold back the human race from fulfilling its true potential.
Religion, as someone else said in this debate, is the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on mankind. Only backward people with no ability to think for themselves or to make decisions for themselves believe in religion because it makes life so much easier to have some non-existent god or prophet tell them what to do!

Roy Stockdill wrote:
I think you will find, Arthur, if you do some serious research, that only elected law judges, and not bishops, are permitted to hear appeals to the House of Lords. We should, of course, get rid of the bishops from the House of Lords and we must disestablish the Church of England from the state. And the blasphemy laws are an antiquated institution that should also be done away with. We must reject ALL religious laws, movements and institutions that hold back the human race from fulfilling its true potential. Religion, as someone else said in this debate, is the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on mankind. Only backward people with no ability to think for themselves or to make decisions for themselves believe in religion because it makes life so much easier to have some non-existent god or prophet tell them what to do!

So Roy if we must "disestablish the Church of England from the State" as you claim the Church of England must be established within the state/monarchy. How can you therefore claim that we live in a secular society if we have an "established" church?

>So Roy if we must "disestablish the Church of England from the State" as you claim the Church of England must be established within the state/monarchy. How can you therefore claim that we live in a secular society if we have an "established" church?<

The Church of England is only the Established church in England. In Scotland it is the Church of Scotland and there is no Established Church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Wales dioceses were disestablished in 1920. Therefore, the C of E is not the Established church throughout the whole of the UK. Once upon a time, when the Church was the supreme body in the land, it made the laws, but this has not been the situation for centuries. Parliament, not the Church, makes the laws and Parliament is secular, with the exception of the bishops in the House of Lords, an anomaly that urgently needs rectifying.
Of course, there are problems! Probably if the C of E were to be disestablished, the Roman Catholic Church (whose grossly excessive power was got rid of by Henry VIII in 1533) would very likely demand that a Catholic should be allowed to ascend to the throne - if, that is, we don't get a Muslim monarch one of these days!

Arthur, I have a feeling that you won't win this particular argument, old boy.

Considering Roy's background in historical matters, iI'd let this one rest.